At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) questioned Pierre Gentin, the nominee for General Counsel of the Department of Commerce, about government cancelling appropriated funding.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:03Mr. Kenton, my first question is for you, sir.
00:05At last week's hearing, I raised concerns with the administration's attempt to basically find a backdoor to abolish the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.
00:17And on top of that, on Friday, the Michigan High-Speed Internet Office heard from the Department of Commerce that they were terminating funding for their digital equity grant program.
00:28That's formula funding that has already been awarded to local communities and has already been spent by those communities in the state of Michigan.
00:36And basically what it does is it increases adoption of high-speed Internet, raises awareness about cybersecurity, particularly for vulnerable groups like our seniors, digital skills workshop training, as well as educating consumers on online privacy, just to name a few.
00:53The federal government, in my view, and I think the view of the courts as well, can't promise funding to a community, then simply refuse to pay when the bill actually shows up.
01:06Both of these programs, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Digital Equity Grant Program, are authorized and fully funded, clearly and very specifically by Congress.
01:15You've been nominated to fulfill the role of the top legal advisor to the Department of Commerce.
01:21So my question, I think it's fairly simple and straightforward.
01:24Without input from Congress, is it legal for the administration to simply cancel funding for authorized and fully appropriated programs put into law by the U.S. Congress?
01:37Thank you very much, Senator.
01:40I am not yet confirmed as general counsel of the Department of Commerce, and I certainly recognize the importance of the issues you've raised and you've raised in the prior hearing.
01:51I have not been involved in either advising or implementing the actions that you describe.
01:57I certainly would prioritize, if I'm honored to be confirmed, looking at those issues, looking into those issues, working with the relevant bureau leadership and with counsel at the Department of Commerce.
02:08Well, I understand, and I tried to highlight a little bit of the issues, understood that you're not there now, so I fully appreciate that point.
02:14But this is basically just a legal question that if Congress has authorized funding by law, can the administration just say, sorry, we're not going to do it?
02:23Aren't they supposed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America?
02:27Senator, I hear you loud and clear.
02:30I think if I am confirmed, I will make it a priority to look into those issues.
02:35I have not, as I say, advised on or been a part of implementing the actions that you describe.
02:42Well, if confirmed, we will reach out and we'll have those conversations and hope you'd confirm or commit to doing that.
02:47Thank you, Senator.
02:48Mr. Fink, in 2022, before Pan Am Railroads or Railways became part of CSX, an FRA audit found, quote,
02:58significant safety issues are not receiving the serious and thoughtful consideration by railroad leadership at Pan Am's employees and the public deserve, end of quote.
03:10That was in 2022.
03:11I think you left shortly after there from the railroad as well.
03:15So this was on top of court cases that occurred during your time at Pan Am that found, quote, again, a culture of intimidating employees.
03:25And that as of 2017, quote, 99 percent of injuries at Pan Am that were reportable to the FRA triggered formal charges against injured employees.
03:36So based on what I look at, a very concerning record from these audits, I have a couple of questions from you for you.
03:43First, do you accept the FRA's findings about Pan Am's railroad safety failings?
03:48No, sir, I do not.
03:49And thank you for the question.
03:51The safety audit was done in 2022 and there were some issues that I took with it.
03:56First off, I would say there was a statement about our lack of a safety culture.
04:01We're the only railroad that's done two safety culture audits, I think, in the country.
04:05And we took the information that we got from that and we improved on our safety.
04:09So when they said we didn't have a safety culture, I just disagree.
04:12And that's just not true.
04:14We also work very closely with our with organized labor.
04:17I did 14 times per year going out into the field, meeting with the people and finding out what the issues were that were out there,
04:24whether it would be walking issues or tripping hazards or situations with locomotives, and we would correct those things or situations in the shop to try to make things safer.
04:34And that's where our employees came with their union representatives and we talked about those things and made things better.
04:40So if I may, so you have an audit that has a number of findings and recommendations.
04:45Do you believe if you get an audit like that, you should respect that audit and at least answer the audit and show exactly in a concrete way as to how you're addressing the findings?
04:54Yes, sir.
04:54And our folks did do that and wrote a letter back to the FRA and was working with them all along on these issues.
05:01And the audit popped up because we had an awful, tragic accident with a 41-year employee, long-term employee that lost his life working for our company.
05:12And that triggered the audit.
05:15The audit went through a lot of different items and I took exception to a lack of a safety culture.
05:20They came in, they looked at things, there was definitely some defects.
05:23It was a 49-page audit and they came up after that with two violations.
05:29But I want to say, in my remaining time here, do you accept that with an audit, you have to take it seriously?
05:35Oh, absolutely.
05:36Because as you know, to have for the FRA, we can't have a culture where railroads say,
05:41well, I got a bad audit, but you know, I just disagree with everything there.
05:44Forget it.
05:44We cannot have that when it comes to safety.
05:47You heard my opening remarks.
05:48This is personal as well.
05:50We have people that are seriously injured and die.
05:52Safety has to be paramount.
05:54And someone who dismisses audits or thinks they're just unjustified on a regular basis, I have real concerns about.
05:59So please assure me and the committee, these audits are something that you will aggressively enforce when it comes to talking to the railroads.
06:08Absolutely, sir.
06:09I did not want to lightly talk about that.
06:12I took exception with some of the items that were in the audit.
06:15I will definitely work on those.
06:17Safety is the first importance in the discharge of duty.
06:19And I do not, will not, waiver from that at all as administrator.