ground task force. you are seeing the plans that we have to put our newest equipment, both ships and aircraft in the region. and we're going from about 55% of our fleet in the pacific to 60%. but i think the important number is that the fleet is getting bigger. so that 60% of this fleet is going to be bigger than the fleet of the past. we in this budget specifically have the resources to carry out that. but i will echo admiral greenert and general dunford. this is the minimum that we have to have in order to do not only the rebalance but all of the other missions that we're called upon to do. >> thank you. i think i heard your response to

senator donnelly's question about your concern about count fitted parts. and i believe you said that you do have a concern about that. i just wanted to ask you one question though. you do have a concern about counterfeit parts. i i heard that correctly. >> yes. >> i was wondering if you are aware of any technological product that can be embedded in parts to ensure it is not a counterfeit part. >> senator i'm not aware of any specific chip or whatever that you can embed in it. what i am aware of is that our quality control folks at places like crane indiana that the senator was talking about are exceptionally good at spotting those counterfeits. >> i am aware of a particular product i would love to talk with you further in a different context.

regarding your energy efforts we do need a sustained long-term commitment to research and development in this area and meeting our energy security needs and preserving the superiority of our forces in the face of energy supply challenges in the 21st century are important goals. and your testimony you highlighted that 2009 formal energy goals for the department of the navy which includes using energy more efficiently and diversifying sources of power. and certainly i'll agree with your efforts. can you give us an ouptd the 2009 formal energy goals and how does the president's budget proposal support these energy goals. >> be happy to. the biggest goal was by no later than 2020 at least half of all energy both afloet and ashort will come from non fossil fuel sources. the goal so the make us better war fighters. in terms of our basis we will

be there at the end of '15. and we're saving money by doing it. we're -- we will have a gig watt of power into our bases from non fossil fuel sources by the end of '15. in terms of a float we will buy no alternative fuels unless it is cost competitive with traditional fuels. but that seems to be the case even with today's low oil prices. and we're moving pretty aggressively to do that. we've demonstrated. we've certified all of our ships. and all of our aircraft on this. in terms of efficiencies, we are making great strides? efficiencies. and the president's budget supports both the diversifying the kinds of energy and also the efficiencies. >> thank you. and i appreciate the indulgence

of the chair. i have gone over. mahalo. >> i want to thank the chairman. i want to thank all of you for your leadership to the country and our military at such an important time. i just want to associate myself with some of the comments that senator blumenthal made about the virginia payload moodual. i'm very interested in if that is feasible as well and i look forward to seeing what you come forward with in may. i also wanted to follow up admiral, in your prepared statement you noted our naval shipyards and depots are critical to maintaining war fighter readiness for the force and i certainly agree with that. and in order to have a strong attack submarine fleet we need to ensure that those submarines are maintained properly and

quickly and that they are combat ready. and one thing that i wanted to ask about is making sure that the fmtacilities we have are prepared for that and doing that in the most efficient way so we can save dollars and get things done sooner. i know senator king shares my pride with the work done tot portsmouth naval shipyard. and the workers at the shipyard have actually been producing ahead of schedule the maintenance just recently in april of last year, they undocked the u.s.s. topeka. 20 days ahead of schedule. in june following maintenance availability the workers returned the u.s.s. california to the fleet 14 days ahead of schedule. and in september they delivered the u.s.s. springfield back to the fleet ahead of schedule and under budget. and one of the things they have brought to the attention of my

office is that they are doing this with facilities that are frankly outdated in some instances. working in structural shops on overover 100 years old and deteriorated to the point of the partial failure. the heat treat region was recently condemned. so the fact that they are delivering faster and under budget even with these facilities can you imagine what they could do with more modern facilities? there is a military construction project that's been submit forward reprogramming. p-266 structural shops consolidation consolidation. it will address many of the problems that i just talked about. and it will achieve efficiency efficiencies, improve working conditions, most importantly save money and time which i know we're all looking to do and result in submarines being sent back to the fleet even more quickly.

and i'm confident if we're able to do this it will allow them do an even pert job. and they are doing incredible job now. admiral another not expecting you to be very familiar with all of those projects offhand but this is a very important one to our shipyard and i think that will most importantly drive cost efficiencies and results for the navy. so i would like an update on where this reprogramming request sits and obviously i don't need you -- if you have now great. if you don't if that is something you could submit to our office as quickly as possible. i'd appreciate it. >> i'll take it for the record and get you a complete answer senator. >> thank you very much. i also wanted to follow-up just to ask you in general about the importance tortof the navy civilian workforce. and what see in terms of this, many of them as the economy improve trs competition for the

types of skills that they have, that they are able to work obviously on such important equipment like our submarines and other equipment, then we're going see excision for thaer their skills and we want to make sure they are able to stay in the navy and able to serve the nee. can you talk to me about the strength of the civilian workforce, how do you see recruiting going forward and any challenges. >> terms of the public shipyards like portsmouth. if you want to see the effects of the sequestration you don't have to look afurther than that. there was a hiring freeze in place because of the sequestration. so as people left they could not be replaced. there was a furlough. that some of them were exempt from but not all. there was the government shut down when they couldn't work. and because of all those things

we've got a backlog in those public shipyards. they do great work but they have to have enough of those artisans enough of these poem with the -- people with the specific skills to do it. and again that is a great tangible example of not only the effects immediately of sequestration but how it stretches out. because it will take us until about 2018 as the cno said to recover from that. the civilian workforce writ large, we wouldn't have a fleet to put to see without those civilians. and we lost 12 civilians killed in the line of duty at the washington navy yard. so they are in every way an integral, vital part of our navy and the marine corps. >> thank you mr. secretary. admiral? >> ma'am, this morning there is a great article on what the

director for office of personnel management is traying to do for quick highing. we are trying desperately to hire people into the shipyards. it is hard. the sequestration has hurt us and the gourdion knot to get through is incredibly hard. >> and these are incredible people. i've had a chance to meat many of them. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chair. admiral greenert i want to associate my comments. it must be -- i'm sure you are very sad that is your last hearing before the committee. but you have had a long and distinguished career. i want to thank you. and your dad must have met my dad. i think they would have some spiritual kinship. admiral greenert, the arctic is

an important area of policy. i know you have been plooking it a. the navy developed a strategy. do you see the arctic as an emerging area of the strategic importance, national security importance, to this country? >> senator i do. i think we need to look at it deliberately and understand it. there for things like isex, we need to do it more frequently, get industry up

the russians have 17. it's breakers are the highway builders, if you will. and that is an area, i know it is not a naval question but that is an example of how we are really not adequately i believe developing our strategic interests in that region. again, for secretary mabus and admiral greenert, it stieks me that one of the issues that really isn't talked about. we talked a lot about sequestration and i don't have to pile on on that subject. we all agree it is serious risk to the national security of this country country. but the industrial base. you can't turn off and on a shipyard. one thing that worries me as i look a charts from bath iron works, for example in maine. that if we don't have the workload, the employment drops down. if a skilled shipbuilder leaves to go to some other area of the country or some other profession.

they are gone and you can't just turn that back on. is that something that concerns you. >> concerns me every day. and one of the reasons i said in my opening statement and the larger statement to the committee that i will protect shipbuilding to the maximum extent possible. because it is not reversible. if you -- if you don't build a navy ship one year, you never build it. it is not something that money the next year can make up. and it is primarily because of that industrial base. if you lose those highly skilled workers and their unique skills skills,. they are not easily learned. in fact i was -- senator reid said i was at kwanza point with a lane for the u.s.s. colorado. they recognized more than ten people celebrating their 40th anniversary at that shipyard.

that works there more than 40 years. the so the industrial base if you lose these high quality shipbuilders, you don't get them back. and you see the effects today in terms of bath or some of our other shipyards. what you see the effect on our fleet ten years from now, 15 years from now 20 years from now. and it is something that i've said evidently i used a term nobody else had use much. but i'm going to protect shipbuilding till the last dog dies. we're going to try to stay there partly for the industrial base -- >> and one of the problems is the long lead time means that shortchanging we're doing now is going to have the effect 5, 10 years from now. i remember learning in drivers ed that if you are going above a certain speed your headlights won't illuminate the wall in time for you to stop. and effect there is a wall out

there that we're very close to hitting. we just won't know it for about 10 years because of decisions we're making now in terms of the shortsightedness of this sequester policy. >> we are living today with decisions that were made 10 15 years ago in terms of the size of our fleet. the people sitting in all of these chairs 15 20 years from now will be living with t the decisions we make today. and as i said, in shipbuilding they are not reversible. >> well you ended your prepared testimony with a quote from theodore roosevelt about the navy as an instrument of peace. from that same speech, voeltz said roosevelt said something applicable to the discussion today about readiness. he said the veteran seaman of our warships are as high a type that can be found in any navy waters in the world. unsurpassed in the readiness and

thorough knowledge of their profession. this is teddy roosevelt a hundred years ago. to build the finest ship with the deadliest battery and to end is it afloat with a raw crew no matter how brave they are individually would be to ensure disaster if a foe of average capacity were encountered. this is the payoff line. "neither ships nor men can be improvised when the war has begun." general dumbnford. i would assume that you know. this is our responsibility of solving this funding problem so you can have your men and women ready. >> absolutely. that is what you expect from the nation's ready force. when you call us e we're there. as i mentioned earlier when you called us for today's crisis we respond actually today. and that is what it's all about. >> thank you gentlemen for your service. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and thanks to all the witnesses.

admiral greenert i add my comments to those of my colleagues about your service and we'll miss you at these hearings hearings. we all appreciate that. unsequester, i can't resist secretary mabus since you started talking about how cheap your dad wuss. i've done -- was. i've done a lot of budgets. as a mayor as a governor. i'm the only governor in the history of my state -- this is a sad accolade not a good one. i'm the only one that left with a smaller budget than the one i started with because of being governor in the worst recession in 75 years. sequester violates every principle of good budgeting that any competent manager in the public or private sector would follow. period. full stop. sequester violates every principle of budgeting that any

competent private or public sector manager would follow. i am proud that one of my first votes as a senator in february 2013 was to eliminate the sequester. i know how to find budgetary savings. i've done it my whole life. but non strategic across the board cuts can be done with the slide rule. it is not about the application of human judgment. and any budgetary philosophy that says we don't care about human judgment and we're just going to do the across the board cutting is foolish. i've watch us have rare discussions on this committee where i think we've all come to bipartisan consensus about afghanistan. and let me make an analogy that. a calendar based strategy is a bad idea. a conditions base strategy is a good idea. and i just want to analogize that to our budgetary reality. we're either going to be sequester-based and say, well we're obligated to follow caps the congress put in place in

august 2011, before we saw the degree of cyber attacks from northern korea before we saw vladomir putin go into ukraine. before isil was gobbling up territory in iraq and syria, before boko haram was slaughtering thousands upon thousands of people in africa. we're either going to be sequester based and ignore all of that or we're going to be conditions based. and i would like to to ask all of my colleagues weed like to be conditions based. and for purposes of budgeting, let's be just as conditions based and let's not grab on to some bizarre incompetent budgetary theory and elevate that over the security of the nation. that is just my editorial comment and what i intend to do as the member of the committee is just that.

i want to offer sop some praise to the general dunford and the admiral greenert. in your written testimony you both talked about something really important. which is helping your marines and sailors transition from active life to civilian life. the transition of people into a civilian workforce where only 1% of the adults have served in the military. so there isn't a natural understanding or what a gunny sergeant does or whatten e-5 is. the kier about that transition which is something that i think the dod has generally woken up to more recently, i think you have all come a long way in the last couple of years in being really intentional about this. and in both of your written testimonies you talk about efforts that have been under way to help folks get credentials that match civilian work skills and help people think in a more significant way about that transition. general dunford knows i have a

son who's an officer in the marines. and about two weeks into taking his first platoon he called me p up and said hey dad my nco, has just told me he is' leaving in two weeks and he doesn't know how to find a job. and if you wait until someone is at the end of their time and try to cram it this into their head and help them in the last couple weeks it is not going to work very well. but the you start day one and make that a priority it will work a lot better. and our marines will be marines are fur life and our sailors will be sailors for life. and i give you all a lot of credit for making that a priority. and your written testimony today attributes to it. one question i want to ask that maybe a question for the record it may involve classified information. i'm con earned tbt government of the bahrain. the fifth fleet is there. and it's not only important for our defense but it keeps open sea lanes in an important part of the world that allow

shipments and oil and other shipments that effect the global economy. the instability of bahrain in my view causes me significant concern about the viability of the fifth fleet there as its headquarters. certainly the security of the lives of those americans serving but also whether that is, you know -- can we have a fifth fleet strategically positioned there given that instability? and maybe for the record i would like to ask if you could just offer thoughts appropriately classified if need be about the instability issues, what threats that poses? and what the navy is doing to consider how to mitigate those threats. if you could admiral greenert. >> i'll take that for the record and give you a complete answer senator. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator kaine. and i thank you also for your eloquent dissertation on sequestration. and i totally agree with it.

i thank you for that. senator. >> mr. secretary, admiral, general, thank you very much for your years of distinguished service to our country and for all of the men and women you represent. the sailors marines and the civilians. i was an army guy myself. general dunford i've had many of your marines tell me that the army stands for ain't ready for marines yet. that's not true, is it? >> it just may be senator. >> shocking revelation. well there is no substitute for having a army but also no substitute for having a navy and marine corps constantly on watch around the globe. we're very grateful for what y'all do. admiral greenert you have written and spoken in other forums at any time concept of the payloads not platforms. could you give us a truncated version what you mean by that and how it informs the procurement plan for the navy in

the future? >> we're a capital intensive service. so when we build a ship it is there for 30 years at least. and a bit longer to. put an integrated, complicated system in there inside -- weapons system in such a vessel. when you want to change it i you have to take the ship out of service for 18 months to two years. we can't do that anymore. by can't avrd to take it out of service. that is one. two, the industry and technology is moving so fast. they can put together a weapons system that can come in in in a modular fashion. so the deal today is put together a platform they call, one that has enough cooling, volume, persistence and time at see sea and the ability to support the quick and fast upgrades. the enterprise was our first aircraft carrier in 1961. its first mission was the cuban missile crisis. its last mission was off afghanistan in 2012 and it had the most modern systems we had.

a platform with several changes of payloads. so that is where i'm getting at. it applies to aircrafts and it applies to ships for sure. >> general dunford. would you care to comment on how that concept may or may not apply to a ground force like the marine corps or for that matter the army. >> i'd like to take for the record. i'm not sure i can answer that. >> okay. admiral greenert would you like to comment? because obviously the navy and air force are much bigger platform platforms. more capital intensive investments than general dunford tends use in the marine corps that the army uses in ground operations. >> the payloads and platforms my sport for general -- i'm a supporting entity more if marine corps. when i build an amphibians ship it has to be able to expand to bring in the marine systems as they evolve and expand. so it is very much a part of what i support for joe dunford there. and in fact we fell behind in

that regard. as the marines went ashore in afghanistan and iraq, we didn't evolve in our ships. and now we're making that adjustment working together. >> thank you. i also would like to associate myself with the comments of senator kaine and senator mccain about the impact of the skres radiation. in particular the impacts on readiness. i'd be curious to hear about the time line that you think may be required to get back to full readiness in your two services. >> if we have a predictable stable budget at the right level, which we believe the president's budget is mib mally there, we will be back where we need to be in 2018 for carrier strike groups and 2020 for amphibians readiness for supporting general dunford. >> our time line is roughly the same. sometime between 2018 and 20. but that very much is dependent on future budgets as well. >> would you care to comment on the status of morale for sailors

and marines especially in the last two years in a sequestration environment. >> when sequestration hit morale it was hard on them. it was a hit. they were angry. they didn't understand what is this? what did i do? so the now the families are angry. they have got enover that. today they are anxious but morale is good overall. it is not very good. and it is not poor. it is good. they understand that we're looking out for their basic needs and we're providing the ready forces when they deploy. but there is a great anxiety out there and if we go back to that i'm not exactly sure what is going to happen. i lived this through the late 70s and early 80s. >> on balance we have very young force. i'd probably describe the reaction as angst at this point. they are concerned. where i'm mostly concerned are the mid grade staff ncos and mid grade officers looking to the future of uncertainty and would make decisions to leave the marine corps when we want them to stay.

>> thank you. thank you all again for your service. and thank you again for all the hard work of the marines and sailors you represent do as well as their families since there is no peacetime navy and marine corps and you are always on watch. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all very much for being here. secretary mabus and admiral green skpert general dunford. and thank you for your service to the country. admiral greenert we're going to miss you but we hopual approximate back in another capacity at some point. as we were discussing before the hearing started i had as y'all know the great yesterday to embark with the u.s.s. new hampshire submarine to go out for the day and dive with the submarine. it was -- it was really an experience of a lifetime. and i very much appreciated that. and i was especially impressed by the dedication and the professionalism of our men

serving on that submarine, as on all of our submarines. impressed by the team work that they all experienced. as they pointed out to me, that a submarine only runs if everybody works together. and the cook knew as much about the ship and how it's laid out and the operations as the people in the operations room. so it was very impressive. and one of the things that became clear as we were discussing with folks about their experience on the new hampshire was that while general dunford is appreciate this, a lot of the discussion during the wars in afghanistan and iraq has been about the toll that that's taken on our fighting men and women. and one of the things that was clear yesterday and not because anybody on the new hampshire complained about it. but the toll that the reduction

in our ships and their capacity has on the men and women who serve on those ships. because the deployments increase just as our deployments increase during iraq and afghanistan in a way that i think is less clear to the american public and the toll that that takes. and i wonder dplirl or secretary mabus if either of you would like to speak to what that short fall in our ship capacity, the impact that that has on the men and women who are serving on those ships. >> you explained it very well senator. there is a commitment, a covenant we have for providing ready forces forward around the world to be what we like to say "where it matters when it matters." if you have less ships to distribute, those out there will stand the watch longer. we have a phenomenon we were

trying get out of as we were just describe how long it would take to get readiness right. and when we had sequestration all of our maintenance slowed down. all of our shipyards slowed down to parade rest, as we like to say. so now we're trying to get that back up. get the workforce left because many left as a result of sequestration. somebody is out there standing the watch. and that is that longer deployment waiting for the other folks to get their maintenance and training down to come out and relieve them. that hurts and takes a while. >> senator in the early '90s we had about a 400 ship navy. and we had on average 100 ships forward deployed. today we have a little less than a 300 ship navy and we still have a 100 ships forward deployed deployed. you explained it very well. sailors are going out for longer. they are staying for longer. one of the things we've within work -- been working on is trying to

make those deployments more predictable. and not just the deployments. but the things, you know, as we were talking about. the training the maintenance and the surge capability when they come back. it is called the optimized fleet response plan. we're doing it for our carriers first and strike groups. we're going to do for it for amphibians ready groups next. but it's trying to do that. and the last thing i'd like to stay is that one of the reasons that i remain so committed to shipbuilding, so getting the right number of those gray holes, so it will ease some of the stress on the sailor, the men and women who sail in them. >> thank you. well one of the things i neglected to say that you all know is that the u.s.s. new hampshire is a virginia class sun. and one of the things that was very exciting to hear from folks on the ship was that they always

feel very good when it is the portsmouth naval shipyard has done the work because they do such a great job at the shipyard. ao i had to put that plug in for the portsmouth shipyard because they co-such great work. i'm really out of time but mr. chairman if i could ask one more question. thank you. secretary mabus last september the departments award eded a position to produce drop in bio fuels to meet transportation needs. can you speak to why you think this is so important for the navy? >> it is important because it makes us better war fighters. it is important because it takes fuel away as a weapon to be used us against us. all you have to do is look at the head lines about crimea or the ukraine, europe today and russia using fuel as the weapon. and we're trying to avoid that.

it will also help us smooth out some of these huge price swings in the oil and gas market. and finally, i'm a big believer in the free market. i think you need competition in things like fuels. now, we are -- we will not buy any alternative fuel unless it is absolutely price competitive with traditional fuels. the other two requirements that we have, one is that it be drop-in. as you said. we're not changing engines or settings. and third that it take no land out of food production. so we're looking at second generation third generation bio fuel production. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator graham. >> thank you all for your service. whethers the morale in the marine corps like, general? >> senator, it is high. >> yeah. well it should be high. because you are the finest

fighting force on earth. and i want to tell the marine and the navy better days are coming to the families. we're going to get our act together in congress. i don't know exactly how yet. but we will. we're not going to leave you hanging. we're not going take modernization off the table so you can't fight the next war effectively. and we're going to somehow solve the problem we've created. so just hang in there. keep your chin up and focused on the mission. general, do you agree weed be smart to leave a residual force behind in afghanistan if conditions require it? >> i do, senator. >> from a navy perspective, admiral, do you believe that the threats we face are growing as i speak? >> i do. absolutely. >> do both of you agree that there are more terrorist organizations with more capability, with more safe havens, with more wp weapons, with more desire to attack the

homeland than any time since 911. >> i do. >> i do senator. >> when it comes to iraq and syria, you do agree with me that if we take isil on -- and when i say "we," the united states and the region, that we must win? >> yes senator. >> how many marines were involved in the first battle and second battle of fallujah? >> the first battle senator was about two regimental combat teams in the order of 6,000. the second battle was about 14,000 u.s. forces. that is marine and soldiers. >> so do you agree with me without that capacity it would have been very difficult for the sunni tribes to prevail over al qaeda and iraq at the time? >> without -- absolutely center. >> okay. . so we're object to fight a bigger force. and how many members of our military do we have in iraq today?

>> senator, i don't know the exact numbers but i think on the order of 3,000. >> how many of those are marines. >> we've got about 500 marines, senator that are actually on the ground in iraq. >> do you agree with me both of you, that isil represents a threat to us, not just the region? >> i do senator. >> do you agree admiral? >> i do senator. >> so anybody who thinks that defeating isil is their problem, not ours is making a huge mistake? >> i agree with that senator. >> where he have to prevail, yes senator. >> doo you agree in our security interest to make sure they are not only degraded and destroyed, they don't come back? >> i agree with that senator. >> do you agree with me the best way you degrade and destroyed is to have some american ground forces to help the regional forces? >> senator, right now i think it is critical that we provide u.s. support. and i this i as you know we're waiting for the general to make a recommendation as to exactly

what support would be. >> doesn't that guarantee the highest chance of success is to have some american capability on the ground enhancing our regional partners? >> certainly my perspective would be as a link to our supporting capability. >> do you agree with me that any marine soldier are airmen or participant in these operations would be protecting the homeland? >> i believe that senator. >> if somebody died trying to deal with isil in iraq or syria, they would have died on behalf of protecting their nation? >> they would have died in protecting our national interests is clear, senator. >> do you agree with me that if we don't stop isil sooner rather than later the likelihood of another attack against this country grows. >> >> i think it grows but i think if we don't stop them there will be destabilization in the region as well. important fur national interests. >> do you worry about the king of jordan if they don't get slowed down ore degraded pretty quickly.

>> i do senator. >> do you admiral? >> i do, senator. yes i do. >> so to both of you and to those who everybody under you, i am sorry that some of you may have to go back. i regret it more than you will ever know. but i think you know better than anyone else why you may have to go back. and the only commitment i will make as a senator from south carolina is that if you go back you go back to win and that we get this right this time. thank you all for your service. >> senator mckascaskillccaskill. >> thank you, thank you all for being here. i sometimes neglect to say how much respect i have for all of you. i'm so busy getting after something that i forget to tell you. so let me do that before i get after something. admiral greenert, i'm zma

dismayed about the fat leonard scandal. i'm dismayed because it rips at the fabric of honor and integrity that defines our military. and one of the things that i have tried to do since i was allowed to join this important committee is make sure when we have those moments that this consequences go to the very top. instead of hanging out at the middle or the bottom. which has sometimes occurred. when there is a scandal like this. so what you would like you or secretary mabus to speak to the accountability of those at the top of the chain of command for this conduct that occurred on their watch. >> the leonard francis scandal is that -- >> correct. >> well, senator, we're going to

hold people accountable that violated either the law or a navy ethics. i've already issued letters of censure to three admirals. one three-star and two two-star admirals. the two two-stars elected to retire. the three-star had already decided to retire. the one thing i think is important about this situation is that the reason this was uncovered is that we set up financial trip wires that gdma went across. so red flags were raised. ncis investigated this for three years with no leaks. we during that investigation

found that an ncis agent was furnishing mr. francis with information that -- they sent up some false information to him. and it led to mr. fansis believing that the investigation had been shut down and allowed us to arrest him on american soil. he has implicated a number of naval personnel. we are at the -- on the timetable of the u.s. attorney's office in san diego, in terms of how quickly we get to these things -- and that's been a frustration because we have -- it's taken a long, long time. but i've set up a consolidated disposition authority. so if somebody was found not to be criminally liable, we're

taking a look at them to see if they violated navy ethics. we are -- we are stepping up ethics training for cos xos, people in responsibility. we upped our requirements in terms of husbanding these requirements that gma provided. we're auditing that on a routine basis. and one thing i do want to say though. is that, you could have all of the ethics training in the world. if somebody doesn't know it's wrong to steal somebody doesn't know it's wrong to take a bribe, they missed something at home. >> right. >> and what we have to do is set up a system that will catch them. and will hold them accountable. and you are right. it is up and down the chain. and i think that by the first

actions -- i not only took the actions to s tos to s tos to s tos to censure three admirals but also taken allegations on others. i don't know if those allegations are correct yet but florida in order to are protect them still. when we make a command, when we co- do something to a co or flag officer or officer we announce it. we try to be completely transparent about this. partly is because of what we can can -- the learning effect that will have on other people. but partly because people need to know what's happening in the service. we have not seen the numbers go up. but because we announce it, we tend to get more scrutiny.

>> well i appreciate that. i appreciate that you all have done this. i wanted you to know i'm very interested in how all of this shakes out. and if there is anything i can do to prod the u.s. attorney into doing justice in the most efficient and effective and time sensitive way, let me know. i don't have much time left. i do want to ask a couple of questions that you all can respond on the record for me at a later date because i don't want to hold up the senator from alaska. one is obviously the electronic capability platform as it relates to the growler. i know you testified last yeek admiral about the shortage of two to three squadrons. i'm very concerned about that. i would be concerned about that if these amazing aircraft were not built in st. louis because of the capability of the

electronic battle field that wii face now. and i would like you to respond to -- i'm worried that this joint study that's going on now won't be completed in time for us to really evaluate whether the needs jointly even exceed what you have said which is two to three squadrons in terms of a short fall. so they need on the record. and for you general dunford i'd like an updated on how the realigning of guam is going. this is something we've worked on in this committee and when i chaired readiness this is something we talked about a lot. if you would get to the committee and specifically to my office where we are with the realignment of guam and what the situation is on that, i who unvery appreciative. >> we'll get that information to you, senator. thank you. >> i know everybody's covered squegs race before i got here. but for what every other senator said about sequestration me too. thank you. >> senator sullivan. >> thank you mr. chairman and senator mccaskill.

i might get a highlight of your final question as actually one of my first questions. so gentlemen, i appreciate your service. and your frank testimony. general dunford, i also appreciate your highlighting the bang for the buck component of the marine corps' spending and war fighting capable. 6% of the budget 21% of the infantry and battalions. i think that is important for the american people to understand and recognize. i do want to follow on a number of the general questions from senator wicker hirono mccaskill. on the redeployment the pivot to asia in particular with regard to some of our ground forces. and ar as part of this committee's oversight responsibility i'll be heading to the region relatively soon to look at some of the issues in terms of cost training readiness, deployment

capabilities as it relates to the guam redeployment but also other issues. i would just like general dunford, from your perspective, how -- what are the issues we should be thinking of when we're looking at that? and are you satisfied with how that redeployment is going? as you probably know there is some concerns about that. and i think they have been consistent con soempbscerns over the years. >> it clearly is one of the more important issues we are grappling with right now is the pacific. i this i maybe break it into three pieces. first would be capacity. and for the united states marine corps what the rebalance means is 22,500 marines west of the date line. and we're there now. as we've drawn down the force in iraq and afghanistan we've reconstituted our unit deployment program and get the numbers back for our third marine expigsry force back to what they ought to be. the second piece is reposture of forces relieving pressure in okinawa and building up forces in guam and as the secretary

talked about forces in australia as well. so there is several pieces. the guam piece, the australia piece and then forces will go to ewokuni japan and others to hawaii as well. we're just getting started with in this year in president's budget '16. this is a training range in guam. we'll bring a total of 5,000 forces to guam eventually. we are rotating this spring another force of 1,000 marines into australia with an eventual plan to bring that up to 2,500. but i think in terms of the issues that you should be concerned about one scleerl the progress for the replacement facility and how that progresses in japan. we have to have that in order to leave the current air station and then make the redeployment to guam as well and properly support the marines that are in the area. the other piece is lift in the area. we're going better support the combatant commander's day to day

requirement bis disaggravating three myth out there. by moving to guam and moving to australia we get better coverage in the pacific on a day to day basis. on the contingency we've got the aggregate forces real critical things we're working on in the department of navy with the secretary and cno's help is to move marines around. the first is lift, to move marines around both for training and for contingency purposes. and as well the training facilities and quality of life support in guam over time. we're a lot further -- i've touched on this for the last ten years, senator and we're now finally starting to pour concrete actually move forward with the plan. i feel much better about it than i have in recent years. >> thank you. i want to follow on a question senator king had talked about in terms of the arctic. i'll be a little more blunt.

we have a dod 13-page strategy, and yet when you look at what the russians are doing in the arctic it's actually impressive. impressive but disturbing. i'm sure you gentlemen are somewhat familiar. general dempsey mentioned in testimony with the secretary of defense last week, the russians are looking at four new arctic combat brigades, as our u.s. army is thinking about pulling them out of the arctic. i think that would give vladimir putin a lot of joy. they are building new airfields 13 new airfields conducting long-range air patrols with their bombers off the coast of alaska. again, they have incredibly six new icebreakers coming, five more planned to add to their fleet of 40. meanwhile the united states is thinking about an additional one to our fleet of five.

does it concern you particularly when we talk about keeping ceilings open? there's going to be a very, very important ceiling open in the northwest arctic passage there and has the navy given any thought to this in terms of particularly adding icebreakers to the navy shipping fleet if we're going to be remotely remotely competitive with the russians in the arctic that they have stood up a new arctic command. and they are all in in the arctic. and it's not 13 pages of paper. it's concrete. it's ships. it's airfields. and we're thinking about removing forces from alaska. and i think we're number five or six in the world in terms of icebreakers. it seems to me a ludicrous situation that the navy should be concerned about. >> well, the purview of the icebreakers is the department of homeland security, the coast

guard. so if we split that then we'll be clobbering our strategy. although it sounds like a petty answer, you know somebody has to be in charge here. right now, it resides with the department of homeland security. am i concerned? yes, senator, i am concerned, because for us to take our combat ships up there, we have to work in conjunction with that and make sure that we can get up there as well. so we have to look at hardening of our hulls, and we look toward that. and it's not just surface ships that we tend to focus on, it's the aircraft and undersea domain. we've increased, i've districtrected our increase in capacity up there, and we're spending a little bit more. it's modest right now, with the norwegian, and canada, in that arena, to get used to operating up there. >> mr. secretary, any thoughts?

>> as the ice melts in the arctic our responsibilities clearly are going up. cno just issued the new navy road map for the arctic. we updated it. i stopped through the university at fairbanks, at the university of alaska fairbanks, in terms of it's not just platforms and it's not just capability it's what we're facing up there. we not only have less ice but it's freezing in different ways. so as we send our submarines up there, they don't have a lot of whole lot of clearance both above or below. and the ice is forming in different ways that are beginning to be a hazard to navigation. but as the cno said we are --

we're upping our exercises we're upping our research into the area. we're moving in terms of hardening hulls, in terms of war fighting capabilities. as you know, we have a s.e.a.l. training on kodiak specifically for cold weather combat. every s.e.a.l. goes through it, right after they come out of b.u.d.s. we are concerned about it. we're trying to move on it. but it, again, is one of these things that in this budget situation, you have to make some very, very hard choices. and we don't have the capability that we would like to have in the arctic. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> on behalf of chairman mccain, let me thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony and for their service to the nation

and the navy and the marine corps, and adjourn the hearing. the hearing is adjourned.

secretary of state john kerry was joined by defense secretary ashton carter today in a hearing looking at the administration's request for congress to authorize the use of military force against isis. we'll show you that hearing in its entirety tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. and we'd like to know, do you

think congress should authorize military force to be used in the fight against isis? logon to our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span to leave your thoughts or tweet us using the #c-span chat. here's what some of you are saying. jennifer writes, while nobody likes the idea of another war, the isis must be dealt with in a swift, decisive and permanent manner. we must not ignore or underestimate them, nor allow them to further spread and gain territory, funding all while continuing their murderous jihad. strike them with instant deadly force, then withdraw immediately. this week c-span's in new hampshire for road to the white house coverage as several potential republican candidates. on thursday we'll be in manchester with former texas governor rick perry. that's live at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. and thursday evening at 8:00 on

c-span, south carolina senator lindsey graham who spent two days in the granite state this week. friday night beginning at 7:45, live on c-span, we'll take you to house party in dover new hampshire, with former florida governor jeb bush. on saturday just after noon live on c-span wisconsin governor scott walker at a republican party grass roots workshop in concord. and sunday night at 9:35, on c-span, senator ted cruz, at the annual lincoln reagan dinner. road to the white house 2016, on c-span. keep track of the republican-led congress, and follow its new members through its first session. new congress, best access, on c-span c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. the federal communications commission voted 3-2 last month to allow local communities in north carolina and tennessee to provide broadband service to

their citizens. this discussion runs just shy of an hour. okay. we are all gathered. good morning. welcome to the february meeting of the federal communications commission. madam secretary, good morning to you. would you please introduce today's agenda. >> today you will hear two items for your consideration.

first, you will consider a memorandum, opinion and order addressing petitions filed by two municipal broadband providers asking that the commission preempt provisions of state law in north carolina and tennessee that restrict the abilities of communities to provide broadband service. second you will consider a report and order on demand, declaratory ruling and order that response to the verizon court demand and adopt strong rules on the open internet, grounded in multiple sources of the commission's legal authority to ensure that americans reap the economic social and civic benefits of an open internet today, and into the future. the first item will be presented by the wire line competition bureau, and the office of general counsel. julie veach will give the introduction.

>> ms. veach? >> good morning. >> good morning. >> i'm pleased to present to you a memorandum granting in most respects petitions for preemption provided by the power board of chattanooga tennessee, and the city of willson, north carolina. epb asked the commission to preempt tennessee and north carolina's statutory restrictions on the provision of broadband service by municipalities, so that they will be able to expand and bring state of the art broadband to surrounding communities. it's no exaggeration to say that broadband internet access affects all aspects of daily life for individuals and the communities where they live. it affects education health care public safety, and drives local economic growth and the ability to compete in the global economy. the item before you will take an

additional step toward ensuring that broadband is deployed to all americans on a reasonable and timely basis. with me at the table are john and madelyn of the office of general counsel, and gregory kwan. i particularly want to thank the other staff of the office of general counsel and the wire line competition bureau who aren't here at the table for their tireless work on this item. greg will now present the items. >> thank you, julie. mr. chairman, commissioners, the grants are a significant part for a petition for preemption in the city of wilson, north carolina. these petitions are about getting better broadband to more people. the petition has raised issues now before us because they are operating state of the art broadband networks and would like to leverage these networks

to expand to provide more services to neighboring communities that are requesting it. on the screen you will see where epb's network is located. as you will see epb's network is an island of competitive high-speed broadband service surrounded by areas for the most part with single or no provider of advanced broadband. and here on the screen again is wilson's network. as you can see, it is a similar situation. an island of competition surrounded by a sea of little to no options for world class competitive broadband services. both networks are authorized to provide service in their states and would like to expand their service to serve their neighbors in nearby communities. but they cannot. in their petitions they have asked us to preempt in each state restrictive state laws that serve as barriers to their

expansion. petitioners assert that absent these laws they're willing and otherwise able to expand and that their services are in high demand. epb, a municipal electric service provider deployed a gigabyte broadband server in conjunction with a grid. this service has generated significant benefits to epb's service territory including economic growth and improvements in education and library services. just to name a few. epb has received numerous requests to expand, however, they cannot because they are restricted by state law requiring them to provide broadband service only within its electric service territory. wilson also municipal electric service provider offers gig a bit internet access in wilson county, north carolina. its decision to provide broadband service in significant part by community dissatisfaction by preexisting

services that were available. wilson's high-quality broadband service has generated significant benefits for the community. also like epb, wilson has received numerous requests to expand into surrounding communities. but like epb, state law restricts them from expanding its network. the item before you would preempt the geographic restriction in tennessee, and most of the north carolina statute as it applies to municipal broadband services. this will be done under our authority pursuant to section 706. in doing so, the item would remove barriers to prevent epb and wilson from expanding their networks. by preempting these laws we are allowing communities to choose how to ensure their citizens have access to the best broadband services available, along with all the benefits that come along with it. we as a practical matter are letting communities who are already providing service to their citizens to choose to serve their neighbors.

in section 706 the congress has charged the commission with encouraging the deployment of the telecommunications capabilities to all americans on a reasonable and timely basis. the commission's recent 2015 broadband progress report, however, found that this goal was not being met. when the commission makes such a finding, section 706 expressly directs the commission to take immediate action to accelerate broadband deployment by removing various broadband infrastructure investments and promoting competition. the item evaluates the specific statutory provisions at issue and concludes with a few exceptions that they are a barrier -- that they are barriers to additional broadband investment and competition in wilson as well as other municipalities in tennessee and north carolina. the item concludes that the commission has authority to preempt these state restrictions

pursuant to section 076 of the 1996 act as well as sections 1 and 2 of the communications act. in order to remove barriers the broadband investment will promote competition. while the item preempts tennessee and north carolina state law does not compel any action by any entity. instead, it takes affirmative steps to ensure that local governments are positioned to choose whether or not to build broadband networks or not as they determine what is best -- what best meets the needs of their communities. in conclusion, the bureau recommends adoption of this item and we request editorial privileges. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner clyburn? >> thank you. for those in this room and for others live streaming, it may be hard to imagine just how many people lack the capacity to access the internet. millions are trapped in digital darkness. robbed of the opportunity to

telecommute in the wake of this winter weather's madness, or keep up with classroom studies due to the ever-mounting number of snow days and delayed start times, and apparently lost voices. for scores of americans the choice of one let alone multiple broadband networks is a dream deferred. and the promise of universal access remains unkept. today's vote seeks to draw a line in the sand once and for all, by removing barriers to the deployment and fostering competition consistent with the fcc's core mission and values. what has been regrettably lost in the thunderous debate, whether constructing municipal broadband networks is a good idea, or if one system or another is considered a, quote unquote, success, is the only question that really matters. are these laws barriers to

broadband infrastructure investment and competition. the tennessee and north carolina petitions present this compound question to the commission and today we conclude that the answer is yes. there are provisions that limit service by municipalities to specific areas but not others even if the local governmental entity has a preexisting telecommunications network in that region. and just what has been the result? certain communities have the capacity to achieve limitless outcomes, while others a few yards from town are stuck in a digital desert, deprived of the means to close persistent opportunity gaps. duly elected officials armed with the desire to address these concerns should not be denied the ability to respond to the infrastructure needs of their communities, particularly when

the private sector has opted not to do so. when a community is so desperate, that it literally begs private companies to come in and serve, then it's turned down in a cavalier and dismissive fashion by enterprises seemingly best suited to provide broadband to their citizens, then the option for that municipality to act on its own should not be foreclosed. sadly, opportunities are being foreclosed far too often, leaving citizens without broadband, and leaders with few meaningful ways to address their needs. fortunately, we are poised to adopt an item that grants relief from barriers erected in the provisions of the laws of two to address any concerns that may come before us on a case-by-case basis. and we are not alone. members of congress led by

senator corey booker and co-sponsored by senators clair mccaskill, ed markey angus king introduced the community broadband act of 2015 which seeks to remove state barriers for constructing municipal broadband networks. it is unfortunate however that this issue has become a partisan one as of late, because it was not always that way. indeed, in 2005 an effort by senators john mccain lindsey graham, norm coleman, russ feingold and the late frank lautenberg sought to block states from restricting local governments' ability to provide internet service through the community broadband act of 2005. when the bill was reintroduced in 2007 senators late senator ted stevens olympia snow

co-joined as co-sponsors. across the hall a house version of the bill. co-sponsored by representatives fred upton and rick bauscher. but what is striking is that the language in all of these bills is nearly identical. the only thing that has changed is the lack of bipartisan support. so i am hopeful that in this time in time we will once again unite across party lines to endorse measures that will break down barriers to infrastructure investment, so that no american, no matter where they live no matter their economic status, will be perpetually stuck in digital darkness. i want to thank the wire line competition bureau for the work on this item and the chairman for his leadership on this

issue. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner rosenworcel? >> american enterprise and self-sufficiency are the stuff of legend. but when we really thrive is when we find common cause and come together to get things done. for our forbearers, this meant everything from holding barn-raisings to building bridges to setting up cooperatives to bring electricity to our nation's farms. but infrastructure challenges like these are not limited to the past. we have communities that face them today. with broadband. broadband, after all, is more than a technology it's a platform for opportunity. in urban areas, rural areas, and everything in between, high-speed service is now necessary to attract and sustain

businesses, expand civic services, and secure a viable future. without it no community has a fair shot in the digital age. i learned this firsthand last year, when i visited lafayette, louisiana. deep in the heart of the area where acadia was born, i got to sit down over some awfully good gumbo with parrish president joey durel. i learned about the struggle to bring high-speed service to his community. it took time, and tenacity. it was not easy. this was not for the faint of heart. but eventually lafayette did it. and brought lightning-fast broadband service to town through its municipal utility. now, the story in lafayette is similar to the one that we discuss here in chattanooga, tennessee, and wilson county,

north carolina. they did something that was fundamentally american. when existing providers failed to meet their needs, they came together as a community and they built it themselves. as a result, the electric power board of the city of chattanooga now offers gigabit service to all of its customers and the residents of wilson county have access to a municipal network that also supports gigabyte speed. both municipal providers want to extend their broadband offerings to other consumers nearby, in communities where the speeds are slower and the competitive choice more limited. so today we tear down barriers that prevent them from expanding their broadband service, and offering more consumers more competitive choice. so this has my full support.

>> thank you, commissioner. broadband barn-raising. >> i like it. >> what a great image. and there can be nothing more fundamental in america as you express. >> in 1999, tennessee authorized municipal electric systems to provide internet service within the boundaries of their service areas. the legislation passed the tennessee general assembly 96-0. and the tennessee senate 32-0. each body was under the control of the democratic party. tennessee's republican governor then signs the bill into law. today, however, three elected officials in washington, d.c. decide to rewrite tennessee law on a party line vote. specifically this order attempts to empower tennessee municipal electric systems to offer broadband service outside

of their service areas. authority which those systems have never possessed. the order doesn't contest that tennessee may prohibit municipal electric systems from offering internet service all together. instead, it claims that tennessee may not condition such authority on electric systems, only serving customers within their service areas. in other words once the people's elected representatives allow municipalities to offer any internet service at all, the camel's nose owns the tent. this decision, along with the decision to preempt a similar north carolina law, is odd. and unlawful. judicial precedent makes clear that the fcc simply does not have the power to do this. in taking this step, the fcc usurps fundamental aspects of stave sovereignty and it disrupts the balance of power between the federal government

and state government that lies at the core of our constitution al system of governments. whatever the merits of any particular municipal broadband project, and to be clear, on this question, i take no position deferring to affected voters and elected officials i do not believe this agency has the legal power to preempt. i, therefore, dissent. let's begin with the one key point that today's order does not dispute. the fcc cannot preempt state law that flat-out prohibits municipalities from offering broadband service. why? the answer begins with constitutional law 101. our constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government. they are separate sovereigns. the distribution of sovereignty known as federalism is the defining feature of the relationship between the federal and state governments.

however, the relationship between a state and its political subdivisions like counties and cities is an entirely different animal. legally speaking, municipalities exist as arms of the state. as the u.s. supreme court has explained, municipalities are, quote, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the state as may be entrusted to them in the state's absolute discretion. because a municipality is merely a department of the state, it follows that the state may withhold, may grant or may withdraw powers and privileges to that municipality as it sees fit. so what does all of this mean for purposes of today's order? well, first, as a result of our system of dual sovereignty, the supreme court has advised that any federal legislation threatening to trench on the state's arrangements for organizing their own governments, should be treated with great skepticism. specifically, in the case of gregory versus ashcroft, the

supreme court held that if congress wishes to allow the federal government to preempt states' constitutional powers it must make its intent unmistakably clear. this is something that has come to be known as the clear statement rule. second because municipalities are creations of the state any federal attempt to interfere with a state governance of its municipalities necessarily con strains the traditional state authority to order its governments. indeed the d.c. circuit court of appeals says interfering with a state and subdivisions strikes near the heart of state sovereignty. each of these two points applies to this order. first, any attempt by the fcc to preempt a state statute prohibiting municipalities from offering broadband service would trigger the clear statement rule. the supreme court case of nixon versus missouri municipality

league is squarely on point. in that case, the court confronted the question of whether the fcc could use the act to preserve a missouri law that barred municipalities from providing telecommunications services. in an opinion written by justice suitor, the supreme court concluded that missouri's ability to determine whether its municipalities could provide such services was part and parcel of the traditional state authority to order its government. led by justice suitor the court decided that the clear state rule applied. and second, it is clear that any commission attempt at preemption would not satisfy the clear statement rule. now, the nixon case, again, is instructive. there, missouri municipalities argued as i've said that section 253 empowered the commission to preempt the missouri statute at issue. but, despite the fact that section 253-a specifically contemplates the preemption of

state laws, and despite the fact that section 253-b directs the fcc of prohibiting the offering of telecommunications services, the supreme court still concluded that sections 253 did not contain the requisite clear statement necessary to allow the fcc to preempt. now, in this case, the commission relies on section 706 of the telecommunications act of 1996 not 253 for the authority to preempt. but in section 253, it could not clear the high hurdle presented by gregory section 706 falls even further short of the mark. for while section 253 at least expressly mentions preemption twice, the section 706 makes no reference to it whatsoever. notwithstanding all of this, the fcc maintains it can preempt the

tennessee and north carolina laws at issue here. why? according to the order, the clear statement rule doesn't apply because those states have only imposed restrictions on municipal broadband, not banned it all together. but what difference does this make? a state doesn't forfeit its core sovereign power to its political subdivisions, merely because it grants them certain powers and not others. as the supreme court has held, quote, the number, number and territory over which they shall be exercised lies in the absolute discretion of the state. a state doesn't lose that absolute discretion simply by giving a municipality some authority, rather than all, to offer broadband service. unfortunately for the commission, all the lipstick in the world can't disguise this pig. take for example the geographic restrictions set forth in the tennessee and north carolina laws at issue here.

these geographic restrictions go to the heart of a state's traditional authority to order its governments. indeed, the commission's claim to the contrary is absurd. a critical component of the state's ability to order its government is the ability to organize its own municipal subdivisions. and a critical component of organizing those subdivisions is the power to define each one's geographic reach. the very essence of a subdivision is the idea that the locality will govern in a limited geographic area within the state. thus when the commission tries to preempt tennessee and north carolina laws in this context, it is directly interfering with the core aspect of state sovereignty, namely the ability of those states to organize their own governments, and to determine the territory over which municipalities' powers shall be exercised. this hypothetical illustrates why. suppose that the federal government attempted to tell tennessee that it could not limit the city of chattanooga's

police department to enforcing the law in chattanooga. instead, once the state of tennessee authorized the city of chattanooga to have a police department, it was required to let chattanooga's police officers have free rein to patrol from memphis to knoxville. would anyone seriously contend that such an edict from the federal government wouldn't interfere with tennessee's ability to order its subdivisions? of course not. there are other problems with the fcc's contention that it can preempt state restrictions on broadband projects. to begin with this yields an exceptionally strange result. while a state would be free to ban municipal broadband projects outright, it would be forbidden from imposing more modest restrictions on such projects. in other words, the most severe state law restrictions on municipal broadband projects, prohibitions, could not be preempted, but less stringent restrictions could be preempted.

i doubt that congress intended a convoluted framework in the act of 1996. this could lead to perverse consequences. for example, if a state cannot authorize municipalities to offered broadband service with conditions, it might well be less likely to do so at all. an outcome i doubt the order supporters would welcome. moreover, the fcc draws an artificial and untenable line between state prohibitions on municipal broadband projects and state restrictions of such projects. consider a state law providing that municipalities were authorized to operate municipal broadband projects beginning on january 1st, 2020. would that condition as to timing be a restriction that the fcc could preempt using section 706, or would the law be a pro prohibition on projects through 2019 that it could not preempt?

who knows. in short the heart of the commission's analysis rests not on a principal distinction, but semantics. no matter what word the commission employs, through preemption the fcc is attempting to provide municipalities in tennessee and north carolina with authorities that their state governments have not given them. but it gets even worse for the fcc's position. i doubt that the section 706 gives the commission the authority to preempt any state laws, even those governing private actors. there are many reasons for this that i discuss in my written statements. but here i'll only mention the provision statuetory history. congress did not intend to give the commission authority to preempt state laws. when the united states senate in 1995 passed the bill that became the telecommunications act of 1996, that bill contained a precursor to section 706-b. that precursor authorized the

fcc to determine that prodband was not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to preempt state commissions that failed to act to ensure the availability of advanced telecommunications ability to all americans. but congress ultimately decided to grant -- not to grant this pre em tory power to the fcc. it eliminated that language from the final version of the bill. the order's response to this inconvenient truth is to claim that the language regarding preemption was simply moved to the legislative history. this argument is remarkably misleading. to be sure the conference report does describe the senate provision as stating that the commission may preempt state commissions that they failed to act to ensure reasonable and timely access. that was certainly an accurate statement of fact as to the senate provision. but that conference report goes on to say that the senate provision was adopted with a modification.

and what was that modification? the language regarding preemption was removed. put simply, neither the text of the statute nor the legislative history discussing the final version of that text provides support for the argument that section 706 gives the fcc the power to preempt state law. in conclusion the elected representatives of north carolina and tennessee have chosen to grant municipalities in the respective states limited abilities to offer broadband services. they have allowed municipalities to provide service only within the specified geographic area. reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of such policies. some people believe that the conditions imposed by tennessee and north carolina are too restrictive. other people believe municipal governments shouldn't be in the broadband business at all. as i've said earlier i will leave that debate to others to affected voters and elected officials in the many states.

what is clear, however, is that the fcc does not have the legal authority to override the decisions made by tennessee and north carolina. under the law, it is up to the people of those states and their elected representatives not the federal communications commission, to decide whether and to what extent to allow municipalities to run broadband projects. today's order is therefore unlawful. during the clinton administration the fcc called one city's request for preemption, quote extraordinary step that infringed a state sovereign power to regulate its own municipalities, unquote. in 1997, the fcc stayed within its legal bounds and refused to take that extraordinary step. unfortunately, the agency does not show the same restraint today. this decision violates the constitutional principles that lie at the heart of our form of government. the fcc treats tennessee and north carolina as mere appendages of the federal

government rather than the separate sovereigns that they are. for all of these reasons, i dissent. >> commissioner o'rielly? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this order highlights the unprecedented lengths that the commission is willing to go in undermining the free market system, the federal statute, the u.s. constitution, and common sense in order to try to dictate where, when and how broadband is provided in this country. the commission is just about to vote to rewrite the communications act to assume vast new regulatory authority over broadband providers in the next item. and here the commission has the arrogance to try to rewrite state laws as well. the order is both legally infirm and bad public policy and i cannot support it. let me start by expressing my profound opposition to the offering of broadband or any communication service by a government entity. in this case a municipality. some people like to talk about the principles of network compacts. but this issue goes to more of a

core important principle the foundations of the u.s. economy, and free enterprise. for historians you remember how government involvement was debated and dismissed long ago in many other sectors, such as banking. while other countries like cuba, china, russia, and venezuela have effectively nationalized private companies, the bedrock of american capitalism is private enterprise, free from government manipulation as a market entrance. if there's a market need an individual with a dream and a propensity for risk will enter to provide service. it is not the government's role to offer services instead of or in competition with private actors. separately, i would like to clarify any misperception that i'm against preemption as a general matter. i support the basic premise of federalism, i embrace the realities and benefits of a communication marketplace that does not recognize political borders of yesterday.

for instance i have no difficulties preempting state and local restrictions on wireless tower antenna siting. i've also worked extensively in my career to preempt state and local burdens on the offering of internet applications such as voip. so it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that i firmly believe that the internet is an interstate service, while making a finding under section 1 of the communications act that services interstate is not sufficient particularly when preemption would trench the state arrangement for conducting their own governments. the missing ingredient that is essential to trigger preemption is clear congressional direction via the statute. if congress enacts legislation to preempt state law, as my colleague has highlighted a number of bills that have been introduced over the years, to further municipal broadband, then i will implement it post-haste. this key ingredient is not

present here. the order lies on an illogical and tortured reading of the act to assert authority. i previously expressed my views on this topic and they haven't changed. the fcc claims its authority under section 706 is not unbound, because it may act only within the limits of its ever broadening subject matter jurisdiction. and its actions must be designed to achieve a particular purpose to deploy the advanced communications capability to all americans. but as judge silverman commented on the very phrase, quote, this is an almost meaningless limitation. any regulation in the fcc's judgment would arguably make the internet better, could increase demand. i do not see how this limitation prevents 706 from being carte blanche to issue any regulation that the commission might believe to be in the public interest, end quote.

in this item we see the prediction come true. indeed anything that may incent the use of the internet now apparently is fair game for fcc regulation. yet even if i believe that section 706 provided some general authority, which i do not, and nor does section 1 of the communications act it certainly does not contain the clear statement that the supreme court has said is a prerequisite for preempting a state's control of its municipalities. 706 contemplates a joint federal/state role in broadband deployment. we're told that the supreme court decisions don't apply here for two reasons. one, this is an area that there has been a history of significant federal presence, and two, the laws issued here do not constitute flat band on a provision of municipal broadband. both arguments are unavailing, and therefore the presumption against preemption must apply here. first, the order broadly defines

the area of significant federal presence as interstate communications policy. however, the petitions are primarily focused on the narrow question of where service may be provided, and that is a core function of the states. as the state of tennessee noted the commission may regulate the permission of a telecommunication service that a local government unit is authorized by state law to provide, the commission cannot expand the territorial jurisdiction of a local government unit since any such action would exceed the powers of a federal agency and manifestly infringe on a sovereignty of a state. in other words, the commission cannot mandate that a state authorize a municipality to offer broadband. it's just that simple. furthermore, the types of restrictions under scrutiny are not necessarily specific to communications policy. for example, states may require referendum on a variety of spending other matters. the fact that a state may

require one for municipal broadband does not necessarily mean it's being imposed to affect the state's communication policy preferences. indeed public hearings and referendum have a long and well regarded history in the american political tradition. moreover, even restrictions that seem specific to communications policy do not necessarily conflict with the commission's role in regulating interstate communications. for example, restrictions truly designed to prevent cross-subsidization can be consistent with existing communications policies, and requirements for business planning and feasibility studies are similar to fcc rules that ensure that its own funding recipients are technically and financially qualified. are we really striking down a requirement that a municipality have a cogent business plan? second the order turns precedence on its head to conclude that the commission has the authority to preempt any restriction that falls short of

an outright ban. finding that the state provisions at issue here are not flat band, the order tosses the tennessee provision line by line to the north carolina statute to eliminate what it sees fit. in doing so the order ignores how both the city of wilson and the state of north carolina interpret their own statute, and the relief petitioners actually sought. in essence the overly broad extension of this item would overrule certain sound restrictions justified by the use of taxpayer funding such as public hearings, and voting requirements, even though when i met with the city of wilson, they said they could live with them. let me repeat that. the city of wilson was completely agreeable to most of the restrictions and previously complied with them but somehow we need to preempt them. moreover, the order is downright hostile to states accusing them of passing laws that allegedly but do not actually protect

taxpayer risk. it seems no protection enacted by a state no matter how beneficial the taxpayers could survive the fcc's unvanished skepticism. the only restriction that may survive under the commission's reading of section 706 is a state law imposing a flat ban. which seems short sighted and counterproductive. the states concerned about the risks of broadband are to prohibit it altogether rather than prohibit it under carefully tailored conditions that will be successful, and not a burden on taxpayers. i'm deeply troubled by the policy implications of this order. municipal broadband has a history of overpromising and underdelivering, leaving taxpayers at risk. we've seen examples where a municipal broadband project that failed, did so due to competition, poor planning or unethical practices. that's the very scenario and conduct that states are trying to remedy by requiring a right

of first refusal to broadband providers, feasibility studies, public hearings and referenda. finally, i have to wonder if all of this is for naught. municipal broadband providers like all other, circumstances isps would be regulated by these restrictions. in their own words, it will undermine the business model that supports our networks raises our costs and hinders our ability to further deploy broadband. it is an odd result indeed to preempt a number of state rules in the name of removing barriers to broadband deployment only to reimpose extensive new barriers in their place. in sum i find it appalling that we would overwrite democratically enacted common-sense protections for consumers, especially in the absence of clear direction from congress. i must dissent. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. i think that for those of you in the audience we should make the appropriate note that i think for the first time the 21st century has come to the ds here, because commissioner o'rielly was reading all of that off his ipad, where the rest of us are dealing here with mr. guttenberg's ideas. [ laughter ] you know, there are a few irrefutable truths about broadband. one is, you can't say that you're for broadband and then turn around and endorse limits on who can offer it. another is that you can't say that i want to follow the explicit instructions of congress to, quote remove barriers, the specific language congress has told us to do to remove barriers to infrastructure investment, but endorse barriers on infrastructure investment.

i think that they say in north carolina, that dog don't hunt. you can't say you're for competition, but deny local elected officials the right to offer competitive choices. it's important to recognize what we're voting on here today. this item is responding to two specific petitions from two cities. the ruling is enforceable only on behalf of the petitioners, and their states. i do hope however, that this attention does shine some light on the fact that there is an ongoing effort to impose restrictions on what elected

local officials can do at the request of their people, and that it calls out the activities of incumbents to block consumer choice and competition through legislation. the bottom line of these matters is that some states have created thickets of red tape designed to limit competition. we're not talking here about the state's authority to determine whether a community can offer broadband to its citizens. in both north carolina and in tennessee, the state has given the localities that authority. but that grant of authority has been undermined by state-imposed bureaucratic red tape

requirements. and what we're doing today is cutting away that red tape consistent with congress' instruction to, quote encourage the deployment of broadband, and, quote promote competition in broadband. so while we've heard a lot of talk about legal issues up here today, and certainly everybody has their own interpretations and is entitled to their own interpretations, what we too often lose sight of in our discussions here in washington, is that these issues that we're talking about have a very human face. when local leaders have their hands tied by bureaucratic state

red tape, local businesses and residents are the ones who suffer the consequences. let's look at a few of those faces. jeff wilson from holly springs north carolina, is with us. jeff, where are you? stand up. jeff can tell you about the health care company in his city that relocated to another area because of inadequate access to broadband, and the constraints that it put on that company and their ability to do basic things like backup. they were simply unwilling to lose business because they were stuck in the digital slow lane, and so as jeff tells us they moved their operations elsewhere

to the detriment of the citizens of holly springs. matt schuler is here from -- there he is -- from highlands, north carolina. matt can tell you about how local leaders saw the internet as a way to bring economic opportunity to this town with about 1,000 inhabitants. but the red tape of the state law stopped them from being able to do so. thank you, matt for telling that story, putting that face on it. richard thompson is here. richard? he can talk about the frustration of living only three-quarters of a mile from chattanooga's gigabyte network, but still being in the internet dark ages. mr. thornton has to pay $316 a month for a collage of services

that include two mobile hot spots that require careful monitoring of his data consumption, and don't deliver at the kind of speeds that epb delivers. plus satellite tv, plus phone service. yet, less than a mile away gigabyte service is available with tv and phone for $133. and the provider of that service would like to extend their lines to provide mr. thornton with the service that he seeks. but they're prohibited from doing so by tennessee's bureaucratic requirements. eva van hook is here. eva? eva's from bradley county, tennessee. she can tell you, she's told me she can tell you how she had to drive her son to their church,

or her son can drive himself, to watch online material that is assigned as a part of his high school curriculum. she has to go 12 miles so that her son can see the biology videos that he needs to have for the next day's classes. because state rules keep her from getting the faster and cheaper internet service that chattanooga epb wants to offer. eva, thanks for joining us. now, the commission respects the important role of state governments in our federal system. and we don't take lightly the matter of preempting state laws. but it is a well-established

principle that state laws that limit the exercise of federal policy may be subject to preemption in appropriate circumstances. the the human faces of those who are condemned to second-rate broadband are a message to all of us and in these matters our instructions from congress are clear. so let us be clear. this decision is pro broadband. this decision is pro competition. and this decision is for the right of americans through their elected local officials to make their own decision about their broadband future. i want to thank the staff for all the yeoman's work, hard work that you put in to this issue.

and we will now go to a vote. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed. >> no. >> the ayes have it. the item is carried. [ cheers and applause ] and editorial privileges are granted. >> objection, mr. chairman. >> madam secretary. sorry. >> i don't support editorial privileges on this item. >> we have an objection to editorial privileges. so note ppd. >> secretary of state john kerry was joined by defense secretary ashton carter today in a hearing looking at the request to congress to authorize military use against isis. we'll show you that hearing in its entirety tonight at 8:00

eastern on c-span but we wanted to show you this. secretary kerry was greeted by code pink protesters at today's hearing. here's how he responded. >> when i came here last time, i mentioned that -- >> the american people are speaking out -- >> the committee will be in order. look, we appreciate -- >> another endless war and killing of innocent people. >> okay. if this happens again i would ask the police to escort immediately people out of the room. >> creating more terrorism. killing more innocent people. >> killing more innocent people. i wonder how our journalists who were beheaded and the pilot who was fighting for freedom who was burned alive, what they would have to say to their efforts to

protect innocent people. >> secretary kerry from earlier today. and we want to know do you think congress should authorize military force to be used in the fight against ice snis log on to our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span to leave rur thoughts or tweet us using the hashtag c-span chat. here's what some of you are saying. john writes no, not without a named enemy and an effective strategy to defeat muslim terrorists. obama will never go into syria, the proxy of iran. chris feels differently, saying "yes, it's now or later." >> this week c-span's in new hampshire for road to the white house coverage of several potential republican presidential candidates. on thursday we'll be in manchester for a politics and eggs event with former texas governor rick perry. that's live at 8:30 a.m. eastern

on c-span 2 and thursday evening at 8:00 on c-span south carolina senator lindsay graham, who spent two days in the granite state this week. friday night beginning at 7:45 live on c-span we'll take you to house party in dover, new hampshire with former florida governor jeb bush. on saturday just after noon live on c-span wisconsin governor scott walker at a republican party grassroots workshop in concord. and sunday night at 9:35 on c-span senator ted cruz at the annual lincoln-reagan dinner. road to the white house 2016 on c-span. >> the supreme court heard oral argument earlier this month on whether police can conduct a warrantless search of hotel guest registries. the case, city of los angeles versus patel involves a city law that allows police to inspect hotel and motel guest registries at any time without the need for a warrant. city officials argue that the law is needed to allow police to

investigate crimes like sex trafficking and prostitution. the lower court sided with hotels and motels ruling that there's an expectation of private on their guest registries under the fourth amendment. the supreme court decision's expected by the end of the term in june. this oral argument is an hour. >> we'll hear argument first this morning in case 131175, the city of los angeles versus patel. mr. rosen krants. >> thank you, mr. chief justice and may it please the court. this case is about whether to deprive scores of cities of one of the most effective tools that they have developed to deter human trafficking, prostitution and drug crimes that have seized the ground in america's hotels and motels. the ordinance in question is the least intrusive inspection

scheme that this court has ever encountered. it is limited to showing the police a single book containing only information that the hotels transcribed specifically for the city and that they've been turning over to the police by operation of law for 150 -- >> first two questions. is the information that they've been keeping for 150 years the same? because looking at the requirements, the early information was basically somebody's name. and i'm not even sure their address. but today's information has or today's information has requirements the federal law doesn't permit to be disclosed. like driver's license. credit card information. federal law says you can't disclose that information.

so isn't there a difference? it's not the same tradition over 150 years. >> you are right, your honor, that the amount of information that's increased. the privacy interests, however, have been pretty much the same. it was name and address and the rate that they were charged and so forth. that is the information that the hotels have argued is the most private. >> all of the things you say are the most effective tool for trafficking, prostitution, child molestation, none of that sounds like it's the purpose of the search is administrative. >> well it is administrative, your honor. and to understand why it's administrative, you have to focus first on the target. the target here is not people who are accused of crimes. the target is the motels and the hotels who are required to keep records to record information. and why are they required to record the information? for the deterrent purpose.

and the deterrent purpose more specifically is that criminals do not like to register. they do not like to record their -- >> mr. rosenkrantz, are you saying, then that the police can do this can request these records on demand, and they don't have to have any reason at all, no reasonable cause no probable cause nothing because the privilege is to deter people from staying in hotels who might do bad things? so nothing like a reasonable suspicion requirement. >> that's correct, your honor. it's the same rationale this court adopted in berg dwlaerks frequent unannounced spot inspections are necessary in order to achieve that deterrent purpose, that if the hotels do not record all the names and more specifically they record most names but not the names of the guests they know are

criminals, there's no way to know unless you have this frequent unannounced inspection that someone is missing. so there's a real necessity here as there was in berger and in biswell. >> can you tell me how many prosecutions there have been? and i use the word both criminally and civil. for the failure to register people. >> there have been numerous prosecutions. i can't tell you how many. the complaints in this case which are the beginning of the joint appendix refer to the plaintiffs having been prosecuted multiple times or fined for failure -- for failing to keep the records. and i do want to underscore this point about necessity. the problem is not that the registrars are empty. the problem is that the hotels decline to record the names of those who they know are criminals, or the motels do. >> but that has nothing to do

with the free right to search. those people who are refusing to do it are going to refuse to do it. a recordkeeping requirement has no constitutional challenge. what does is the unfettered access to that record. >> agreed, your honor. let me just break it down. >> those people who don't want to do it aren't going to do it anyway. >> that's right. those people who dent want to do it go somewhere else or don't commit their crimes. but if they are forced to do it which is to say the motel won't let them stay there unless they register, then they will not commit those crimes in the motels and the only way to make sure that the motels are enforcing that obligation is to descend on them without notice, as justice ginsberg was saying, and frequently so that they never know when the police are going to come. why? to make sure that they are indeed recording the information