In a March 31 interview with Xinhua News Agency, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced that President Trump would roll out his infrastructure program in the third quarter of this year.

“We are working on the outlines and possible details of the infrastructure initiative. A package will be coming out later … in the next several months,” she added, without further elaboration. She also indicated that there would be a possibility for foreign companies to become involved in the project.

However, according to The Hill, Chao briefed 45 legislators on the program today, and in an address to 52 business leaders at the White House yesterday, she indicated that legislation could be ready as soon as May. Speaking at the same meeting, President Trump said that the package will be very large and will focus on projects that can get underway soon, Bondbuyers.com reported Wednesday.

“So we have to build roads. We have to build highways. We’re talking about a very major infrastructure bill of a trillion dollars, perhaps more,” he said. “We’re going to be very strong that it has to be spent on shovels and not on other programs. If you have a job that you can’t start within 90 days, wwe’re not going to give you the money for it.” Gary Cohn, director of the White House National Economic Council, said that Trump’s infrastructure program covers a wide variety of projects. “We’ve taken the broadest possible interpretation of infrastructure.”

Chao told Xinhua that the United States “could certainly learn from other countries,” adding that “there are [infrastructure] technologies and skill sets that we don’t possess in the United States.” President Trump has repeatedly praised the up-to-date infrastructure facilities in places like Dubai, Qatar, and China. However, Chao said that whether foreign companies would be allowed to participate in Trump’s new infrastructure programs is still a “subject of discussion right now.” Even if they are granted access, she added, foreign companies also need to change their old way of doing business in the United States.

At yesterday’s emergency session of the UN Security Council, called by the U.S., the UK, and France to debate their resolution blaming Syria for the April 4 chemical weapons attack in Idlib, the British UN ambassador Peter Wilson tried to set the tone for the discussion with a raving attack on Russia and China which, he said, had “encouraged” Syrian President al-Assad to kill his own people, by vetoing previous anti-Syria resolutions.

The foolish U.S. ambassador, Nikki Haley, echoed the British rant with her own wild accusations against Russia for supporting the “illegitimate” and “barbaric” Assad regime and blocking the Security Council’s work.

Russia and China hit back—hard—while Bolivian UN Ambassador Sacha Llorentty Soliz reminded those present that “we wouldn’t be sitting here today,” after seven years of war in Syria, had it not been for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and regime-change policies that have sowed chaos in the Middle East. China’s Ambassador Liu Jieyi told Wilson to his face that his statements were “not to be tolerated…don’t hold water,” and that Britain should stop “abusing the Security Council” and “refrain from such actions.” More than anything else, Syria requires a political settlement, he warned. The major urgent priority right now, he said, is strengthening counterterrorism.

Wilson had argued that Tuesday’s chemical attack in Idlib was the direct “consequence” of the Russian and Chinese vetos of earlier anti-Syrian resolutions. He went so far as to absolve terrorists of any responsibility, proclaiming that the Idlib attack “doesn’t look like the work of terrorists. We’ve seen nothing to suggest that non-state actors have this capability… Only one Air Force”—Syria’s—has used these weapons before. He then challenged Russia: “What is your plan? We had a plan, and you blocked it. Stop blocking and start helping! We expect your unanimous support.”

Looking directly at Wilson, Russia’s Deputy acting UN envoy Vladimir Zafronkov stated that yes, Russia does have a plan: to combat terrorism. As for the UK, it is “irresponsible,” he said. “Have you taken any responsibility in Syria? No, you don’t. You’re obsessed with regime change. You’re trying to get the UN Security Council to grant you the cover of legitimacy for your illegitimate actions,” he charged. The British ambassador, he said, has gone beyond all diplomatic norms, and his charges against Russia and China are unacceptable. “I would have thought that the diplomatic service of the UK would have long ago abandoned these tactics,” Zafronkov said.

Still addressing Wilson, the Russian envoy said there is no need for “your resolution” to be passed. Earlier resolutions allow for a thorough investigation by the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), but the latter needs support, staff, and membership with a broader geographical representation, which it currently lacks. While chemical terrorism increases in Syria, he warned, the UNSC has failed to take any meaningful action. It has remained indifferent.