Maria Cantwell Confronts Trump Nom About Administration's 'Nuts' Approach To Implementing Key Law

Forbes Breaking News

At today's Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) questioned Paul Dabbar, nominee of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce.

Transcript

00:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, appreciate working together with you on many energy fronts, including Quantum and Hanford Cleanup.

00:10Mr. DeMar, do you support the Chips and Science Act?

00:15Yes, I've been on the record and testified in support of that when it was going through Congress.

00:18So you believe in honoring the agreements that are in place with companies?

00:22I'm not familiar with actual agreements underneath the Chips Act at the Commerce Department, but the president has been...

00:30Generally, if you think we've signed an agreement with company and allocated resources, that we should fulfill them?

00:37Barring any major problems with them?

00:42So Secretary Lutnik and the president have been very clear about how to take the resources under the Chips and Science Act

00:50and how to get the most bang for the buck for the taxpayer.

00:54And I think the president and the announcement, and Secretary Lutnik was just in Arizona on the announcement around TSMC

01:02moving from one fab for $65 billion of support to three fabs and $165 billion with no additional CHIP support.

01:11And so I think that's a great example of taking the Chips Act subsidies and support and how to get the most out of it within agreements.

01:23So I'm not familiar, for example, with all the TSMC agreements, but I think that's an excellent one.

01:27I have more questions.

01:28I actually saw Secretary Lutnik last night, and he was emphasizing how much he enjoyed being there.

01:34But I tell you this, this committee and the last administration got that done.

01:38Now, I'm glad you feel like you get to rearrange some of the chess pieces,

01:42but the president of the United States saying he's not for Chips and Science

01:46and then all of us having to push back every damn day is nuts.

01:50Okay?

01:51This is policy that we've implemented that will make the United States competitive.

01:56And so I just need to know that you're not going to be one of another than one of these people

02:00that is going to make this harder for us.

02:01That's all we want to know.

02:02Okay.

02:03Will you commit to maintaining the NIST budget and the other R&D programs that are under the agency?

02:13Sorry.

02:14Yes.

02:16What about the money for the tech hubs?

02:19Yes.

02:19I think as appropriated and authorized, I certainly know a bit about the tech hubs,

02:25but assuming it's funded and authorized.

02:28Okay.

02:29What about moving marine fisheries out of NOAA and into interior?

02:34Also a ridiculous idea.

02:36So I only know what I read in the newspaper about different potential proposals.

02:42I do know that over time that various proposals have been made about NOAA,

02:47including last Congress, about separating it completely.

02:51So I would review any sort of proposal, given many has been made over the decades, on NOAA.

02:59I get this may not be one of your areas of expertise,

03:02but if you could bone up a little bit more on this for the record and give us an answer.

03:07The science that NOAA does helps us manage our fisheries.

03:12And right now, we're being taken advantage of by both the Chinese and the Russians.

03:16And so we don't want to be more disenabled at NOAA to advocate for our fisheries.

03:22My colleague from Alaska who's here probably has a thought on this.

03:25But we want to be more empowered to fight and fight the injustices against the United States.

03:32We see a huge opportunity for the Department of Commerce to provide that leadership.

03:36You want to talk about a trade issue, talk about fisheries,

03:40and talk about the unfairness that's happening.

03:42But we need the science, and we need that agency to be complete on its R&D mission in NOAA.

03:49So what about the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research that also is being proposed to be eliminated?

03:56Well, just to address your first point, Senator,

03:59when I was undersecretary for science, we had a smaller than NOAA,

04:03but we did have a number of topics around fish and around atmospheric sciences.

04:08We had one plane rather than several.

04:10There was a bit of a history of that on nuclear weapons and so on.

04:14But the fish, as you know, Senator Cantwell,

04:17we had research in Washington State along the Columbia River that I helped run.

04:23Squim, which is another facility.

04:26And at Senator Blackburn's state at Oak Ridge on...

04:30Okay, I have one more question I have to ask you, so I got that you have a little bit of...

04:35You'll come back to me on this point.

04:37But on the spectrum issue, you don't...

04:40The warfare of the future is in the skies, correct?

04:44Sorry.

04:45The warfare...

04:46On the spectrum issue, the warfare of the future is in the skies, correct?

04:49Yeah, absolutely, Senator.

04:50Okay.

04:51And so we can't give away DOD assets that could have interference if that hurts our warfare capabilities for the future.

04:57Is that correct?

04:59We absolutely need to be careful.

05:01And I do have a technical, a bit of a technical background in this.

05:04And I know there are many people working on how to use the spectrum from a technical point of view more efficiently.

05:10So in addition to just what the actual spectrum set aside is, but also how to manage it better from a technical...

05:18But you don't believe in compromising DOD?

05:20Oh, absolutely not, Senator.

05:21Yes, yes, sorry.

05:22Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Category

Transcript

Recommended