..

>> without objection the amendment is considered as read as the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes on his second degree amendment. >> this commitment is offered by myself and chairman miller as a second degree amendment. my good friend i'm certain is absolutely correct in his passion for what has been accomplished at this museum. i am not opposed to a national world war ii aviation museum. however, all of us have to the

same question of why are we doing this. this is america. you don't need you as congressional action to of the museum. but some museum sometimes my rise to the level of getting a designation from congress so there's usually some due diligence that done. we really can't accomplish that as the house armed service committee. if we accept this as a practice that we can do an immense like this that i also believe next year we will have 60 of them because each of us will designate something that is very worthwhile and very much accomplish. mr. lamborn to indicate where the air force museum, the national air force museum and the national navy aviation museum. we have a national air and space museum and the annex at dulles. there's a big difference between this museum that's in this amendment and those. we own those. they are public. the collection is owned by the taxpayer. james polk signed legislation that established the smithsonian as a trust instrumentality of

the united states. they do not charge. the museum in question here charges. we don't exactly know who even owns the collection. it is not necessarily accredited by the national museum association. it's not open every day. if you all have earphones if you google the you can see the our days is not even a seven days a week missing. i think it's got fantastic programs. it is not currently supported by the united states air force but there is a way to do the due diligence. we've question of sustainability, ownership of the collection, operations, sustainability. can this museum sustained itself? this is what i've done in this amendment. because we know the national air force museum and the national aviation you see in and, of course, the army understands these issues, we are asking them to get back to us and certified the following. at the museum can maintain and preserve military cultural resources. the museum is accredited.

three, the museum prevents the use of any item donated to the museum. is it really the museum's collection? we would not want to rise to the level where this congressional action designating a museum and then not have the question asked was not be sustainable. we have offered the amendment. i will yield the rest of my time to mr. miller. >> thank you very much mr. kirby. i concur. i think designating something as the national museum takes a little more than just a few minutes of time. i think all of the museum's that have been spoken about, mr. lamborn and mr. grace both who are great aircraft enthusiasts and i appreciate what they are attempting to do. all of these museums have a specific interest in world war

ii. not only world war ii aircraft. the other thing is as you google and look, there are a couple of others that pop up, what they are, whether are, what they do i don't know, but i don't know that it is appropriate for this committee with as little information as we have today to designate one single privately owned facility as the premier facility in the country. so with that i cosponsored this with mr. turner. and again if it can meet these specific issues i think it's something we need to revisit. with that i yield back to mr. turner. >> this amendment does not stop the process. it merely says we are not suited to be doing this. we are asking the experts to tell us and then from th that action can be taken. yield back. >> the gentleman yield back.

mr. lamborn is recognized on mr. turner's second degree amendment. >> i've been to both of the museums, mr. miller's and mr. turner's museums in their respective districts and they are world-class operations. the one in dayton, ohio, is maybe the leading aviation museum and the entire world. >> no, no, no. >> and one in pensacola the leading navy aviation museum in the world. fantastic apparition but i don't think museums are in competition with one another. i think maybe there's low bit of apprehension on the part of people in your district saying these are in competition. it's not th that way at all. five institutions like this build on each other. they enhance each other. >> will yield? >> certainly. >> i assure you i have no concern someone will get on the highway and get confusing protocol router as a posted in ohio. this is not an issue of competition. this is whether not that rises

to that standard. what happens with that the nation is federal funding issue, collection and assignment of issues, deconflict and with respect to designation of collections. i am not opposed. we just need to diligence. >> reclaiming my time. there are no federal funding issues here and there are none ever desired. let me just, what was i going to say next? oh, we did talk to the air force. the air force historian waited and said they have no objections to this. that seems like the most appropriate office within the air force. and remember, what we're looking at right now is overkill. we really want to the secretary the air force, the secretary of the navy and the secretary of the army all come in and briefed us on a name change? and go over to the senate and briefed the senate on a name change.

that's what this amendment calls for. that's overkill. maybe let's have a different process and work on that for next year, for the future, but this amendment i would urge a no vote, the second degree amendment because we would have to call and convene a hearing on this committee, bring it all three secretaries and have them say whether they liked the name change or not. and the senate would do the same thing. i think this amendment is -- >> it does not require that. less time will be spent on it by this committee then we are spending now. it just requires that the expert take action on. it does not require a hearing. it requires to provide -- there are tons of things that happen in communication that does not require we can be. this markup though does. >> okay, reclaiming my time. i'm just going by the language. it will say they will all provide a briefing to the

committee. >> and that's the general language that is used in a number of provisions in the nba that shall be provided for today. none of them require the committee to convene. >> let me just wrap up by saying there are 26 nationally recognized museums today, five air force, to army, six navy, and this is one that specialize in world war ii aviation and is of high quality. and i think it would not be fair to start a very involved, cumbersome process for the first time ever when we never have done that before in the history of congress. so if we want to start doing this going forward, that's one thing but i think in this case that would be really not the right thing to do. saw it for no vote on this committee and yes on this committee and yes on the underlying amendment. i yield back. >> mr. norcross. >> very quickly.

on the amendment by mr. turner. the most decorated warship in american history is in my neck of the woods, nationally recognized. we have to put these on par with each other because, as you said earlier, everyone in your probably has that type up a of a museum coming up by denise the standardization or we will be back offering ar our enemy in aw minutes. >> ms. sanchez. >> mr. chairman, i think it's incredibly important for us to put together some standards to review and to ensure that not come as you said, there's so many of these that are going to come up the people want to debate and i just go back to something that happened to us in california, into mr. turner. because he has the air force museum over there at the base. there were four super -- and

there was a space shuttle. i'm sorry, space shuttle. and the space shuttles, there were four of them that were going to be put in place is about our nation. and there was an incredible demand for them. much more than just for places. for example, the people that i represent actually built them. mr. turner wanted one at his museum where he has the wright brothers all the way through everything practically. and because these demands will come up in some of these museums will be vying for some of these very valuable pieces of history, i think it's incumbent upon us to say let's step back a moment and let's forget what standards we're going to have to designate such museums. so i would urge a vote for the

underlying, for the perfecting amendment by mr. turner. thank you. >> let me offer a suggestion. how about, and if we except the second degree amendment, except mr. lamborn amendment, and everybody agreed we need to keep working on both of them, as far as the certification requirement, as far as some sort of recognition, in addition obviously working with mr. graves in others. let's at least get the issues in play as far as working towards the floor in conference and everybody understanding that there is more work that needs to be done on this. that's my suggestion. obviously, we don't have to accept it but i think that will help move us forward or anybody else wish to be heard at this time on the second degree amendment of mr. turner? ms. tsongas.

>> just to reiterate that you think important issues have been raised that the required some more regular process in moving forward as you contrast different museum proposals that may come forward, and i think the second degree amendment does that. >> mr. graves, do you want to be heard on the second degree? >> i do. just the simple fact were spending any time on this at all says something. it's a poison pill enemy. i'll be quite honest. i have to question the qualifications that he secretary of the air force the secretary of the navy has i'm making these determinations. this is a flying museum. the navy and air force nothing right now and at least their historic aircraft, not have them fly. they said any building. these are flying aircraft and when you use this industry can't we're talking about, what does that even mean? how can they make the determination of whether not

these aircraft are being, how is a put, maintained or industry standards for the preservation of military courts rule resources. identities are flying aircraft being restored by one of the premier restoration facilities. what's interesting about that is the of the museums that are being mentioned used it for restoration and information. i find it fascinating we are even talking about this. poison pill amendment is all that is. we are trying to raise and elevate the status of his museum. i think colorado springs, that's all it does and that helps. we should be promoting aviation and the wonderful history we have in the united states, not try to hamper it. i have to echo what mr. lamborn said. do we really want to secretary of the air force and the secretary of the navy to even spend one minute on something as frivolous as this?

with that i yield back. >> i think we are at a pretty good place here. that's good. mr. lamborn just give up and say the action heard what his chairman singh. he accepts that so that's all i was asking people to do. so thank you. are you okay? okay. the question is on the amendment offered by mr. turner. those in favor say aye come. opposed? in the opinion of the chair of the ayes have it. the second degree amendment is adopted. now the questions on the anonymity offered by mr. lambert as amended. those in favor say aye. opposed? the ayes have it. the lamborn amendment as amended is adopted. thanks, everybody. next we're going to have votes before long. it would be nice to be able to get through these amendments but we will do whatever we need to. the gentleman from california. >> i have an amendment at the

desk. >> the staff what please pass out the amendment. >> and i am sure it will be noncontroversial. >> i'm counting on it. [inaudible conversations] >> without objection the admin is considered as read, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this to me, this is a big lift. i think everybody in this committee, republicans and democrats can those of us who live on a coast or not on a ghost, we understand what commercial shipbuilding does for this nation. we understand that we don't have enough defense shipyards in time afford to build the ships we

would have to use if we went to war. we only have a few shipyards now in this country that can build the chips. so here's what we have realized. because we can't prop them up, we don't have enough, we're not building enough ships, we rely on our commercial shipbuilding sector, that industrial base, to build military ships if we had to do that. in the meantime what they do is they provide for the maritime security program, that is what you should all of our stuff overseas when we go to war. when our marines go to war, when our soldiers go to work they fall in on do that has been shipped over i commercial companies. this is a bill or an amendment on the vessel into the discharge act. every commercial shipbuilding, every ship driver come every port, every manufacturer, anybody who operates on our

inland waterways or on our coast has to do with the vessel into dental discharge act. here's why this is important. we have 26 states have their own water laws in their economic impact areas. they have economic zones. 26. right now with the apa does this has taken will give you away because what will require of you with your ballast water has not been, neither is effectively that exists to purify or render harmless, and looking to you, mr. chair monday, to talk about this little bit. there is no technology that does 100% of what we needed to do to do all of the little things, all the organisms. here's what ships do know. they go out into the ocean, take on ocean water, nix it with water that they took from a port, mix it together and then they discharge in the ocean. they tried to not bring any port

organisms to a different port and spread the organisms. this can finally fix what 26 states has missed the. this is interstate commerce. this is our job. this is bipartisan. this is supported by the labor unions, by the manufacturers, my toshiba drivers, by everybody. data supports this. we have the ability to say this is a national security issue. that this impacts national security and that if you control the ocean you control the world. that's a fact that if you control the ocean you control the world. that china needs to keep its toe in the ocean. this replaces the current unworkable regulatory patchwork with one set of scientifically based environmental protected and technological capable rules. here's what's crazy about this. we turn this over to the epa.

we give this to the epa. turn the cameras off. we are going to give us to epa and we will say, epa can you get to determine whatever is technologically feasible right now, that's going to be the one standard that is used throughout the country, throughout ivory coast so that people who build ships, drive ships come operate ships, know that they have a regulation that is set in stone. no more guessing. we can build warships. they can invest more money. we can create more jobs just by setting and epa standard. i'm turning this over to the epa. we are going to give this to them and they'll come back in the next four or five years, 2020 or 2022, tell us what is technologically achievable and that will be the standard. this is a big lift. this is a monumental step. if this committee can do what other committees have tried to

do and failed in the interest of shipbuilding, our industrial base at our national security your you control the ocean you control the world, and america should control the oceans. with that i yield back. >> mr. shuster. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. i support mr. hunter's amendment. i think he laid out the case for why we should do this, as we the united states continues to rely upon commercial use flagships, american shipyards american merchant mariners to provide our military sea lift. this event addresses the critical national security issue and the availability of u.s. cruise. this committee has heard over and over again and, in fact, address this issue in 2015. however, that patchwork of regulatory system which he talked about, 26 states, it's inconsistent and it creates a significant readiness issues if

not addressed the it is an ill-conceived regulatory framework and it creates uncertainty, stymies investment and could reduce our capacity availability of sensitive u.s. cruise an event of national defense emergency. actions by the court will worsen this, and again, having the strategic sea lift is on board and is overlapping rules, it's only congress, it's interstate commerce. congress is the only ones that can deal with it. his amendment is bipartisan. it's compromise legislation and would replace the current unworkable situation with one set of scientifically based incrementally protected and technologically achievable roles which is important, cyberspace, technologicalltechnologically a. is an them is supported by over 60 national regional organizations, the american waterways operators, the american committee counsel, the iron and steel institute,

airtime officers, the cruise lines, the dredging contractors, longshoremen association of the afl-cio and the seafarers international union and the chambers of commerce. as a longtime member and chairman of the justification and infrastructure committee i believe there are few issues more important than addressing maritime competitive and readiness issue. i support mr. hunter's amendment and i yield back. >> mr. garamendi. >> mr. hunter and i've been working on this issue in the coast guard maritime committee for some time and i worked on a long before i ever came to. you will notice there's opposition, california state lands commission. i was chairman of that when we invoke the rule that is not able to be implemented. it didn't work. it could work but i was there when it happened i guess i was responsible for it. i am now he with the national agenda, and went to address this on a national basis. this particular bill has been worked over in a way that does

affect national security in a very serious way. the maintenance of our maritime industry is critically important and we really cannot have 26 different standards. we really have to a national standard. one that makes sense to this legislation will drive us to a sensible regulation. just one more thing to keep in mind, and that is one of the problems with that is the question of whether an organism is viable or nonviable or dead. i'm all for dead. and so hopefully the epa will use that four letter word in describing a an appropriate regulation. in any case we ought to move this forward. and i really start about what we did in california eight years ago. >> mr. lobiondo. >> my colleagues have their improperly described how important this is. i don't want to be repetitive about it, but you can't expect to ship owners to be 26 different standards and to do

different federal agencies. this is a commonsens common sen. i strongly support it. >> mr. larsen. >> thanks, mr. chairman. and i don't want to be a killjoy in a lovefest for this bill. having being on the committee and having try to get this thing past as well the last five to six years, and being supportive of it, transportation infrastructure committee which jurisdiction is waived for purpose of today's debate, the efforts that we've taken in the house to get this passed have always been stymied in the senate. even when it was a stand-alone bill. i guess i would just caution the committee, it would be my assessment as a member of this committee and is a member of the t&i committee that did this amendment goes in to the mbaa that it becomes a major sticking point with the senate. for reasons of folks were on the

committee can talk about and really not the business of the committee to get too far into that. but it will be a major sticking point for the whole bill, if this one gets in. my preference is related to working to the t&i committee committee has made a different choice on that. but i just wanted to perhaps point of caution to prepare for the future. i yield back. >> appreciates the point of the gentlemen. we will count on the chairman of that committee to get things worked out in one vehicle or another, we hope it any further discussion? if not the question is on the amendment -- >> i do have one. as long as it's not on the faa bill. >> don't blink. the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. hunter. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. further amendments? the chair recognizing the ranking member.

>> i have an amendment that is the action of the desk however. i am offering and withdrawing it. it is rather long. we are asking to pass it up electronically so we can save some trees. >> without objection and the gentleman is recognized. >> this is a base closure. we changed a little bit but he would authorize the military to do a brac, and for the most recent study they have mad madet clear they're overcapacity. we have seen the size of the military reduced whether we like it or not over the course of the last five years. and there is excess capacity and it has been now 11 years since the last brac and i think we need to empower the military to do another one. as we discussed at the outset the central cloud overhanging this committee is we don't have the resources to do what we would like to do. which is why we have to get creative with the oco and whole bunch of other things. in a situation like that you should try to save resources whatever you can save them.

a brac would be one way of doing that, given to excess capacity. i know some people have been critical of the study that came out because the study was based on what the needs would be for the military in 2019. we constructed them, somewhat nonsensically in my view, to tell us what and it would've been in 2012. i mean, why not 1944? the future is more important than the past and they are looking forward to the budget to see whether at and saying 2019, this is what we estimate. they estimate they are way over capacity and there is savings to be had from doing a brac. this would authorize it, so we can offer to love going to withdraw it but i just want to make that argument. i know committed by and large is not fond of the dword, but if we're looking at save money and a responsible way, it's better

than ad hoc way of military stewing about in terms of moving around the sulleys of equipment and troops. i will withdraw the amendment by the urge the committee to continue to consider the necessity of a brac. >> is a gentleman will hold or you of whatever. >> i don't care. >> i don't want to intrude on your time. >> i'm done. >> as y'all may remember will be put in last year's bill was a requirement that deity send us a report on excess infrastructure. we got the report a few days ago in a cover letter that 22nd of defense has i know this is meet the requirements of the law here's what we've got so far. and as the ranking over said it compared to 2019 with 1989. i've got lots of questions that i've asked that we do not yet have the answers to. i don't think we have, i don't personally i will say have the information i need to suggest we

need another at a brac. i know the readiness subcommittee will dig into this. we look forward to for the responses from the department of defense. i know the ranking member has a specific brac proposal that needs, a template that needs to look at. i don't know if anybody wants to be 2005. we have not yet broken even from the cost of the 2005 round a brac. just remember we have not yet broken even from that. so we've got to do better than that if we're going to have one. so i certainly do not rule it out but i also, my personal opinion is we do not yet have the information we need to authorize it and further work is required. i just want to highlight that. i don't know if the children has anything else. go ahead. >> i withdraw the amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. further amendments? the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i asked in his consent to call

upon block an amendment before, approved with minority. >> without objection to order. if the staff were pass up the amendments en bloc. [inaudible conversations] spent without objection the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman is right is for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is comprised of the following the amendment numbered 003 our two by mr. scott that the men's title three, aircraft maintenance and modernization. amendment number 151 by mr. graves, direct the dod to bury the commit on the application of the two-faced

design built selection procedure. amendment number 162 by mr. larsen allows the service secretary to uproot provisions raise service to local agencies administering wic program said servicemembers and their families in space is a bit of a. this degree situation allows it and doing so does not hinder the nation. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> other members wish to be heard on the en bloc amendments? if not the questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. opposed? independent of the chair the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the and elements are adopted. are there further amendments to the section of the bill? here's the situation. we've got eight votes rolled up

for this section of the more. we are going to vote here in the next 10 minutes or so so we'll obviously not be able to get through all the votes. what i propose is we take a break, we have the votes on the floor, and become back and start voting right after the vote on the floor are concluded. and again we will have eight roll call votes so you need to be back to get through those. and then we will proceed on. i just got to say, everybody is doing well. i think there's only been once but twice and somebody has used their whole five minutes. and so we are on a good pace, if we can keep it up. meantime, we'll take a brief break and come back right after those. committee stands in recess. [inaudible conversations]

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

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

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

>> the house armed services committee passed the twentysomething defense programs bill by a vote of 60-2. this portion of the debate is one hour. [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. we will now resume roll call votes on those amendments on which roll call votes were ordered. and it looks like we have eight, fleming number 181 on climate change, conaway 279 on alternative fuel facilities --

facilities. rogers 188 on pistol transfers. bishop, 248 on land withdrawals. bishop 184 on utah test range. bryden stein 38 on western prairie chicken and a bigger. coffman 194 on military land act. so i think we'll go ahead and start the roll call. we may take a little pause and give members a chance to come back, but the issue before the committee is roll call vote on doctor flemings and 181 on climate change. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. thornberry. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will read for the results. >> mr. chairman, they are 29 aye votes, 30 no votes. >> the amendment it is not adopted. the issue is on amendment number 279 i mr. conaway of texas regarding alternative fuel facilities. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report the result. >> mr. chairman, there are 29 i go votes, 32 no votes. >> the enemy is not adopted. the question occurs on amendment

number 188 by mr. rogers of alabama regarding fiscal transfers. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report the results. >> mr. chairman, are 40 aye votes, 21 no votes. >> and the amendment is adopted. question occurs on amendment as revised by mr. bridenstine of oklahoma regarding unaccompanied alien children. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report the results of. >> mr. chairman, 35 aye votes, 26 no votes. >> in the amendment is adopted. the question is on amendment 248 regarding land withdrawals. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]