transaction that would provide the mta additional spectrum to provide coverage between new york and new haven which would fill a gap in the spectrum coverage and we also understand there's a spectrum that we need so what our job will be to ensure that we are working as quickly as we can more fully engaged the picture those transactions are completed as quick as possible since we have the information them and to be ready in case something changes. ..

that was pretty much complete. but that is really mostly under a private operation. amtrak doesn't know not part of the line. i'm telling you they don't own it. i know. >> it is interesting that they could get it done. >> okay, let's go to the act and administrator. here she is back for money again. the last question i asked, how many wrestlers have been given since 2012 in the first answer last year and then we got to three. is it still three loans since 2012? >> yes sir. >> however many of those were for ppc? >> one. >> you can say 33%. sounds more impressive. >> good idea. >> let's go back to her

communication sky. there was 1000 backlogs. i thought there was many as 20,000 applications. >> we understand that their total deployment would be approximately -- >> what is your number of applications and what is your backlog at this point? >> we have reviewed 8300. we have no backlog. >> they are all improved in your expecting more. i gave you credit me for your average processing was 2000 a year. is that correct or did i lie? >> i think more. >> okay, where is my guy from matcher link. >> 2008 -- >> 2007?

>> 2008. >> mr. oberstar we did the bill. you still don't have control in all of metrolink service? >> we have our entire system of lines in service. >> by what? >> metro lines are all in service. >> what is missing? >> the lines we affirm i'm with free partners are not currently operational. >> ms. feinberg just said she's going to hammer those free people and the hammer is coming down the end of the year. is that what you said? >> i said we would enforce it. >> nics submit a budget that proposes a six-year schedule of funding commuter railroad. so is it going to take another six years?

last i checked there's not a lot of passengers on free dreams. isn't that right? most of them are carrying free not people. i would think people would be pretty important. people might have disrupted some freight traffic. so is this a new policy? the commuters who take six years but we would hammer the free people, aren't we? >> will enforce the deadline with railroad. >> and we have a plan to go forward. >> if they can implement sooner that would be great. happy to use resources for other items. >> cameras. are there cameras and the cats? >> yes, all of her calves. >> that has been a recommendation at ntsb for some time since that accident and all the other times back to 73 and they weren't implemented in most

instances. >> parts implemented since 2009. >> last theme. he said eligible for a use of installation of positive train control? does anybody know? does anybody know? you guys are brilliant on the other side. they think it is. so that's a mechanism for funding. ltd. the last thing before i conclude. i have seven seconds. i met a guy in a plane i didn't know from adam's tomcat. what are you doing on the plane? >> well, and coming back d.c. besides i am wet some kind of a project and we finance projects. he says it took us between 60 and 90 days to get approval

under the private sector. i said was he doing here. it has taken us a year. these guys are screwing around with paperwork for a year. think about the private sector financing while this square around d.o.t. here's a mechanism that may be available and is available in the refuge capacity and both of them don't work. did you want to respond on your own time? >> sure. i believe undersecretary fox both programs have moved along much faster than they have previously. there's always room for improvement. >> thank you, mr. mica. the witnesses time is also the #-number-sign today. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to my colleague for

yielding to the rest of the committee. first of all i want to extend naturally, the second-largest rail system by size in the country for the indian work they have done in meeting our ptc deadline. i like it do you work closely with the railroad partners, union pacific amtrak to make sure they were interoperable and worked hard to require the funds needed for the implementation of your system. i want to point out 85% of the funds used to fund the rollover from the state of california and local sources only 15% were federal. ptc is clearly a top priority for me and it really is for the american people. when the american people here that we can prevent train accidents and deaths of people

by the implementation they are also frustrated that many railroad are not going to be meeting our deadline. i would like to go on record and agreed to disagree with chairman denham that i don't think we should take money from high-speed rail to pay for ptc. california has been in their budget to make sure the california high-speed rail project. we need to find money for both. i will ask mr. mathias my first question. we've heard from testimony in major part of the process is acquiring the spectrum. according to metrolink a process of acquiring spectrum has been trying and prolonged. they purchased the license five years ago and before they can use it -- metrolink is currently

leasing spectrum at the rate of $50,000 per year from freight railroads and the approval. everyone wants to know why has it taken five years to approve the use of spectrum and shouldn't we have in light of the recent accidents prevent future accidents should there be an expedited process for approval for projects that deal with their public safety. >> thank you for that good question. i can appreciate your concern. we are very glad that metrolink has been able to negotiate a lease and they will be able to a spectrum necessary to provide this ptc service. we understand their concern and frustration that the spectrum

has taken so long to acquire. it has been mired in federal federal litigation as well as a close receiving of the federal communications commission. i can provide details but what we are trying to do as much as we can get the process -- keep the process moving. we've taken the extraordinary step of taking the spectrum they wish to acquire other closed proceedings to move forward. they have several waiver request would fill a philatelic hate and we understand they need to update those. we look forward to receiving the information. >> thank you. the american people are not going to be very sympathetic with excuses for the fcc not approving spec driven applications as quickly as possible. i sort of agree with my colleague that it's difficult to be finding and enforcing the

deadline when some of our own agencies are not moving as quickly as most of us would like. i will just say that. mr. karen, you are a model. maybe since you're able to meet that deadline and you've been able to jump over obstacles and through the hoops to make this happen, what advice would you give other commuter rail lines in this country who are trying to meet the deadline by the end of the year. >> thank you for the question. i would like to thank mr. linné grow for a shout out to our project to wrap your who has been diligent in pushing the project forward. that sentiment has come all the way from top brands that

metrolink's, printers have made a very, very strong commitment to the project. the funding they provided has been the crucial element in getting this project going along with the adamant support from our border to really get this project started. so we started early and made a concerted effort around the clock and we've been working very hard for many years. i wouldn't say there's a silver bullet for other commuter railroads. it's been a very challenging process. we do sympathize with the many challenges we have also encountered. so i would say the funding is a key element and having a close working relationship with your free partners do you operate with because that was the other key element for us is the strong support we had for partners. >> thank you. you've been a model for the

country. we applaud you. >> mr. duncan, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm sorry had to be at another hearing until a few minutes ago. ms. feinberg, maybe you have covered this. in all, it has taken these railroads several years to get to the point where they are now and apparently there's still a pretty good ways to go. i am wondering, do you have any estimate of how long it will take your agencies to certify the railroad after this process? >> the status versus safety plan estimated to last. basically the railroads plan and how they will ensure the system is working. we have perceived one and turn it back around to the railroad.

and you're in close consultation offering edits and changes to make sure the system is going to work. we feel confident as they roll and we will be able to turn them around in the kind that time periods that we've laid out for the railroad. as of now we've just received one. >> are you satisfied with the progress that the railroads have made thus far? >> i am not satisfied. i would not be satisfied unless the deadline were going to be met. >> you know, my dad told me years ago when i don't wonder what he was talking about the time but he said everything looks easy from a distance. i was reading over the testimony. the task force is still a

monumental. csa do a complete airborne laser imaging survey of our entire 21 dozen mile network to make all assets -- have all assets mats within 7% and installation of 5202 wayside units replacing signals along 7500 miles of track and 1285 basins, equipping 3900 locomotives, trades with 16,000 employees. these tasks monumentally have been conservative. mr. lonegro, tell me about the safety record so far. >> we been an industry leader for the last two or three years and the whole industry if you go back and look at especially the train accident statistics i've

seen significant income of 40 to 50% reduction since the 2000 time. good would take it as a core value that we have and it's very similar and every other railroad. every day whether it's to improve conditions along the railroad the equipment side of the house, cars, locomotives in the human factor side of the house. we have a technology that is a virtual road that looks to have a that looks at how the trade was handled to figure whether there's any anomalies. i have a coaching session with the employee. they have been to breach a red signal. they are taken out of service and decertified. we have lots of things we are starting down the path of a metrolink to understand the exact behaviors that contribute to accidents. we are doing an awful lot of safety. the committee staff gave me a

statistic a few minutes ago that says that freight rail system is 99.995% safe based on the number of trips that are taken. that seems to me to be a phenomenal safety record that my staff are don walker, told me a short time ago that "the wall street journal" said the 2014 was the safest year for the rail industry. everybody has tremendous sympathy for these families that lost loved ones in the amtrak accident that now we will be spending billions am going to be sending billions more to try to make sense and that's already one of the safest things in the entire world.

i'm thinking we would be far better off to spend the billions in many, many other ways. cancer research and everything else. my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for being so gracious with your time. [inaudible] >> i want to thank the panel, too. ms. feinberg, we are here today because we think ptc can save lives. if you are a week or two or monthly with the report, does anybody died? >> no, sir. >> in a major property losses? >> abbé said we will make january 15th and february february 1st likely to be imposing big fine and a few weeks or months late? >> highly unlikely. mr. kerwin you cost over

$200 million to institute the ptc in your system. is that right? how much did the accident cost? >> in excess of that amount i would say. >> in hind sight knowing what the accident cost versus that the system cost the system has already paid for his health. it's paid for itself under a line. it's a reasonable thing to say would pay for itself and avoided accidents? >> i would agree with that. >> i think so too. nobody wants any signs here there is no reason to have fines. we have a commuter rail system. we get that. at the same time we have done virtually nothing. how would you suggest -- let's assume -- is that this

december 31st deadline? are you empowered to ignore that? >> no. >> are you empowered to change the deadline? >> a person who understands and any person has to be at a day. are not looking for fines. i would not ask ms. feinberg are anyone else to it or the law. congress can come together and do this. once we do it, how do we avoid a bad actor from simply ignoring it again for any be reasonable for free time. 10 years without a state. i don't want the fines but how do i do it any other way? >> i think as was brought up today in many occasions that beyond that for the safety act

that was the date that was agreed upon. once we got into the significant challenges. >> i understand how we are today. let's assume right now if i said to you, write a law that says in some period of time, two three five years, we will have this done. how do i enforce it if i don't have funds? >> i think we need the key issue is right now we are going to meet the deadline. if it was from lack of effort -- >> the bottom line is i don't know any other way to enforce it. good actors tony enforcement that actors do. my presumption has contracts with suppliers that give them find that they don't meet requirements. we have to have the same thing if we think it's important. by the way, i agree the federal government should participate in paying for this. the arguments we are having here i am with you.

i need 217 other members to agree with that. in the meantime we can't do anything. it's pretty clear to me we have to do some things that pretend we do nothing or pretend somehow goodness will simply overcome the lack of goodness is ridiculous and unenforceable. we had a reasonable timeframe and to allow ms. feinberg to enforce the law. i don't expect you to break the law. i also don't want to find anybody. so we can do it all day long. we can play games, dance around show what happened five years ago, seven years ago, 10 years ago. since 1969 according to their own figures, preventable accident had killed 246 people. an injured 4263. i don't know how much money has been lost because no one has put the numbers together.

if it is the $200 million cap which would've cost more if it wasn't for the cap it is hard to tell, but it seems to me rough numbers it looks like they cap would've cost -- even with the cap would have been about $20 billion. this is a doable action, if approved by metrolink. help us work with you to get it done. this kerwin, mr. mathias, earlier you said you had 8500 poles agreed to. that doesn't count the 11,000. it's closer to 20,000 across the country approved. that is about under 30, 35,000 they need. we would get two thirds of the locations approved and ready to go. is that right? >> correct.

>> thank you mr. chairman for your indulgence. >> thank you, mr. chairman. safety is my first priority. positive train control is a necessary tool but the fact of the matter is most railroads will not have the technology and tall by december 31 deadline. today i am wondering what happens on january 1st 2016 if the deadline remains. mr. lonegro today ms. feinberg admitted the deadline including potential fines and restrictions of service. if the deadline is not extended, what actions were they likely take. i want to know what's going to happen on january 1st. >> sir there is one way to be compliant with the deadline but that is not to move commodities or passengers which is an

untenable situation if you're a passenger agency for a shepherd. the road was right now are in a difficult place with the deadline that could be congressionally moved. we again have a lot of folks evaluating how we look at the common carrier obligation and the mandate to figure out a way of breaking the law on one hand or the other hand with a similar situation with amtrak and commuter agencies where we are required to move the passengers. again we have the mandate and a passenger requirement and i hate to say we are being backed into the corner in which laws do we violate. and maybe the path forward does involve cessation of service. we are all looking at that in evaluating. we certainly worry about that as

well. it's not tenable situation as i mentioned in my up statement. >> in your testimony mentioned turns within the rail conference about the ability of commuter rail to operate past the deadline as it relates to liability coverage. can you describe of liability coverage issues would prevent commuter rail that doesn't meet the ptc deadline from operating? >> a question was raised on whether we can operate or individual agencies can operate past the deadline because you'd be operated outside the confines of the lab with restrictions on the liability coverage and although there is now go back to take a look and see if that case. >> the authority said the measure won't make the december 312015 deadline and in pennsylvania septa will not make the deadline either.

if it occurs and commuter rail does not receive any flexibility on the deadline, how would her murderers who rely on other commuter rail be impacted by changes? >> that would depend to the degree of what actually happens. if railroads were forced to close down because of liability reason and insurance reasons for a small boat for 300,000 passengers on the roads already congested and that would be a good solution. >> in pennsylvania, the purpose and the onboard vehicle locomotive installation you also cited in your testimony one of the biggest challenges is onboard software in the final production is not yet known. can you tell us why this has been such a challenge? >> i don't have the knowledge.

but lonegro does. >> in the very beginning it was very theoretical in the way the regulation was published in terms of what it had to accomplish and how it had to accomplish that. the tech assist them that is much smaller, much less complicated and much less mature and through the last seven years really working to the point where he can comply with the regulations and functionality required. i would tell you from a software we are getting closer, meaning arguably the end of the year. we will not implement software that has been a critical defects, but we are willing to deploy minor defects. we are not trying to get to perfect but we are making sure

in the last month or so. we have a critical in the software, which has to be corrected and retested and taken back to the field and the same holds true for the back-office software. these are people in the business. this is what they do for a living. that gives you understanding of the complexity of the challenge because that's one piece of the puzzle. >> thank you. the mag thank you. i would like to recognize -- if you'll indulge me for a second, i will turn it over to

mr. rokita. but that objection >> this is from california high-speed rail, june 2009 request for funding. they requested 200 million friendly investment strategy from those funds allocated to california. here is a map or it shows exactly where the improvements would be. can you zoom in? clearly the corridor here, positive train control $230 million. california high-speed rail thinks they can do it. they requested it. this is in california. we want the safety improvements they are. there's a good funding source to

do that. >> mr. chairman, my staff passed me a note during the hearing that state high-speed rail has $328 million. we will follow-up with you and look at those numbers together. >> i will have a staffer bring that down. as we continue the ongoing exchange. without i would like to recognize ms. brown for a second round of questioning. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. mica said it did not implement positive train control is from new haven to boston. not only did they implemented it was the first in the country and i want to submit.for the record. thank you. metrolink away visited with several times in california and i just want to mention you have the support of the state, local recovery funding for all of the commuter lines.

but still sit here and act like it not. a lot of the local resources are not available. with that i want to go to frank because i want to say all those good things. you are the one here representing the class one railroads and they said there's some positive players and found that it's not. jute gave us out today because we need an extension, the idea who will start finding people and then where is the money going. i want the money to go into the system. would you tell us, who are these negative players that talk about? >> there are no bad actors here. this technology is very difficult to implement. the scale proposition we each have this very challenging as one of the members mentioned earlier in terms of the

deployment for at least the major u.s. class once. the scale is about the same. we all have that major challenge. the canadian rebels have a smaller footprint because they don't run as much in the united states and there is no ptc mandating canada appeared there for the footprint is slightly smaller. at least in the class one world there are no bad actors. the >> that is not what i heard. are you working with the commuter lines also? >> we are. each of the sub or it said of commuters in and around d.c. we certainly have commuters in chicago and a full spectrum of commuters in amtrak that run in assets from baltimore after boss then. we are in active discussions with them literally all the time. we hosted a summit in chicago mr. orseno facility. we brought in all the commuters in short lines and did our best

to help educate folks on the state of the technology, some of the challenges we face so they wouldn't face the same challenges as they deployed on their railroads. we had a good dialogue and mr. orseno can certainly chime in. we have another meeting planned later this year where we can reengage in every assessed where we are individually and collectively. >> what is the dropdead amount of time you need? >> is an industry, one of the things to come forward with is the ability to be completely ruled out by 2020. i want to make sure everybody understands by the end of 2018 we will have as an industry 87% of the ptc for trade and installed and implemented meaning we are based on current plans in place before the amtrak tragedy and the remaining 13% is

what comes in the last two years. literally we are starting to deploy ptc in operational mode right now and it ramps up from here fairly linearly through the end of 2020. >> ms. feinberg how long will it take you to inspect if they completed in 2018 some work to do. how long will it take to verify the system? ! cement is a planned for a turnaround to them and complete implementation 10 things that move quite quickly. it would be three years past the deadline at that point. >> we understand the deadline is not realistic and we have some concerns about the fine. mr. mathias, either concerned about the spectrum and we talked a lot about it. even when implemented, what about the local respondents. we need to talk to each other. 9/11 we discovered we couldn't

talk to each other. and katrina we are still not talking to each other. even though they are implementing something and then you have local respondents, how come we don't have a dedicated emergency for this country? >> thank you for the question. congress has worked hard and diligently to create an infrastructure or a national interoperable public safety communications system and i think that is being addressed in that way and it is separate day ended being handled in a separate process. but that is on the way. >> mr. mathias, that is not an option. we need to get it done. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. i recognize myself for five minutes. appreciate everyone's testimony. mr. lonegro, two people in a cap

situation. in our last hearing ntsb chairman hart testified having to person camps didn't necessarily improve safety and he was on a panel with several union members than others. i wonder what your thoughts are on that statement. >> where two people people in our mainline trains. we certainly over a period of years if not decades in the future will look for the opportunity to reduce from two to one if the type knowledge he supports that and we are able to negotiate an appropriate agreement labor unions. there is a path forward for thought. when the technology gets to the point for having two people in the cap are no longer necessary. the >> the fra is lucky not having a two-person situation as a mentor rob solution along with some additional backstops as well

until ptc is implemented before deadline, after deadline. would you be supportive of that? >> on the phrase cited is not necessary. we are to have it. i think she was referring to the commuter side of the house which generally operates with one person and they certainly have crewmembers in the train itself. >> same question to you mr. orseno. >> we operate trains with one in the cabin to people in the body of the train. two members doesn't necessarily mean it is a safer situation. many instances there have been accidents were two people have been in the cab, so we don't support that initiative. >> thank you sir. same question to you. >> we have also evaluated in the past and will continue to monitor recommendations from the fra and ntsb on this issue. >> back to you lonegro.

you currently have people that have still required by 2016? >> all name eyebrows. >> so it's an interim solution until fully implemented on ptc required rises were just equated doable. >> and 30 being done. >> so with industry be supportive of having two-person crews as an interim solution until it's fully implemented thus theoretically you're complying with the requirements if you had two people in a cab. >> there is no requirement today. >> we are to have it in anytime we go from two to one would have to work with the approval to do that. it's just not necessary given where we are in the steps we have to go through to remove one member of the crew. >> okay, thank you. the only other thing i would ask

is in addition to the other things ms. feinberg may or may not have been blamed for it today she apparently sent mr. mica to the hospital which obligate me. with that, my questions are done. i don't see any more questions from members. on behalf of chairman denham come up when they thank you for coming today members of the audience for their attention. we move forward. with no other business before the committee, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> vermont center presidential candidate bernie sanders introduced legislation on the date tags. this proposal extends the first $3.57 billion a safer federal taxation and it is a progressive rate structure. he and house sponsor representative czajkowski spoke to reporters today on capitol hill.

>> thank you all very much for being here. delighted to be joined by congresswoman jan czajkowski of illinois. next week we will be celebrating the fourth of july the day when the founders of the country declared independence from what they viewed as such a radical aristocracy in england. today in many respects the toronto click aristocracy is no longer a foreign power, but a billionaire class which now has unprecedented economic and political power over the emerging people. if we do not make necessary changes to reduce skyrocketing wealth and income inequality this country in my view is well on its way to becoming an oligarchy form of society, and nation in which a handful of

extremely wealthy people control not only our economy but political lake as well. let's be clear. the united states is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world but the vast majority of our people don't sense that, don't feel that because almost all of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. in the year 2015 the u.s. has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and if any major developed country on earth and this inequality is worse today than at any time since 1928. we are moving in exactly the wrong direction. the fact of the matter is over the past 40 years we have witnessed an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class are multimillionaires and

billionaires. my republican colleagues expressed fear about wealth distribution. that's exactly what's been happening over the last 30 years. a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class and working families. according to the most recent attempts to extend this makes it pretty clear the share of the nation's wealth going to the bottom 90% of americans has gone down from 36% in 1885 to just 22.8% in 2013. meanwhile over the same time. the top one 10th of 1% saw its share of the nation's wealth more than doubled from 10% from 1885 to 22% today. in other words the top one 10th of 1% owned nearly as

much wealth as the bottom 90% of americans. that is an extraordinary and tragic reality. the last two years the wealthiest 15 people in the country sitting in the room right now side increase in their wild by $170 billion. $170 billion is more well owned collectively by the bottom 130 million americans. today the wealthiest family in the country the walton family is now worth more than the bottom 42% of the american people. in terms of income, not wealth. the top 1% earns more than the bottom 50%. since the great recession of 2008, 99% is now going to the top 1%.

at a time when the rich are getting richer and windy almost all new income office going to the people on top how have my republican colleagues responded to this grotesque level of income and wealth inequality. what they have done unbelievably has passed legislation which provides a $269 billion tax break to the wealthiest 5400 americans the top two tenths of 1%. in the midst of massive wealth and inequality, let us give the very wealthiest people in gigantic tax break. they do this by reviewing the state tax. in my view, this is wrong morally. we should not exacerbate income

and wealth inequality. it is wrong economically. we do not need to be putting more money into the hands of the very richest people in this country while the middle class continues to decline. this is not just for bernie sanders believes. more than a century ago president teddy roosevelt fought for the creation of a progressive estate tax to reduce the enormous concentration of wealth that existed during the gilded age. this is what president teddy roosevelt said 100 years ago. the absence of the state and national restraint upon unfair money getting us tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.

they need to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate. therefore i believe in a graduated inheritance tax on big fortune, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing an amount with the size of the estate, end of quote, teddy roosevelt. while roosevelt since 1910 is even more relevant today. income and wealth inequality in my view is more of an issue of our time, great economic issue of our time and as a result of citizens united, it is the great political issue of our time. no great nation can flourish when so few have so much and so many have so little. one of the straightforward ways to address wealth inequality invest in the disappearing

middle class and preserve our democracy to enact a progressive estate tax are multimillionaires and billionaires. as e-mail for almost 100 years the country has had an estate tax on the book that'll make the tax is at the very wealthiest people in the country. today attacks only applies to the wealthiest two tenths of 1% in my republican colleagues want to eliminate that. i think they should move in a very different direction and that is why along with congresswoman schakowsky by representing the responsible taxes stay. this would only apply to the top three tenths of 1% 99.7% of people will not pay a nickel more in taxes and include the progressive estate tax structure so the super wealthy pay more. this includes a progressive state attack structures of the

super wealthy pay more. it establishes a 10% are attacked and closes loopholes that have allowed the wealthy to avoid aliens in estate taxes and exempts the first 3.5 billion from federal taxation. so with that let me introduce somebody who's been one of the strongest advocate of working families in the u.s. house, congresswoman jan schakowsky. >> i want to thank senator sanders for his work on this legislation and so many other things to protect the vast majority of americans. he's a true progressive champion i'm proud to work with more fair. as bernie said this country is the richest country on the face of the earth and we've never been richer than we are at this very moment. but this period of extreme wealth is also one of extreme

inequality. the richest one 10th of 1% of americans has as much wealth as the least affluent 90% of us. turns out that the easiest way to make a fortune in the united states is the old-fashioned way, inheritance. the house republicans want to make paris hilton and in her bratty brother and other rich even richer by completely repealing the estate tax, which they voted to do in april. so if you earned $30,000 a year you pay taxes on it. but if republicans have their way, you could inherit a lump sum of a billion dollars and not pay a dime. that would pull an extra $269 billion out of the federal investment in infrastructure education, requirement security and other priorities and put it directly in the pocket of privileged couch potatoes.

we can do better than not starting with the responsible estate tax act. our bill would amend the estate tax for additional revenue to national priorities in a progressive way without taxing any estate on the first $3.5 million inherited by an individual for $7 million coming from a couple and that means 99.7% of americans would experience no tax increase at all. this should not be a burden. our bill would add new estate tax rates for inheritance over $10,000,000.50 million with an additional 10% are attacked for the waltons, coax and other billionaire heirs. income inequality is a crisis that threatens the fabric of this country. and it forces us to live in this

false atmosphere and this congress and governments across the country in a framework of scarcity, which is really unreal and not based on our wealth. we had to do something about it starting with raising billions of dollars of individuals who have done nothing to earn it. the responsible estate tax act is the way forward and i'm very proud to be the house or other legislation. thank you. let me just say i am the ranking democrat on a subcommittee meeting right now. i am going to run. >> before we open it up let me say a brief word. let me say a word on not. the ruling of the supreme court today is a common sense decision

that affirmed so most of us already knew. that is when we pass the affordable care i am 2010 we intended to expand access to affordable comprehensive health insurance. as chief justice roberts notes congress passed the aca to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. you know we are the only major country that doesn't guarantee health care. today 35 million americans of undershirt the idea we would grow another 6.1 million people and totally disrupt the affordable care act. makes no sense the supreme court ruled in the way that it did. >> is this specifically for the estate tax because for the regular taxes, the wealthiest people pay more now.

>> this is just a statistic. >> what are the new rates and loopholes, how much did this race? >> fair question. i thought that was going on too long. what it does -- [inaudible] anything else? thank you all very much. >> recent polling shows you are surging iowa, new hampshire. do you think that you have a ceiling you only go so high. >> i don't want to get too much into politics. let me just say the campaign is going well.

the message we are delivering the american people is that it is absurd so few have so much and so many have so little. growing disenchantment and people want real change and what we see in that sense we are holding around the country, a lot of people are coming who wants a change. [inaudible] saying you are progressive on guns. >> well, if you look at my record, what you will find is in fact i come from a state that has virtually no gun control. if you look at our record, will be happy to get it to you. having voted against the assault

on by fans for the background checks for handgun purchases for making sure we have a sensible safety law. if you look at the record it is strong. >> what are the chances that this actually happening? >> that's a good question. the answer is you can see very little legislation passed. when you have a republican majority that sees its main job is representing the wealthy, the powerful and not the needs of ordinary americans. it is an interesting wall street pole just the other day at a time when most of our republican colleagues want to cut social security. overwhelmingly the majority of the american people want to expand social security at a time when the americans want to give more tax breaks to billionaires.

they say the wealthiest people should start paying their fair share of taxes. on issue on minimum minimum wage the american people are clear we have many republicans who want to abolish the concept of minimum wage. what we are seeing to answer the question about the campaign in general people understand the republican party are not standing with a working families of this country and they want change. the way change comes about is when people begin to stand up and fight back. when we organize people to say enough is enough we have got to address this grotesque level out and come wealth inequality. ..

>> here are some of our featured programs this weekend on the c-span networks.

>> we are live now on capitol hill. a house armed services subcommittee is holding hearings on the united states reliance on russian rocket engines for space launches. this is just getting underway live on c-span2. >> space launch a rocket propulsion or the evolved expendable launch vehicle program. in our second penalty of three senior government officials who have responsibility in managing and overseeing the program and also an expert advisor to the government on recent launch of study. on thank you, mr. chairman we have tony bruno presidency of united launch alliance, rob meyerson, president of blue origin. is julie van kleeck, vice president advanced space and launch programs at aerojet rocketdyne. mr. frank culbertson, president of space systems, orbital atk come and mr. jeff thornburg senior director of propulsion engineering at spacex i think

all of you for this big industry and providing a perspective on national security. i know it takes time and energy to prepare for these things and its convenience to come after but helps us in developing protocol so i appreciate your service. this is our second hearing. we conducted on space. we are dedicating the time for this topic because of its significant our national security. without an effective space launch program we list all the benches we came from space capabilities, losing space for our warfighters is not an option. the rt policy and acquisition questions regarding the future national security space need to be addressed. as we said before i'm committed to ending our reliance on russian rocket engines for national city space launch. i believe we must end our reliance in america protects our access to space that protects the taxpayers by ensuring we don't trade one monopoly for another. the house bill accomplishes this and other forward to

perspectives of our witnesses on the current legislation under consideration fiscal year 2016 ndaa both the senate voted and the house version. because were committing to enduring come ending our reliance on russian engines we must invest in the united states rocket propulsion industrial base. investment in our industry for advanced rocket engines is overdue. while we may lead in some areas of rocket propulsion were clearly not leaving and all. this is a painfully obvious fact considering that two of the three launch providers we have today rely on russian engines. it's not just the russians leading the way. according to online press reports that chinese maybe find a new launch vehicle on a made in flight this summer with symbol technologies as the russians using advanced kerosene engines. the time has come to resume u.s. leadership in space and believe that companies before us today can help us do that. however, i am concerned with the

air force recent approach in what they made i'm concerned with the air force approach to what may amount to the expensive and risky endeavor in develop a new engines, new launch vehicles and new infrastructure. congress is on authorized money for the developmedevelopme nt of rocket propulsion system to launch vehicles are not the problem. the problem is the engine. thank you for being with us this point out at fort hood testimony on these important topics that i recognize my friend and colleague from tennessee, the ranking member mr. cooper for any opening statement have. >> i wonder i think we should approach this hearing as always with a great deal of humility as i think the bottom line is that we coal ash is indicated by, we would be having this hearing. so we are correcting a self-inflicted wound. now, there are many self-inflicted wounds didn't on how far back want to go in history. it's a little embarrassing for america that we haven't been able to duplicate or exceed the

russian technology already given the billions we've expended, but actually there are tremendous signs of hope because if we had this hearing a few years ago that's when we really should've been bored but we were not smart enough to be worried about been. not just to the investment sometimes of our own don't understand the love of space, there's some and isn't exciting things happening. so we are really just mentioned this transition. i'm confident we can do it. i wish and i don't know whether the chinese with her long range missile has brought the rd-180 or copied it successfully, something apparently been unable to do but we don't to just be held to the past standard. to our new generation technologies that are even more exciting, more capable, so how do we effectively transition to that. company competition can be contentious sometimes but it's also exciting and sometimes that

brings out the best in us no matter helping pull it is. i'm glad we're having this hearing. i hope that the net result will be superior congressional performance as well as superior company performance so that we can have assured access to space. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. >> i thank the gentleman and the chair would let other members of if they have opening statements they can submit and for the record the the witness are asked to summarize. your full opening students will be accepted into the record. we will start with mr. bruno. you're recognized for five minutes to summarize your opening statement spent thank you, chairman rogers, ranking member cooper, never subcommittee to appreciate the opportunity to come here today and talk, and talk about our ongoing transformation of ula and her journey to replace the russian rd-180 with an all american solution for our rocket engine. as you know we partnered with

blue origin last you for the development of the ee for engineered it is a methane engine that was three met years into its develop an and engine portion of that effort was fully funded allowing us to move up smartly on the activity. rocket science is hard and rocket engines are the hardest parts of prudence required to also enter into partnership with aerojet rocketdyne for the they are one rocket engine as a backup. that's a kerosene engine. it is at present 16 months behind the blue origin engine simply because it started later and it does require significant government funding in order to continue. both engines are currently on plan. they're meeting their project and technical milestones and most important for our nation both will bring the advanced engine cycle technology that is present on the rd-180 to american shores and allow us to regain our leadership in this key technical area. as we do all of this ula's focus

will remain laser sharp on mission success and schedule certainty. we are very proud of our perfect on-time successful record of now 96 consecutive launches many of which were critical national security assets. in order to do all of this and avoid and assured access gap and to generate the commercial funds necessary for the investment in this new engine it is necessary that we be allowed to continue competing with the atlas launch vehicle in order to support those missions and provide the funds that are required to do this. and so i am grateful to the house and especially for this committee and the work that you've done to correct the situation that ranking member cooper refer to that will allow us to have true and proper competition going forward while we protect our own national security. as we stand here today the industry has matured to admit a

second provider for national security launch. i think that's a good thing. competition is healthy for the taxpayer and it is healthy for the industry. i look forward to competing in this new environment and i am confident that when there is a fair and even playing field that ula can come to that field and we can win. so i'm optimistic about the future of space launch. i am inspired by the nations that had the privilege to be entrusted with come and i look forward to your questions. >> great, thank you. mr. meyerson, you're recognized for five minutes. >> chairman rogers, ranking member cooper, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. assured access to space is a national priority and a challenge we must meet domestically. blue origin is working to deliver the american engine to maintain u.s. leadership in space and deliver critical national security capabilities. our partnership with ula is fully funded and offers the

fastest path to domestic alternative to the russian rd-180 without requiring taxpayer dollars. for more than a decade we have steadily advance our capabilities flying five different rocket vehicles and developing multiple liquid rocket engines. we're spinning our own money rather than taxpayer funds and taking a clean sheet approach to development. as a result we are able to out compete the russians building modern american engines to serve multiple launch vehicles. our recent success has demonstrated that. in april of this year our dd3 engine performed flawlessly our our new shepherd space vehicle to the edge of space. it is the first new american hydrogen engine to fly to space in more than a decade. united launch alliance recognize the merits of approach when it selected our engine for the bulk and rocket. it can improve performance that will cost and is more than three years into development. most importantly it is on schedule to be qualified in 2017

and ready for first flight on the bolton in 2019. two years ahead of any alternative. being available to years earlier means there's two years less reliance on the russians. as with any department or many technical challenges. blue has made conscious decisions designed choices to mitigate risk and would also have an extensive testing program underway completing more than 60 stage combustion test and multiple hot fire test on our power back to date. full be-4 test is on track on schedule to be completed are being conducted by the end of next year and it because we own our own test facilities we can do this much faster. blue is well capitalized and significant private investment has been made in the facilities equipment and personnel needed to make the be-4 a success. the engine is fully funded primarily by blue with support from ula and does not require government funding to be

successful. instead of duplicating private efforts the u.s. government should focus its resources on developing the next generation of launch vehicle to meet national security requirements. and in conclusion, no new engine can simply be dropped into an existing launch vehicle. launch vehicles have to be designed around their engines and launch vehicle providers are the ones are best able to decide what type of engine they need. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you mr. meyerson. ms. van kleeck you're recognized for five minutes. >> chairman rogers, ranking member cooper, and members of the subcommittee, it's a privilege to be a today to discuss this important national security issue. simply stated we have an engine problem on the atlas v rocket from the nation's best and and most versatile national security launch vehicle. it uses a russian-made rd-180 booster engine or on behalf of aerojet rocketdyne and its 5000

employees nationwide, what you think this committee for recognizing the problem and taking action. it continues to be our position that the fastest, least risky and lowest cost way to fix this problem is to develop an advanced american rocket booster engine to replace the russian rd-180. with a focus competitive acquisition based on a robust public-private partnership we firmly believe this can be accomplished by 2019. in fiscal years 2015-16 of this committee took a leadership role by authorizing funding and direction for the air force to competitively develop this engine by 2019. aerojet rocketdyne welcomes the opportunity to compete for this effort for the engine we call ar1. and fortune more than six months have passed since fiscal year 2015 funds or authorize and appropriate for the development program but this committee mandated and virtually no money has been spent. it appears this engine development is being subsumed into a lengthy new launch

vehicle development and subsequent launch service acquisition. mr. chairman, earlier this week you stated in the press, and i quote it is not time to fund new launch vehicles for infrastructure rely on unproven technologies. it is time for the pentagon to harness the power of the american national base and renew its purpose accord and notice with the develop an american rocket propulsion system that ends our reliance on russia as soon as possible, end quote. you're exactly right and we wholeheartedly agree with you. this is a national security imperative and should be treated as such. we have the technology to fix this problem but we must get moving. for the focus public-private partnership i've -- aerojet rocketdyne has proven advanced technology kerosene fueled booster engine that can be certified by 2019. aerojet rocketdyne is able to say this with confidence based on more than 60 years of

experience in developing and introducing launch vehicle propulsion. we have at and these technologies as we work on them for the last 20 years. we have active state-of-the-art liquid rocket engine factories that are currently delivering engines supporting upcoming national security launch us. we are the only domestic company designed to develop, produce employ rocket engines that thrusts greater than 150,000-pound thrust. replacing the rd-180 requires nearly 1 million pounds of thrust that we've experienced developing large liquid rocket engines on short timelines such as our nation now faces. the first stage engine on the delta iv launch vehicle which produces 700,000 pounds of thrust was developed and produced on a five year schedule. it was not be a copy of the rd-180. it would be a superior all-american engine and the leapfrog russian technology. it would be available to any u.s. launch propulsion user and

configurable to any launch vehicle. the engines intellectual properties will be retained by the government. to reiterate, our nation has an engine problem on its premier launch vehicle the atlas by. we must get rid of the russian rocket engine. at aerojet, we want to develop an advanced american engine to replace the rd-180 on palestine. this can be done this can only be done by 2010 budget focus and robust engine development program and a public-private partnership are doing so will preserve access to space and reinvigorate the u.s. rocket propulsion industrial base. chairman rogers i want to thank you again for holding this important hearing. these are difficult issues and each of us at the table as competing equities at stake. on behalf of aerojet rocketdyne i appreciate you all on us our voice to be a part of this conversation. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, ms. van kleeck. mr. culbertson, you're recognized for five minutes.

>> good morning. thank you for the opportunity to appear today. i have submitted my full statement for the record of course and interest of time will briefly describe for the committee help orbital atk is working to support the united states national security space systems and launch vehicle problems, programs. as a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies orbital atk designs, builds and delivers affordable space defense and aviation related systems that support our nation's warfighters as well as civil, government and commercial customers in the u.s. and abroad. our company is the leading provider of small and medium class space launch vehicles for civil military and commercial missions, having conducted more than 80 launches of such vehicles for nasa, the u.s. air force, the missile defense agency and other government commercial and international customers in the last 25 years including delivering approximately four tons of cargo to the international space station. as the committee is where earlier this year the u.s. air

force announced phase two development and launch services acquisition plan. one of the key components of this plan beginning in fiscal year 2016 cents on the rocket propulsion or rps prototype program. we believe air force acquisition plan for rps is well conceived and is supported by congress will be successful in providing new space launch capabilities that are affordable, reliable and available by the end of this decade. as both the launch vehicle builder and a propulsion system supplier, orbital atk is repaired to support the air force rps prototype program. orbital atk has proposed both solid and liquid propulsion system development that will support a new all-american launch vehicle family that needs all the specified national security launch requirements as well as civil government commercial and international launch needs. it is a true we are currently using a russian engine on one of our launch systems but just because it was the only

available to us at the time to quit to meet our commitment to the international space station and deliver cargo. our new systems will be developed in a public-private partnership with significant private investment and we are confident and alternative will be ready to support flight by 2019. orbital atk is committed to support our nation's assured access to space policy. reliable, affordable and capable space launch systems are critical to ensuring our country is prepared to maintain access to space. through the program outlined by the air force we believe u.s. industry is able and poised to respond to this need and will provide the best possible accommodations assistance for the future of u.s. access to space. we appreciate the efforts of this committee and congress to correct the situation we find ourselves in propulsion development in this country. thank you mr. chairman. i look forward to your questions

questions. >> mr. chairman, ranking member cooper, members can think of the opportunity to appear before this committee. in addition to open said i prepared a detailed written statement which have submitted for the record. mr. chairman, this country stability launch rockets without using russian engines should not be in question. america right now has talented rocket scientists, engineers and technicians currently flying or developing innovative american-made solutions to end user lives on russia today. it bears noting there's been a concerted movement toward national consolidation of the russian space industry and a series of recent failures with russian rockets, engine and spacecraft. having worked in this business for 20 for both government and private industry including the air force nasa's marshall space flight center, i can tell you more is happening out of proportion to feldman in the united states than any time in my career. what is spacex doing? spacex today is the largest private producer of liquid fueled rocket engines in the world. the first stage merlin engine is has flown 162 times to space, or than any other domestic boost

phase rocket engine flying including the rd-180 and the rf 68 combined in the past 13 to space access to the nine different rocket engines. berlin is the first new american hydrocarbon rocket engine to be successfully developed and flown in the past 40 years. all while offering the highest thrust to weight ratio average. we are investing in a next-generation rocket engine called raptor which we funded the advancement of propulsion technology and survey number of applications for the national security space market. and we have captured more than 50% of the global space launch market unilaterally increase in u.s. market share from 0% in 2012. with respect to national engine program, the air force is undertaken strategy to result in not just a rocket engine but in launch systems. we believe this approach will if done correctly benefit the entire u.s. industrial base, properly require private industry company investment in the requirement for u.s. government launches.

most important the air force is seeking to ensure that any new system is commercially viable in order to end the current practice of costly and unsustainable government -- spacex stands ready to provide access to space for the united states with our launch systems today. as well as next-generation propulsion launch systems. in may the of for certified the falcon nine want system to launch those critical national security space payload. we appreciate the air force's confidence. powered by spacex one rocket engine the falcon nine can perform 60% of the dod launch requirements today. we are building qualifying and certifying the falcon heavy which also uses number one rocket engine. between these two launch vehicle systems, spacex will be able to execute 100% of the dod launch requirements and provide heavy lift redundancy for the first timefirsttime to the government. mantissa the soft and heavy certification in mid-2017. at the same time spacex is developing raptor agrees with

us and on on the extremely powerful but also versatile, efficient and reliable while achieving commercial viability for notable risk and cost reducing improvements. route to advance the state-of-the-art amateur u.s. remains the global leader in rocket propulsion technology answered important applications for national security space launch. importantly meaningful competition is entering the dl the program. we've seen the incumbent made promises to reduce its cost, innovate and funded element efforts with private capital. these are good things. much has been made of the so-called impending capability gap and assured access to space to the only cap-and-trade system pervades this relates to heavy lift capability. this is because the russian part of the site doesn't have a heavy lift bearing. otherwise there is a credible risk of a capability gap for national security launch now or in the future. existing vehicles including the falcon nine and the delta iv are both made in america certified for dod launch. alice will continue to fly through 2020 under current law

even if no engine or launch vehicle is flying by the congressionally mandated deadline of 2019 there will be no gap. soon, however, the falcon heavy launch system will close to pre-existing gap and heavy lift the internal funding i spacex the falcon heavy will be certified years before any proposed national engine program is set to fly. i want to close my testimony with some constructive solutions to really achieve assured access. first, the united states -- to get national security space payload to orbit. second, continue working to achieve assured access through genuine competition between multiple qualified providers with redundant truly december launch vehicle systems. third, congress must properly structured its engine developed effort to maximize smart investment for any government money should be matched to 50% by private capital to ensure meaningful coinvestment and commercial viability must be a key component of the future system. mr. chairman, thank you.

spacex with our u.s. falcon nine and falcon heavy as well as our investment in homegrown next-generation propulsion systems like raptor looks forward to continued into the nation's space enterprise. i am pleased to address any questions you may have. >> great. great job. thank all of you. my first question was going to be to the companies, they think you're capable of providing us a rocket propulsion system in advance of rocket system that can replace the rd-180 by 2019. mr. meyerson ms. van kleeck both open -- after that in opening statements. you implied you all are going to get into competition for this replacement engine. was not an accurate interpretation of your opening statement? >> yes, sir. we certainly are working towards that end. >> excellent. mr. thornburg, are you all planning on getting into that competition for replacement engine for the rd-180 come and

can you have it done by 2019? >> to our existing launch vehicles with falcon nine and falcon heavy we can provide one of% of the nation's needs for national security space missions. in addition to continued our investment in next-generation propulsion systems and capability to further increase the u.s. position. >> might understand that you are talking about you can use your falcon 91.1 and falcon heavy when it is certified to compete for the mission but you're not planning to get into competition to develop a propulsion system to put on the atlas v? >> we are investing internally and next generation propulsion systems like raptor and for happy to have a conversation about how we can support the u.s. government. anytime to congress and u.s. government ask what can industry provide we are ready to participate in the conversation spent you made reference to both the berlin and the raptor. if those in fact would work in

some way with a launch system would you be willing to sell those two other u.s. companies launch companies? >> from an engine and standpoint standpoint, yes, that's something we would entertain. >> mr. coble to come to do it to be reckoned as? >> not sure i understood correctly. we are not proposing a replacement engine for alice to we are proposing a launch system that would meet the needs of the country in response to the air force. that's what speed you had me excited for a minute. i don't want a new rocket. we want something to replace the rd-180 and if not be a drunken fit on the atlas v something that doesn't require a whole lot of modification to work on the atlas v. i understand all of y'all like what you got and i know mr. bruno wants a new rocket, that's awesome. as long as we are not paying for

it. we want an engine to be able to get our critical missions into space in a timely fashion. 2019 as you is a critical time for us. let me ask go back to the two people i know who are going to compete for it mr. meyerson and ms. van kleeck. start with mr. meyerson. with the cost of your engine the comparable to what is currently paid for the rd-180? >> according to our customer ula we understand it is. it is comparable or better than the rd-180? >> yes, sir. we've got to design g20 be apropos the price point of the rd-180. >> i want to stay with you ms. van kleeck for me. esther bruno made reference to the fact that you were 16 months behind blue origin and development of your engine. can you address that observation? what did he mean by that? >> well, i don't have my competitors schedule so i can't say for certain what the 16 months comes from. mike enzi is we will be

certified by 2019, we're very confident about that. we spent 20 is developing this technology from the russians, that was pioneered by the russians. we have the factories, the schedule. we will be testing full-scale engine at the beginning of 2017. we will provide a full engine to ula in 2010 and complete certification in 2019 spent 2018 or 2019? >> we will complete certification of the engine in 2019. >> tell us what your schedule is. when do you think you will complete certification? >> the engine will be qualified in 2017 and certified for flight on the falcon in 2019 with certification of a system coming after. we've been working at this for more than three years and where the facilities and people and processes and equipment in place to do so. we have high confidence in our schedule. we are testing hardware, testing today. the confidence, the level of the

data this will have any alternative. that's what we hope to accomplish with our schedule. >> you made reference to the falcon in your opening statement. i know mr. bruno wants to help a vulcan launch assistant were interested in the atlas can or i am in my question. will your engine work on the atlas with modifications and how significant modifications would it take? >> so our engine runs in liquid oxygen and liquefied natural gas. so as a alice is designed it will not integrate with the atlas. we would have got a new launch assistant? >> that is right. >> mr. bruno, tell me let's talk about this vulcan system. and when it came from and when you see that happening and how disciplined what we are doing right now given in our previous testament in my comments publicly and our conversation privately. i feel very strongly i didn't want a replacement for the

rd-180. >> bolton really refers to a series of evolution to the atlas. it takes several years to accomplish. the first step in that evolution is simply replacing the engine that is on the alice. to whether it's an ar1 or be-4 the alice with a new engine would be called vulcan and was to have the alice of the stage, atlas strap on. it is essentially an atlas with an engine. if i may take a moment i would like to expand on my colleagues and i think they were far too modest when the responded to your question relative to the cost of their engines. so first understanding that there is no such thing as an rd-180 drop in replacement. we are not at this time capable of replicating the performance of the thrust love of the rd-180. want to talk about is providing up interventions that would replace the single rd-180. that their engines we expect to be upwards of 35% less expensive

than a single rd-180. so while the performance of the engine is only first generation and lacking with the rd-180 has the manufacturing technologies is a giant leap ahead. >> i will get back to you on my next under question. i want to turn to my friend up from tennessee, ranking member for any questions you may have. >> thank you. i appreciate the expertise on spam and appreciate my friendship with the chairman. i'm a little worried that we are pursuing a unicorn. i think mr. burgess said there is no such thing as replacement for the rd-180 engine. there is no dropping equivalent. and we are kind of fooling ourselves if we think there could be at least in the region will take the reason the future. there are some workarounds can replace the answer of a new launch systems. so continues the theme of my opening statement, our first

rule should be first do no harm because we wouldn't even. uppercut the language right in last year's nba a. -- ndaa. i'm not a technical expert certainly not a rocket scientist but it seems to be in his testimony there some remarkable differences. first of all i regret is so bit unfair the witnesses are at least three to one against spacex. i'm not sure that's there. perhaps we should've given mr. thornburg three times the time. maybe 3.5. it should exciting for all americans that we have billionaires and out of the news were willing to develop -- devotes so much resources me up with more sufficient solutions. the factual question is there a gap? you know seems to me that we need at least nine rd-180's. we may need 29. we may need more than 29 and

meanwhile, a lot of what you on the is a lot of badmouthing of the russians and there's plenty of reason to badmouth at least their leader. while we are dependent on the rd-180, may not be the smartest thing strategically to badmouth the source. hopefully we can overcome this gap and mr. thornburg's testimony is that the real gap is the premature decision to retire the delta medium. so there you don't blame the russians. you blame us. or the gap could be air force tracking do they justify a new falcon heavy and certainly there are a lot of worthy and important requirements and certification to require the successful launches, lots of things. i loved mr. culbertson's quote when he said we can lick gravity. sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. but congress is really good at

is paperwork and putting in artificial requirements that often times indeed the private sector's ability to innovate. i get worried that when it comes to a drop in engine, you talk about my shovel and ball and trying to find a new v-8 to put in the old vehicle. i want a car that will work, not just an engine that will perform. when we talk about assured access to space, we want a vehicle that can get our payloads up into the appropriate orbit. it may be that we have not had enough discussion on the federal of appropriate orbit and maybe we can't do that in an open setting but we have to serve all of our national security needs. some of those are harder to achieve than others. i hope that this hearing, and it may take a second panel to do it, will be able to resolve the question of whether there's a graphic if so how large and how best to bridge that gap.

and to certain extent all of the witnesses are asking us to buy some vaporware because nobody can predict, nobody has a perfect crystal ball. one tends to believe mr. burnham recess getting realistic an inkling happen before 2021, 2023 maybe because it takes time. at least the american way of doing it. i hope it's not that long, but and we should all be encouraged to stay with the new nothing engine, blue origin is amazing but also the id of the raptor is totally amazing. some existing accomplishments are things we should be deeply proud of. i am a little worried about mr. thornburg's methodology because the falcon uses nine or 10 engines and you claiming engine heritage that is able to be multiplied due to the number of engines that makes you think

about the number composed to 100 engines then you have a tracker became times are 100 times more successful than all the rd-180's. that's perhaps methodology coming up with a track record. but still you can't deny they accomplishments because you've exceeded what most people would have expected. but again our job here is to not stand in the way of progress. i think the statement of administration policy is pretty on point as i said it's congressional language special last year gets in the way. how do we resolve this in a sensible way? we want commercial competition. we want a shirt access to space but above all we have to assured access to space. i'm hopeful that the witnesses can help us resolve these questions, and as i said it may take a second panel but there seems to be general consensus that no one is talking about a drop in engine.

because it's my understanding that even a proposed solution are either 18 inches too long or four inches too long or two engines instead of one engine. so that chairman school is worthy as it may be is really not available from any of the witnesses on this panel here now the chairman school of cost savings is extremely important but i don't need to remind members of the armed services committee how much money we're wasting on various things here or there. in the scheme of things that money we're talking about is relatively small and manageable. they key is assured access to space. if any of the witnesses want to correct my impression i spent much of last night reading your testimony. it was very helpful but it also is so conflicting, it's hard to find where the truth lies. ms. van kleeck you seem poised. >> yes. yes, sir, thank you for the opportunity.

the rockets have been we engine in the past on numerous occasions both in this country and others. you can replace rocket engines. the ar1 uses of this. and i've explained the differences and our money. we can reproduce and rd-180 in this country that would cost in my opinion more money that would to develop an image. it's a very complex and gentlemen also cost a lot from a recurring standpoint. i think it's time for the us to leapfrog technology anyway. the ar1 uses the same propellant. it is the same engine cycle so it will have a very similar environment, use the same tank, same attach points, same performance not lower performance, the same performance. it is to mention. we did look at making it a single engine but two engines is probably a better long-term solution because it can be used in multiple other applications in the future. you can have the exact physical

attach points with a two engine solution to really where the propellant feeds the engine and how it attaches. it is 11 inches longer but we been told by ula congeners the length is not an issue. it is linked to work with. that will affect miner ground support equipment but it is very minor. we're talking modest modifications, things we've done in the past. it's as near to a drop in replacement as can be made. >> but there are many other issues acoustics? mr. bennet wasn't just because you started late, you are 16 months behind. so we don't know what they will choose and the downs like a year or two from now spent yes, sir, that's effect every rocket engine has a specific signature. the fact that it is same cycle runs at a similar operating point, we would anticipate that would be similar. >> but there've been lots of anticipations that don't message to get out. we need something that will work

spent yes sir, but we've been a part of the shtick we been successful with those re-engined. this engine has been designed on the beginning to be a replacement that was fine because we saw this problem coming 10 years ago. and you focus focus on the. we understand how this might very well. this engine was designed with atlas five and mine speculates in the problem 10 years ago but you're 16 months behind right now, even blue origin and some of these other things. so that puts us in a tough spot direct to measure the gap and figure how to fill the gap. >> you know whether we are again we can meet 2019. whether we are 16 months behind or not, one would have to look at the details of the scheduled editor for milestones to really come to that. i have not seen that. >> mr. chairman, i think my time is more than expired. thank you.

>> thank the gentleman. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from a global for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman the one of the concerns i have is when you consider the house is positioned and assumed his position on rd-180, our positions are different. i have heard that ula is interested in developing the falcon to the extent that have a certain number of rd-180 untenable for the future. and if we don't have that certain number company are not interested in developing the falcon. my question for you mr. bruno, is what happens if this and thing doesn't come in the direction of the house? in that case what happens to the vulcan and what is your backup plan? >> so either engines have that has just been discussed requires significant investment on the part of ula. without the continued revenue generation of the atlas comment

to the new american engine is available we will lack the funds to be able to accomplish that activity. without that we are entering into a marketplace where the resource market has declined, and is incapable of supporting two providers. the good news is the overall list market is large enough to support both of us both a new entrant and as any other traditional suppliers by divorce be a viable economic entity in that environment we need to effectively compete for civil and commercial missions in addition to competing for national security space missions. without that lower cost rocket and without the investment required to get there, we are simply not economically viable in that window. >> you indicated that the commercial launches in addition to the military launches, that would be economic viability for

multiple providers, and it looks like even we might get a third provider with orbital atk potentially participating. that being the case is there a reason ula couldn't get private capital to support the investment? >> it's unlikely that the capital markets would look at this uncertain investment environment any more favorably than our parents do. so investment really dislikes and avoids uncertainty. and as we sit here today it's very uncertain whether the atlas will even be available to fly during the period between the end of its current contracts and availability of a new rocket engine. so that leaves a multi-year period of time when we have no product to bring to the marketplace. not very likely it can attract money for that. >> mr. culbertson, does orbital atk agree with the position that it is not worth the investment if there's not more rd-180

engines? >> i can't really comment on ula's position on this. we do see a market out there but it's still pretty slim in the class as we're discussing here. we can't you are working with ula to continue to supply cargo for the international space station. out of bed accident, space and a couple other companies stepped forward and said we can give you a ride come and we contracted with him on a commercial basis to do that. so we are sort of at the beginning of the commercial market to continue to fly but we also are continuing to develop our own systems to fly the only to the space station budget like national security missions. >> mr. thornburg, when you think about the commercial market with the eelv program, is the market big enough and for how many providers? include you guys are remaking investment privately -- and clearly.

[inaudible] >> i will also say that as an engineer on the necessary stepping the markets but i can say that spacex believes them we can be very competitive across the market as i mentioned in my opening statement we recounted for the united states 50% of the launch market share. certainly with more cost effective launched solutions to market does open up. >> and for mr. bruno, you would know that the united states come and we as members of congress we want to make sure we have ushered access to space which means we have multiple launch service providers for the eelv program. that being the case, your investors have got to understand that it is not in our interest as an to to provide and went out of business and end up with a monopoly, which means it's going to be some level of security. would you agree? are your investors, your parents, aware that? >> the only bit i had to operate

on at the moment is the forecast the government has provided for the space with that occurs in that window of time. and it's important to remember that we are the ride for national security assets. they are be capitalized in ways so we are currently we capitalizing a set national security satellites that are well past their designed line. that's going to complete in a short number of years. there will be a long trough until the net assets run out of life and then they will be recapitalize. what has been forecasted to us by the government and its a pretty sound forecast because we can see the satellites in the pipeline being designed and built is that marketplace dropped from about eight to 10 year, to five come and in that will be divided between at least two providers so two or three, and that's not a sustainable economic model if you do not also have access to civil and

commercial markets spent okay. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. now recognizes the gentleman from colorado for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, mr. bruno, congratulations for an outstanding record of success, jeff viso's, founder of blue origin and amazon, said quote ula has put a satellite into orbit almost every month for the past eight years. they're the most reliable launch provider in history and the record of success is astonishing, unquote. i'm proud that ula is headquartered in colorado or conflict of the ula will remain very competitive in the future. you enjoy an exclusive contract because of the confidence but i want to ask you what exactly can congress do to ensure that across the board we have created

an environment that promotes innovation while not unfairly keeping the playing field toward or away from any potential providers? >> certainly. but first i have to observe that comment reveals jeff bezos is obviously a very intelligent man. [laughter] so in order to have a fair and even competitive playing field is healthy and in the interest of the government in good for industry, it's important of course that the participants in that competition are able to bring competitive products to the marketplace. that's why we need continued access to atlas. in addition to that, the competition itself needs to be fair and even as we must be held to the same technical standards in terms of the performance come in the missions were able to fly, as well as a contracting requirements. so today the ula is required to perform to what's called for part 15, which are a set of very

complex and sophisticated acquisition regulations. they require for us to provide elaborate, extensive and expensive financial reporting, tracking and reporting systems. our competitor in the commercial marketplace does not. to all of these elements have to be leveled and then i would also advise the government that for national security missions for which our nation's safety depends and warfighters lives are at risk, at a low price technical acceptable price to shootout is not an appropriate methodology. you wouldn't buy a car that we. he wouldn't buy your home that way and our soldiers lives should not be dependent upon the so when competing and when making selections they should consider cost equally balanced with technical performance, reliability and schedule certainty.

remember i mentioned the assets being we capitalize are generally beyond their design life. is an urgency to replacing them as soon as possible. that, too, should be considered. >> thank you. mr. thornburg, congratulcongratul ations on successful certification of the falcon nine. in march mrs. shotwell testified in this committee that you have dcaa auditors doing from manufacturing audits right now and your cost and her have been audited. was that testimony correct? and kenny brickley describe the frequency and extent of the dcaa audit for combat spacex undergoes and the number of dcaa personnel resident at the spacex facilities? >> to your first question was

her testimony correct, i believe the answer to that is just a quick approach to the questions about dcaa audit and frequency in my position within engineering and working vehicle development, i'm not familiar with the frequency of the visits. i can tell you that we are working very closely with the air force and the beauty. i'm happy to go collect that information in return for the record. >> i would really appreciate if you could get that back to us for the record. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. now recognize the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman for having this very important hearing and thank you for the timeliness of this hearing. mr. thornburg like to ask you about the current version of the emergent engine that you're using. is it the new baseline, is the full thrust merlin engine the new baseline for the falcon version 1.1 going forward? and the spacex intend to bid the

system for upcoming eelv launches? >> the current engine we are flying is being berlin one boost engine. the reference the full thrust, a minor upgrade to the engine that basically takes the full potential of the engine system for future missions than the falcon 9.1. >> no, what are the differences between the two systems, both hardware and software? i've heard there are hundreds of differences, is that correct? >> i can't recall the exact number of differences. i can say from a technical standpoint engineering wise the differences are very minor. entrance of the changes and upgrades to the engine it's all in line with our continual improvement of the potion vehicles but essentially we are taking existing merlin one with

its present design and performance and taking the additional performance that we have available and offering it to our customers and to enhance the performance of the falcon 9.1 system. >> but what i can get at, with the changes that you have incorporated, does the previous certification cover the new what amounts to what i would consider a new version once you started making a lot of changes? >> recent certification of falcon nine the merlin engine now and going forward, the bulk of that is identical. we are talking about minor changes and upgrades to the system that will be reviewed through ongoing and future engineering review board activity with the air force. >> so even though there are an

undetermined number of changes you can get a number -- you can't get a never? do you think that amounts to anything worth recertify and? >> -- or reopening -- >> no. i can comment the ongoing dialogue with the air force through the certification process has been fantastic we are working closely with the air force as well as the aerospace corporation. a type of improvements and modifications the falcon nine launch vehicle is going through now is no different than improvements that atlas and delta taken on over the years. we are in line with the initial certification and ongoing certification activities as these improvements come online. >> i just wish there was more certainty because you can't even tell me how many changes there are. i guess that's a concern i think we should get to the bottom of.

changing gears. ms. van kleeck what advanced technology does the rd-180 is and what isn't important we bring that technology to the u.s.? >> know, the rd-180 is what's called an oxford stage combustion engine to its a closed cycle engine which are the most efficient engines that can be chemical rockets that can be produced. the space shuttle was one of these engines. the russians pioneered and perfected the oxford stage combustion engine during the cold war and the u.s. perfected solid and hydrogen systems. so it's a very high-performing hydrocarbon engine. it provides a lot of advantage to the original atlas vehicle. some of the things that are in it are advanced coding, advanced

material. it's very compact, very high pressure. those are things particularly the materials are things that this country did not choose to pursue and didn't develop. and so that is where the technology gap in this particular rocket engines in this country. >> mr. meyerson would you agree with that assessment? >> entrance of the rd-180 and the important of the cycle yes i agree. i think if you look back to the time that lockheed martin ula's parent and the choice of the rd-180 was an enabler for the atlas v. at atlas v rocket would not have worked without the rd-180. today i think it's time to take a fresh look and look at a new engine. the oxford stage combustion cycle is is critical and thus the blue origin has chosen but the de4 is enabled for the next generation of american launch vehicles. it's the choice of methane that financial gas.

>> thank you and thank you all for being here. >> i thank the gentleman. we will start our second round of questions. i was listening to my buddy from tennessee menus talking about his chevy and dropping a new engine in. and i sometimes it wasn't all that easy because my priority is to re-engine the atlas v. it is reminded me as you're talking he and i had the two privilege to meet with an american treasure earlier this week, retired general tom stafford was also an apollo astronaut the we both visited this topic with him you know. how big a deal is this to re-engine this rocket? and he basically said it's nothing. we re-engine fighter jets for generations and that's much more competent than what we are talking about here. so with that background esther culbertson, y