if regulators approve this acquisition, all that remains is the end game with the remaining carriers patiently wait their turn to be acquired or bled dry by the biggest two carriers. when i began in the late 1980's, there was a local duopoly in every market. consumers have two choices. carriers have no market incentive to innovate or improve service offerings. this is remembered of a larger customer bills. in a duopoly, the market can reach equilibrium and of both providers are happy, that is how things will stay. by the end of the late 1990's, the u.s. wireless industry began to awaken when a new group of carriers entered this market

with pcs networks and launched the competitive era. because competition was important at that time, the fcc auctioned -- built networks and attracted customers and generally disrupted established markets. suddenly, local duopolies were forced to respond. new coverage areas, better customer service, and more innovative offerings. in order to acquire and retain customers, they have to get creative. we did several things that were groundbreaking such as free nights and weekends, free incoming calls and unlimited calling. we had not done these things because we did not have to in ies.era of local duopol those who work the hardest and were innovative were the ones who were rewarded.

all that started to change in the middle of the last decade. it was around that time we began to see how empty dempsey being pieced together again. through unfettered mergers and acquisitions, it was a matter of time before ma bell reconstituted herself. it has lath to less choice and abuse of power to prevent competition. at&t has done just that through exclusive deals on handsets. also, they have done it by withholding from the agreements and by leveraging its control over device and infrastructure members to balkanize the spectrum. regulators were asleep at the wheel much of the last decade. now we are at a decision point.

as everyone analyzes this aspect, policy makers have this question. are we entering the era of the nationwide duopoly? are we going to provide a landscape in which other -- a second competitive era might blossom. there is no third option. at&t will be allowed to acquire t-mobile paving the way to acquire sprint and a wireless duopoly in place or will it not? if this is approved, policymakers must begin preparations to regulate every aspect of the day today business of the demopolis -- duopolists. this is why it is in the best interest to chart a competitive course. failure -- it is simple and critical as that. in closing, the very good news

is that this takeover can be stopped and you can lay the foundation for a new era of wireless competition, an era where jobs are traded throughout the land. a truly competitive era when mines are stimulated to deliver broadband wireless networks, high-quality, high speed networks with the ubiquity that the people of our nation deserve and demand. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. i would like to set the tone for my remarks with a brief video. >> where did you find it? >> at&t networks. you can find it practically

anywhere. >> [inaudible] video chat without wi-fi. t-mobile. >> the commercial illustrates the situation. a vibrant national market in which they feel free to sell high-tech services while making fun of their competitors. if the merger comes to pass, the wireless market will be transformed into something different. we will go back to the days when this phone was in use. only two companies rolled the cell phone market resulting in higher prices for consumers and little innovation. in 1993, the year after this found came to market, congress empowered the fcc to create more competition. that policy worked. prices dropped and innovation

exploded, consumers benefit. industry consolidation has eroded that competition. if this deal goes through, that era will come to an end. consumers know this already. almost 5000 individuals have written to the fcc in their own words to object to the combination of the no. 2 and #four wireless carriers. t-mobile customers are our -- are irate. a poll shows that 77% or 7300 are opposed to the deal after a couple days. after it was announced, people in mailed unsolicited asking what they can do to stop the transaction from going forward. more than 1000 people have signed are petition. these are not astroturf campaigns. they are seeking to preserve competition in a competitor that rates higher than at&t. this -- if this is approved, to

vertically controlled companies will control the market. sprint will become a takeover target. we should not go back to the future, back to duopoly. monopoly is what would happen in the u.s. post merger. gsm and set manufacturers would be forced to negotiate with the new company. there would be subject to a limited non-competitive markets. while t-mobile was the first to sell the android operating system, at&t has a history of blocking innovative applications. each benefit could be done without removing a low-cost competitor. it could stop operating three different types of networks. the inefficient system which results in 70% to 90% of the spectrum being an darrius. the the news is the top third of

its spectrum. allowing them to buy t-mobile to in -- improve their networks what reward at&t for failing to invest adequately. if at&t wants to bring service to rural areas, it is free to do so and it could do so now without any constraint. there are no spectrum shortages in rural america. they spent $39 billion on the merger, money that could be spent investing and bringing better service to more americans. if at&t wants to create jobs, it can do so without buying out a lower-cost competitor. one would be hard-pressed to find a merger that resulted in job growth. this would be no different. workers will be let go. this transaction is a pivotal moment in u.s. antitrust law. if that means anything, this classic merger of one company buying out of a smaller competitor in the same business must be denied. there are no conditions or

divestitures that could make this acceptable. this merger is not fixable. i urge the members to oppose this merger after reviewing the facts. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> good morning. representy: cohen, i thousands of workers in the network and the content side. we look for to this review. by the congress, the fcc, department of justice. we believe there are three key points. first, this merger represents an opportunity for this country to accelerate high speed broadband deployment. second, the transaction can positively impact consumers and

third, that there is a record here that with the right conditions, it will increase jobs directly and in the surviving company and in the key economic development can bring to rural america. four years ago, we get lots the speed matters a campaign to highlight the importance of high-speed broadband. it is essential to economic competitiveness, job creation, and the quality of our lives. it has enormous potential but it will remain beyond the grasp of tens of millions unless we're able to accelerate the development of true wireless broadband networks. if you look at the global perspective, the u.s. has fallen behind 25 other countries including romania in the capacity of our networks. the president highlighted this but we have no path to closing this gap. our view is this merger with

conditions and with the commitments made by t-mobile and at&t is a critical way to bridge this gap that exists in terms of the u.s. against the rest of the world, critical for rural america and economic development. as you have heard, they commit to deploying 4g wireless and this would need to be in the commitment and the condition. 97% of the population. only 20% of u.s. broadband subscribers -- we do not have to different industries. it is about data speed and we saw that today with microsoft poes the announcement to spend $8.5 billion to buy skype. that is not the way consumers view it. that could be data over cable or wireless. again, the effects of the merger

especially -- are especially significant for rural america. we need maps and we need investment, we need speed. those can be conditions of this merger. the real question this poses is whether or not t-mobile will survive. they do not -- the cannot be forced to make the investments to 4g. the untold story is whether spread or at&t acquires the company. this is an open and shut case. and at&t will commit and the conditions of this merger, conditions can be applied that provide for when investment will be made, what the speed will become a what pricing will be and within ranges and so on. that is an option this country cannot afford to miss. we are falling behind because of

these infrastructure needs. at&t has the financial resources to deploy 4g. sprint does not. sprint is committed to incompatible technologies. they are beyond their reach. in this case, at&t and t-mobile have compatible technologies. sprint does not. finally, this merger is good for u.s. workers. our experience is that i am not a single case that workers lost their jobs and we believe the conditions can be applied and the fcc did it in the bellsouth merger. there was no loss of improve -- of employment and there was role commitment and it was good for workers. it was good for those communities. we think similar conditions need

to exist in this merger when it is approved. in the long term, the expansion of the network holds the potential to create thousands of new jobs in this industry and in the rural communities. thank you. >> thank you. we will start a round of questions. seven minutes per center. one of the major concerns arising out of this merger is what it will mean for prices. and consumers pay for service. to acquire, -- you see a reduction in choice. t-mobile has been a price leader, undercutting prices by your company, verizon and sprint. t-mobile offers an unlimited voice, text and data plan for $35 less than the comparable plan of your company. why is it not logical to assume

the loss of t-mobile and the national cell phone market will cause competition to you road and prices to increase? >> i will restate briefly what i said in opening comments. this is unequivocally one of the most competitive industries in the u.s. today and in terms of wireless industries, probably the most competitive around the globe. one of the best ways to evaluate that is looking at pricing, to your question. if you look at the last 10 years, there has been a number of consolidations. dan's company has participated in that their respective of this price horizon. boyce has come down by 50%. if you take a snapshot of the last four years, it is about mobile data now. in the last four years since we launched the iphone, of the

pricing for 1 mb has come down by 90%. what is driving that, it is competition. if you look at the options for the customer, regardless of what market, 74% of customers have an option of five or more wireless facility based providers. this is a vibrant, active market for competition. if t-mobile and at&t combined, i do not -- history suggests that does not change pricing. we are at a situation now, where we are capacity constrained. t-mobile is as well. we have markets where we are within one or two years of failing to have sufficient capacity to continue growing our networks. there is one byproduct and that is the pricing or rationing by product. putting these companies together creates new capacity and we can go into the details

of that. putting the companies together and freeing up spectrum allows us to grow capacity. that is the basis for moving prices down. my expectation is putting two companies together creates capacity and prices move down. >> in your testimony, you said going forward if this happens, it would be difficult for any company to effectively challenge the duopoly even if they raise prices and reduce quality and -- or raise prices to customers. if this happens, i take your comments to mean that you have real concern about your ability to maintain yourself as a national competitor in the market with your 70% of the share against the 80% that the

other companies would comprise and that in fact would also -- what happened to your company in its necessity to maintain itself. even selling out to one of the majors. is this conceivable? >> it is. it would make our position more challenging competitively. if you put 80% of the revenues in the hands of the companies, they would have pricing power. given that handsets are purchased nationally and in bulk, it would give scale advantages. they would become a gatekeeper for new applications and operating systems. if you will build it for one of the two bills, there would always give it first because of their size and scale and in terms of innovation, that would make it difficult. what has not been discussed as a vertical integration of the two

and that is the control over the last mile. that is a huge piece of our cost structure and the cost structure of all wireless carriers. i am the chairman of the ctia and one of the issues as special access. if you have a -- 30% of the cost goes back to the land line carrier and those rates are high. i believe there is a fundamental conflict of interest and we see this as at&t and verizon are able to block wireless industry initiatives to get the ctia to get its weight behind reducing access. the verizon and at&t people -- the prices come down for special access to us. we could make wireless service less costly. as it becomes less costly, it

accelerates corte cutting of the local lan lan. the two bills do not have an interest in excel rating this cut -- accord cutting or substitution of wireless for wireline service. it does make us a takeover target overtime as the competitive environment gets more difficult for sprint. >> you may go from 3 to 2. >> that is correct. >> that is something i believe we want to see happen. mr. stevenson -- also respond to your comment on spectrum scarcity. your chief technology officer this year stated, i think there has been a belief in the spectrum shortage at t-mobile. that is not the case.

if you like your value -- we do not have a short shortage of sp. you said today you did. >> both things are correct. what he was referring to is we have insufficient spectrum to grow our data revenue. what was not mentioned in that quote is we do not have enough to launch your networks. we cannot start in any sense because we do not have the spectrum. the other thing that is important to realize and it has taken between two or three years to clear spectrum.

we need spectrum to fulfil the demand of tomorrow. from that point of view, we see ourselves as being spectrum constrained because we cannot [unintelligible] the other issue is capital constraint. to do it on maroun in case it is available. >> a want to make the point that if we go from four to three and then four to two, that is serious. >> some of your critics have noted that at&t has more on use spectrum than any other wireless carrier. could you tell us why you have yet to fully utilize your existing spectrum holdings and

you are seeking to acquire new spectrum through this acquisition and others? >> i will be glad to. as we discussed and we said publicly, we are aggressively moving to launch lte. this is the technology that will give us 10 and 15 meg experiences. this is a fast-moving, innovative industry. five years ago, we began the move from second-generation to third generation technology. you have to have a clear block of spectrum. nothing in it to deploy the new technology. we began deploying and we will launched the iphones and smart phones. that business is growing dramatically. 8000% growth. we now need to make the move to fourth generation for a number

of reason. the speed benefits but it is more efficient with spectrum. to make that move, we have to have clear blocks of spectrum. >> unused. >> nothing can be in the spectrum. it has to be clear and unadulterated. because of the data growth we're experiencing, we need 20 megahertz of continuous spectrum. we have got a number of places to piece this together to allow this conversion. we spent considerably. $7 billion to buy 700 mhz spectrum. this is beachfront property stuff. this is where we are putting these high performing networks. we also acquired a company that had a block of this spectrum that we were able to appear together. giving us that 20 megahertz. we have a number of markets where we do not have a footprint of the spectrum.

we have been out pursuing and buying spectrum. we do not have enough to deploy this but this spectrum is unused because we're putting, building the technology into that spectrum that wilwe will begin launching. >> what would your options be as far as developing your network? >> it is a long-term solution. most of the rural communities where speaking to, we would not have the depth to do the conversion we need. this is one of the big determinants as to whether we can get to the borough communities. classic case, they have a nice footprint in west virginia. we do not have enough spectrum to lodge. this would allow us to cover a large portion of west virginia. >> is it your position the nature -- the nation would be better served by a smaller number of providers with access

to more spectrum that it would be with a larger number of providers? >> that is a public policy question. what i would tell you is there are a number of companies out there that are aggressively deploying fourth generation technology. a lot of them are deploying it quickly because they are doing leapfrog approaches. dance company owns-clear water. how can they do that? they do not have second- generation and third generation occupying their spectrum with those customers. metro pcs is doing a leapfrog technology bill. light squared is launching in washington, d.c.. i do not think fewer companies is better but i do believe if we have a public policy objective of getting to 97, 98% coverage

of global broadband, that is an additional 55 million people beyond what our plan would allow us to do. we're going to have to think differently and make better utilization of the spectrum. >> let me ask a related question. your acquisition of t-mobile if it occurs will result in a duopoly, some claim. you may disagree with that assertion. do you believe that further market concentration is likely to result in more regulation of your industry? >> i cannot choose what happens. from my viewpoint, this is such a hyper competitive industry that additional regulation does not seem warranted or likely. we have a history in terms of what happens to pricing. i keep going back. the options available to the consumer are dramatic and we

keep talking about going from four to three or three to two. metro pcs.skip over they added over 700,000 subscribers in the last quarter. leap added 300,000. spread, 1,000,001. this is a vibrant, active competitive environment. >> thank you. some of your public comments have suggested that sprint might not survive an at&t-t-mobile merger. is that your position? >> wyck position is that it would make it more difficult for sprint to compete. i have never said we would not survive. i think in that environment, the

question is, if this were approved, my view is if people aren't making a decision, this is a duopoly. it puts us in a position to be acquired. >> sprint is the third largest provider in this industry. it has increased its subscriber base and scores well in customer service satisfaction surveys and offers a wider array of popular products and handsets. was the first to market with the fou4f. -- 4g. what obstacle stands in the way to continue to play a role as a robust and effective competitor in a post merger market? >> one thing in terms of

continuing to improve. my ally is going to be silenced to work with to try to get access rates reduced. i think at a certain time, it becomes a bridge too far. you asked earlier about regulation. we traditionally have opposed increased regulation by the fcc because we think the market is the best form of regulation but we supported the fcc's approach to running. the rooming alternatives was purchased by -- we're seeing signs of more regulation in our industry. this is the other downside. i am concerned about how big the pie gets. how robust and vibrant the entire industry is as much as

what our relative share is of that industry. with more regulation and less innovation, the pie will stop growing and there will not be as much investment. investors would be less willing in investing in the growth of sprint if the wireless industry does not grow as fast. >> leading to less competition. is that your position? >> it is. >> thank you. >> thank you. i come at this as someone who is in for private practice representing a number of private phone companies and are doing that competition was good and it would bring prices down which it has in many cases. i come as a senator that serves on the commerce committee and put forward a cell phone bill of rights and has heard time and time again that is not necessary

because there is so much competition we do not have to worry about things like early termination fees being paraded because competition will bring us there. my first question, i read you a letter and it was a few days ago and you are getting the answers together. are you prepared to commit to offer your customers current pricing plans? >> as we have said before, but t-mobile customers will be offered their own rate plans into the future. that is our history. when you think about the at&t customers -- >> will they get t-mobile's pricing plan? >> if they want to, they have had those options for a long time. the way this industry works is we sell a $400 by phone for $50.

we put $350 into a product like that and ask our customer to sign a contract and you are actively involved. you have a two-year contract establishing a business relationship to ensure the investment we make. we have some opportunity of recouping that investment. we will ask them to stay with their contracts and we will honor the t-mobile customer's contracts. >> what if they t-mobile customer needs a new phone? what if i drop my phone into my husband's coffee cup which has happened and i need a new phone? when i get to keep my t-mobile rights? >> our practice is you can stay on those rates. >> what about the month the customers? do they get to keep their rates? the people that are not on a longer-term plan. >> we will map those rates into our billing system and -- they

can remain on those plans. >> can you say that this will lead to lower prices for consumers and a better situation for consumers? >> history has demonstrated these mergers have generated significant cost synergies and capacity benefits which have translated to savings. prices have come down. >> you discussed how officials should look at the proposed merger on a local or regional level. i think of the wireless market as a national one. part of my thinking is attributable to the marketing of national providers. you look at your own web site and it shows your company likes to sell itself to consumers as a national company. i found marketing material claiming that they footprint is

getting even faster with 4g and they deliver the fastest network but there is another web page claiming at&t is superior to men trapezius -- metro pcs and cricket. does at&t offer the prices regardless of where they live? >> it is both. there are a number of markets where we compete against metro pcs. we do in the promotions where metro pcs has more market share than t-mobile. >> is that on a regional or state why? >> we tend to standardize our products. what i would tell you is our company is set up.

we have organized this company to compete on a localized bases. i have folks who run different regions of and i have people who run specific cities. i need them responding and i need them advertising and addressing the market. the deal with the department of justice has required us to review these transactions based on local markets because that is the way the customer's decision is made. the customer goes into a store and makes a decision based on the competitors in the marketplace. its market is unique. >> we will get back to that. >> where a regional company and we have no -- everyone is interested in national plans. >> thank you for clarifying. concentration has increased by

almost 32% since 2003. capital investment has decreased from $25 billion in 2005 to $8.9 billion over the first half of 2009. this competition has led to less investment in new services and equipment. do you expect this trend to continue and how would less competition helped this if we look at the numbers? >> we do not expect the reduction of capital investment as the industry is getting ready for the next generation of networks. no, we do not expect it will lead to a reduction. less investmentt as competition has gone down? >> we expect as we are

realizing synergy, competition will increase and we will see investment. directly and indirectly. >> you had a different view on the spectrum issue. i have a little bit of time. can you discuss your view on the spectrum and this notion in has been discussed that this merger has to take place because of spectrum issues? >> basically, at&t has a lot of spectrum's. one third has not been built out yet. secondly, it uses its spectrum and efficiently. it is using three different generations of technology and there are technologies that can use right now and i want to get to that 20 mhz contiguous spectrum that mr. stephenson said was necessary. that ignores the channel bonding

technologies that would allow companies to aggregate non contiguous spectrum's and ignores other technologies and ignores the ability to reconfigure its networks to provide 20 mhz continuous to lce. crunches a bit overstated. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator grassley?

for mr. stevenson and mr. mena, how will this help world constituents get faster mobile service and secondly, borough carriers have to pay fees to the national providers when customers travel outside the area. what effect with the merger have on places consumers have to pay? >> either one of you. >> at&t has the ideal spectrum to serve rural areas. they have a significant holding of 850. anything less than 1 gigahertz is considered low. they have concerns -- significant holdings. there is nothing in the t-mobile deal that makes building out rural more attractive in the

future that it would be today. that speaks to the first part. as far as the fees, one of the biggest challenges we have faced is trying to get a roaming agreement with at&t. the data are roaming agreement at the 3g level. we have had -- not made any progress. april was just last month. we have been told the rowling person is under -- out of town. it is important for carriers to provide service that allows their devices to work anywhere the user goes, anywhere in the country, of rural or urban. it is important for the voice and data to work where they go. >> mr. stevenson. >> we have a number of running

-- roaming deals. fcc has established how that works. we're open for business. he is on a different technology than at&t operates on. i would be glad to talk to you after this. >> we have a gsm property in north alabama. >> would you negotiate on your own time? [laughter] >> we will build out this 4g network and this facilitates places like iowa. as i mentioned earlier, there are two blocks of spectra we're building into. one is this 700 mhz. the other is aws. that is where t-mobile operates.

that is the elegance of this transaction. with t-mobile, we will do a number of things and phillips mentioned a number of them. freeing up that spectrum will allow us to bring lte into places like iowa. specifically to iowa. we will add 181 cities in i went to our build. that is bringing broadband to the city's that would not have it otherwise. there will focus on concentrated areas and allow us to build out highways and get into the world communities. that number is 55 million people. the uniqueness of this, why this is so important. we cannot get there because we do not have adequate spectrum to build out. our original build we're focused on is 80% of the u.s. population. that is 14.5% of the mass of the

united states. that 14.5% of the land mass covered has to go to 55%. that is where the spectrum is vital and critical to getting to rural america and that is where we think is so important. >> you touched on this next point. there is western iowa. that service is more limited there than in other areas and t- mobile does not offer service in the region which means there would be no real change. what will the merger due to change the economics of providing service to rural america? at&t has yet to upgrade service in these areas already. maybe something you cannot do any thing more for a sioux city? >> i think we can do it. i looked at sioux city before coming in here and t-mobile in

iowa, their spectrum is on a number of partnerships. i do not know what those look like. we will have to get in and sort through those partnerships but we need to have access through some medium. to provide service to sue city. if not, we have 10 mhz and you can take some risk and launching but i have a lot of homework to do on this to know what we can do. it is a little complex. >> this is my last question. for mr. stevenson. the justice department approved a merger between verizon and alltel. what are the differences and-for similarities between the merger and they verizon-alltel merger

and should this be divested in markets where at&t and t-mobile overlap? >> do you want to go first? >> what is different is this consolidates much more power than the previous merger and acquisition target is much larger as well. the other thing is this did not do much for the competitive landscape because the beneficiaries are a buyer. that was at&t. >> do you want to add to that? >> those assets we acquired, it was given extensive review. what we acquired was 850 spectrum. that allowed us to put our own network infrastructure in place in a lot of these communities that go through wyoming, montana, the dakotas, and so on. that gave us a footprint in those markets where we did not

have a network and footprints before. we have converted those networks to our technology. and our spectrum. we are converting the customer base is now. that was 3g and this is going to facilitate going to 4g networks. i mentioned it before. this industry, we launched services and the obsolete quickly. we launched two second generation services and by 2006, we're putting in 3g. we cannot just require them to buy new handsets. if we were to do that, i suspect i would be having a hearing in front of your for different reasons. we have to be elegant in how we transition technology. they take time to work our

customers through the different challenges. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for holding this important hearing. i am not the only one here who remembers when ma bell controlled how we communicated with each other. i remember when i was a kid, every sunday at exactly 9:00 a.m., in minnesota, my grandmother would call from new york and talk to my father for precisely three minutes. [laughter] my grandmother was german and i father would pick up the phone and go, "liebschen?" the operator would come on and tell them that three minutes was

up. thankfully, the breakup of ma bell change the cost of long- distance and now we live in the world of voice-over ip. if approved, the merger would take us one more step or one step away from the monopoly market that we had under labelle -- ma bell and it took 35 years before they broke up ma bell. i hope that this will be the first of several hearings on this merger. we know that the merger is going to raise prices for american families and may cost thousands of jobs and i hope we will hear -- have a hearing once we have

more data that demonstrates with this merger will mean for customers 5410 or 15 years from now. i want to follow-up on big comments on the national aspect of this deal. i want to ask two questions that i want a yes or no answer and after that, i will let you respond. when you are seeking to acquire verizon wireless in 2009, did you not state that, "evidence shows that predominant forces driving competition among wireless carriers operates at the national level." yes or no? ok, you did. ok. >> i do not recall the comment. >> i said yes or no.

[laughter] >> ism i do not know. try this one, see if you remember this one. you have seen the significant growth in new customers by and large part, you do not have to remember this one, because you were able to negotiate an exclusive hance said deal for the iphone with apple, a large national company that would not have even considered launching their new phone with a small regional player, with that the correct? >> i do not remember the quote. >> that is not a ". is it true that you see significant growth because you are able to negotiate an exclusive handset deal for the iphone with apple, a large national company that would not have been considered launching their phone with a regional

small player? >> i would say no. look at europe. i can say yes -- >> now you can explain. you do not think that apple gave you an exclusive on this because -- and they would have given an exclusive to regional player and not to one national player? >> it is not as likely. >> in europe, they did spread it around. >> ok. my point here is, you did say the thing you forgot that you cannot remember whether you said it. you do advertise as a national company talking about how national you are. your business is a national business and that is in large part because the wireless market

is a national market where you can achieve significant competitive advantages from a national presence. my question is, how can you argue this deal should be analyzed locally as you wrote in your written testimony, this deal should be analyzed locally which goes against the statements that you made before and in your advertising that the senator pointed to? >> i understand. first of all, this is the with the department of justice has require these transactions to be reviewed. they have established that these buying decisions are made up the local level. the buying decision is made at the local level. it is having a national coverage, a national footprint important? i think it is very important. that is why mr. meena advertises

his national coverage map. >> we have to. >> i would love to see yours. >> it is very comparable. >> i have seen your map, it is a great match. >> it is a national market. we fully agree. it would look similar. >> i'm still trying to get my head around the technologies surrounding wireless. it is back call agreements which is using the ma bell hard infrastructure, roaming agreements, and interrupt ability. carriers have a tremendous advantage because they alone and control the infrastructure that was built by ma bell.

can you explain how this would give at&t an advantage over a smaller company? have you seen the effects of this over the last 15 years as at&t has gobbled up numerous baby bells to return to the dominance the month -- once have? >> to answer the question that came up earlier, at&t and verizon has used the market power to obtain exclusive deals on handsets. there is no doubt. you mentioned when earlier. it was a four year time so you have a handset and you have a special access as you talked about. the future advantage they have there. you have the roaming issue, all of us have used roaming

agreements to make sure we have a vibrant products for our customers to use. when at&t and verizon reached a size when it was not in their favor to offer those readily, they began -- it became tough to negotiate on that and we do have technology and we have not been able to get a better agreement in place with them. you have special access and the scale over devices. you have roaming issues. the 700 mhz has been balkanized where there is no inter-opera bility. any pcs device that came out in the 1990's will work on any network.

with the market concentration that at&t and verizon has, they can prevent that across the 700 megahertz block. we are wanting to see this industry returned to a competitive gear once again. >> thank you. we can all agree that broadband access has been a positive thing in terms of our country and the world and our ability to communicate and do business, it is mind-boggling. from the days senator frank was talking about, his grandfather -- grandmother. i remember the days when we got all of our video communication through the three established channels and we have come light- years there.

i remember those telephones and i do not want to go back to that model. i do not think there is any danger of doing that. i think as we approach this and we recognize this is a beginning of a process that is not part of what congress does, we legislate prospectively, not retroactively. we have written the law as it is and now we have the fcc and department of justice doing their job and we look for this lengthy process where every side of this argument would be able to present their case and we look forward to reviewing that. i think from -- for myself, congress ought to be humble about our ability to predict this sort of innovation that is going to be created, particularly in your sector of the economy. in terms of what sort of strictures or rules would apply

because we have seen life changed so much and so dramatically over the last few years in terms of communications, and the entertainment and the like. i would like to ask each of you, let me start with mr. stevenson to comment on innovation. one of the concerns is somehow, innovation would be stifled or retarded by this merger and i wonder if you would give us your views on that. >> thank you. one thing that you cannot say about this industry is is lacking for innovation. the innovation in this industry is happening at every layer of service. the infrastructure players and carriers like all of us up here are seeing innovation going at an incredible pace. i have mentioned it from 2g to 3 innovation and that

is happening rapidly. we have talked about what comes after 4g. there are 600 options for customers to buy devices in the marketplace and to think of then i found being launched in 2007 and today, the customer can buy one for $50, that is innovation. when the iphone came out, what happened? the oval deployed new innovative devices. you deployed the first android device on fourth generation networks. you are seeing research in motion and blackberry with new operating systems. do not miss the importance of what you read yesterday of microsoft buying skype.

there appears to be a sufficient second. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ñ

vote: protection of the sea lanes of the communication projection of credible combat power, presence and humanitarian assistance are all missions where this subcommittee's focus must be. i want to thank mr. mcintyre and his staff for his assistance in pu pulling this mark together. we had hearings this year on the navy ship building program, on amphibious warfare, as well as briefings for the ohio class plastic missile submarine and the new long range strike bomber. these hearings and the briefings were useful in informing the content of this mark. let me briefly mention a few

items. first, i continue to believe that the decision to cancel efv was a bad one. the decision was handed down add the marines have been struggling ever since to come up with an analysis that justifies this decision. this mark requires that the department to actually do the homework before starting a new efv replacement program or doing any further upgrades on the aav. in other areas, this mark supports the future of two legs of the nuclear triad by supporting the next generation bomber program as well as the bla plastic missile submarine program. the sea power includes authority for the secretary of navy to enter into a multi year procurement contract for the destroyer program. this destroyer will be a link pin in missile defense for our nation and its allies. i particularly want to take a moment to thank the gentleman

from mississippi, mr. blpalazzo for this multi year procurement. there are a number of specifics that members have seen and have been released to the public. i will turn to my good friend, mr. mcintyre for any statement he would like to make. >> this mark before the members today continues the tradition of strong bipartisan support for our men and women in uniform. i would like to chank chairman aiken who have worked so hard and all the congressional members for their efforts to have enabled us to present this mark. this mark includes $14.9 billion for ship building that would authorize a total of 10 new ships including two virginia class submarines, one destroyer, one san antonio class amphibious ship, one mobile landing platform ship and one joint high speed vessel.

it includes $1.1 billion for the national defense sea lift fund. there are a number of provisions included in this mark aimed at providing a more efficient way to procure ships and weapons. a new multi year procurement for the destroyers have added in a third year of multi year authority to defend the american class amphibious ship as well. there are several provisions that require increased oversight over programs that will ensure that they stay on schedule and on cost. in particular, this mark requires the comptroller general to conduct an annual review and report on the progress of the kc 46 tanker program. two provisions for the combat ship. one breaks out the mission modules into their own separate funding lines while the second requires a cost benefit analysis on maintainability and sustainability. these represent the subcommittee's effort to ensure all major programs receive the proper oversight that ensure

taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and effectively. this mark is a balanced authorization of programs and meets the needs of our men and women in uniform. thanks to chairman aiken and his staff and i would like to thank my staff for their hard work. i look forward to moving this mark into the national defense authorization act. thank you, mr. chairman. >> before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? >> mr. thornberry? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would want to just take a moment of the committee's time to raise a brief note of caution about an issue that is in this portion of the mark. one of the most important capabilities our country has, in my opinion, is long range bombers. it's essential that we be able to hit a target anywhere in the world in a timely way if we

choose to do so. bombers do that. but in addition, they've been used in iraq, afghanistan and even in libya. the administration decided this year that we needed to take some money out of bombers and even though we're more than a decade away from having a new bomber. so they proposed to cut 6 b-1s and at the same time there's a study under way about nuclear capable bombers that may result in reductions of those aircraft as well in order to comply with the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. a third of the savings goes back in the bomber line. they are taking money out of bombers to fund other priorities. just so members have the numbers, we have a total of 66 b-1s now, that includes trainers to backups to a couple aircraft we just use for testing. we have 6631s, and 763-52s, the

newest of which entered service in 1963. that's the bomber force that we've got. in essence, the air force proposed that we cut 10% of the about-1s this year. or cut 4% of the total bomber force this year. is that catastrophic, probably not, but the point i want to raise is if we continue down this path, we're going to be out of bombers before we ever have a new bomber. so the chairman of the subcommittee wisely said if you're going to cut bombers, then take them out of the backups and attrition reserve rather than the combat aircraft. so i appreciate what the subcommittee has done and obviously we've got conference to go, but i thought it was worth raising this issue with the whole committee for just a second because again, if we continue down this path, i think we will regret the loss of a very important capability. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back.

>> thank you. is there any further discussion? the chair now recognizes mr. aiken for the purpose of introducing an m block amendment. >> mr. chairman, i have an n block amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> i ask unanimous consents to call up n block package of budgetary legislative amendments that have been worked and improved of the minority side comprising of the following. an amendment by mr. critz for

anti-submarine electronic equipment, an amendment by mr. griffin, and amendment by myself regarding industrial preparedness, amendment by mr. courtney regarding submarine research and development, an amendment by mr. courtney regarding advanced submarine system development, an amendment by ms. hartzler for bomber mixed conventional load development, amendment by mr. smith regarding shallow water mine. amendment by mr. blaz pseudo regarding ship feasibility studies. an amendment by mr. long vin for ship anti-warfare. an amendment by mr. mckeon regarding attack air u.s. launched, amendment by mr. mckeon regarding electro foe

tonic type ability, and amendment by mr. run i don't know for airborne reconnaissance systems. >> is there any discussion on the amendment? >> all those in favor say aye? any opposed no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the chair now recognizes mr. akin for the purpose of introducing an n block amendment. >> i ask unanimous consent to call up an n block package for policy legislative amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side

compliesing of the following, an amendment by mr. rogers requiring change notification in the kc 46 a -- >> will the clerk hold a second. will the clerk please distribute that amendment? without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed it. the gentleman play continue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to start beginning there, an amendment by mr mr. rogers requiring change notification in the kc 46 a tanker program, an amendment by mr. courtney requiring a study on machinery monitoring for steam propelled amphibious assault ships, an amendment by myself limiting the availability of funds for the future unmanned carrier based strike system until certain analysis is complete. >> is there any discussion on the amendment?

if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. akin. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> chair now recognizes mr. courtney for an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the clerk has amendment 191. >> the clerk will pass out the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> first of all, i warrant to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee for great mark. one of the nice things he's done with our subcommittee is set a historical context for the work we do. my amendment is focused on that

very point. last year's lame duck defense authorization bill contained language which the senate inserted without a single public hearing that stripped from the national maritime heritage act a provision that allowed 25% of revenue generated from the sale of scrap metal to be distributed to state heritage projects. again, this is a program that operates on a competitive basis. it's not an earmark program. but for a lot of maritime museums like mystic sea port in the state of connecticut, this has been a helpful way of operating their programs, and again, the senate with the blink of an eye stripped that program, which has been on the books for 18 years, and these projects are now really completely shut out. we were able to work out with the transportation committee a waiver ever jurisdiction, because there's a cross

jurisdictional issue, unfortunately the clock ran out in terms of getting this provision considered. hopefully by the time this bill comes up on the floor, we'll be able to work that issue out and reverse what really was, in my opinion, a terrible change that again was just slipped in in the rush of the lame duck session last year. i want to thank the chairman for calling this amendment. i want to withdraw it. i want to flag it. this is not a partisan issue, it's a chamber issue in terms of how our rules would never have allowed this to happen, but unfortunately that's not the case with the house of lords. we're going to hopefully reverse that when it comes to the floor. with that, i withdraw the amendment. >> chairman asks unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. any objection? hearing none, so ordered. if there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move to adopt the subcommittee report of the

subcommittee on sea power and projection forces as amended. >> question is on the motion of the gentleman from missouri. so many as are in favor will say aye. any opposed say no. quorum being present, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. committee will now receive the report of the emerging threats and capability subcommittee pursuant to committee rule 17 in consultation with a ranking member, we will postpone all of the recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry for any comments he wishes to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i am pleased to offer the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee portion of this mark. every member of the subcommittee contributed to this product and

i am very grateful for their interest and participation throughout the hearings, briefings, discussions that we had and for a number of good suggestions on a wide variety of topics which helped to put this mark together. i would particularly like to acknowledge and thank the ranking them, mr. langevin for his insights and for being a pleasure to work with as we go through these issues. of course i've also got to recognize and acknowledge the staff of the subcommittee whose guidance and good judgment are absolutely essential. besides which, they are good poem to work with on a daily basis. mr. chairman, in the spirit of total honesty, i got to say, this is the best subcommittee of them all. we oversee the special operations command and counterterrorism efforts. now there is a greater appreciation for what the extraordinary work that these folks do on a regular basis, with the mission against osama

bin laden. but i think it's important to emphasize that there are individuals in this command that carry out missions all over the world pretty much every day with the same kind of precision and professionalism that is talked about so much, probably too much, with the osama bin laden mission. but they do a lot more than that. they help train and advise other militaries building up the capacity of other governments to defend themselves, so we won't have to do it. they are doing some very impressive work of this kind in afghanistan, but also in locations all around the world as we speak. our bill provides a modest increase in funding for the special operations command. it fulfills some unmet needs in boats and radios especially, and it also extends some important authorities for them to do their job. mr. chairman, our subcommittee is also the best, in my opinion, because we are charged with overseeing much of the research

that leads to future capabilities. in tight budgets, it's always tempting to pare back on research because the payoff is in the future. doing so, would be a mistake. here we hold steady on research funding but we've given added emphasis in certain areas. also some of the amendments in the on block reflect a number of members' priorities for greater attention and focus in certain areas and i'm grateful for their impact of the the largest dollar amounts are for d.o.d., it and cyber. this may be the preemnents, emerging area of warfare. we take some steps here in dollars and policies that move us, i think, in the right direction, but i think it's important to acknowledge that there is much work left for this

congress and for this country to do in the area of cyber. it's not all or even mostly military. yet our military depends on cyber as heavily if not more heavily than other facets of our society. so i think it's important for all members to recognize that we have a long way to go to updating our government and our nation's cyber capabilities in a way that truly defends the country. mr. chairman and members, i appreciate the nonpartisan participation of so many members in putting this mark together. i believe this mark is helpful in defending the country and i commend it to your support. >> thafrpg you very much. chair now recognizes the ranking member on the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin for his comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank, in particular,

all the members of the subcommittee for their efforts in crafting and support this piece of legislation. i particularly want to recognize and thank chairman thornberry for his leadership and his cooperative spirit and hard work in crafting this mark today. i agree with him. a bipartisan way, this is the best subcommittee of the committee and again, i appreciate everybody's work in that regard. this mark supports a wide array of special capabilities by the department, from an increase in funding for our exceptional special operations forces who as we know recently took out osama bin laden, demonstrating incredible courage, patriotism and dedication, as they always do. additionally, it supports the newly established cyber command led by general keith alexander that protects our military information in cyberspace.

i'm please d that the mark full supports the fiscal year 2012 request, the science and technology policies and programs, particularly, in areas supporting innovative technology capabilities and enhancing the s and t workforce. of particular interest has been the department's work on directed energy. as we know, competitor nations are investing heavily in this area and given the technology's potential for use in fending off long range of short range missiles, an increase by $50 million. finally, i'm pleased to have added language that directs the department to examine cyber threats to critical infrastructure as well as threats to our networks from trusted insiders, such as the recent wikileaks incident. this is a critically challenging issue because it is always such a moving target. in the threats facing our country online cannot be made alone in a vacuum. this is why i'm supportive of

language that would increase bilateral and private sector cyber cooperation efforts. i'm glad this mark addresses these issues and so many more. with that, i just wanted to thank chairman thornberry for his leadership, all the members of the subcommittee, let me in particular, recognize the extraordinary dedication and hard work of the staff without whom this mark would not be possible and with that, i thank the chairman and yield back. >> thank the gentleman. before entertaining any amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? the chair now recognizes mr. thornberry for the purpose of introducing an n block amendment? >> i ask unanimous consent to call up n block package number one consisting of budgetary amendments comprised of the

following. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment? >> an amendment by mr. critz for sbir technologies, an amendment by mr. west for coastal research, an amendment by mr. andrews for army communication and networking, an amendment by mr. andrews for information processing systems, an amendment by mr. andrews for night vision technologies, an amendment by ms. castor for health care, and army mission and support tools, an amendment by mrs. tsongas for communication, an amendment by mr. lobiondo for visual sensors, for body armor, an amendment by mr. young for nanotechnology research, an amendment by mr. rogers for missile simulation technology, for packaging and materials development, an amendment by mr. owens, for cyber workforce

development, an amendment by mr. shuster for information sharing systems and an amendment by mr. shuster for small business technology transfer. >> without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. are there -- is there any discussion of the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> gentleman from texas, mr. conway is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i had a mechanical question, looking through here, as well as the previous block amendments, section 44501 of division d relating to the mission force enhancement transfer fund is used over and over again as a reduction. do we know for sure that these total reductions don't actually waste that fund?

in other words, if everybody takes all this money out of that particular fund to do whatever they're doing, is there money left in that fund? do we go negative in it? >> yes, there are sufficient funds to cover the amendment. >> as well as the ones previously? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. yield back. >> all of those have been reviewed according to the opening comments that i made. >> i understand on an individual basis. i want to make sure cumulatively we haven't got ourself in a jam. >> yes. >> thank you. yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? if not, if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. thornberry, those members in favor will say yea, those opposed, no. they're sufficient. the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. chair will now recognize mr. thornberry for the purpose of

introducing an m-block amendment. >> call up m-block package number two containing worked and approved by the minority side comprised of the following. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. >> an amendment by ms. sutton for development of biomaterials, by ms. castor for genomic research. for chemical and biological research. amendment by mr. mcintyre by special technology by mr. braider for battling terrorism technology support. an amendment by mr. brady for combating terrorism technology support. an amendment for medical research. by mr. shuster for army technology by mr. smith for special operations equipment for combating terrorism support by mr. heinrich for weapons defeat technologies an amendment for medical technology development. for army countermine systems an

amendment by mr. johnson for research and combat wounds. an amendment by mr. johnson for special operations technology development an amendment by ms. sanchez for semiconductor innovation. an amendment by ms. sanchez for combating terrorism technologies support. >> without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. is there any discussion on the gentleman's amendment? the not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. thornberry. so many as are in favor will ayea, those o poised no. the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. the chair now recognizes mr. thornberry for the purpose of offering an n-block amendment. >> call up package number three

consisting of legislative amendments that have been worked and comprised of the following. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. >> an amendment by ms. roby for radio communications system, by mr. akin for forced protection sensors an amendment by mr. smith for hypersonic testing facilities. an amendment by mr. smith for experimentation modeling. an amendment by ms. davis for blast structure modeling and simulation. an amendment for corrosion and anti-biofouling research. an amendment for communications networking tools. by mr. rooney for software agents. by mr. rooney for training and simulation. by mr. franks for minor counterdevelopment. by mr. lanborn for sustainment technologies. by mr. shilling for munitions and weapons manufacturing. an amendment by mr. johnson for vaccine development.

an amendment by mr. hunter for helicopter brownout mitigation. an amendment by mr. hunter for deoxygenation. i can't say it. systems. an amendment by mr. ryan for 3-d design and manufacturing. an amendment by mr. bartlett for aircraft command and control systems. and an amendment by mr. bartlett for corps of engineers capabilities. >> without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with suspect there any discussion on the gentleman's amendment? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. thornberry. so many as are in favor will say yea. any opposed will say no. the yeas have it. and the amendment is agreed to. gentlemen, mr. thornberry is recognized for the -- for n-block amendment. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous

consent to call up a final n-block of policy amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side comprised of following. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. >> an amendment by mr. franks to insert additional language in to the directive report requirement regarding planning for electromagnetic pulse events in title ten of the report accompanying hr 1540. an amendment by mr. johnson to extend the sunset date of section 219 authorities. an amendment by plichlt acondition directing a report on the development and deployment of the electromagnetic rail gun system. by mr. bartlett directing a report on proposed changes within the army research development test and evaluation. and an amendment by mr. johnson moving funding for historically black colleges and universities from an army to a defense wide budget line. >> without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. is there any discussion on the

gentleman's amendment? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. thornberry. so many as are in favor will say yea. those opposed no. the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. if there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move to adopt the subcommittee report of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities as amended. >> the question is on the motion of the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor will say yea.

those opposed no. a quorum being present the yeas have it and the motion is agreed to. the committee will now receive the report of the readiness subcommittee pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone all of the recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes the -- you know, we've been moving along pretty quickly. let me just pause for a minute to let the staff get all their paperwork in line for this next subcommittee.

>> the chair now recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee mr. forbes, for his opening statement. >> the readiness subcommittee's mark is truly a bipartisan effort. i'd like to thank the ranking member and each of our members for help in preparing our bill. i'd also like to thank our respective staffs for the tremendous commitment they made in preparing this mark and in making certain our forces are ready wherever and whenever freedom is attacked. of the last several months, the readiness subcommittee has held a number of hearings and briefings in an attempt to answer one simple question -- are we ready. our efforts reveal that our

mimtary remains the most capable in the world, its a ps clear that ten years of continuous combat have taken their toll. i believe this mark makes several significant improvements to the readiness posture of our armed forces. the mark takes several steps to ensure that u.s. troops are properly trained and their equipment is properly may be tan sod they can succeed in their migs and have the facilities and services they deserve when they rush home. it also makes needed adjustments to needed personnel policy and service contracting and promoting energy security and ensures that projects offer the best return on investment to the taxpayer. specifically, the mark authorizes $275.8 billion for operation and maintenance for both the base and overseas contingency operations budgets representing a $6.2 billion decrease from fiscal year 2011 largely as a result of the drawdown in iraq and a reduction in the bracket count. while this fully supports the president's request for $23.03

billion for expanded training for active duty and reserve forces, as 12 times increase and 4.5 billion for the continue read set of combat damaged marine corps and army equipment. it includes funding above the levels contained in the budget in the areas where the services have identified shortfalls. some areas where the sub committee sought to reduce budgetary risk to readiness include funding increases of an additional 466.7 million form navy ship and aircraft depot maintenance, 1.3 billion for sustainment modernization. 230 million for army base operations. 96.6 million to restore guard and reserve flight training and 7.7 billion for air force weapons systems sustainment. by realigning unspent and underutilized funds to meet these strategic goals the mark ensures that the military remains ready to meet any challenge while spending taxpayer dollars entrusted to dong wisely. the mark takes steps to address critical national security

issues including promoting energy efficiency and alternative energy solutions that help reduce our dependency on foreign oil through a variety of initiatives. specifically, the mark includes additional funds and language for strategic installation and operational energy initiatives that deliberately target the greatest return on investment and enhance energy security. the bill also codifies the requirements for discharge of waste by u.s. military vessels at sea to ensure the minimum impact on the environment and avert $2 billion in expenses for fleet modifications. to increase the readiness of our depots, the mark includes several of the recommendations included in the study of the future capability of the department of defense maintenance depots directedly section 322 of the duncan hunter national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2009. in recognition of the vital role our instaalations play in the readiness of our force, the mark authorizes 14.7 billion for military construction, base realignment and closure and family housing.

in addition to the programs requested by this administration, this mark includes several initiatives that will improve military installations including an extension of the 205 brac law to allow implementation of particularly challenging projects. also included are a number of provisions that seek to enhance the readiness of our forces in the pacific region in advance of the expanse of the people's republic of china. for example, the bill honors our commitment to the strategic realignment of marine corps forces to guam and the able wal certification of health status of defense stock operations plans. in light of the subcommittee's continued concern about benefits provided to d.o.d., civilians who are deployed to combat zones, the mark includes a two-year extension of the authorization to allow premium pay for deployed civilians. provides clarification of death gratuity benefits and requires the assignment of a post care

health coordinator to civilian employees who have served in a combat zone. we have no greater responsibility than to ensure our men and women in uniform are fully trained, equipped and ready for the challenges they face every day. i believe this mark fulfills that commitment. and i look forward to working with my colleagues to perfect its content as we move through the markup process. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the readiness subcommitt subcommittee, the jentdlelady from guam. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the readiness subcommittee mark to the national defense authorizations act for fiscal year 2012 works to ensure that our men and women in uniform are well trained and equipped. i am proud that our sub commit we this mark continues to close the readiness gaps that have been created in our armed forces by a decade of continuous deployments. this mark authorizes $23 billion

for the training of all active duty and reserve forces to increase readiness as troops experience longer periods at home following the iraq drawdown including 1 billion to support the army's planned return to full spectrum training. it also authorizes additional funding for navy ship and aircraft depot level maintenance we fully fund the president's budget request for the reset of army and marine corps equipment and for the sustainment of air force weapons systems. this mark meets the full requirement for the upkeep of our military facilities. it provides increased funding to operate army bases and authorizes 14.7 billion in military construction. we have taken steps to strengthen the statutory framework under which our depots, arsenals and ammunition plants operate by aligning the

definition of depot maintenance with corps. refining the corps determination process and bringing the arsenals and the ammunition plants under the authority. i am also pleased that this mark includes a number of initiatives that focuses on reducing operational and installation energy consumption while improving military capabilities. the mark includes a process by which the department of defense, the department of homeland security and the federal aviation administration are required to develop procedures to ensure that national security factors are taken into account when proposed structures could affect navigable air space. i'm also pleased that this mark supports environmental leadership while putting defense capabilities and missions first. i also note we have included a provision that extends the psyches act coverage to state-owned national guard facilities and enables development and implementation of integrated natural resources,

management plans for state-owned national guard installations. the mark continues our committee's tradition of continuing to provide stringent and comprehensive oversite of the military buildup on guam. the committee remains committed to understanding the importance of the realignment of military forces in the pacific demonstrated through full authorization of military construction funding. further, this subcommittee continues to demonstrate its keen understanding of the strategic importance of guam in responding to the growth of traditional threats in the pacific region and the freedom of movement guam provides our military forces in responding to regional nontraditional threats. our guam subtitle response to a request by the department of defense to authorize transfer of funds to other federal agencies or the government of guam to address critical infrastructure needs on guam. we also require the department

of defense to certify that there is a national security requirement to enhance marine corps readiness by having a firing range on the island. finally, the subcommittee establishes a framework for the secretary of the navy to establish a health care integrator to ensure consistent quality of care for the workforce supporting the guam buildup. once again mr. chairman, i would like to thank chairman forbes and this committee for their hard work in addressing all of the concerns of this bill and the interests also of our colleague gabrielle giffords who we wish could be here with us today. and to all of our hardworking staff who spent many hours in working with us. i ask my colleagues to support this important mark. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. before entertaining amendments, are there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman?

>> gentleman from new jersey's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your leadership supporting our men and women in uniform. i want to thank chairman forbes and ranking member bordallo for putting into this mark some language i had on pay parity. it was an unintended consequences of the 2005 berac that we had fort dix, mcgwire air force base and naval air station lakers combine into one base, but yet we had a pay parity issue which has been resolved in this mark. i just want to thank you all for your leadership on that and really fixing this because i believe, you know, moving towards the consolidation of being a joint base and that ability, that the pay period issue became a big problem to be base because you had people that work a half mile apart from each

other on two different pay scales but in the same light we're making our military stronger and more efficient. we have non-d.o.d. employees for which i have dropped the bill on the floor to address that. but i want to thank my colleagues from new jersey, l. andrews, l. lobiondo and mr. smith and look forward to working with them on the rest of the pay parity issue. i yield back. >> thank you. the other gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. >> thank you. i want to associate myself with mr. runyan's remarks. this is a problem that should be fixed and i support his efforts to make sure we're doing it here. i thank mr. smith and mr. lobiondo for their efforts. i do want to add from page 232 and 233 from the mark about the

homeowners assistance program. i appreciate what mr. warner and yourself have done to help us in this matter. i frankly think we need to do more and i hope that we can find a way to do more. the issue here is that when an active duty family receives a change in its permanent basing order, it has to go. not asking you to gop. they're telling you. and many of these families have encountered a situation because of the problems in the real estate market where the house that they bought near the base they were assigned to is worth less than the mortgage they have on it. so they're in a situation where what they have to do is sell the house for less than what the mortgage is worth and then buy another house or arrange for some other housing at the new base to which they have to be assigned. it is one thing to be in a situation where you voluntarily decide to move and try to manage that loss. it's quite another when you are

serving your country and responding to the call of duty to do that. i appreciate very much the language on page 232 and 233 that directs the department of defense to assess why it's taking so long for many of these families to receive payments they are eligible for to help them and then to look tore ways that more families can be benefited. the report correctly points out that the program to aid these families by paying the difference between the amount they can sell the house for and the mortgage that they owe, the deficit in that program is about $400 million. and i know that this language directs the department to try to find efficiencies and savings in other areas of the overall military construction program, and i support that, and i appreciate that. i would urge that the committee, though, and the members as we go to the floor, to begin to think about a way to actually fund this in this legislation. again, the situation i'm concerned about is where a

service family has no choice. they bought a house. it was worth a certain amount of money. the house declined in value through no fault of their own. and they're forced into a situation where they must sell the house and move on in their life and their career, and they have a problem because they have this difference between the price of the house and their mortgage. it's also kind of sadly ironic that some of the civilian programs aid a person who's behind on their mortgage but they would punish a service member who's current on her mortgage or his mortgage here. in other words, if you struggle to pay your bills, you cannot access certain programs that would help you that are otherwise available to people. so i appreciate the chairman's effort, the ranking member's effort, the effort of the committee to get this done, but i hope we could work together and try to identify funding so that families who are in this situation get some help. and i would yield back.

>> appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this issue. and we will continue to work with you. as you know, this would be the first bite of if apple. then we'll have the floor, then we'll have -- so there will be time, and i hope that we can resolve this, work this issue out. is there any other discussion on the gentleman's amendment? the chair now recognizes mr. forbes for the purpose of introducing an m-block amendment. >> mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent to bring up a nonblock package of budgetary amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side comprising of the following. an amendment by mr. critz. >> will the clerk bee distribute the amendment gentleman's recognized. >> mr. chairman it includes an amendment by mr. critz concerning energy and environmental technologies, an amendment by mr. west regarding the strategic environmental

research program. an amendment by mr. kissle concerning u-860 gear box corrosion. an amendment by ms. sutton corrosion prevention. by ms. roby for emergency management and preparedness. an amendment by ms. bordallo about the alternative energy applications in the pacific region. an amendment by mr. mcintyre regarding army simulation training. an amendment by mr. courtney concerning alternative energy for mobile power applications. an amendment by mr. young regarding the sustainable army generators. an amendment by mr. young concerning navy battery cell manufacturing technologies. an amendment regarding army facility sustainment a restoration and modernization. an amendment by mr. shuster regarding maintenance budget authority. an amendment by mr. brooks regarding the defense access

program rope program. an amendment by mr. smith concerning a joint operational energy pilot project. an amendment by mr. heinrich regarding a micro grid pilot program. an amendment by mr. shilling concerning arsenal capital improvements. an amendment by ms. sanchez regarding advance surface machinery systems. an amendment by ms. sanchez concerning base camp fuel cells. an amendment by mr. ryan regarding small business alternative energy applications. >> without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. is there any discussion of the amendment? if not, the question is on

adoption of the amendment offered by mr. forbes. so many as are in favor will say yea. those opposed no. the yeas have it. the amendment is agreed to. chair now recognizes mr. forbes for the purpose of introducing an n-block amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent to call it a readiness on block number two of military construction budgetary legislative amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. jeblman's recognized. >> mr. chairman, the nonblock package includes an amendment by mr. bartlett increasing army military construction for research and development facilities. an amendment by mrs. bordallo increasing army national guard military construction for operational facilities. an amendment by mr. brooks increasing defense wide military constukz for defense access roads. an amendment by ms. castor

increasing air force military construction for supporting facilities. an amendment by mr. courtney increasing air national guard military construction for operational facilities. an amendment increasing air force military construction an amendment by mr. heinrich increasing air force military construction for community facilities. an amendment by mr. langavent for community facilities. an amendment by mr. lobiondo increasing air national guard military construction for maintenance and facilities. an amendment increasing army national guard military construction for maintenance and production facilities. an amendment by mr. owens increasing army military construction for supply facilities. an amendment increasing special operations command military construction for land

acquisition. an amendment increasing army national guard, military construction training facilities. an amendment by ms. penbury for maintenance and production facilities. an amendment by mr. riaz increasing army military construction and facilities. by ms. roby increasing army construction training facilities. an amendment by mr. runnian increasing army national guard military construction for maintenance and production facilities. an amendment increasing army military construction for troop housing facilities. an amendment increasing air force reserve military construction for training facilities. an amendment by mr. whitman increasing army navy military construction. an amendment by myself decreasing various military construction programs.

>> without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. as mr. forbes was reading, he covered an amendment between the amendment offered by mr. lobiondo and that offered by mr. roethlisberger on the front page of 66-r in the log by mr. courtney. that was not included on the summary that you receive d but t was written up in the amendment and introduced by mr. forbes. is there any discussion on the nonblock amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. forbes. so many as are in favor will say

yea. any opposed no. the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. i now recognize mr. forbes for the purpose of introducing an n-block amendment. >> mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent to call up a nonblock package of readiness amendments number three that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> the clerk will please pass out the amendment. the gentleman's recognized. >> mr. chairman, this package includes an amendment by mr. andrews concerning the disclosure of senior members, an amendment by miss boardallo concerning the improvement of the act to prevent pollution from slips, an amendment concerning the need for active shooter training at d.o.d. installations. an amendment by mr. brooks concerning a waiver to proceed beyond low rate production at prototype integration facilities. an amendment by ms. bordallo including the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands and

the american samoa in the application of the sites act. an amendment by representative turner concerning the prohibition for naming d.o.d. property after standing members of congress. an amendment by mr. andrews requiring a cost benefit analysis of the defense medical readiness training institute. >> without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. any discussion of the amendment mr. turner's recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank chairman forbes and the chairman for his support for the provision on prohibition of naming facilities after standing members of congress. so many times we try to intervene to restrain the department of defense in areas where we think that it might advance the cause of supporting our min and women in uniform. this is one where members of congress need to be restrained. the issue of dollars -- of

taxpayers dollars being utilized for facilities that are then named for standing members of congress sets up a conflict of interest, many believe, between both the member of the community and and their continued service on committees that control funding that go then to these facilities. this is an important statement that we already have within the house rules. a prohibition of house members doing that. this would codify that and would state that we believe that this is an inappropriate practice. thank you for your support for this. >> mr. chairman? >> any other discussion -- mr. andrews from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> five minutes. >> the chairman forbes and i appreciate read the amendment that i have on the medical simulation, but it's not in the packet that was given out. he did read it off the list. i just want to be sure it was included in the packet. >> mr. chairman, it was handed to me at the -- just before it

came up but i'm told it has been included in the pack ak and the staff is nodding affirmatively. >> thank you very much. i yield back. i appreciate the help very much. >> that is included for the record. any further discussion on the amendments? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. forbes. so many as are in favor will say yea. those opposed no. the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. chair now recognizes mr. akin.

>> thank you mr. chairman. getting our amendment straightened out here. currently one of the things that the pentagon would like -- >> what would be the amendment? >> let me get you an amendment number. 53. >> will the clerk please pass out amendment number 53? without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized to explain this amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. currently the pentagon would like to have but does not have

authority to negotiate or set up contracts for longer periods of time particularly on coal and resources potential sources of fuel and one of the technologies that is thought to be promising and could be used is taking advantage of our huge hundreds of years supply of coal in america and making it possible for d.o.d. to set up contracts for that in case we want to go, i guess, from coal to liquid fuels. and the amendment i have would allow a 20-year planning window for d.o.d. on that type of a fuel arrangement and what it does is, of course, creates a more stable supply of fuel for the military. it allows for smarter budgeting practices because we have a longer window in which to set up contracts and to do planning for

the eventuality if we were going to use that liquid coal fuel. and it does not allow the military to do any actual construction until they have come back and gotten authority from this committee. and this is something i think we should take a good look at. my understanding is that there's some problems with the congressional budget office. they want to score it. the logic of that is not really quite clear, but because i don't want to throw a wrinkle into the overall planning, i would withdraw the amendment. but i do think it's something we need to pursue and see if we can understand why the cbo wants to score something when it does not require any or even allow any funding unless they come back to us. so i would withdraw the amendment. >> thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. and urge him to continue and we should continue looking at this any way that we can save on fuel for the military would be a good

thing. gentleman asked unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. chair now recognizes mr. akin for the purpose -- excuse me, mr. heck for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk number 138. >> will the clerk please pass out that amendment. >> mr. chairman this amendment would make a technical correction -- >> the gentleman will suspend. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. gentleman's recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would make a technical correction in the clean air act to allow the continued use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons as fire suppression agents after 2015. in 1990, the clean air act was amended to phase out production and consumption of ozone depleting substances including these hcfcs. the national authorization act for fy-93 directed the

department of defense to establish procurement policies for reducing the use of ozone depleting substances. since that time the department of defense has sought an effective replacement for its airport rescue and firefighting vehicles for portable fire extinguishers which currently use halone. it is an hcfc that is no longer produced in accordance to the clean air act. worldwide supplies reveal that stockpiles are rapidly dwindling. military aviation urgently requires an environmentally benign firefighting agent for flight line safety application. despite the efforts of major u.s. chemical producers, no environmentally perfect halone replacement has been developed for all applications. this is a situation not anticipated when the 1990 clean air act amendment was passed. however hcfc 123 blend b has a near ozone depletion potential, is the most widely accepted commercially environmental and environmentally acceptable

replacement. despite this fact hcfc 1223 also remains to be scheduled to be phased out in 2015 for firefighting. it has been the only faa approved halon replacement for firefighting in over 100 hub u.s. based airports and a key military airfield in afghanistan rely on this agent for firefighting protection. additionally it's the only one that's performed best to potential alternatives tested by d.o.d. and is comparably price. it is not allowed to be considered a replacement due to its phaseout date in 2015. if the current clean air act is not adjusted to allow continued use in this critical firefighting application, the military aviation sector will be left with ineffective and/or environmentally unacceptable alternatives once halon supplies

are exhausted. congress sh not allow a poorly crafted military to inhibit those to react to a fire. our first responders have access to the tools thissy need to the respond to these tiches emergencies. mr. chairman, i will continue to work there amendment for possible floor submission and at this time i'll withdraw the amendment and yield back. >> thank you the gentleman tp amendment is withdrawn. the gentleman from california, mr. hunter s recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. amendment number 214, i believe. is that correct? >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. >> mr. chairman this is a -- >> will the gentleman suspend. without o the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

want to hold up to get everybody a chance to get this amendment. gentleman's recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's really quite simple. in san diego and places like virginia and hawaii where the military bases are an integrated part of the local community, there has to be give and take on both sides. there has to be give and take

from the local population and there has to be give and take from the military and in a place like san diego where the navy and the marine corps are interwoven into the fabric of the city of san diego and the county of san diego, this is an important amendment to me because what this does it keeps open a trap and skeet range that's been open since 1957. we've will olympic shooter, youth shooter, female and male shooters come and shoot at this trap and skeet range in san diego. it's the closest range and the other range to get to within 20 or 30 minutes of downtown san diego. and this simply directs the secretary of the navy to present us with plans to keep the range open. that's it, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> any discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> chair recognizes gentlelady from san diego, miss davis, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize that this may seem like a simple amendment, but i also wanted to provide you with a different point of view. it is providing a shooting range

that for some recreation for our military families but in fact we have some other options in the community. this report that is being asked for does not include a cost assessment of reopening the range or any analysis of impacts on military operations. the navy assesses that measures to contain future contamination if this range were reopened would negatively impact mirren mar's core aviation mission and they also could be very expensive. the navy has already been required to provide two reports on this issue, mr. chairman, resulting from directives in the house reports for fy-10 and fy-11 in the ndaa. the navy has already determined that the shooting in another facility is the only course of action that would allow the san diego shotgun sports association to resume its shooting and it has offered the use of camp pendleton's shooting range for that purpose. mr. chairman, the navy actually

opposes this measure even though, again, it may seem like a simple report language, in reality it will take them in another direction a lot more work involved and it's not clear what the mission impacts will be as a result of that change. >> any further discussion on the amendment? is it possible to get recognized again, mr. chairman? >> the ranking member is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to disyoesh yat myself with the remark of miss davis. the range was shut down in first place due to contamination from the alleged shot in the soil and waterways. they had a reason for doing that. if it were to be reopened, as was mentioned t navy assesses that the measures to contain future contamination would negatively impact mirren mar's core mission and be very expensive. this is something that would boomerang back on the d.o.d. and create greater problems.

i would agree with ms. davis and urge a no vote on the amendment. i yield back. >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i would like to yield to the gentleman from california. >> thank the gentleman from virginia. mr. chairman, this -- it's pretty simple. just because the navy says that they've made a decision doesn't mean that they're right. i'll bring into account the same-sex major decision that the navy's made which they just overturned today because they realized it was the wrong decision. like the decision to close the trap and skeet range was a wrong decision. it was operated under the navy since 1957 until the marine corps took over just a few years ago. the marine corps has now decided that they don't like it there and as all of us know that have bases in our districts or close to, it can change by commander. so if you have a new co coming in, the new co can say, way nt to change this even if your county or local city council has a deal with the old co, the new

commanding officer can then change that deal. and that's what's happened in this scenario. you have different cos coming in for two years. they each have their own per rog tivs and things they want to do. this has been around since 1957. it didn't all of a sudden become bad just in the last four years because, you know, something strange fell from the sky. the co marine corps co, a major who is now retired said this place is off limits. they actually called the epa on themselves because they didn't want civilians shooting on a shooting range that actually sits outside of the base. you don't have to go on base to shoot here. it sits just outside of the base. wounded warriors come shoot here. they use it for olympic athletes like i said. wounded warriors from balboa, from camp pendleton come shoot here. it's a sad day when you have the marine corps and the bureaucracy for some reason calling the epa

on themselves. and the epa has found no fault with the shooting range, none, zero. the epa has actually cleared him. the service itself that's holding it up for whatever reasons or parochial reason tlas that co had and has on the base. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i would urge a yes or no, mr. chairman. >> is there any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman at the very least, i think that the report should have required a cost analysis of what it would cost to reopen it and also an analysis of the -- >> will the gentlelady please suspend. you've been recognized before. if someone else wants to -- >> sorry. >> mr. chairman? >> gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i would like to yield to my colleague from san diego. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i just really wanted to suggest

to my colleague that perhaps if the report included language that would look at the cost of doing this and also the impacts on the mission, perhaps that would make sense. with you as it is now, the report does not require. >> will the gentlelady yield? >> will the jentdlelady yield? >> yes. >> -- move control by ms. sanchez. >> i'll yield some time to mr. hunter. >> number seven it does ask for a copy of the environmental assessment that was completed. we want to know if there was a hazard or a danger from lead contamination. we're asking for it. we're asking them to put that in the report to you and say, hey, there is a danger here. we are asking for that. we want to know if it's bad, then tell us it's bad and we won't do it. if it's good, then let's do this logically. >> reclaiming my time. and yielding to miss davis.

>> thank you. i would just suggest to my colleague that it is important for people to have some idea about what this would cost, and i think that it's not clear how that contamination issue would really be linked to mission impact and that should be clear in that language and you might want to consider that. i would be -- you know, if you need some language to address that, i can help with that. i would be opposed to the measure, but i think at the very, very least that would be required. >> mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. hunter of california. so many as are in favor will say

yea. any opposed no. the yeas have it. the amendment is agreed to. there are no further amendments. chair recognizes -- >> chairman, i have a -- >> gentleman from florida for the purpose of an amendment. >> number 69. >> clerk will please pass out the amendment. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentleman please suspend until we have a chance to get the amendment passed out.

the gentleman wants to discuss amendment 69-r. >> correct. thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment restores funding for key mirks, lcon dollars that were removed from the president's budget request in the readiness subcommittee's chairman's mark and the members who have been through this before, i apologize for taking your time but this issue has been around for about 2 1/2 years basically. but the 2010 quadrennial base review, the secretary of defense concurred with the navy that having a single cvn home port has not been considered acceptable on the west coast and

should be considered acceptable on the east coast. prior to '07, there was flexibility with the navy whereby they had norfolk and navy stational mayport that gave them the ability to homeport carriers at both places. however the navy lost the flexibility with the decommissioning of the east coast conventional carrier in '07. so what we're trying to do is put the money back in that keeps getting taken out in this process, and what i want to tell my new friends on this committee that every single ship in the united states navy has an alternative home port and maintenance location except for aircraft carriers that are based on the east coast. our aircraft carriers are much too valuable of an asset not to provide for backups. the navy has asked to make naval

station in mayport a nuclear home port. the secretary of defense has asked to make naval station mayport a nuclear home port. the president of the united states has asked to make naval air station mayport a nuclear home port. and for three consecutive years congress has provided over $50 million to make may prtd a nuclear home port. we have wrestled with this issue for the last 2 1/2 years. and in the end, national security discussions prevailed and the full navy request for mayport has been provided in the final defense authorization conference report. so because of that, i am going to withdraw my amendment, ask unanimous consent that this be withdrawn and ask that we can please listen to the navy while they may make the wrong decision on the siting and reopening of firing rangers, this is where the navy made the correct decision in setting up another

place to home port a nuclear carrier. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw. >> thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> mr. forbes recognized five minutes. >> just move to stirike the las word. >> first of all, i want to thank my good friend from florida for withdrawing the amendment. and i want to thank all the members of the committee for just listening to us because at first blush i know it's very easy to conclude that this is just florida versus virginia, but it's much bigger than that and i think the amendment shows that. it shows where this money is coming from. it is not a free decision, it's a directional decision. this money and this amendment would come from ship building and ship construction. and this $30 million is not the price tag. this is the down payment of what many people say could be up to a billion dollars.

right now you and i are living in a world where for first time china has more ships than the united states. our construction shortfalls are in subs, cruisers and destroyers, an independent panel has told us we need 346 ships. the navy says we need 313 ships. but the cbo says that if we continue at the average amount we're putting in ship building, which has been $15 billion a year, we will not only not reach 313. but we'll go down to 240 and maybe even 170. we're right on the average of 14.9 from this budget. additionally we're looking at a $567 million ship maintenance shortfall. a billion dollars of unfunded mandates that the department of defense has given us. and we know $400 billion is heading our way in terms of cuts. now, jeff as always was completely honest with you. nobody asked this up to 2 1/2 years ago. you can't find in it a qdr, not one mention. not in the national defense

strategy, not one mention. not in the brac commission, not one mention. where did it originate? not with this committee or with the navy. it originated with this resolution which was from the chamber of commerce for jacksonville t city of jacksonville that said that they called on the mayor of the city council, the governor and the members of the congressional delegation to come together with this plan to get more ships to jacksonville not for national strategic reasons but for jobs. the next thing that happened city council adopted it, next thing from that we had a resolution entered into by the appropriations committee. and that's how we got to where we are today. mr. chairman, as you look, one of the things that began falling apart was the strategic reasons. when the evidence came together, it was first argued all of this would be like pearl harbor. we've got all these ships together and something could happen and hit them at one time until the navy saw a chart that said that the ships had only been together 34 days in last

six years and the navy said, oh, we were wrong on thatp about then the next thing that came together was they looked at the channel and said what would happen if something sank in the channel and norfolk couldn't get the carriers out? then we showed the navy hearing in this room right there where the channel and norfolk 444 feet wide. white take debris 100 foot at all and a mile wide. the navy said we haven't looked at that and they called off on that. they said there's no difference between hurricanes that could hit virginia and jacksonville until noaa told them it was a 76% higher risk of a category 3 hurricane hitting in jacksonville, florida. then what would lap if all these repair facilities around norfolk got hit by a catastrophic situation, repair the carriers. then somebody said about where they were built up the river at newport news, and they said, well, that's not an answer.

when they got that response, my friends from the florida delegation, they didn't come back and refute each of those things. they wrote a letter this week to the secretary that said, hurry up and get this done. you got to hurry up and get this done because the foundation for it is falling apart on us. and i would just say, mr. chairman, that rushing to judgment to spend this billion dollars when we have so many needs, the committee just felt the navy ought to come in and say, where are our priorities and how will we get the money to build the ships and have 400 billion in cuts and still do a billion dollars to move the carrier that we don't need. and with that, mr. chairman, i think we made the right decision and i thank my dear friend from withdrawing the amendment and i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> my good friend mr. arkangeli just reminded me that he promised me a steak dinner if

we're done by noon. mrs. castor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. colleagues, it was, in fact, the 2001 quadrennial defense review where the navy -- it called for the navy to provide more war fighting assets more quickly to multiple locations. and specifically since that qdr, the navy has been working to establish a second east coast home port for nuclear powered carriers at the mayport naval station outside of jacksonville to strategically disperse the carrier fleet to protect it from natural disasters and terrorist attacks by having all of our assets in one location. in fact, on the west coast of the u.s., we have three home port locations and on the east coast only one single one. so there are significant

national security concerns here. that's why the navy has stuck with this following this 2001 qdr, and they reaffirmed it in the 2010 qdr, that the nuclear pow powered aircraft carrier is appropriate at the naval station mayport. they've already spent over $100 million to prepare for the move including some very significant dredging at the port. and my -- the final piece of information as we move on from this is that the last defense bill called for a review of the cost good friends and colleagues from virginia were making claims it was going to cost so much more than the navy had p anticipated. in fact, this gao report that just came out in march says that the navy's estimates with were too high and in fact the cost of the move will be $200 million less than what they anticipate. the navy has stuck with itment

the joint chiefs have stuck with it, and we should stick with it, too. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman? if there are no further amendments on this amendment that's discussed on the amendment that has been withdra withdrawn, recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to -- just to follow up on a couple of kmenlts from our friends from florida. it's interesting in looking at the navy's evaluation of the placement of these strategic as ates, you would think if there was a purpose behind looking at how strategically these aircraft carriers are placed, then this would be something that other service branches would be looking at. we have many other unique, strategic assets placed all in one area. our b-1 bombers are all in one place. the nice thing about aircraft carriers is ne float. the nice thing about the world we live in is it the oceans

connect to each other. so the beautiful thing about it is, even though there may not be a dual location on the east coast, they can go to the locations there on the west coast. so i'll remind our colleagues here, this really boils down to an issue about, how are we going to use limited resources in times where we have significant needs, unmet needs, making sure the ships we have can go to sea. i'd much rather make sure that the ships we have are in shape to be deployed arather than having them sit in ports at a facility that may be built for dual purposes but if those ships aren't as sea, they don't have that capability and i would make an argument that it is about priorities in the realm of limited resources. we do have facilitiy ies elsewh for these aircraft carriers to be dough employed, for them to be maintained, while it's on the west coast it's a little bit further to travel, those assets still can be maintained through those facilities and we do this

with many other critical strategic assets in other branches of our services. so i would make an argument it is about making tough decisions about priorities. this should be at the bottom of the list rather than at the top of the list. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> when i was a young man, a sales manager taught me that once the customer said yes, quit talking. having said that -- >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your time. >> -- recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> it's a critical matter i think not only to the second district of xrirnlg virginia but also to our country. i want to thank and associate myself with the remarks ahead by my virginia colleagues, mr. forbes and mr. witman. i just want us to understand this may even come up in another congress so i think it's important that we frame this. i think it's important that my colleagues understand the full ramifications if this amendment were to have been agreed to. make no mistake, it would have

created an entirely new massive funding requirement that could easily eclipse with all of the related cost and transportation cost of giving qualified personnel to go to may port $1 billion. it would grow xpe neshlly and continue for decades and put budgetary pressure on every other navy program. you know, if mitigating the risk is indeed the objective of that amendment it truly is in my view wildly disproportionate. the navy concedes the risk is small and one cannot deny that the risk is decreasing sharply with the upcoming decommissioning of the "enterprise." so, even with the "enterprise" in service, so often when i visit the base, there's not one carrier there, and something else i'd ikelilike to share in e maritime industry there's often what's referred to as local knowledge. a boater would seek out local

knowledge. for those of you not from the district, just want to share with you that oftentimes a carrier could be over at newport news, not the same as norfolk. they are geographically separated by a number of miles, which further mitigates the risk. and so i thank the gentleman from florida for withdrawing the amendment and i appreciate the chairman giving me the opportunity to speak on a matter that's so critical to the district and i believe to the country. >> any other further discussion on this amendment that's been withdrawn? hearing none, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia mr. forbes for the purpose of offering a notion. >> mr. chairman, you still have five minutes to get your steak dinner. i commit the report as amended. >> question s on the motion of the gentleman from virginia so many in favor will say aye.

those opposed no. quorum being present, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. will the staff please pass out the mark for the report on the tactical air and land force subcommittee.

>> the committee will now receive the report of the tactic al air and land force committee and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all of the recorded votes on the amendment. in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the tactic al air and land forces subcommittee jurisdiction includes $78 billion in projects and programs in all of the services and defensewide agencies. our first priority has always been to support our services in iraq and afghanistan. consequently, the subcommittee's recommendation includes 3.2 billion for the mine resistant ambush protected vehicle program and over 3 billion and the president's budget request being supported for urgent operational

need and counter-ied activities in iraq and afghanistan. an additional 225 million is provided for high-priority national guard and reserve equipment needs. our three major recommendations include an additional 425 million as provided for modernization of tanks and bradley fighting vehicles. the army budget request would result in a production break for these two programs and n 2013 which could last anywhere from one to three years. these production lines cannot be turned on and off like a light switch. where the abrams tank reduction alone, there are almost 900 suppliers. 75% of these suppliers are small business businesses. based on the information we receive to date, it is more efficient to keep these lines warm than it would be to shut them down and start them up again. second, the mark increases funding at army and air force

ranges by 209 million. the pentagon has recently acknowledged that it's proposed large fiscal year 2012 reductions in test and evaluation the army and air force could lead to, quote, unintended consequences, end quote. and recently acknowledged the need to address this issue especially in regard to applying to the requisition reform action. thirdly, regarding the competitive engine for the f-35 aircraft, notwithstanding by nearly 500% increase in the cost to complete the primary engine development contract for the f-35, since february '08, the pentagon has determined that the best course for the f-35 engine program is inesq effect a 100 million earmark for the manufacturer for decades to come. some opponents to the f-35

engine program claim there already has been a competition for the f-35 engine. this is not correct. undersecretary ashton carter, the acquisition chief, could not have made it more suck sijt when he said last year for the record, and i quote, pratt and whitney was awarded a noncompetitive contract for the f-35 propulsion system, end quote. the pentagon's original acquisition strategy in november of 2000 called for a competitive f-35 engine program and i quote, to preclude excessive reliance on a single supplier, pratt and whitney and ge will compete for engine manufacturing beginning in the fiscal year 2012. in the production phase, it will be periodic competitions, end quote. that was the pentagon's plan from 2000-2006. at that point, significant cost overruns in the air frame contract caused the pentagon to

take funds planned and budgeted for the competitive engine program to pay for overruns in the air frame contract. existing statute and expert analyses support dual source acquisition programs to keep costs down, provide for technology innovation, maintain readiness and achieve contractor responsiveness. the 2009 weapons system acquisition and reform act requires the secretary of defense to ensure competition or the option of competition at both the prime contract level and the subcontract level throughout the life cycle of such programs, as a means to improve contractor performance, including dual sourcing. the hadley perry july 2010 final report of the qdr review panel stated, quote, history has shown that the only reliable source of price reduction through the life of a program is competition between dual sources, end quote. for this committee for 16 years under democrat and republican leadership, the f-35 alternative engine program has been

supported and never been a partisan issue or about contractor a or b. many of us believe it was shortsighted for congress to have failed to fund the program for the remainder of fiscal year '11. yes, our country face major challenges. however, to fully fund a $1 trillion f-35 aircraft program and not take the opportunity to maintain competition in the $110 billion engine subcontract of the program is not in the long term best interest of f-35 readiness or the taxpayers. this particularly is so when the department's own business case analysis done one year ago indicated a competitive engine program could be executed at no additional cost to the f-35 program. the administration's official narrative on the f-niefrt program has misrepresented the facts of the f-35 program, making particularly challenging for members to make informed judgments on the f-136 competitive engine program. talking points provided to the

president at budget rollout two years ago, stated, quote, the defense department is already pleased with the engine it has. the engine works, undevote. some statement was not accurate when made and is not accurate now. had the first production f-35 been delivered as initially projected in september of '09 it could not have flown because there would have been no production engine available. in fact, in the same period of time, the first production deliveries were scheduled to have been made there as way 40-person pentagon team visiting the f-35 engine manufacturing facilities trying to determine the reason for the cost and production problems associated with the 135 engine. the pentagon team identified a lengthy set of concerns having to do with primary engine cost, engine design instability, component part low manufacturing readiness concerns with quality management and supplier shortfalls and other risks which the pentagon labeled proprietiary to we cannot

discuss these here. eight months into 2011, it's yet to be signed. our mark includes a provision that would limit the obligation or expenditures of funds for performance improvements on the f-35 propulsion system unless the secretary of defense ensures that funds are made available and expended in fiscal year 2012 for two options, f-35 propulsion system, if the pentagon is pleased with the engine it has this provision would not be triggered. as you know, the engine team believes so strongly in its competitive position it is seeking pentagon approval to self-fund its engine development through fiscal 2012. many of us strongly support this decision and believe the pentagon should complete an agreement to with the engine development at no cost to taxpayers. finally, i would really like to thank mr. ray yez as always been a bipartisan effort to put out our mark together. we could not have done this without sylvester's support.

because this was written by staff, they do not note how much we depend on staff. thank you very, very much for all of your work, both the majority and minority staff. and mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank you very much. the chairman recognizes ranking member on the tactical air and land forces subcommittee, gentleman from texas, mr. reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to echo chairman bartlett's praise of staff who have worked in a bipartisan manner to come up with this proposed mark. the tactical air and land forces subcommittee has a long history as mr. bartlett said of working in a bipartisan fashion to complete its portion of the chairman's mark for the national defense authorization act. i'm pleased to say that while we'll consider some amendments today that may improve the bill, this year chairman bartlett has continued this tradition by presenting a thoughtful package for members to consider. this proposal strikes the right

balance between meeting today's critical military needs and setting the stage for the future. it supports our troops as they continue to fight overseas, invest in new technologies for the future and protects vital military equipment at home. i'm especially pleased with how it supports current and future u.s. army needs. the army has born the bankrupt of the fight in iraq and afghanistan. this puts the army on a path to strengthen readiness and build new capability. for example, the chairman's mark includes and fully funds the army's ground combat vehicle program at 884 million, provides 2 billion for upgrading the army's tactical communications network, increases funding for abrams tanks, for bradley fighting vehicles by 153 million, provides 633 million for the stryker vehicles and their upgrades, 6.6 billion for helicopters, uavs and other aviation platforms and also provides 225 million for the

national guard and reserve equipment account. the increased funding for m-1 abrams tank and m-2 bradley fighting vehicle is spraeshl important in my view because it will delay a possible shutdown of both of those production lines. the army intends to have both of these vehicles in its inventory for decades to come so it is absolutely critical the industrial base of production parts suppliers and repair facilities is preserved for future needs. keeping the production lines running will also result in more a more capability fleet of vehicles in the future and ensures that our troops will have the very best equipment available. the chairman's mark also provides robust funding for other service needs, the marine corps base budget procurement request for 1.4 billion is fully funded, including upgrades to light armored vehicles, additional uavs and tactical communications equipment. the request for fighter aircraft is fully funded, including f-35

joint strike fighters and upgrades to f-15s, f-16s and other aircraft. finally, the navy's aircraft procurement request for 18.6 billion is also fully funded, including 28 you new f-18 super hornets, 30 os prays and 42 mh-60 helicopters. so i think, mr. chairman, overall chairman bartlett has developed an excellent proposal. the mark was developed in an inclusive, bipartisan manner keeping with the best traditions of you our armed forces committee. i urge all members to support the chairman's mark. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> before entertaining any amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? >> hearing none, the chair recognizes mr. bartlett for the purpose of introducing a

non-block amendment. >> call up an unblocked package of amendments worked and approved by minority side compromised of the following -- >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> gentleman is recognized to explain this amendment. >> an amendment by mr. critz

providing additional for passenger survivability upgrades, an amendment by mr. west providing additional 8 million for the development and demonstration of a high-efficiency air breathing turbine propulsion system for unmanned aircraft systems, an amendment by mr. sutton providing an additional 1 million for the development of protocols for the use of lead-free soldier products and finishes in the joint strike fighter, an amendment by mr. andrew providing 6 million for base defense equipment. an amendment by mr. lobe yaund dough requiring a program to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system at six test ranges. an amendment by mr. brady providing $3 million for improvements to helicopter portable oxygen delivery systems. an amendment by mr. brady providing an additional $8 million for advanced rote toe craft flight research. an amendment by mr. rogers providing an additional 4.3

million for base defense counterfire intercept systems. an amendment by mr. rogers providing an additional 25 million for abrams tank engine technology insertion. an amendment by mr. owens providing an additional 2.5 million for modifications of weapons and other combat vehicles. an amendment by mr. lows back providing an additional 5 million for war fighter advanced technology. an amendment by mr. brooks providing an additional 2.5 million for development and demonstration of aton muss cargo delivery for rote toe craft. mr. runyon providing 5 million for enhanced survivability and lethality system. an amendment by mr. hunter providing an additional 7 million for common data link way for improvement. an amendment by mr. hunter providing an additional 5

million for lightweight airborne recovery systems and by ms. sanchez providing 4.8 million for night vision advanced technology development. >> any discussion on the non-block amendment? ms. turner is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i apologize. my comment is actually upon the mark. i want to thank the chairman for his efforts of putting 425 million in the mark for the modernization of abrams tanks and bradley fighting vehicles. the army had intended to cease production, which would have closed a plant in lima, ohio, resulting in the loss of advanced manufacturing capability and the loss of human capital. the chairman traveled out to lima, ohio, toured the plant and restored the fundingment it's very important for our manufacturing capability and also i think it will assist the warfighter. thank you. >> any other discussion?

mr. bartlett recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i would like to note the committee that we -- members of the committee visited both the abrams facility and e the -- both the abrams and tank facility. the service wants to close both of those for several years. in everybody's estimate the cost to make the cold lines hot again would be more than the cost of p keeping the lines warm. thus, the committee's recommendation that we keep these lines warm. if they were going to close these lines down for ten years it would be different. but the spread of cost from those who thought it would be less, those who thought it would be more, the cost of keeping them open was even lower in some cases than the lowest estimate for restarting the lines when they were cold. so it just didn't make any sense to us to close down lines when we could keep them warm at less

cost and have additional vehicles ready for our guard and reserve. thank you. >> any further discussion on the amendment? if not, the questions on the amendment offered by mr. bartlett, so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. mr. andrew is recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> do you have a number? >> it is -- excuse me. >> number 274? >> yes, it is 274. >> clerk will please pass out the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

. >> shall i proceed, mr. chairman? >> please suspend until they have a chance to distribute the amendment. >> gentleman is recognized to explain this amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. little more than two years ago, your predecessor, chairman skelton, asked congressman conaway and i to work together on looking at efficiencies and procurement by the department of defense. and our first project that we worked on was to look at major weapons systems. together, we worked on that project and by unanimous vote, the members of the committee at that time passed out a piece of legislation, passed the house by

unanimous vote and senate i believe by unanimous or near unanimous vote. the law was signed into law by president obama in may of 2009. the reason we embarked on that project is that, in the previous seven or eight-year preer yod, the gao had told us we had overextended our budget on major weapons systems by nearly $300 billion, $297 billion oiv a seven or eight-year period. had we saved that money, we could have compensated and trained and paid and supported a lot of troops for a lot of years. and so there was a very broad consensus, nearly unanimity, that we needed to change our major weapons systems acquisition strategy and the keystone of that bill was competition, the idea that if you have only one vendor supplying a critical component

of our forestructure, you are likely to have overruns, likely to have underperformance and likely not to get the best deal for the service member and for the taxpayer. in the spirit of that philosophy, with we've had a longstanding debate over whether we should fund the alternative engine for the joint strike fighter program. that's a debate we've had many times in the past and i'm sure we'll have again. this amendment's really not about that question, though, because although i believe that the proper use of our funds here is to fund the jsf second engine program, that's not what the bill does and that's not what this amendment does. instead, the vendor team that is developing the alternative engine for the jsf believes so much in the value of its product and believes so much in the value of competition, it has done a very rare thing. it has put its own money where the taxpayers' money usually

goes. that vendor team has such a belief in the merits of competition, the merits of their work, they have said that they will finance further development and testing in this fiscal year, fy 12, for the purposes of enhancing that competitive agenda. i think that is to be commended. i think that will yield the best product for our service members and the best value for our taxpayers. in order to be sure that we can achieve that result, my amendment says that any of the data, any of the equipment, any element necessary to encourage further testing and development of the alternative engine will not be prohibited or blocked by the department of defense. in other words, it says that when this vendor team has stepped forward and said, we will put our own money and our own efforts into this

enterprise, that those efforts are not blocked by any way that would block the use of property necessary for that testing. so i want to emphasize to my friends both on the republican and democratic side, we've all taken a position, some of us several positions, on the issue of whether or not there should be further public investment in the testing of this alternative engener engine and we feel strongly one way or another. i feel there should be. but that's not the question this amendment poses. the question is, when a vendor team is willing to put its own money and own efforts into enhancing that competitive agenda, should we permit them to do so or not? i think the answer is a resounding yes. i think the benefit from this will be a better product for our service members, more options as our planners look at 95% of the aircraft stock of the american

military, and a better deal for the u.s. taxpayers. so i would respectfully urge republicans and democrats, those who oppose funding for the alternative engine and those who support it, to join together in this effort, which i think furthers the agenda we did in the major weapons systems reform of 2009. i would urge a yes vote. yield back. >> i commend the gentleman for his work on this issue. you know, at a time when every dollar seems to be more important than ever, when a company steps up and is willing to fund the effort to keep competition as a viable alternative, i think that, to me, this is a no-brainer, basically the company said, we will stand behind what we're

saying. well put our own money in and the government will have no additional cost and yet it keeps alternatives open. it keeps competition open. and i think this is a good bipartisan amendment that the gentleman has offered. is there any further discussion on --? >> mr. chairman? >> yes, mr. mcintyre is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. i'll be brief and to the point. i strongly support this offer from the f-136 fighter engine team to continue developing their joint strike fighter engine on their own dime. at no cost, at no risk to taxpayers. we can keep competition alive. isn't that the american spirit and the american way? and we can make sure that this competition on the largest subcomponent of the joint strike fighter and on future programs can be there when we need it. this is a unique approach and

gives us opportunity for change. this is good for the american taxpayer. it's good for competition. and it's ultimately and most importantly good for the safety and security of our nation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. chair yields to mr. bartlett, five minutes. >> thank you. the chairman's mark currently includes a provision that requires the secretary of defense to develop and carry out a plan for the preservation and storage of property acquired under the f-136 propulsion system development contract. this amendment would require that such a plan at no cost to the u.s. government provide support and allow use of the property by the f-136 contractor to self-fund its research, development, testing, evaluation of the f-136 engine. mr. chairman, this could conceivably save the taxpayers money because the mark requires the department to maintain this material, it is not maintained

at no cost. there is an overhead for maintaining it. depending on how one keeps records, conceivably the use of this equipment by the contractor will actually save the taxpayers money. approximately 3 billion has been invested in research and development for the 136 alternative engine. the f-136 contract was recently canceled by the pentagon. the f-136 engine contractors believe strongly in their engine and stated their intent to continue at least through fiscal 2012 the development of the 136 engine at no cost to the u.s. government. for the 136 contractors to continue development of their engine, they need access to the test engines that have been developed and u.s. government engine test facilities, again at no cost to the government. this amendment would enable the f-136 engine contractors to have that access. that's aall it does. it could actually save the taxpayers money. i strongly urge all members of this committee to support this amendment. thank you, and i yield back.

>> any further discussion? >> mr. chairman? >> recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i don't want to object to the amendment. i do str a question, may be for the chair. the united states taxpayer has already invested tremendous sums in the development of this engine. who would own the technology, if this amendment passes, and it goes forward? would the united states -- >> wot gentleman yield? >> yes, sir. >> technology would be property of the united states department of defense. >> okay. all of the technology, including -- the gentleman i apologize -- the new technology moving forward, would all belong to the department of defense? >> if the gentleman would yield, yes, that is my understanding that this would be done and the intellectual property would belong to the united states department of defense. >> mr. chairman, is that your understanding as well? >> i know of no information

other than what the gentleman has stated, and if any member of staff has anything that would be contrary to that, then i would say mr. scott that that would be my understanding also. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. >> thank you. mr. rooney from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, the amendment as proposed for those of us that don't share the same opinion as the subcommittee chairman or those that believe that the second engine is necessary, even just weeks after the entire house voted, saying that it was not necessary for the sake of cost, when this amendment, if it is truly to its core about cost, then i would have no objection. i don't see why anybody would. of course, it's, as the chairman says, seems like a no brainer.

the problem i have is the insinuation by the subcommittee chairman that the members that believe that the cost of the second engine was not something we could afford in this day and age, that somehow we are all, as he put it, kwoet unkwoit, quote uninformed or miseducated or a number of words that i think is an insult to people who are representing constituents trying to save the taxpayer money and at the same time provide the best possible defense, those of us that served in the military and those of us that believe we should carry the biggest stick on the block, believe that what we did a couple of weeks ago by striking the second engine was the right thing to do. and regardless of whether or not this bill advances, the second engine coming back to life or not, remains to be seen, and we shall see. but with regard to mr. andrews'

amendment to store and have the proprietor of the second engine fund their own advancement, i have no objection. i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. >> mr. chairman, i, too, support the amendment, also support the issue of competition, which is not competing. i would remind my colleague from florida that the entire house didn't vote for striking the engine. a majority of the house did, but many of us on the floor -- it was not a u nonanimous vote. >> if the gentleman would yield, i apologize if i insinuated that. that's not what i meant. >> what this amendment does do is protect the system from those who champion a particular idea, one way or the other, from taking advantage of their positions to have a self-fulfilling prophecy that

the single engine works, that is by preventing the contractors to getting access to the unique test facilities that they need to get access to. so this amendment does that, it protects the system from folks taking advantage of the position who disagree with the continued development of the second engine. i support this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it as well. yield back. >> gentleman from new york, mr. gibson, is recognized for five minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i speak today as somebody who voted to eliminate close to $500 million for the second engine of the joint strike fighter at a time that clearly we all need to do more with less. i think what's happening here today is quite remarkable, if you think about it. action that the congress took, a tough decision, something that had been an issue for several years, certainly strong arguments on both sides, we can respect all those. but to the fact today that we have a private company that's

coming forward to continue this research on their dime, the american people get competition at no cost. so we get savings and we'll see what happens at the end of this. but this is something i can support and i'm pleased to do so. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to ask the author of the amendment, my friend from new jersey, mr. andrews, this question -- "fr free sounds really good. but as the gentleman from texas just pointed out, it could involve access to unique testing facilities and there's no such thing as free in that context. for example, in tennessee we have some state-of-the-art wind tunnels, and allowing that engine to be tested there for free might actually impoese othr overhead and other costs on the defense department and taxpayers that would not, in fact, be compensated. normally these facilities rent for vast sums of money.

and at least one of the contractors involved in this, i think, paid no income tax last year on $15 billion worth of profits, in fact, made $4 billion in free money -- tax givebacks from the taxpayer. so this is kind of an amazing situation. if it's free, i want it to be free. that would include covering the overhead and other koflts and the opportunity costs of using these unique and vital u.s. test facilities. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'd be delighted. >> i appreciate the question. i think it's very well founded. and there are two specific answers. in the first. in the second line, line two of the amendment, lines one and two, it points out these activities have to ensure that the secretary at no cost to the federal government, first of all -- and i clearly intend that to mean overhead and any of the things the gentleman mentioned. and then secondly in lines five and six, the access to the

property and the data is contingent with this language, quote, if such activities are self-funded by the contractor. so i intend this to mean that every cost direct or indirect, overhead or explicit, must be born by the contractor or else the access is not granted. >> if i could reclaim my time. how would the gentleman respond to the question of testing priority? which comes first, something that the pentagon favors or something that the pentagon has already cast doubt on? some of the comments from some of my friends on the committee, it almost seems like this is a resolution of no confidence in our own pentagon, if we so distrust their opinion on things. so if you have limited test facilities and there has to be an order of test, will this company be able to jump the line and be able to get ahead of other testing priorities? >> if the gentleman will yield, there's nothing in this amendment or the base text that mr. bartlett has propounded that

gives any priority in testing to anyone. so i would interpret that as means it's entirely within the discretion of the department of defense as to who's first in line and who goes first. >> so we still trust the pentagon to make those decisions. >> well, if the gentleman would yield, yes. i mean, i would think the question of what should be tested when is a decision the department has within its prerogative. >> i thank the gentleman. i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. >> is there any further discussion on the amendment? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. andrews. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. >> mr. chairman? on that i would ask for roll call vote. >> the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

and a recorded vote has been requested. seems there's sufficient support for roll call vote. roll call voight vote is orderedment i stated earlier that we would hold all recorded votes until the end of this, but it looks like we have everybody hereme here. so we will proceed to the roll call vote at this time. >> chairman mckeen? >> aye. >> ranking member smith? >> aye. >> mr. bartlett? >> aye. >> mr. reyes. >> no. >> mr. thorn berry? >> aye. >> ms. sanchez. >> aye. >> mr. jones. >> aye. >> mr. mcintyre. >> aye. >> mr. aiken.

>> aye. >> mr. brady. >> aye. >> mr. forbes. >> aye. >> mr. andrews. >> aye. >> mr. miller. >> aye. >> mrs. davis. >> aye. >> mr. wilson. >> aye. >> mr. long avin. >> aye. >> mr. lobe yaund dough. >> aye. >> mr. larsen. >> aye. >> mr. turner. >> aye. >> mr. cooper. >> no. >> mr. cline. >> aye. >> ms. bore die yoe. >> aye. >> mr. rogers? mr. rogers? mr. courtney?

mr. courtney? mr. franks. >> aye. >> mr. lub sack. >> aye. >> mr. schuster. >> aye. >> ms. giffords? ms. giffords? mr. conaway. >> aye. >> ms. san gas. >> aye. >> mr. lamb born. >> aye. >> ms. pingry. >> no. >> mr. wittman. >> aye. >> mr. kissel. >> aye. >> mr. hunter. >> aye. >> mr. heyne rick. >> aye. >> dr. flemming. >> aye. >> mr. owens. >> aye. >> mr. kaufman. >> aye. >> mr. gair mend di.

>> aye. >> mr. rooney. >> aye. >> mr. critz. >> aye. >> mr. plats. >> aye. >> mr. ryan. >> aye. >> mr. ridge elle. >> aye. >> mr. rupers burger. >> aye. >> mr. gibson. >> aye. >> mr. johnson. >> aye. >> mrs. hartsler. >> aye. >> mrs. castor. >> aye. >> mr. heck. >> aye. >> ms. sutton. >> aye. >> mr. schilling. >> aye. >> mrs. han bus sa. >> aye. >> mr. runyon. >> aye. >> mr. scott. >> aye. >> mr. griffin.

>> aye. >> mr. pa lot sew. >> aye. >> mr. west. >> no. >> mrs. roby. >> aye. >> mr. brooks. >> aye. >> mr. young. >> aye. >> mr. rogers. mr. courtney. >> no. >> ms. giffords.

>> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes were 54, the nos were 5. >> the amendment is agreed to. the chair now recognizes mr. cooper for the purpose of an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. amendment number 164, i would ask to be distributed. >> the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

>> gentleman from tennessee is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment has to do with the joint strike fighter but only the f-35b, the short takeoff and vertical landing variant of it. so in this vast program, this is a very small aspect. what the amendment would do is, the committee remembers that this year we have funded three of these and next year my amendment would propose that we fund four. now, the committee work says we should go ahead and do six. i would like to cut that back by two for a reason. it would save $380 million in

money that i think could be spent for other higher priorities. i do not do this lightly. secretary gates, among others, has been highly critical of the f-35b program. and to quote him, he says, the marines' short takeoff and vertical landing variant is experiencing significant testing problems. these issues may lead to a redesign of the aircraft structure and propulsion, changes that could add yet more weight and cost to an aircraft that has little capacity to absorb more of either. as a result, i am placing the stovl variant on the equivalent of a two-year probation. if we cannot fix this variant during this time frame and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, then i believe it should be canceled. so instead of me being hard on the f-35b program, i think we're being generous because we're actually increasing purchasing by 33%, just not the 100% that

the committee had proposed. i'm dog thing this in response the secretary of defense's heartfelt plea that there is a fundamental problem with the vairnlt of the joint strike fighter. i would propose that the $380 million saved be spent primarily on aircraft parts and maintenance for the marines and the navy. so that it would be kept within their purview for very high priority, actively used aircraft, high up tempo aircraft that needs this help because this is an underfunded account. the navy and ma reenz have been begging for more money in this account and i think we should help them with this. and $63 million would be spent on improving the equipment for our national guard and reserve. every member on this committee knows how heartfelt the pleas are from our guard and reserve back home to have more and better equipment. so, mr. chairman, this is an important amendment.

it's a small amendment in this vast defense bill. it would only change the spending of $380 million, but it would help send a message to the contractor of the f-35b that we need to get this program back on track. it ups production, not only keep willing the production line warm, it keeps it hot, but it also helps fund other pressing needs of our navy, marines, national guard and reserve. i would ask my colleagues on the committee to accept this amendment. >> mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i very much respect the gentleman's work on the committee and in the congress and ever since he's been here to be a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility, and i respect that greatly. however, i must oppose this amendment on three grounds.

first, reducing the request by two f-35bs would increase the cost of the remaining four f-35bs. secondly, it would reduce the department's top line, and i would remind members that secretary of defense already reduced the future years defense program by $78 billion, of which $4 billion came from the f-35 program. and, thirdly, i oppose this amendment because it could increase the navy and marine corps strike fighter shortfall. currently the shortfall is projected to be 52 in the department of the navy in 2018 and 37 our marine corps. if these care craft are not replaced in future years, this amendment would add two more jets to the marine corps shortfall. i know the secretary put this program on a two-year probation

and turned over complete responsibility to the commandant of the marines. and i had a visit with him, and he told me that he personally is engaged in this program and that they have made great progress. i would hate to see a bump in the production line at this point. for that reason, i would then reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. >> would the chairman yield for -- >> i would. >> i thank the chair marn, appreciate your kind words. i knew there was going to be a "but" in there somewhere. we can disagree without being disagreeable. it was not the intention of this amendment to in any way cut the top line of dod. all the money, all the money, every penny, is being returned to other accounts with, in my opinion, higher priorities. second, i respect the commandant very much, but it's going to

take some pretty strong aeronautical engineering to correct the weight and propulsion problems of this craft, and with all due respect to the commandant, we need things that our troops can fly, things that work. the gentleman also made the point that the cost would increase if you only buy four instead of six. well, the gentleman knows that the cost of this is already increasing every year, unlike the cost of most weapons systems that we purchase. we do not seem to be able to get value for quantity here the way we have in other weapons programs. and i would just suggest until the mechanical and engineering difficulties are worked out here and we essentially we should fly these before we buy them, investing before we test them is a highly risky strategy. i would just urge the committee to stick with the 33% increase in purchases instead of going with the 100% increase in purchases. i thank the gentleman for

yielding. >> i thank the gentleman for correcting my statement. we have -- i know this has been kind of a moving target as we move through amendment so i appreciate that correction. chair recognizes mr. johnson from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the gentleman mrshgs co mr. cooper for offering this amendment. but i would respectfully urge any colleagues to oppose it. the decision has already been made by secretary gates to slow purchases of the marine corps variant of the joint strike fighter, and i don't see the justification for further reducing the buy in fiscal year '12. the program has already been dramatically cut and delayed. the more we chip away at the program, the more expensive per aircraft and less