california. neither the prairie chicken or burying beetle is endangered or threatened at this point. they have not shown this is a risk, but we have a statement from oklahoma's general that said the risk posed by the ongoing listings of the beetle and lesser prairie chicken by the installations's ability to expand is concerning. we cannot afford a risk of being able to expand should the need arise. that's a statement from theageitant general. in the map that the gentle lady showed us right smack dab in the middle was a sale in the great state of oklahoma and all of which are affected by the peesh ease. with that, i will yield back to the item from california. >> i yield back. >> no further debate.

those in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. the nos have it. the gentlemen from oklahoma asked for a recorded vote which will be postponed. further amendments, the gentlemen from colorado. >> staff will distribute the amendment.

>> the gentlemen from colorado is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment concerns when federal land is being occurred by the department of interior for a designation as a monument, there is no provision where by the department can raise the daschle security as an issue. so the amendment is simple in that it gives the department or any federal agency that ability to raise the issue when the department of interior is considering federal land as a monument and it gives them the ability to raise as an objection the issue of national security.

i offer this because over the course of my own career, i have seen the impact of training on military readiness and i know how crucial it is to have them available for conducting that. there is a loophole that would allow outside special interest groups to gain control and prevent them from conducting the training. the group can submit a nomination for historic designation and they have no authority to consider certains on military objections. this amendment will close that loophole by allowing an agency the opportunity to oppose the nomination of aitite for

training area they expressed about readiness. i believe they should be entitled to change their area to challenge these areas when appropriate. this language mirrors the rights that private landowners have should they have an accident to a nomination. this has the title impact any state. this language will not change or impact any existing preservation sites on military bases that worked out in the department of defense. they have not had flexibility in the partnerships with local governments. it simply gives them a voice if necessary.

i encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment. i yield back. >> gentle lady from guam. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment to amend the national preservation act which has been offered by mr. kaufman. this is a debate that we had for a number of years and the arguments in favor hold no water. i oppose this o mendment which is unnecessary. while they require federal agencies including the department of defense to identify and care for the historic places, they are given latitude to do so in a way that does not affect national security needs. they testified to this fact in the house and they believe in compliance with the nomination

process in no way threatens the ability and the properties are listed ineligible for listing in the national register, dod works with the state, tribal and federal papers to develop mutually acceptable agreements to address the consequences of dod actions on historic properties. without impeding, the mission testing and training. as i have noted before, we have had examples of this on guam with the military construction in advance of the relocation of the marines. they identified a proposed fairing range that would have impacted access to a cultural site on guam. they had been added to the national register. adding this site did not impede

their plans. they were able to ensure access to the cultural site despite where they intended to locate the range. if this was in place back then, it would have silenced the concerns of our local community. it would have given dod an unneeded veto over their concerns. i think that this example of guam makes it very clear that the process works and it is not disturbing in any manner. let's not adopt the amendment that helps to include local community concerns that are understood and addressed. they serve a valuable role, but repeatedly playing cry wolf

served to undermine the arguments and devalue the importance of such clauses. should dod encounter a situation where they cannot reach an acceptable agreement that preserves readiness imperatives, dod can in accordance with the regulations implementing the nhpa after a final comment from the advisory consul on historic preservation terminate all consultation and make a final decision. based on past experience, dod does not believe the compliance with the nhpa including the national register nomination process threatens dod's needs or ability to meet the vital defense mission. the bottom line is they have the tools to overcome objections. the process for listing or

removing properties on the national register works and encourages cooperation among federal, state, and local governments. the department of defense has no concerns about the process affecting national security and so for these reasons, i oppose this amendment as unnecessary. >> the gentle leed yields back. >> if they have something that another agency is doing, they should be able to object. they don't have veto power with the language. this is simple to read front and back, one page. they don't have veto power. it makes them bring the department of defense into the conversation. they go hey, department of defense, what does this mean in the pacific off of san diego.

at the camp, we have an issue where we grew up surfing there. this is now a surf spot and to keep them from doing landings, i will make it a preserved site. that makes no sense whatsoever. there is plenty of coastline in places like california to go surfing. there not a lot of places where you have camp pendleton. they can train just one place. they can train there in san diego and the interior department does not take those national when they make their

decisions. they can object and talk it out and work through it at least keeping that in mind in places like san diego where you have recreation and military all buttoned up into one thing. i would yield to the gentlemen from colorado. it merely puts in to place the ability for dod to raise and i think it's very important. it does not give them veto power as the gentle woman had mentioned. it merely requires the objection that comes forward. it merely requires the department of interior who makes

the decision to take that into account. with that i yield to the gentlemen from utah. >> i think everybody yielded back over here. mr. larson? let's hear the question. >> i don't want to get the staff involved. if there is a factual question, i understand. >> there is a point to make and i want to understand. it gets dod at the table and page two lines 3-11 as a for instance, note if there is an objection as the basis for national security such as any impact for the inclusion.

that federal property shall be neither included or designated until an objection is with drawn. the way it reads to me it would be merely an agency could object and the designation or inclusion would not be allowed until it was with drawn. >> i don't think that's a question for the staff to pass judgment on. >> that's my argument. you heard it, folks. please oppose the amendment. >> gentlemen from utah. >> let me speak briefly to what i hope is the last of the

resource bills that we are having here. the system works well when they make considerations. that's what happens. we did very well. they have been a currencies that have taken place when they didn't and that's what happened in california. and we have no statutory authority to make the considerations. therefore we will not take these issues into consideration. they came up with the decision that was highly controversial and did impact the military use of that facility. with this amendment, they would change that process to say the department of interior must take the situations into consideration when they make the decisions. i think the practical effect of that would have greater conversation going forward so they can be worked out.

and we had historical problem where is it has not worked. they will solve the problem ahead of time where they reached the conclusion where the legislation could be dropped that could have been worked out in the future. i support this approach. this approach had it been in place would have solved certain problems that we have faced in our committee as well as this committee and it is basically limited on what private property owners have. it's the same concept they are putting in here. it would help solve problems and so they don't happen in the future. a, appreciate what he is doing and i support what he is doing and i keep this going. if you want to talk about it further, you can do so, but let's get to that point. i yield back. >> gentle lady from massachusetts. >> i don't think there instances.

one would dispute where dod and department of interior might have differences as to how to address national historic preservation issues, but we have to look to the testimony of the department of defense. in 2014, the dod testified on this issue saying that the processes work well for dod and they have not found compliance with the national preservation act to meet the readiness obligations. it testified that the act protects a quality of for the military men and women for the families and the public by facilitating a history, culture and no doubt it will have to be resolved, but this amendment if

there no and hose in favor say aye? those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the vote will be postponed. further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentlemen from virginia, mr. whitman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the consent to call up package three with amendments that are worked and approved. >> without objection would the staff pass out the unblocked package.

without objection, the gentlemen from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> unblocked package number three is for the following. the amendments are known by mr. jones with real property. amendment 133 r 1 is going to construction for the arctic and subarctic environments. the amendments by mr. larson with accountability of acquisition. the amendment regarding software applications to manage requirements and personnel capabilities. amendment 182 with the defense generator and equipment center, amendment 217 regarding navy maintenance work and amendment 315 by mr. whitman to modify the

table for a missing authorization. with that i yield back. >> is there a further discussion of the unblocked package? if not, those in favor say aye. those opposed say no? the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. >> the staff will distribute the amendment.

>> the gentlemen is recognized for five minutes. >> world war ii is one of the most important times in the world's history and we saw what the greatest generation was able to do at that time. there is a national museum of world war ii aviation in colorado springs, colorado in my distribution. it's the only that exists to exclusively preserve and promote an understanding of aviation in winning world war ii. it's a first class operation and comprises 109,000 square feet and they will expand by 150,000 square feet.

it presents the story of world war ii through all of the branches in ways that are engaging and enlightening for all ages. they restored aircraft that i flying today that were in pieces earlier. it has a robust k-12 stem program and even though the museum has only been in existence for four years, they brought in 11,000 students to learn more about stem topics. most importantly it's done at no cost to the taxpayer. it is privately funded and on private land. this amendment would recognize and redesignate the national museum of world war ii aviation and would have the world war ii aviation museum. there were 26 such museums around the country that congress designated including five on air force issues. two for army issues and six

pertaining to the navy. this would just join that distinguished roster of fine museums around the country. with that i also want to see if the representatives have anything to add. i yield back. >> the gentlemen yields back his time. >> park i might add a little bit because i am familiar with this. i have flown aircraft with this museum and the museum i fly foor took a lot of aircraft too. the restoration facility that is associated with the national world war ii aviation museum and they do a first class job. they are a first-rate museum and it tells the story as they pointed out of our ariel dominance during world war ii, not only with the army air

corps, but with the u.s. navy, the u.s. marine corps, the oil canadian air force and the british royal air force and aircraft associated with that. it's commerce and again specializes in the aircraft we use between 1941 and 1945. i appreciate what she has done and we have been working on this since 2012, i believe. i would urge the acceptance from the committee. i yield back. >> other discussions? i may have just missed it and whether there is a museum in the country. >> mr. chairman? >> would the gentlemen yield? >> of course. >> my list here, there is a national museum of united states air force in dayton, ohio and a

museum of aviation at warner robbins in georgia and an air and space museum in ashland, alaska and the command museum in dover, delaware and the air force museum in florida. i won't go through the army and navy museums. those are the five related museums and none of them are exclusive on world war ii. >> you feel that this is distinct enough that we are not picking and choosing among different museums of the same type? >> i honestly would. >> thank you. i yield back. >> gentlemen from ohio, mr. turner. >> i have a second at the desk. if the staff would distribute the second amendment.

>> without objection, the amendment is read and the gentlemen from ohio is recognized on the second-degree amendment. >> this amendment is offered by myself and chairman miller. as a secondary amendment,my good friend, i am certain they are correct for the passion that has been accomplished at the museum. i am not a posed to a national world war ii aviation museum, however all of us like the gentlemen who just spoke have to have the same question of why

are we doing this? this is america and you don't need action to have a museum. some might rise to the level of getting a designation and some due diligence is done. in the five minutes, they can't accomplish that as the house armed services committee. if we step this as a practice, i honestly believe we will have 60 of them because we will designate snag is worthwhile and accomplished. we do have the air force museum and the national navy aviation museum. we have the national air and space museum and the adults. there is a big difference between the museums in the amendment and those, we own those. they are public. they are owned by the taxpayer and james polk established them as a trust for the mentality of the united states. they do not charge.

it is not lawyer he accredited. you can see there days that aspires to and it's great and has fantastic programs. we have questions of sustainability and operations. sustainability. can they sustain itself? this is what i have done. and of course the army understands these issues. we are asking them to take a look and get back to them to certify the following things. that they are accredited.

they prevent the private use. is it the museum's collections. and employed the staff sufficient for that. we would notment it to rise to the level where there is action designating the museum and not having the question as to whether or not it is sustainable. i will yield the rest of my time to mr. miller. i concur and i think designating something takes more than a few minutes of time. i certainly a preesh yalt what they are attempting to do. all of these have a specific interest in world war ii, not only world war ii aircraft.

as you google and look, there a couple others that pop up. and i don't know. 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 that we need to revisit. with that i yield back to mr. turner. >> thank you. this amendment does not stop this. that action can be taken. i yield back. recognized on mr. turner's

second-degree amendment. >> i have been to both of the museums. mr. miller's and mr. turner's museums in the respective districts. they are world class operations. >> i assure you, i have no concern. this is not an issue between the competition. this is whether or not it rises to the standard. what happens is federal funding

issues, collection and assignment of issues, deconflikz with respect to designation of collections. i'm not a posed. there no desire. let me just -- what was i going to say next? we did talk to the air force historian who weighed in and said they had no objections to this. that seemed like the most appropriate office within the air force. and right now it's overkill. do we want the secretary of the air force and the navy and the secretary of the army all come in and brief us on a name change. go over to the senate and brief the senate on a name change. that's what it amendment calls

for. for the future, this amendment i would urge a no vote and the second-degree amendment and convene a hearing it is not required hearing. it provides that they provide us. there tons of things that happen back and forth that does not require we convene. this mark up does. >> reclaiming my time, they said they will all provide a briefing to the committee. >> that's the general language

used. none required that they convene. >> let me just wrap up by saying there 26 nationally recognized museums today. five air force, two army, six navy and this is one that specializes in world war ii aviation and is of high quality. i think it wouldn't 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. if we want to start doing this going forward, that's one thing. in this case that would be really not the right thing to do. i ask for a no vote on this amendment and a yes vote on the underlying. i yield back.

we have to put them on par with each other. everyone has that type of a museum coming up. >> the gentlemen yields back. >> mr. chairman, i think it's important for us to put together standards to review and enshure that as you said there so many of these that are going to come up that people want to do. i just go back to something that happened to us in california. he has the air force museum over there at the base.

there were four super schultzes and the space shuttles and there were four of them that would be put in places around the nation. there was a demand for them, much more than places. for example, the people that i represent actually built them. mr. turner wanted wright brothers through everything and because they will come up. i think it's intum bent upon us to step back a moment and figure out what standards we are going to have.

some sort of recognition and working with mr. graves and others, let's at least get the issues in play as far as working towards the floor and 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. that will help move us forward. anybody else wish to be heard at this time on the second amendment.

>> doi think important issues have been raised that require a process moving forward as you address different proposalpropo. >> you want to be heard? >> i do. thanks, mr. chairman. the fact that we are spending any time on this at all said something you know about this. it's a poison pill amendment. i will be honest. i have to question the qualifications that the secretary of the air force and navy has on making the determinations. this is a flying museum. they have nothing right now and at least they are historical and none of them fly. these are flying aircraft and when you use those industry standards that we are talking about, what does that mean? how can they make the determination on whether or not these aircraft are being

maintained or industry standards for the preservation of military cultural resources? these are flying aircraft being restored by one of the premier restoration facilities. what's interesting is the other museums that are being mentioned use west pack for information and help. they are again static restorations. i find it fascinating that we are even talking about this. it's a poison pill amendment and we are trying to raise and elevate the status of this museum in colorado springs. that's all it does and that helps women should be promoting aviation and the wonderful history we have here in the united states. not trying to hamper it. i have to say do we really want the secretary of the air force and the secretary of the navy to spend one minute on something as frivolous as this? with that i yield back.

>> that's all i was asking people to do so thank you. >> i yield. >> the amendment was offered by mr. turner. those in favor? those opposed. the ayes have it. the second-degree amendment is adopted. that is as amended. being the chair, the ayes have it. as amended, it is adopted. thank everybody. we will do whatever we need to. the gentlemen from california mr. hunter. the staff would please pass out. >> it will be noncontroversial.

>> i'm counting on it. >> we understand what commercial ship building does for the nation. we understand that we don't have enough ship yards in time of war to build the ships that we would have to use if we went to war.

we only have a few now in this country that can build big ships. here's what we realize. we can't prop them up and we don't have the work and we are not building enough ships. we rely on the ship building sector that industrial base to build military ships if we had to do that. in the meantime, they provide for the maritime scare program that ships all the stuff overseas when we go to war. when the marines and the soldiers go to war, they fall in on gear that has been shipped over by commercial companies. this is a bill or amendment on the vessel incidental discharge act. every commercial ship builder and every ship driver, every port, every manufacturer and anybody who operates on our inland waterways or on our coasts has to deal with the

vessel incidental discharge act. here's why this is important. you have 26 states have their own water laws in their economic impact areas. in the economic zones for the states. 26 with the epa, they said hey, we will give you a waiver because what we require of you with the water has not been invented yet. there is no technology that exists to purify or render harmless and i'm looking to you later to talk about this a little bit. there is no technology that does 100% of what we need to do to kill the organisms. here's what ships do now. they go out into thecean and they take on the ocean water and mix it with what they do at the port and they mix it and discharge it with the ocean. they try not to bring any port organisms to a different port

and spread the organisms. this can fix what 26 states has messed up. this is interstate commerce. this is our job. this is bipartisan and supported by the labor unions and the manufacturers and by the ship drivers. by everybody. that's who supports us. this is a national security issue. if you control the ocean, you control the world. that's a fact. the discharge is the legislation they have the achievable rules. here's what's crazy about this. we turn it over to the epa and give this to them. turn the cameras off.

whatever is feasible right now, that's going to be the one standard that is used throughout the country and throughout every coast so that people who build ships, drive ships and operate ships know they have a regulation that is set in stone, mow more guessing and they can invest more money and we can create more jobs by setting an epa standard. it turn it over to the epa. we will give this to them and they will come become in the next four or five years and they will have a date in 2020 or 2022. they will tell us what is a cheerable and that will be the standard. this is a big lift. if this committee can do what others have tried to do and filled in the interest of ship

building, our industrial base and our national security. if you control the ocean, you control the world and america should control the oceans. this is going to help us do that. with that i yield back. >> the gentlemen yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i support mr. hunter's amendment and he laid out the case for why we should do this. as we continue to rely on the flagships and ship yards and mariners to provide a military sea lift, this amendment addresses the national security issue and the availability of u.s. crews. they heard over and over again and in fact addressed this issue in 2015, however that patch work system which he talked about in 26 states is inconsistent and has potential to create significant readiness issues. it's ill-conceive and creates

uncertainty and stymies investments and could reduce the capacity and availability of u.s. crew in the event of national defense emergency. actions by the courts will worsen this and again having the strategic lift is so important and the overlapping rules and interstate congress and commerce can deal with this. we will replace the current unworkable situation with the environmentally protective achievable rules which is important. science-based and achievable. his amendment is supported by over 60 national regional organizations to name a few. the american chemistry council and maritime officers. the cruise lines and the

longshoremen and the sea fares international union and chamber of commerce. mr. gar mendy. >> i worked on it long before i came here. there was opposition from the california state lands commission. it didn't work, but i was there when it happened.

we really cannot have 26 different standards. we have to drive it to a sensible regulation. it's whether an organism is viable. i'm all for dead. hopefully they will use that four-letter word in describing an appropriate regulation. >> my colleagues have and having

been on the team and trying to get this passed as well for the last or six years and being supportive of it being to the infrastructure committee which has jurisdiction that waited for the purposes of today's debate, i guess i would just caution the committee that it would be my assessment as a member of this committee and if this amendment goes in to the ndaa it becomes a major sticking point with the senate for reasons that folk who is were on a committee can talk about and it's really not the

business to get too far into that. it will be a sticking point and my preference is to work through the committee and committee has different choice on that, but perhaps as a point of caution, to prepare for that in the future. i yield. >> we'll count on the chairman of that committee to get things worked out in one vehicle or another, we hope. any further discussion? if not, the question is on the amendment -- >> i do have one. so long as it's not in the faa bill. [ laughter ] >> don't blink. [ laughter ] . >> the question on the amendment, mr. hunter, those in fay say aye, those opposed say no? being the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. further amendments, the chair recognizes the ravening member. >> yes, sir, i have an amendment, it's not actually at the desk. i'm offering and withdrawing it. it's rather long, so we're

basking unanimous consent to pass it out electronically so we can save some trees? >> without objection, and the gentleman is recognized on his amendment. >> i'll be brief. this is base closure. we change it a little bit, but it would authorize the military to do a b.r.a.c. and per their most recent study they have made it clear they're overcapacity. we have soon 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. it's been now 11 years since the last brac, and i think we need to empower the military to do another one. the central cloud yoemp hanging this committee is we don't have the resources to do what we would like to do, which is why we have ton creative in a situation like that, you should save resources any way you can

do it. i know some people versus critical of the study, because the study was based on what the needs would be for the military in 2019. we instructed them somewhat nonsensically in my view to tell us what their needs would have been in 2012. i mean, why not in 1944? the future is more important than the past. they are looking forward to the budget to seeing where they're ought and this is what we estimate what they need, and we estimate they're way over capacity and there is -- this would authorize it. so we could offer it here, so i'm going to withdraw it. i just want to make that argument. i notice the committee by and large is not fond of the "b" word, but if we are looking at saving money in a responsible way, it's better than the ad hoc way the military is doing it now in terms of moving around facilities, equipment and

troops. i'll withdraw the amendment, but i would urge the committee to continue the necessity of a b brac. >> i don't want to intrude on your time, but i just wanted to highlight this for as y'all may remember what we put in l.a. years's bill was a requirement that dod send you a report on excess infrastructure. we got that report a few days ago, and the cover letter, the deputy secretary of defense says i know it does that mean the requirements of the law, but here's what we've got so far. as the ranking member said it compared 2019 with 199. i've got lots of questions that i have asked that we do not yet have the answers to. so i don't think we have -- i don't personally i'll say have the information i need to say yes, we need another round, but i notice the readiness will dig

into this. we look forward to further responses from the department of defense. i know the ranking member has a specific brac proposal that -- a template that needs to be looked at. i don't know that anything wants to redo 2005. remember, we haven't broken even for that. we have to do better than that. >> i certainly do not rule it out, but my personal opinion is we do not yet have the information we need to authorize it. does the gentleman have anything else? >> no. thank you.

>> without objection, so ordered. if the staff will pass out the amendments en blanc. the gentleman from virginia is. >> comprised of the following. 003-r-2 that amendments title iii drlc-130 maintenance and modernization. by mr. graves amendment, report lang ways to direct the dod to brief the committee on the implementation of the two-phase design bill selection procedure.

162 hr-1 that allows the service secretary to local agencies administering w.i.c. programs to service meetings. the security, with that, mr. chaim, i year old back. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. being the chair, the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. okay. here's the situation. we've got eight votes rolled up for this section of the mark. we are going to have votes here

in the next ten minutes or so, so we will obviously not be able to get through all the votes. so what i propose is we take break, we have the votes on the floor, and we come back and start voting right after the votes on the floor are concluded, and again, we will have eight roll call votes. so you need to be back to get through those. then we will procedure on. i've got to say everybody is doing well. i think there's only been once or twice when somebody has used their whole five minutes. so we are on a good pace. if we can keep it up. in the meantime we'll take a brief break and come back right after votes. the committee stands in recess.

the house armed services committee marking up the $610.5 billion $defense programs and policy bill today. the committee taking a break now for votes on the house floor.

you just saw the chairman of the armed services committee, mac thornbury leaving the room. adam smith, the ranking member. this markup session going as late as it takes today, according to the armed services committee. again a $610.5 billion defense programs and policy bill, as members work through the bill section by section, and consider amendments through the day. could be a late night tonight. again, members taking a break for votes on the house floor, and our live coverage here on c-span3 of the markup session will resume after those house

votes. meanwhile, a couple of news updates. this from the associated press, republican presidential contenter ted cruz has tapped former technology executive carly fiorina to serve as his running mate. the texas senator plans to unveil his pick in indianapolis, according to a republican with direct knowledge of fiorina's selection, who spoke on condition of anonymity. also a today from the hill, they're reporting that former speaker dennis hastert was sentenced today to 15 months of prison in a hush money case that revealed allegations of decades-old sex abuse, according to multiple reports. the hill story continues that judge thomas durkin of the northern district of ilnoise, announced the sentence repeatedly calling hastert, quote, a serial child molester, again according to multiple reporters in the room.

the journal also ruled he must face two years of supervised release during which he's prohibited from contacting the alleged victim, will also pay a $250,000 fine, according to rolls. also from the hill today, president obama is planning to visit flint, michigan, next week to speak about the onagain water contamination process. governor rick snyder will be too busy to visit with the president during the president's trip, snyder told "the detroit news." the obama administration has been critical of snyder's handling epa head has repeatedly sought to assign the claim. he's accepted blame and apologized, but also said the epa was significantly responsible for not better policing the state. and in the senate today, an update on that side of the capitol, the senate today blocking advancement of its first appropriations bill of the

year. overall federal spending is made up of a dozen spending bills which are working their way through committees. the first to reach the senate floor, federal energy and water projects across the country. it failed to get cloture, to limit debate. again, a bit of news updates from this afternoon, as we wait for members here in the house armed services committee members to return after votes on the house floor. this markup of the defense programs and policy bill, a $610.5 billion authorization measure that the house armed services committee is considering today.

again the house armed

services committee marking up the policy bill today. the committee taking a break for a number of votes on the house floor. jeremy herb is joining us from just outside the hearing room in the rayburn. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> tell us some broad strokes what this annual defense authorization provides for? >> this is a big pentagon policy bill. it sets policy from the military in the pentagon, everything from personnel, the pay raise to guantanamo and detainees there. it also authorizes the $610 billion in spending for the pentagon, kind of setting the blueprint for the appropriator, so we will continue go into the night. >> what are some of the key elements they are looking at today. >> so far some of the heated

debates have been on immigration. there was one amendment that would prohibit the pentagon from housing unaccompanied my grant children, there's also talk about guns. going forward we're going to look at amendments on russian rocket engines, on guantanamo, on the size and scope of the pentagon budget, given thattings you know, there still the budget control act, and this budget uses a scheme of taking $18 billion from the budget and moves it into the base budget. without getting too complicated, effectively will require another supplemental funding measurer if next may. >> so we saw on some of your writing on politico, a couple other issues that amendments are involved with. the one is women in combat. how about that? >> that is correct. we haven't gotten to that next. next up the is military personnel subcommit year. congressman duncan hunter has a

bill that would require women for selective service. he's opposed to this and is using it to spark debate on the military's decision to allow women in all combat jobs. he thinks it's a bad idea, so i think it could spark a particularly fiery debate. >> any surprises so far today? >> well, we had one debate about a world war ii museum that took up a lot of time. the chairman had to negotiate, but so far it's been pretty calm, but there's a lot of time left. we've own gotten through three of the six subcommittees, and there's a lot more amendments on the full committee. i would expect a late night. last year it ended at 4:39 a.m. it wouldn't shock me if this year's went longer. >> that's a late night. does the committee bring in food and beverages for the members who state until 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 in the morning? >> they do. they're stacked with snacks and

food, and there's dinner, but the members starting to cranky, particularly past around 10:00 or so. >> where do democrats on the armed services committee stand on support for this big? >> it's still unclear. generally this bill does pass with a pretty wide majority, but democrats have expressed some concern and the opposition to the way the bill moves money from the war budget to the base budget. congressman adam smith set he doesn't know yet if he's going to support this bill. last year he -- but again it on the floor, and so we're going to see if he does the same thing again this year. >> the funding leave is the amount proceeded by the also, but has the white house weighed in? >> the white house hasn't weighed in yesterday, but ash carter today said he was opposed to the wait -- so that's a good

sign the white house is also going to say they oppose it. there's plenty us that they'll be against the about the blocks from bringing detainees to the u.s., which the president wants to do in the last year of his i want sill. >> once work is completed in the markup session, what is the timetable for getting this bill to the house floor for debate? >> it's posed to be on the floor next month once congress comes back for recess, and at the same time the committee will mark up their version, so we could see this bill moving quickly. now, there's always a question of getting the bill done and through the floor. typically this bill isn't finished until november or december. it's unclear whether it would drag out this long, too >> jeremy herb, are you in it for the duration tonight? >> i am not.

thankfully i took the morning shift and i have a colleague relieving me if a couple hours for the night shift. >> thank you for the update on today's markup. >> thank you.

sgb we're live on capitol hill. today the house armed services commit year is going section by section, marking up the 2017 programs and policies bill today. they're in a break now so that members can vote on the house floor, a number of votes in the house at this hour, but they should resumed within the hour or so here in the rehburg house office building. our live coverage on c-span3 will continue at that time. while we wait for the markup session to resumer we're going to show you opening statements and the first part of today's meeting from earlier.

>> the committee will come to order. hr-4909, the national defense authorizations act for fiscal year 2017 we all take pride in the fact that for 54 straight years congresses with jersey of

both parties have passed and presidents of both parties have signed an annual ndaa. i believe it's more important this year that we do so than any time i've been on the committee which, except for mr. jones, is longer than anyone else. there are several reasons. one is we live in a -- is the mike not working? i'll try to speak better into the mike. several reasons i think it's particularly important we do our job this year. one is that we live in a dangerous, complex, rapidly changing world second we're

nearing an end of administration where there are questions and doubts about america's future. and stadeoffs over spending have created uncertainty even among our own service members about how well they will be supported when they are called upon to help defend the country. so the importance of upholding the obligation that the constitution places on congress

congress, the importance of making a clear statement to friends and adversaries that we will have the means to stand up and defend ourselves, the importance of reassuring the men and women who serve our nation that they will not be sent on a mission without being fully prepared and fully supported means that we have to do our job and pass this bill, even an imperfect bill, as undoubtedly it is and will be. of course we're going to have differences on various provisions, but after we work through them, i hope and trust we can all work together to pass this bill for our service members and for our country. it may also be true every year that we have difficult fiscal choices presented to us. this year something is going to be short-changed, but the bottom line for me is that it is fundamentally wrong to send service members out on missions for which they are not fully prepared and fully supported. for that reason, i think it's essential that we begin to correct the funding shortfalls that have led to a lack of readiness and led to a heightened sense of risk that we've all heard about in our hearings and that we have seen

firsthand. for years, many of us have talked about readiness, but i hope each of you has the opportunity, if you haven't already, to look into the eyes of a pilot who is getting far less than the minimum number of training hours he or she is supposed to have in order to stay proficient in his or her airplane or the eyes of a mechanic who is working longer and longer hours with no days off to try to get the planes flying but are increasingly voting with their feet to leave the military, or of the commander who has been tasked with deploying his unit overseas but does not have the functioning equipment that he is supposed to have, and he's not sure when or if he's going to get that equipment. as the committee heard in one of

our meetings, the bill-payer for a lack of readiness is dead service members. now, to fix readiness takes time, and i've come to realize it's also more than just putting money into operations and maintenance accounts. for example, cuts in in-strength can get us to a place where we can never fix readiness because there's not enough people to get the job done, and those we do have are getting worn out. and however good our maintainers are, there's only so much anybody can do to keep 30 and 40-year-old helicopters and airplanes flying. so that means end strength and procurement are a part of the readiness equation. starting to turn around our readiness shortfalls while staying within the total dollars requested by the administration means that there's not enough money to fund fully the oco activities proposed by the president for the full year.

there will be enough for roughly six months. but there will be a new president who undoubtedly will review the operational activities proposed by president obama as well as the funding for those activities. and the new president and the new congress will have the opportunity to make adjustments. by the way, that is exactly what occurred with the last change of administration. in 2008, this congress under democratic leadership passed a bridge fund that funded operations in afghanistan and iraq into part of the year 2009. then the obama administration came into office, re-evaluated what was going on, requested the supplemental. congress passed it, and the activities continued. i think the best thing for us to do now is to ensure that

whatever operational deployments, president obama or the next president sends our military out on that they are fully prepared and fully supported for those missions. the good work of the subcommittees coupled with the full committee mark accomplishes that goal, i think, and helps ensure that our military capability has both strength and agility, the two characteristics i think best summarize what is essential for protecting our country. it stops more cuts to the size of the army and adds small numbers to the air force and marines. it restores the full pay raise of 2.1% for all service members, which is what they should get under the statutory formula. it puts more money into facilities. it puts money into readiness accounts for depot and other maintenance and for training and for exercises. it responds to unfunded requirements of ammunition and a variety of weapons and equipment. now, i don't mean to overstate, we are not going to fix readiness or the other problems we face in a single bill, but i will quote churchill to say this

is not the end. this is not even the beginning of the end. but perhaps it is the end of the beginning, if we can turn it around. this bill also contains a number of other reform items which we'll discuss in more detail later. at this point, i just want to thank all the members who have contributed to the efforts to improve and update our acquisitions system, military health care, commissaries, uniform code of military justice and to improving and updating your organization or responsibilities of dod, including updating the 30-year-old goldwater/nichols act. those are five major reform packages that are before us today, all of which make significant adjustments. i think our job is not just

about allocating money, it's also about continuing to work to see that the taxpayers and our service members get more value for the money we spend and that updated technology is fielded faster and that our laws and institutions meet the challenges of the times. we're the largest committee in congress, and i realize some members may view their responsibilities differently. but i feel the weight of two duties, which the constitution places on our shoulders. one is to support our nation's security in a way that's consistent with the hopes, dreams and sacrifices of generations past, present and future. the other duty is to support the men and women who volunteer to serve in the armed services. if we can do our duty with the same kind of dedication and commitment and strength of purpose that they do their duty, then we will have done our job. i yield to mr. smith for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

and i want to thank the chairman and the members of this committee as well for all the hard work that they've done in putting together this bill. every single member of this committee has contributed to it and contributed to it exactly in the spirit that the chairman just closed his remarks with, to meet our duty to make sure that the men and women who serve in the military have the equipment they need to do what we ask them to do and are as best prepared as is possible. and i think we are genuinely trying to do that in this bill. i also agree with the chairman that the threat environment has perhaps never been more complex for the united states, from russia to iran to the threat of various violent extremist groups to north korea and on and on. it is a very, very complex threat environment out there, and it's complex in part because the u.s. has been since world war ii the guarantor of security for much of the globe, certainly for south korea and japan and for other parts of the world. and i know there are some who say why are we out there, you know, taking on responsibilities for other nations.

i actually think it's worked quite well. if you'll go back in history, in world war i and world war ii, before those wars, we took an isolationist approach. not our problem. we don't want to be involved. we don't want to be out there. and we both know how those ended. we wound up in wars that were very, very costly. so being the guarantor of national security, or security across the globe since world war ii, it has worked out reasonably well. but the threat environment is complex and the largest problem that our committee faces is we do not have the money in the short term or the long term to

meet all of those complex threats. that's why -- or sorry, i should say we are unwilling as a congress to provide the money that is necessary to meet those complex threats. and that is why we have a bill that takes, as the chairman said, and only funds half of the oco. so, presumably, five or six months from now, in iraq and afghanistan, our troops will run out of money.

now, the chairman's quite correct, this was done in 2008 with the new administration coming in and a supplemental was passed. unfortunately, the times are different now because in 2008, we didn't have the budget control act, and we did not have the unwillingness to get rid of the budget control act, which we have now. so not only five months, six months into the new fiscal year will we face a shortfall in oco, we will face the return of the budget control act, which will and if there isn't the proposal by the department of defense to reduce our army and our marine corps to levels that even they admit they would rather not go to, but they are living with the money that they have, and if we prevent them from doing that now and then all of a sudden in april or may of next year they have to do it in the blink of an eye, that's even worse. so, i think this bill is an excellent effort to try to get around this very difficult problem, but i hope some time soon congress will make a decision. you can go one of two ways. either one, you say you know

what, we're going to either raise the taxes or live with the debt to spend the money we need to spend for what we think our defense priorities are. or two, we're not, so therefore, we have to readjust what our defense priorities are. we haven't done that. what we've done is we've continued to maintain a belief that we're going to have this amount of money when we have this amount of money. and that could potentially wind up being more harmful to our troops even than not passing a bill. so, while we try to support the men and women serving in the military, we have to do it not just in the short term, but in the long term. so, i hope we'll get rid of the budget control act. i hope we will get to a more sensible place. but as the military always says, hope is not a strategy, and this bill is based on a lot of hope for what's going to happen next april or may. so while it's a good, solid bill, it spends more money than we have, and that's a problem that we're going to have to wrestle with throughout this mark-up on the floor and once we get to conference. and with that, i yield back to the chairman.

>> i thank the gentleman. before proceeding any further, i have a few announcements to make about today's proceedings. the order of consideration for today's mark-up of hr-4909 will follow our subcommittee structure. we will begin first with the subject matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces, then move to the subcommittee on tactical error and land forces, then the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, then the subcommittee on readiness, the subcommittee on personnel, the subcommittee on strategic forces, and finally, the full committee matters. just so members know, my intention is to continue working straight through until there are votes called, which i understand are somewhere around 2:00 to 3:00, and so, we can get as much done as possible before that time.

second, let me remind members that any amendment offered must be in writing and 80 copies must be available at the desk for distribution. for anyone who met the monday deadline, those copies have already been made by the committee staff. in addition, if a member has an amendment that involves the jurisdiction of other committees, we request the member before he or she offers the amendment to have a letter from the respective committee chairman indicating their waiver of the right of referral. i impose the same requirement before including language in the underlying mark. this approach has been the practice of the committee for many years so that we can proceed directly to the house floor without our bill being sequentially referred to other committees. also, it is the practice of the committee that amendments involving additional spending should identify suitable offsets. members must not offer amendments that could result in a point of order against hr-4909 on the house floor during its consideration. and i want to remind members

that house rules prevent consideration of a bill reported by committee unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks or a statement that there are none, since it's also the policy of the house republican conference no member shall offer any earmark. we will not permit earmarks in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2017. it's the chair's intention to operate under the five-minute rule in order to allow all interested members the opportunity to speak in an orderly manner. without objection, members have five legislative days within which to submit written statements into the record. without objection, it is so

ordered. finally, i want to remind people, i tried to use this slide last year as a motivation. unfortunately, this is how some of us looked about 4:00 as we were departing. i'm trying a different approach this year. when i was recently overseas with the speaker, one of the people on our trip recommended this book. and then i come home and realize it's on so. com's recommended reading list for this year. it's called "brief: make a bigger impact by saying less." and one of the recommendations it has for the military is don't use powerpoint. now, if that's not an advancement of civilization, i don't know what is. so, i'll just encourage this. the part of the point of the book is that we've all got limited attention spans, and so, make your point right up front, make it quick and move on. and if we can do that over the course of the day and evening, we will be out a lot quicker than we were before. >> mr. chairman? are you also willing to throw that book at the person who speaks too long? >> it's not a very thick book, so i'm not sure how much of an impact it will make, but it will be available here at my desk if anybody wants to consult. before beginning with the subcommittee reports and following consultation with mr.

smith, i ask unanimous consent that the provisions contained in the reports of the subcommittees and the chairman's mark, which includes full committee provisions, be considered for the purposes of this mark-up as original text of hr-4909 and that these provisions be considered as having been read and that the bill be open for amendment at any point. is there objection? without objection, it is so ordered. without objection, the chair's authorized to declare a recess at any time. the committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces. pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. and that's the way we'll proceed throughout the course of the day. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, for any comments he'd like to make. >> mr. chairman, first of all, you and the ranking member were very gracious in thanking all

the members for their work on this bill, and we would all like to thank you and the ranking member for the work that you've done. beginning to change the direction of a dangerous curve line for national defense is good work, and this committee has done good work on this bill, and it's because of your leadership, and we appreciate that so much. i'm pleased to present to the full committee the sea power and projection forces mark that passed unanimously out of subcommittee. this is the definition of a bipartisan mark, and i want to recognize and thank my ranking member, joe courtney, and all the members of my subcommittee for their help. they have been instrumental in developing what i think is a truly historic mark. over the past year, this committee has heard about the need to choose between presence and posture, capability and capacity. the sea power and projection forces mark projects that false choice and provides more of both. it authorizes the highest level of shipbuilding funding since the reagan administration. it authorizes three ships more than the president's budget.

it protects 1/12 of the fleet and one of ten carrier air wings from deactivation. and it authorizes procurement of new capabilities that will increase the navy capability and capacity. in total, our mark represents a down payment on the 350-ship navy america needs. it also provides critical investment in the air force's b-21 bomber, kc-46a tanker and c-130 air-lift programs, which are critical in the ability of our nation to project power. i also want to emphasize what the subcommittee mark and full committee mark accomplish in tandem. the subcommittee mark prohibits the administration from doing away with cruisers and signals strong congressional support for our carriers and carrier air wings. i am pleased that the readiness, military personnel, tac air land and full committee marks provide the funding needed to operate and man the elements of force structure that we are protecting and to invest in 20 additional

strike fighters to flesh out our air wings. i am grateful to chairman thornberry and to other subcommittee chairmen for their efforts to achieve our shared vision of a stronger military and a stronger national defense. there are many items in the subcommittee mark that i would like to highlight, but in the interest of time, i will conclude by reiterating that i believe that this mark constitutes a turning point. for many years we have trend lines going in the wrong direction. with this mark, however, i believe we are bending those curve lines in the right direction and taking some early, important steps toward the stronger military and the 350-ship navy we so clearly need. i want to once again thank chairman thornberry, ranking member smith for their efforts to turn the tide, and i'd urge the members to support the mark. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, gentleman. chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces, gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm going to summarize my written remarks which i'll ask to be entered into the record.

i again want to salute my chairman, randy forbes, who our subcommittee again has worked totally on a bipartisan basis in terms of the hearing and record that we built up over the last four or five months to get to today's mark, which as he said, passed unanimously in subcommittee. i also want to salute the hard work of our staff that, again, it's almost impossible to tell who's majority and minority. they work together so seamlessly. phil mcnaughton, dave sin kelly, bruce johnson and katy rember, who have again done an outstanding job in getting us to today's place. again, i want to reiterate the general comments of chairman forbes, which is that when i

first came to congress in 2007, the administration submitted a shipbuilding plan that called for construction of only three ships. today we have a president's budget that came over that called for $18 billion of investment in shipbuilding in eight ships, and we built on that submission. and as the chairman said, we have roughly about 11 ships included in this budget. again, it's happening for very real external forces and reasons that are occurring. the cno, the navy, john richardson remarked the other day that america is entering a maritime era over the next two or three decades, and our fleet, which again, declined during the 1990s and early 2000s, really needs to continue to build on the upward trajectory, which again, was started six years ago under secretary mabus. i just would end by saying that, you know, this subcommittee has also been really, i think, very focused in the out years, because shipbuilding is such a long-range game in terms of the ohio replacement program, which is going to cost the country about $80 billion. this is an essential part of the

triad which the new star treaty really has, i think, chiselled in stone. and what we have done in this subcommittee is to use really smart acquisition approaches, incremental funding, multiyear procurement, to try and trim the costs of that program. and the cbo and the congressional research service endorsed that approach in december, saying that we will save up to $10 billion with the efforts that our subcommittee has put together. and assistant secretary stackley issued a report about a week ago. he said that we will save as much as 25% in the missile tube production because of this approach. and it has been a bit of a battle to get to this different type of shipbuilding program approved by the congress. we were very successful last year, and i look forward to working with the chairman to make sure that this very forward-thinking, smart approach to shipbuilding is going to, again, avoid a situation where

we suffocate the rest of the fleet, which would be much at risk if we did not move forward in this direction. so again, i look forward to continuing to work with the chairman in terms of advancing this mark and all the members of our subcommittee. and with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. before turning to amendments, is there any other discussion on the subcommittee mark? hearing none, are there any amendments to the subcommittee report? >> mr. chairman, i have -- >> gentleman from oklahoma? >> i have an amendment at the desk.

>> the clerk would please distribute the amendment. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> reading of the amendment and the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. lithuania is a country in the baltics sharing a border and a long history with russia. russia has repeatedly shut off lithuania's energy supplies, literally turning off the lights and turning off the heat. in late 2014, lithuania began operating a floating liquefied natural gas import terminal. they gave it a very appropriate name -- independence. before deploying "independence," lithuania relied on russia's gazprom for nearly all of its natural gas and paid some of the highest prices in europe.

almost overnight, gazprom cut its rate by 25%. that's a 25% rate cut overnight. now lithuania has a diversity of supplies from norway, finland, sweden, the united arab emirates. but curiously, not the united states of america, the world's largest natural gas provider. mr. chairman, i hope my colleagues keep lithuania's story in mind, because it shows that energy security is national security. the two are undeniably linked. we enhance our own national security when our allies and trading partners are not reliant on unfriendly regimes for energy. mr. putin has shown us that energy can be a more powerful weapon than bullets, bombs or even tanks. and the mullahs in iran are surely learning the very same lesson. an uncertain regulatory environment deters investment

and confidence necessary to fully unleash the american energy that helps our allies and our partners. my amendment helps fix this problem. it is the text of hr-351, the lng permitting certainty and transparency act sponsored by my friend from ohio, congressman bill johnson. this bill passed the house back in january of 2015 with nearly a veto-proof majority. nine members of the minority on this committee supported the bill. the current export approval process works like this. the federal energy regulatory commission approves permits for onshore siting, construction, expansion and operation. then ferc oversees an environmental assessment consistent with the national environmental policy act or nepa, and other environmental reviews as required. only after receiving the necessary ferc permits and clearing environmental reviews does the application reach the department of energy's desk. d.o.e. then performs a public interest review and accepts or

rejects the application. i want to be really clear about what this amendment is and what it does. my amendment only deals with the very last step of this process, the final d.o.e. review. my amendment does nothing, nothing to shorten or modify in any way existing full environmental review processes. my amendment codifies into law a 30-day limit for d.o.e. to make a final decision on an export application. it also clears the backlog of pending projects which have cleared the environmental review process. it's necessary to codify the 30-day limit because d.o.e. is dragging out final approvals well past 30 days, defying its own guidelines. in fact, morehan half of the 30-plus applications awaiting approval today were sent to d.o.e. before 2013.

the second part of my amendment reinforces the ability of applicants to use the courts to compel d.o.e. to issue a final approval to avoid endless legal wrangling. when people are investing $20 billion in an export terminal, they shouldn't be caught in regulatory purgatory for these endless amounts of time. i ask my colleagues to remember the hopeful story of lithuania, a small country, a former soviet vassell, a nato ally once coerced and intimidated by moscow through repeated gas shutoffs. one lng import terminal changed the game. let's help repeat that story. lng exports are a win-win for

our allies, a win for our partners, and a win for the american economy. my amendment helps ensure a fair and reasonable regulatory process which encourages investment. with that, mr. chairman, i'll yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman, mr. courtney, seek recognition? >> yes, just briefly, mr. chairman. i just point out that this has been an issue in terms of the approval process. d.o.e. in 2014 looked to extradite it and they have been approving these applications and are committed, frankly, as an administration, to doing so. i would just note that, you know, the language of the amendment actually mandates a decision. it does not mandate approval. so a decision could be nonapproval as much as it could be approval. this could actually end up sort of, you know, blocking applications as opposed to what i think is what the proponents' desire, which is to move these along. so, if my republican father who practiced law for 50 years used to say, careful what you wish for. and i would just caution people that, you know, this amendment is a double-edged sword. and i would just point that out for the members in terms of

their consideration of this amendment. i would yield back. >> other discussion on the amendment? mr. kaufman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i support this language because it will improve the national defense posture of the united states by improving our ability to export natural gas to our allies in europe and asia. u.s. liquefied natural gas exports are already being referred to as the most powerful demonstration of u.s. geopolitics in decades. lng exports will help our allies reduce their reliance on russian energy. in addition, the value of being a major lng supplier will create u.s. advantages in diplomacy and geopolitics in the decades ahead. lng has already been an important geopolitical lever to contain russia's antagonist

ambitions by forcing russian energy companies to reduce their energy prices to u.s. allies in europe. i'd like to thank the gentleman from oklahoma to for his work on this issue and encourage all of our colleagues to vote in support of this amendment. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. gentleman from california. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. i'm not going to take it up at this time, but i want to raise the point, and i will on the floor, lng, or natural gas, is a

strategic national asset, as are ships and shipbuilding. if we are going to take this strategic asset and deal with lithuania, as the gentleman proposes, and beyond, then we ought to use this national asset to advance the american shipbuilding industry in american mariners. my amendment, which has not received a waiver from the energy and commerce committee, and there are, not appropriate at this time, i will take up on the floor. and what it basically says is that an initial percentage, 15% of that lng in year one must be on american ships and then ramps up to 50% of the lng over a five-year period on american ships. this is essential. the american domestic shipbuilding, commercial shipbuilding industry is doing well at the moment, but in two

so i'm not going to offer this at this time. i want to alert the committee to this. i will take it up later, if we are able to, on the floor, where we don't need this issue of the other committees. i'll let it go at that, and withdraw. >> if there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. briden stein. those in favor, say aye. those opposed say no. being the chair, the ayes have

it. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. are there other amendments? gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there's an amendment at the desk. >> the staff will distribute the amendment. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment's pretty straightforward. it would increase our operational carrier fleet from 11 to 12. the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned a 350-ship fleet. 12 of those should be aircraft carriers. we currently have 11. the deployment of these 11 is about a ten-month deployment each time. that's too long. it's hard on the crews. it's hard on the ships. and so, adding that 12th carrier would be beneficial to the

readiness that you've already talked about, in addition to the strategic asset that a carrier is. i don't intend to ask for a vote on this. my intent is to point out to the committee and others the need for this 12th carrier. we struggle from time to time to understand our scope of the needs for the department of defense. we do a defense review and other things that sometimes tries to get at that issue, but this is an issue that should be considered and looked at as we look at what the defense department needs. we will, of course, have to make hard priority choices, and that's what our chairman has done with respect to this year's work on the subcommittee. so now that i've got the statement made, that we do need that 12th carrier to properly defend this country, i will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. >> amendment is withdrawn. further amendments? gentleman from virginia. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call upon block package number one, consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. >> without objection, is so ordered. if the clerk will please pass out the en blanc package.

>> thank you. >> without objection, the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from virginia's recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, on-block package number one is comprised of the following. amendment number 18 by mr.

hunter for a briefing on fund distance line replacement. 111r-1 by mr. courtney considering the build right of the virginia class submarine. amendment 112 by mr. courtney to strike incremental funding. amendment 124 by mr. nugent, the special operations under sea capable. 135r-1 by mr. norcross regarding dismantling and recyclely naval vessels. the amend bent my mr. courtney considering the united nations convention on the law of the sea. amendment number 180r-1 by mr. byrne, regarding floating dry docks for naval vessels. and amendment 318 by mr. hunter

sfloo >> mr. chairman, thank you. this amendment would support secretary carter's directive to the navy to reduce the total number of lcfs to 40 by downselecting to one variant, getting two for the price of one is usually a good thing. getting one for the price of two is not. yet for some reason, we are paying for two variants of the lcs to conduct the same exact missions. this defies common sense and has resulted in two totally different ship types, each requiring their own supply chain

and crude training programs. you would think that producing two variants would improve the odds at least one of the options would achieve its intended objective, but even that's not true. these ships are more expensive than originally planned, have taken longer to develop, are unreliable, lightly armored and have limited offensive capabilities. if the goal is to make this program more efficient, then we should downselect one variant of the lcs, as secretary carter has suggested. in fact, he makes the point that by downselecting to one variant, we will reduce the total number of lcf ships to 40, allowing for higher end ships that we will ensure the navy has the necessary capabilities and posture to defeat even our most advanced potential adversaries. the lcs has combat in its name, but indeed, it is not survivable in combat. \s rewsume hearing par

we will now resume on which roll call votes were ordered. it looks like we have ate. filming numb per 181 on climate change. conoway on alternative fuel facilities, rodgers 188 on pistol transfers. broadstein, 225 revised on un'companied children. 248 on land wraufl. bishop 184 on utah test range. brine stein 138 on prairie chicken and a beetle. kauffman 194 on military land act. so i think we'll go ahead and start the roll call. we may a little paw and give members a chance to come back, but the issue before the committee is a roll call vote on dr.