Mike Turner

But I am thankful that all of my majority colleagues on this subcommittee are standing firm for the need for modernization.

This hearing is very timely because we are currently faced with a highly uncertain future regarding our own nuclear deterrent modernization program.

This was a study done by James Sherk at the Heritage Foundation, looking at hiring patterns...

So it seems to me that the only purpose that a fuel economy standard would serve would be to actually limit what customers are able to buy and what automakers are able to sell and produce.

If the automakers don't provide customer satisfaction, and if the dealers, Mr. Kelly, don't have cars on the lot that people want to buy, they will be penalized in the marketplace more ruthlessly than any government regulator could…

We think the action needs to come from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

Is it the public interest for the United States to have a GPS system that operates free of harmful interference? Is it the public interest for the U.S. to have set the global standard in precision, navigation and timing?

It has been said by the FCC, including the Chairman, that the FCC handles interference issues all the time, so we can trust it to handle this one.

My understanding is that Mr. Russo solicited all Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with the LightSquared proposal.

The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure that innovative new GPS applications can be developed in the future.

Please explain the 'public interest' or 'good cause' where significant national security concerns were known two weeks before the waiver was issued by the FCC on January 26th.

Is it routine for the Deputy Secretary of Defense to warn the FCC two weeks before it takes an action that that action 'has strong potential for interference to . . . critical National Security Systems'?

This is a troubling statement, as it seems to be suggesting that this case is a routine matter.

The reviews undertaken suggest that there are certain GPS applications that, even with modification or complete redesign, would still not be able to perform their current mission in the presence of such network broadcasting directly…

LightSquared has offered to pay up to $50 million for retrofitting or reequipping Federal agencies.

Is LightSquared the only current or planned broadband provider where the GPS interference concern is an issue?

There appears to be a tension between national space policy, which seeks to mitigate harmful interference to GPS, and national broadband policy, which in this particular case, would cause harmful interference to GPS.

We have heard that LightSquared believes the FCC process, including all testing, can be wrapped up by November 30th.

General Shelton stated that he believed that LightSquared's filter 'solution' could cost billions of dollars over more than a decade.

Significant harmful interference to the GPS system would be a tremendous liability to our defense of the homeland.

As a Member of Congress, I can think of no higher responsibility than to make sure U.S. military forces are fully trained and equipped before they are deployed overseas to Afghanistan, Iraq, or any place in harm's way.

Simply put, if the FCC gives LightSquared the final go-ahead to build out its network, I fear the DOD's training activities in the United States would come to an end.

I trust Chairman Genachowski is doing something very important this morning if he couldn't be here to discuss the significant harm to national security that may result from the FCC's action on January 26th of this year.

I must also make clear that I consider the Chairman's failure to show up today to be an affront to the House Armed Services Committee.

I have never seen an agency, a State agency or a Federal agency, advocate that strongly on behalf of any private sector company, unless somebody's wheel was getting greased.