In order to ensure each can deliver two ships per year. Today the lcs program is on budget and blows the congressional gao to actually read the gao report which is not a friendly one. They conclude cost isnt the issue. Strategically, what are we talking about . Why do war fighters keep asking for it . It is not only an ideal platform from which to employ Unmanned Systems to increase important in the future, it can go places tanker ships cant. The commander of logistics in the western pacific said they can go places and do things no other american ships can with flexible large payloads that enable easy integration with Regional Navy for mandatory missions. There are 50,000 islands across the philippines to sri lanka. Larger ships can visit 50 ports, the lcs can darken 1000 ports. Admiral harris was invoked, in a meeting with chairman thornberry, myself and many members of the delegation who had to leave for no fault of your own told us the lcs is playing an increasing role in the pacific. You dont want a fleet like that but the navy doesnt want the ship, why are they expanding missions in singapore to deploy two ship simultaneously including in 2018. The ship doesnt work, why are allies asking for more. Why did admiral harris testify before this committee. A lot have small navies, they want to learn from us, learn from somebody and i would rather he learned from us from other financial partners. There navies are small and when the cruiser comes in, it can overwhelm them. It is the right platform to train. I appreciate very much my colleagues concern about munitions shortfall in key regions. I share that view. Over 1. 5 billion above and beyond, the committee is correctly emphasizing americas enduring commitment to asia and europe. We prioritize munitions in the asiapacific while supporting joint exercises with regional partners by transitioning the European Deterrence Initiative to the base budget which is where it joins the list of enduring requirements. We are doing things to shore up the munition shortfall. It is a contentious issue. Listen to all sides but more than anything else i tried to listen to the navy and what the navy actually said. The fifth fleet once a ship, the sixth fleet once a ship, time to listen to what our war fighters are saying and continue building to meet major operational requirements. Thank you, mister chairman. It is with enormous respect and admiration for the chairman of the committee and other members of the committee but this ship really doesnt sail. This ships only principal purpose is to show the flag and get us closer to 355. Half 1 billion, over 500 million for each ship. We can surely spend that money better elsewhere. Nice to have a ship out there in the ocean, nice to have it in the South China Sea or singapore or wherever else until it has to be used, assuming it can actually sail but if it ever has to be used in a contested environment, without a doubt it isnt going to survive. Therefore it is kind of like showing the flag and nothing more. We really do need to transition to the frigate which some say can only be built if we continue to build a ship that really doesnt work well. We ought to right now say enough is enough, dont build another one, use the money elsewhere, advance the frigate design which is going to have to be a significant improvement over the lcs design, to survive in a contested environment and get on with it but the Industrial Base is always a great argument to use and by the way if we dont want to build munitions we could build an icebreaker so we could actually do something in the arctic ocean. I know i see my colleagues saying back to the icebreaker, we are indeed. Lets do this. Why dont we swap two lcss for one heavy icebreaker so we can have the u. S. Navy in the arctic which we cannot now do. In any case the amendment is a good one. Clearly we do not have enough in munitions. Somebody says the Industrial Base cannot supply more munitions which probably tells us that particular Industrial Base needs to be augmented so i support mister boltons amendment and im going to you want more time . I yield back. The gentleman from texas. I also support the gentleman from massachusettss amendment. We are constantly bombarded by information about unfunded capabilities we need to have we dont have today. Projected costs we are not on a trajectory to meet. I heard the chairman of tactical air and land talk about the urgency and we have a colleague asking us to make one of these tough decisions, only one of these combat ships at a cost of 556,382,000, those resources could be put to one of those unfunded urgent needs we have right now and while we have open questions and concerns about the viability and seaworthiness of this program, this is a very rational suggestion from one of our colleagues so i support our colleagues to join me in doing so and i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from massachusetts. I want to address the munitions issue where some of my colleagues said we dont have the Production Capacity to make the munitions we need. Whether we need to fix that capacity, that is the job congress is here to do, to get our sailors, marines, soldiers and airmen the munitions they actually need, i am grateful furthermore to the gentleman from alabama for his invitation. As you might imagine we are currently planning a wedding. My lovely fiancee has said she would like a 200 person wedding. That sounds like a lot to me but by your logic we should triple that to 600 because undoubtedly we would be able to achieve cost efficiency as per person costs would drop. I would welcome the gentleman from alabama to take that proposal to my fiance. Finally, Mister Whitman said repeatedly that the navy needs this ship. My colleague from wisconsin cited various fleets that would like this ship which my colleague from wisconsin and i are both marines, like asking a marine if he would like more chow. Of course he would like more ciao but the bottom line is when the navy made their budget request they did not request it. If the navy needed this ship they would have requested it just as the pay calm commander requested additional munitions my amendment would provide. I yield back. Any further discussion on the amendment . I yield myself just briefly. I think everybody acknowledges we need more ships. One of the major differences between the president s request is to add more ships. I am convinced a high low mix of different kinds of ships makes sense. Im also convinced navy is moving from the lcs towards the frigate. They believe they can do that smoother and better by continuing the lcs fine and it is a matter of economics we are going to buy a certain number, if you can avoid the ups and downs of Industrial Production costs, having more of a stable basis for costs, you can ultimately save taxpayers more money. The bottom line is we have cut too much and lcs doesnt do everything but it is a third of the cost of a destroyer. It can do some stuff, some stuff we need doing so i am opposed to the amendment. Questions on the amendment . Request a recorded vote. I havent gotten there yet [laughter] those in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts ai. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it and the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. I request a recorded vote. Support for a recorded vote . There is. This vote will be postponed as i previously announced to the end of this section of the mark. Are there other amendments to this section of the mark . Gentleman from massachusetts . I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will distribute the amendment without objection. The amendment is tendered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on this amendment. This amendment would strike language that eliminates the requirement for the navy to subject the uss gerald ford to shock trials before its for first deployment. Cvn 78 has an impressive array of new, hightech that propels the new carrier class to the challenges of today and tomorrow. However these challenges and technologies remain unproven, have been troublesome in initial testing and have an unreliability in tough positions. Although the new electromagnetic launch system has improvements over the Steam Powered catapults, it, along with new advanced arresting gear have proven to be unreliable in testing and operation. In addition, the dvr radar, advanced weapons elevator and new electric plant remain unproven in combat. Aside from the new military spec equipment cvn 78 also has many commercial equipment and systems that need to be tested to the fullest extent possible to assure proper shock hardening. The fy 2016 annual report on the cvn 78 ford class defense to permits own director of Operational Testing said unlike past test on classes of ships with legacy systems the performance of cvn 78s Critical Systems is unknown. Inclusion of data from shock trials early in the program has been an essential component of building survivable ships. Shock trials play only a minor role in determining when the carrier will be available for its first deployment. The drivers of cvn 78s schedule are primarily mandatory certification and training events for the crew and shock trial phase itself is expected to only take two or three month providing valuable information for when the ship these combat. Following the full ship shock trials conducted on the uss theodore roosevelt, cvn 71 only a two week Maintenance Period to conduct minor repairs was required before the ship went back to full operational status. It is critical we conduct shock trials of cvn 78 as originally planned postponing testing to a later date, it is fraught with risk and potential costs. We need to identify shortfalls so corrections can be made prior to sending her off in harms way to enable corrective design modifications, in the followon new class of carriers. Conducted shock trials on cvn 78 is vitally important, sending ship and sailors who take it into battle on an unproven design that is not been fully tested is something we cannot responsibly do. With that i would like to yield. I think the gentleman and once again, enthusiastically support his amendment, it is the height of your responsibility to send 4300 crew members to see on a 13 billion carrier with the hope that new missionCritical Systems that have yet to be tested for susceptibility to shock and battle damage. I cant believe we are having a debate on whether the navy should test a new Nuclear Reactor to determine whether or how it might fail under battle conditions. With shock trials likely would not be completed until 2025, those tests reveal fundamental design problems, the navy would then have to engage in an expensive retrofit of the kennedy and ford, even the enterprise which will by then be under construction. That was what our sailors at risk for years and for what . I remain entirely unconvinced of the need for the ford is so urgent that it outweighs common sense tests the navy has been performing since world war ii. I support the amendment and yield back. Gentleman from virginia. I rise in opposition to the amendment. To give a little background on where the navy is, the navy has already gone through and shock tested every major subcomponent of the ship. The navy also has today new technology through simulation to do shock trialing in a new and innovative way that it has never done before. The navy also looks at getting into a class of ships before its shock trial so if you look for our destroyers, the third ship in the class or the lpd 17, shock the third ship in the class. Today we are constantly of carrier gaps, of not having carriers in certain areas for months on end. The navy has stated they are required to shock cvn 78 it will delay the availability on a rotational basis for cvn 78 by two years. We could go down this road, we could look at the data that is there, we can understand the navy has done the responsible thing in shocking major subcomponent and doing virtual shocking which gives very good information, very highly reliable, making sure too we look at where we are with the current gaps in carrier availability. This ship class will be shocked, we will learn lessons from that. There are major systems on board but getting this ship to theater is critical especially today, the delays we have had with this ship, being ten carriers, being there for an extended time, that i think is critical. The navy i believe has the data necessary to make sure these subcomponents have the data necessary to go forward and make sure it will operate the way it is designed to operate. With that i yield back. Further debate on the amendment . The gentleman from texas. I want to agree with my colleague, delaying this ship any further into the lines is unnecessary. Two your estimate is better than the three or four month estimate that was touted and the reasons we support this is an unacceptable length of time to keep this out of the system and i have great confidence that if there are things that show up they will show up and they will take care of those. Opposition to the amendment. I yield back. No further ebay. Questions on the amendment offered from the gentleman in massachusetts, say aye, those opposed say no. The nos have it. Nos habit and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill . Gentleman from virginia. I ask unanimous consent to call package number one consistent with amendments that have been worked and approved with minority. Objections awarded, the clerk will please distribute the amendments on block and without objection the amendments are considered as red. The gentleman is recognized. Number one, comprised of the following, amendment 00701 by mister kelly regarding congress recognizing the navy cbs. Amendment number 052 one by mister banks regarding torpedo defense. Amendment 061 by mister byrne regarding combat ship capability enhancements. Amendment number 173 are one by mister abraham to amend section 3501 to include other than a replacement vessel under subsection f. Amendment number 177, Mister Hunter to amend section 54101, 46 us codes clarify this is related to shipbuilding, ship repair and associated industries. Amendment number 222 by Mister Whitman regarding expenses of authority related to construction of certain vessels. Let me scroll down, mister chairman if you will give me a second here. Amendment number and 249 to amend section 2218, us code, providing additional certification for the purchase of a foreign vessel for the reserve force. Amendment number 271 are one by mister lobiondo to amend section 116 to allow the secretary of the navy to waive limitation of funds if the secondary of the navy determines the cost schedule risk associated with integration of new air and Missile Defense radar is unacceptable or incongruous with a Business Case. Amendment 279 to amend section 3501 for the cost as defined for loan guarantees on program provided by chapter 537 title 46 of the United States code. Amendment to a 2 for one regarding the ukraine arbitration proceedings under annexed routine of United Nations convention of the law of sees. Is there further discussion on the package . If not the question is on amendments offered by the gentleman from virginia. Those in favor say i. Those opposed say no. The eyes have it. The amendments are adopted. Further amendments to the subcommittee, gentle from new jersey have an amendment . If the clerk would please distribute the amendment, without objection the amendment is considered as red and the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. This amendment would ensure we are not overstepping on shipbuilding negotiations on this committee. As written, the bill has a provision relating to the destroyers that limit funding on what we believe is an unrealistic flight. The bill requires two of these three ships to include the new air and Missile Defense a mdr. The problem is it should be one instead of two. Seems a slight change but it prevents the committee from getting between the negotiations of the navy and those building the ship. Why are we having this discussion. During testimony the navy told us an agreement to include the new radar and the next three ships. We should be ensuring the testimony doesnt add additional language used in those negotiations. We take a look at what is going on, we had testimony of the unrealistic nature of designing new systems. A quote comes to mind by ronald reagan, this is a twist, lets trust the even like there is a problem, leave the options available. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. It would not limit use of the new radar. The best things that could happen to go in place without a hiccup, we need to be ready in the event it isnt. I yield back. From virginia, Mister Whitman. I understand where my colleague from new jersey is expressing concern but i want to go back to what this committee did last year under the fy 17, we approved two radar sets to be put on board these destroyers. This would reduce by one ship a. The fdr radar is 30 times better than the existing radar. We here in this committee all the time about antiaccess issues, standoff, how do we operate in an antiaccess environment . How do we provide more capability to counter what our adversaries have . This is that ability. We said last year we want to get this to the fleet quickly, the navy said we got it, we are manufacturing it, we have it in hand, the navy already ordered it, it will be available for these ships to put in place. The question is do we want to delay it again or do we want to put it in place . If we delay at the navys plot to look at ways to reduce cost is complicated, they are looking at getting the capability to our sailors as quickly as they can. We talk about what the navy needs today and its platforms and how it utilizes upgrades to the system, the baseline, this radar brings them that capability. If you have to put this radar on ships later when you bring them in for modernization, the configuration radar is different from radar here today, you have to make significant modifications to the superstructure of the ship. This really is about making sure we get this technology to our sailors as quickly as we can, to the fleet as quickly as we can. In the unblocked package, i believe there is a proper middleground on this that allows the secretary of the navy to waive the limitation of funds if the secretary of the navy determines the cost or schedule risk associated with the integration of this new radar is unacceptable or incongruous with a Business Case. Lets give them the ability to say if you need to put that to the next ship they can do that. Originally we were talking about all three ships, putting this new radar on board. We have said we want the new radar, we have funded it. Lets allow the navy to do what it needs to do, make sure it continues down the line of getting this radar on board these ships, 30 times more capable today. I dont think anyone in this room would want to say lets put a radar on board that gives our sailors 30 times less capacity than the new radar would when we have a chance to put the new radar, the navy says they are a to go, they can do this and it needs to be done. With that i yield back. The gentleman from connecticut. Mister portman. I actually want to speak in support of the amendment and agreeing with the chairman of the subcommittee which is this new radar system is a quantum leap forward for our country in terms of giving our ships more vision out there and that is a big deal in terms of the threats out there but what we are confronting, Congress Send mixed messages in the 2017 authorization bill and appropriations. We did authorize the purchase of two of these radar systems, from the omnibus bill, only required that one of the three ships we paid for last year would incorporate that radar system. Didnt say there couldnt be more but only required it be one. To cut to the chase, what we are talking about is ironworks, the shipyard at is negotiating for those that are in question, Huntington Ingalls has agreed to move forward on the third with the dr radar system. In the middle of negotiations right now, they are a graduate shipyard. It is not in my district but i know enough about it that when they were required to produce the dvd 1000s which was a truncated program that caused incredible disruptions in terms of operations of the shipyard so the base mark is going to require taking on a new modification with an unclear path forward in terms of what the navy is offering to pay for it. The last debate we had with mister moulton on the amendment regarding the lcss, i will vote against that with all due respect to the proponent of it. I think the Industrial Base issue is something this committee has to be totally focused on and the subcommittee really puts at risk the fast shipyard. We heard that repeatedly over the last two or three weeks or so is this issue has bubbled to the surface. I want to emphasize mister moulton Mister Norcrosss amendment if it passes does not prohibit the insertion of this new radar system on more than one ship, the two parties are totally capable of negotiating an additional ship to have that new radar system included with the, but today the negotiations between the navy and ironworks has not resolved the question of cost and how they are going to pay for it and unfortunately this will force that issue which should be an armsless discussion between the two sides. This is not in my district and i do think as in the case of lcs we are talking about the same issue in terms of breaking the Industrial Base if the subcommittee mark goes forward without the norcross amendment. So again, totally support the radar system in the future, this is on all the pdgs we build in the future but we ought to let the parties work this issue through without having the subcommittee marks language as is enacted and i support the norcross amendment and with that i yield back. Gentleman from colorado. I yield my time to the gentleman from virginia. Mister whitman. Thank you. I appreciate my colleague from connecticuts thoughts and ideas and concerns and we have had conversations the last several days with all the different entities involved, members from the districts, from Companies Like raycoin, Great Respect for what those companies do and what their workers do. The language strikes the reasonable middleground that waives limitation on funds for 51 so the secretary of the navy determines we cant execute this, there are issues with the design, gives the secretary of the navy the power to jump in and do that so i think it accomplishes what Mister Norcross wants to do with his but put it in the hands of the secretary of the navy, working with contractors responsible for delivering this ship and the navy who is responsible for the design and the requirements so i am hopeful folks will look at it that way, we are trying to resolve this and find a reasonable middleground, making sure if there is a hiccup, that there is an effort by congress to make sure we give the power to the navy to do that. With that i yield back. Gentleman from orourke, mister orourke. I yield my time to the gentleman from new jersey. Chairman, appreciate the comments and i think we are all arguing on the same side that this is a system we need and is going to enhance war fighters ability to see. All this does is allow in the event something goes wrong, we dont think it will but we all know we are dealing with unknowns. I want to give that flexibility so i appreciate the conversation but encourage us to give that ability to go forward and i yield back. Gentleman from mississippi. Thank you, mister chairman. I concur with the comments, there are two ways in which we are able to engage an enemy and with the current and future enemies the United States of america has we owe our sailors and soldiers every bit of protection they can have. The number one way is you detect the other guys stuff coming at you and you cannot be 30 times less capable of detecting a threat to a ship and take care of our sailors at the same time. You must be able to detect them at the earliest possible so you can do the second part of that which is engage. Now in america we constantly face a closing gap between the capabilities which we the United States have and our enemies have and they are closing that gap. We cannot allow them to close that gap. I agree with chairman whitman of the amendment offered by the senator from new jersey does exactly what it should do. This is this amendment goes too far. The amendment the en bloc amendment does what it says and exactly what it needs to do when it is the secretary of the navy may waive the limitations in subsection a, if the secretary determines the cost or schedule risk associated with integration of the air and Missile Defense radar is unacceptable or incongruent with the Business Case that relies on technology, maturity and realistic policy. I trust our secretary of the navy and members of the navy to make the correct decision of what is best with our soldiers when given the ability. It is almost similar to taking a soldier and giving him a rifle and no other option and say although we have the capability of giving you and him 4 which is fully automatic we are going to give you this, which is 30 times less effective and expect you to do the same mission. The secretary of the navy has the ability to say our production schedule or shipbuilders, can take care of those and will take care of those. I agree with chairman whitman wholeheartedly we must vote no on this amendment and support the earlier amendment 271. I yield back. Mister chairman. Dentallady from guam. I wish to yield my time to the Ranking Member, mister courtney. Really quickly, high marks for your effort to find middle ground, the problem with that language is the negotiations are taking place between ironworks and the navy. To say the secretary of the navy is going to waive a provisions that would hurt the Industrial Base you are talking the same entity you are negotiating with. One of these days i hope we have a secretary of the navy but unfortunately it is like a culdesac, youre going back to the same party you just negotiated with that is forcing you to accept the system the Industrial Base is not capable of implementing. I want to emphasize Mister Norcrosss amendment unlike the gentleman from mississippi seem to imply, does not mandate the second ddg can only have the older radar system. The new radar system is perfectly capable of being inserted in that additional ship but the problem is between 2 parties are negotiating with terms of doing that and what i dont think congress should be doing is inserting itself in that process and forcing and outcome. That is all this amendment is doing, just keeping an arms length distance between the parties so they can work through this issue. We need that radar system out there. I totally agree with some of the prior speakers on that point but it is a new system and you are asking the shipyard to implement something that the last congress didnt require. If you look at the 2017 omnibus it only required one ship to have that radar system and we are changing the rules of the game with this mark by forcing it to two ships in that component we funded last year in the 2017 omnibus so with that i yield back. Other discussion . I yield myself briefly. I dont know about you but seems to be the differences of opinion here are pretty subtle. I am sympathetic to the idea that the shipyard put at a disadvantage because of ddg 1000, we have to be sensitive to that, but i cant get away from the 30 times better radar and whatever we can do to move that along consistent with Industrial Base issues the gentleman from connecticut talked about seems to make sense. The world is getting too dangerous even in the last year if we see the progression of missiles and other things. That is my thought. Question arises on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The nos have it. Gentleman from new jersey requests a recorded vote, recorded vote on this amendment will be postponed to the end of this markup. This section of the markup. Other amendments to this section . Gentleman from california, mister garamendi. In a different committee, the Transportation Infrastructure Committee and coast guard maritime subcommittee chaired by Mister Hunter we have been trying to figure out does that is one wish to offer first things first. Just trying to make okay. The clerk will distribute the amendment. Without objection the amendment is considered read. Number 248. You can start your 5 minutes again. Gentleman is recognized for five minutes. I think the gentleman for the extra 17 seconds. The committee, the subcommittee has been trying to figure out how to build heavy icebreakers for the arctic. We think we are on a path to do that and it intersects with this committee, specifically the navy is pretty good at building ships despite the earlier discussion about lcss. Backing up and going a different direction so excuse me but nonetheless we figure, we know the navy is much better position to build this particular kind, to work with the coast guard to build this particular icebreaker. What we need to do is make a modification in the current mark the we have before us, specifically we do not want to use the navys shipbuilding money to build the icebreaker but we do want to use what is known as an auxiliary, account for auxiliary ship so the amendment specifically says the Navy Shipbuilding funds will not be used for icebreakers but does allow the navy defense sealevel fund to be the locus for the funding for the icebreakers. That fund is traditionally used to build our auxiliary ships. Many other sections in the underlying bill or mark by the subcommittee that authorized the navy to act as a general agent for the coast guard for three heavy icebreakers and three median icebreakers. That is good and noncontroversial and authorize the use of National Defense sealift fund which i just discussed as the location for the funding for the icebreakers. We will of course have to find funding somewhere to put into that account and that will be done in the appropriations process as that goes forward. I can make a rather lengthy argument about why we need icebreakers without getting into the Global Climate change issue but simply stating ice in the arctic ocean is receding. Russia is way into this. They have 40 icebreakers and are building more, they are building a deepwater port in the arctic ocean and are moving very quickly to gain control of the arctic. It is necessary for us to be able to gain access to the arctic and that is what this icebreaker issue is all about. The beginning and end of this amendment is not controversial but it does set us up to make sure we are not using the navy ship account the different account as the place at which we will eventually fund these icebreakers. With that i yield back. I appreciate the passion to find ways to get icebreakers built. I completely appreciate that but i will have to oppose this amendment and let me tell you why. I understand not wanting to be funded, the difficulty is we are spreading this across all dod accounts. First of all, there is no defense requirement for dod to build icebreakers. Not we dont need icebreakers or they arent important for the relationship between the navy and the coast guard in designing these icebreakers isnt important but there is not a dod requirement so the question is if we open up dod accounts to fund icebreakers which means not only the navy but the army, air force and marines are the likely bill payers, when you have other elements of ships that are needed for our nation, whether it is noah ships, ships that are used across other branches of government the question is, dod funds potentially are the bill players so i want to make sure we build icebreakers, we have to find ways to do that. Dhs has to say we realize this is a National Priority and it should be reflected also in things they do. My concern is what this does in setting precedent and for other Service Branches under the general expanse of saying now it will come out of dod, being the bill payer for a ship where there is no dod requirement and setting precedent for other ships that are built and there are lots of other ships built by the United States government that are not dod ships that now would be subject to folks saying lets go to the dod budget because they build coast guard ships here but i fully respect the efforts to find ways to build icebreakers, dont deny the National Significance and need for that, we just have to find the right way to do this and my concern is this is not the right way. It opens up things, other Service Branches will be the bill payer on this. Will yield . Sure. Mister chairman, with enormous respect for your knowledge and passion for all of this a couple things. First of all, we recognize or i recognize we are not going to be able to get into dod pockets. We know that is not going to be the way it is. What we are trying to set up here is an account in which money, not dod money but Homeland Security, we would love to get into their pockets for this particular purpose because that is where the coast guard is under that secretary. We have to find money in the appropriations process outside dod but a reason for this account, it is a good location from which to deposit the money assuming we can find it, and have it handled in a way that is effective and efficient for purposes of building the ships. We have set up previous National Defense authorization act mechanism in which the navy can work with the coast guard. The navy is good at building ships and accounting for it and all the procedures as well as Architectural Design so we want to keep it close to the navy but we dont we know we are not going to use dod money. That is where we are, i think we can work this out. The amendment specifically says we cannot use Navy Shipbuilding money but it does it is for auxiliary ships, auxiliary ships, many types of ships, some are survey ships that the navy effectively owns but there is not normal they are not part of the 355 ship navy. They are separate from that. Is where we are. We dont have a great controversy here but the most effective way to get into these icebreakers, whether they are not navy ships, the navy cannot operate in the arctic without an icebreaker. Thank you. I agree with the need and i am willing to work with you on language to make sure that we are setting the right structure Going Forward to make sure this doesnt create further complications in the future. Im willing to work with you on that and on an amendment we can bring to the full house floor when the bill comes to the full house floor to make sure we get this right. I have deep concerns about the language presented here and i dont in any way, shape or form take issue with what youre trying to accomplish with deeper icebreakers or finding imaginative ways to be able to do that. Of the gentleman would yield for three seconds am i would like to go forward with the amendment, i may withdraw when it comes to a vote. I support this amendment. The reality is unlike army ships or marine corps ships or navy ships or air force ships, the icebreaker is a Natural National issue. A national ship, we have a national interest, do it for the research and develop and we are going to be doing in the arctic, or enable our navy ships to go places where the russians are. This is a national issue. If you look up, you have army, marine corps, navy, air force, coast guard. If it shouldnt be up there, lets take it down. We need to move it out, put it in Homeland Security, the subcommittee, i understand this is the last year the Transportation Committee even has coast guard jurisdiction. They want to move it to Homeland Security so if it is not a military service, decided is not a military service. The coast guard budget is 10 billion. That is it. Homeland security can build three heavys and three mediums. Was we did, the joint office, where the navy until the coast guard we hope they could make coast guard do the right thing. The coast guard cant build big ships, they dont have the expertise or acquisitions, personnel, they havent been doing it for a long time. An icebreaker is not complicated. It hits ice, breaks it, backs up, goes forward, breaks it, goes down, backs up, goes forward. It is not complicated. It is not complicated. We are trying to make the navy, the coast guard into their own realm. I have utmost respect for the subcommittee chairman. If we move coast guard out of here lets give the icebreaking job to the arctic. The russians have 45 icebreakers. It works for six month. We dont want to break ice, we are going to seed the arctic to the russians and that is fine but if we think the arctic is important, a National Priority, we have to support this amendment, and the next amendment, make sure the propulsion system is made in america. We are not going to buy a south korean or french propulsion system because somehow americans cant make Propulsion Systems for icebreakers because it is so, located to go forward, break ice, backwards, forward, break ice, backwards. That is what this amendment does. The navy should be in charge of this. We dont want to use dod funding but what if we do . It is 1 billion, there is a 10th of the coast guard budget and one, 640th of the nba budget. I yield to the Ranking Member. I appreciate that and to take issue with anything you say as far as national priorities. I would offer to work with you and make sure structurally we get this right because it is important because this will set precedent in whatever we do here in this committee concerning icebreakers and going further than what we have now which is to say the navy will work cooperatively in the design phase and acquisition phase because the navy knows how to design and acquire ships where the coast guard doesnt do as much, they dont know as much. I would be willing to work with you all to try to find ways to accomplish that. Will Mister Hunter yield . Yes. What we are looking at here is for the navy, and at shipbuilding account but the sealift fund account being the fiscal agent for the coast guards development of the icebreaker. For all the reasons that have been cited, the coast guard does build ships, they are small, they might be good at frigates, but in any case, this is a fiscal agent issue. We have to find the money outside the current dod budget. Mister hunter brought something to me very quickly. The coast guard is up there. They are a military, a National Defense element. They have two tasks, what is civil and the other is military. They are a military task, many of the others are on the wall. I am going to continue with this amendment. We have maybe if i keep talking 12 hours ahead of us, maybe time yield back. Mister larson. I want to thank Mister Whitman for being committed, the third person on this committee is passionate about icebreakers, but i have been in this icebreaker issue for 17 years on Transportation Committee, we are getting there, we are 10 of the way to get a solution but we are getting there. I want to note, not to be critical of the chairman but because dod hasnt made this requirement, this committee has a history of defining what out to be a defense requirement and are to be a National Security requirement, if you look at predator drones, former humvees, that came out of the committee and the pentagon followed. We dont need the pentagon to tell us what is a National Security requirement. Access to the arctic, especially access to the arctic, that is us water that is inside nationally, internationally recognized borders and lines, access to that water is critical for us to protect it. Having an icebreaker fleet to do just that is critical. There is a National Security requirement. Just because the pentagon, has not come to wisdom does not mean there is not a requirement. I want to underline that. Second and i would note to emphasize Mister Hunters commitment on this issue from the Transportation Committee. We have to find the solution, we dont want one more study from the coast guard or the navy to help us decide, there is a stack of studies on this issue on the coast guard and navy and pentagon for that matter. What we get to includes real money and moves this country forward. Yield back. Further discussion. A brief comment, whether he withdraws this amendment, reviewing log 248 it appears the amendment has a grammatical error which renders it nonsensical. You might consider taking it in your calculus. Will the navy be required to be the acquisition agent, design agent, program manager. Additional strains on the system already. Will the gentleman yield . The answer is we want the navy to do this. Twice the cost and build badly if the coast guard gets to do it. The extra money will fund the navys back office costs for doing this. There is no money in this, we want to use the same age and we set up in this committee for shipbuilding to use that, the appropriations committee, and going into it right now. This is what will get it done. I want to make sure the committee understands we are putting additional burdens on the navy to do this. Of the new money going into the account would Fund Acquisition cost design cost, program manage cost and all the things associated with program that is the commitment as well. We established a joint Program Office in this committee that makes the navy oversee, secretary stacky looked at this, they understands they cant do this, as chairman of that subcommittee for five years, they will mess it up. You want the navy to do this otherwise it wont get done. The party set up the system to make it happen. And to put money the coast guard and Homeland Security doesnt have the ability we do, they dont have an scn account, they dont have that stuff. Using this as an agent to get where we want to be to build icebreakers. You are john. To add perhaps clarification. We will not use the Navy Shipbuilding account. We are not going to do that. The auxiliary account was used all kinds of ships, and it is everything from Research Ships and all kinds of ships that are naval but not 350. We are looking for a fiscal agent and Mister Hunter is quite correct, working closely with the navy over the last year and a half and moving forward with the design and made great progress in the design of the ship itself, the icebreaker itself. That is how we would fund the fiscal agent i want to understand what additional draw the Navy Resource would be, thank you. You mentioned acquisition costs and other expenses that would be in the process of getting this icebreaker built. It would be we are not there yet but whatever the appropriation might be for the icebreaker, we could easily write into that that if there are additional costs for management, that would be part of that, part of that. I yield my time to representative whitman. There is agreement on what we need to do. What is problematic is the general nature of this language, we can come up with something that gets us where we need to be to make sure it is focused, restricted and specific to what Mister Hunter is trying to accomplish. I believe we can do that but doing it this way creates unintended consequences we need to be mindful of. I am willing to work with them to get this happening and willing to support it as well as i will yield in a second. I will supported in consultation with folks on both sides of the aisle but make sure we get this language right. I yield, Mister Hunter. If the subcommittee chairman and chairman are willing to work with us on this, i would withdraw if you will yield. This is important. Thank you for yielding. We are going to have lunch pretty soon, maybe we could get this done over lunch, we just need to work out some language. The chair is confused. Did you withdraw the amendment or not . The question is on the amendment. The gentleman from new jersey. Mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on my amendment that was rejected. Without objection it is so ordered. We have one more amendment filed on this portion of the builder the gentleman from california. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will distribute the amendment. Without objection it is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will probably require that the previous amendment that has now been withdrawn come back in some form what i do want to take it up because it speaks to the buy american provisions. The language in the legislation before us sets out an icebreaker that will be built. The previous amendment does not come is not necessary for this particular where i would have language the builder what we want to do, mr. Bridenstine, made a suggestion having to do with whether some elements of the icebreaker, some components of the icebreaker are not presently being able to be made in america. That in his of that amendment which, that language which is now in the base bill, it basically precludes the buy american provisions. And what were doing with this amendment is to eliminate one sentence, and that would then allow the icebreaker to move forward with it is built and funded, when it is funded and then built, to have a normal by america provisions that are used all of the naval vessels as well as for the coast guard vessels. Thats what it does set. I think we dont have any opposition to this. It maintains the buy america provisions but also gives to the commandant of waiver authority, if any of the components of the icebreaker, should it ever be built, are not available from america. And thats it. I would therefore ask for a vote. Mr. Whitman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Again i appreciate the efforts. One of the reasons the discussion has been about what opportunities are there for us to build icebreaker is the United States has a built icebreakers for years. Not that he cant, not that it shouldnt go forward and be looking at those things. The element is of time. And the element i think it does need to be addressed, should be debated in this committee is a time element that is added to this. If we are going to now go to a yard here that hasnt built come hasnt designed one for decades, where the only laces around the world that are designing and building icebreakers are outside the United States. So if we take a step back now and its been going in the direction of saying what Form Partners are out there to people do this, there is a time element of that. Thats the thing i would ask folks to consider. Its not that we dont want u. S. Charts to built icebreakers, not that they cant built icebreakers, but technologically from a design standpoint if we take steps back down to okay this is going to be fully under the buy america provisions, there is a time element of this. As mr. Hyde to point out in the language it doesnt stop as we have right now a 40yard from partner with yesterday say its built icebreakers in a joint manner. And not pick up on time. I think the provisions either. I know mr. Hunter will argue the provisions also allow the consideration of u. S. Built under the same conditions. Again i just want people to understand the time element that are of issue with this particular by america provision that restricts it solely there at the onset of building icebreakers. With the gentleman yield . I would yield. Thank you. The language is currently in the build has by america for everything except components, components our engines, propellers, writer systems, whatever else. The basic hull has it buy america provisions in it. The language was inserted in the mark from the subcommittee i think inadvertent, intended to deal with those Component Parts that cannot be, that are currently not built in america and not likely to be built in america. It some of the Propulsion Systems mr. Hunter back up and go forward type of components. What we want to do is not eliminate from the buy america provisions, engines, other things that are available in the United States and those engines are available in the United States, as are many of these things, but rather to go back to the underlying buy america provisions that the u. S. Navy uses and the coast guard uses and in those provisions that are such things as costs, availability, timeliness and quality. And so the commandant, and depending on how the navy works with the commandant, the navy and the commandant can wave the buy america provisions for timeliness, for cost, for quality and the like. Its just that, i think it was a drafting decision or an error, frankly, that eliminate the buy america provisions for all components except for the hull. Thats will be our it is goes back be buy america provisions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to yield to mr. Hunter. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is probably present discussion that the british had when a realized they could make aircraft carriers anymore. Theyre probably sitting here in the parliament and they said well, we cant do it here, so were going to look at foreign designs and will probably have to do it foreign celestine put in a requirement thats got to be made in britain. Lets just buy it from the weather. The british cannot make aircraft carriers anymore. The people that the sun never set on the British Empire, it has set all over the British Empire because there is no British Empire. Its not there. People who ruled the oceans for thousands of years can build aircraft carrier. They had the same discussion. Theres already a waiver. The waiver under current law, applications of limitation would cause a reasonable cost to be delayed or delays to be incurred, satisfactory quality items, manufacturing entity that is part of the National Technology and usher based are not available, application of limitation not in the nationals could interest of use. As already wavers there. Lets go look for the system to lets encourage American History to go were going to build an icebreaker, can you build a system . Lets go look for. If we cant build it then we will waive it and we will buy from the russians like we do with jet engines. Sorry. I yield back. [inaudible] mr. Gallagher. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I very much respect the gentleman from californias view and his colorful way of framing the debate, bu but i agree more broadly with the chairman position i think we need to ensure the coast guard has the same ability to leverage commercial offtheshelf Design Technologies have outside the u. S. For the icebreaker. I do, very excited at the prospect of a broader agreement on how do we go icebreakers i think is religion need for it but these technologies could of the coast guard reduce costs and provide the best value for the taxpayers. As the chairman lee that we havent built an icebreaker in over 40 years modern icebreakers include those of other arctic powers are using advanced technology. We need to keep pace. We cant all be other icebreaker technology undergone significant advances the last 25 years, most of this is happening europe. One of the biggest advances has been the development of electronic propellers. Its the only Worldwide Manufacturing ice qualified of this equipment is european. The coast guard leverages. More efficient system and from id means saving for the coast guard and for the taxpayer. If the system is cheaper and more efficient why exclude them . I think mr. Bridenstine amendment doesnt guarantee the coast guard will decide to go with the foreign bill propulsion system but it gives them the opportunity to leverage more technologies as they have in the past i think congress should stand in the coast guard wake by bribing them from acquiring worldclass technology that we need now. And it said the coast guard and navy should be given maximum flexibility to explore all technology options. I yield. Further discussion . If not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california mitchard garamendi. Those in favor say i could pick those opposed say no. Independent of the chair the ayes have it antonym is agreed to. I would just note the britts launched the carrier the Queen Elizabeth one day ago by the way. [laughing] just saying. Were not going to proceed to an amendment where the roll call was ordered. And that is on mr. Moulton amendment number 160, which what . They dont have it right . [inaudible] i think actually the vote is on 121 which reduces the lcs ship buying by one. Recorded vote has been requested. 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] the clerk will report the tally. Mr. Chairman, there were 19 yes votes, 43 no vote. The amendment is not adopted. If there are no further amendments to this portion of the mark of the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. Wittman for the purpose of offering a motion. I moved to adopt the subcommittee report on as amended. Questions from virginia. In favor . Those opposed . In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. A quorum being present and the motion is adopted. I think were going to keep rolling. Were supposed to have votes about 1 30. There are some sandwiches back there but dont miss your amendment. And we will make as much progress as we can before we have two break for votes. The committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on readiness. Pursuant to committee ruled 17 and in consultation with the Ranking Member we will again postpone the recorded votes on amendments to this particular subcommittee mark until consideration of all the amendments to the subcommittee mark has concluded. The chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee mr. Wilson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The member numbers have before e readiness of committee mark. I would like to begin by thanking Ranking Member congresswoman of guam for her tireless efforts and participation in the process itd think the readiness subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle for the attendance and participation at the hearings in briefings throughout the year. Additionally, the extraordinary step to work joseph to make his mark happen. We appreciate your effective dedication. Thank you all for your resolve. Over the past several months weve heard testimony from each of our Service Branches about the critical necessity to address our militarys readiness shortfalls. Here today we have the responsibility to reduce the risk for our war fighters by making sure that they are well trained and supported comment that the equipment they use is properly maintained and combat ready. I believe this mark accomplishes this task. The product of bipartisan negotiations, the more before your incorporates legislative provisions and direct report language that i believe will make significant progress in resolving our most critical readiness concerns. Last week i gave a more detailed account of the readiness mark, but today i will review a few of the highlights. Specifically, this mark provide for increased military construction over 2017 levels, gives the department of defense more responsive Facility Construction repair and real estate authorities, and extends and expense of of dod civilian hiring authorities so that critical manpower and capability gaps, especially in our defense Industrial Base, can be filled quickly. Further, it directs several assessment of the military departments plan to rebuild readiness, and is, exercises, modernize training requirements and address shortfalls in our public shipyards. Weve also recommended that the chairman include over 3 billion in additional operation and maintenance funds for other things such as ship and aircraft depot maintenance, Aviation Training and readiness, and long neglected facilities systema, restoration and modernization against. I urge the numbers of the full committee to support the readiness mark and i yield back. The chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from guam. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. I sent special thanks to our chairman thornberry and Ranking Member smith, and i would just thank all of the staff who have spent countless hours working with us to develop this bill. It has been a real pleasure working with chairman wilson and our subcommittee staff for working cooperatively on the readiness portion of this bill. There is a lot of good in this bill, and as i stated during our subcommittee markup this bill continues efforts to fund a critical readiness accounts that have been the bill payer for nearly two decades of enduring conflict. It streamlines efforts to track and communicate readiness needs, and it steps taken to address them. And for the more, the bill makes targeted investments and provides additional authorities and flexibility for military construction. Many of the facilities that our servicemembers live and train in the critical repair, and modernization. And the Deferred Investment and facilities have only compounded costs. So this mark helps address the shortfalls and we capitalizes critical infrastructure. This bill also addresses several Critical Issues facing guam. Most notably it includes a provision that addresses the critical workforce crisis that is compromising the labor force needed to support construction and healthcare deficits associated with the realignment of marines to guam. This is language that we passed last year, idaho we can ensure an adequate solution is sustained in conference. It is also my hope that moving forward we can ensure that were doing what we need to engage the end of asiapacific region. As many of our colleagues like to say a budget is a strategy document, and despite the lack of a coherent strategy by the administration, i do not believe we can afford to send mixed signals to our friends in that region. To that end i have appreciated the chairman and the Ranking Member efforts to signal support not just to the european theater but the theater of today and tomorrow in the into asiapacific area. However, i am concerned by what i believe to be an overreliance on what has been and remains a budget gimmick, relying on oco for base requirements. With 75 billion for oco in our mark we are discussing a 700 billion authorization for the department of defense. By comparison that is nearly 20 times as much as was requested by the president for the state department pixel i am concerned that we are creating a vicious circle by underfunding agencies critical to our national interest, resulting in deeper International Conflicts for which we will need to allocate additional oco funding now and in the future, or dod funding now and in the future. So i hope that we in congress will reserve this trend and allocate resources to properly support our defense and nondefense agencies that advance our National Security interests. So again i want to thank you, mr. Chairman and all of my colleagues for your work on this important bill, and i look forward to continuing the discussion as the process evolves. And i yield back. That year yields to the regular. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just take a brief moment but i think the chair and the Ranking Member of the readiness subcommittee for the work but i took a to take vicki who is retiring, this is her 11th and final market as a member of committee staff. The chairman and and all members note we have the best staff in Congress Without question. The work that you have to do, we had the largest committee in congress which means vicki and all of you have to deal with all of us and put together this bill and work that is done constantly is impressive and Great Service to our country. And vicki has been fantastic for the entire time ive been in congress. Appreciate your service. I congratulate her on her retirement, so just thank you very much for your service to this committee and to the country, and we look for to a great retirement and thanks again. Its been great working with you, vicki. A round of applause. [applause] these are not easy issues that she works on so we really appreciate and will miss her expertise. I yield back. Let me just add that we are very grateful for all of the help that ms. Plunkett has provided this committee. The Ranking Member fail to know, however, the some of her most distinguished compliments have been working as part of the texas delegation where she was deputy chief of staff for our four mccauley congressman. 23 years working with congress, and 23 years of various ones of us rely on your expertise and judgment. We are very grateful. By the way, i hope that you understand, you cant leave until this bill is signed into law. Just saying. Does the gentlelady from guam wish to yield . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I wish to Say Something about vicki. And to thank her for her 23 years in congress and ten years on this committee. Her thoughtful and deliberate approach to complex problems has been a critical asset from a of us on the readiness subcommittee, at throughout the years she has continually impressed me with how she commands the respect of others to her intelligence, her candor and thoughtfulness. And ive enjoyed seeing her nononsense attitude surprised many, given her softspoken demeanor. So i further appreciate your friendship and consul, and her daily presence here in capitol hill will be deeply missed. So i think i speak for all of us when i say thank you, and on guam we say and i yield back. I would yield briefly to the chairman of the subcommittee. And i like to join with the Ranking Member and can mimic you for your service and, of course, anything that you had by solomont ortiz would be positive. Congratulations, godspeed. Thank you. Any further discussion on this portion of the more . The gentlelady from hawaii. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, im going to speak briefly about section 280 2831 which is found on page 22 but before that i would also like to say thank you to vicki. When i return to congress she was the first person who came running up to me and gave me an amazing outcome so thank you, vicki, and i will miss you. Mr. Chairman, this section, 23 2031 beginning on page 22 talks about withdrawals of public land for electric purposes. This section wouldnt deathly withdraw public land associate with certain military installations and was included in the mark with the input of the department of defense as a means to reduce declining cost associate with the newly existing withdrawals are typically congress provides 2032 withdrawals of public land for military purposes. If the land is still needed for military purposes at the end of it. , the department of defense whats with the department of interior to complete an Environmental Impact statement before requesting a new withdraw from congress. The review allows public input and Advice Department of interior with an opportunity to check up on any resource a management needs if it does cost money and take time to complete but it is a system that is worked well since at least world war ii. I recognize some find this process costly, timeconsuming, and perhaps even duplicative, and eventually to identify solution to reduce processing time and save money on planning. If you want to fund a working solution to these concerns comes important we get it right. I look forward to working with you and others to make sure that this is the answer we are looking for. Dod is a great steward of public land but this second is a big departure from the status quo. We have not had the opportunity to give meaningful input on the department of the interior, and i would like to get a commitment to continue working on the section in conference. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Gentle ladies yields back. Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to thank chairman wilson, Ranking Member bordallo and professional staff are working with me to include a provision in the subcommittee mark, secondly important, maintaining a modern, efficient, and resilient utility infrastructure for the military. In order to support the missions of today and tomorrow, we must ensure that we are not relying on aging and inefficient systems. This committee must work with the department to look at ways to reinvest, operate, and sustain its utility system. We must invest in infrastructure that can endure unforeseen events such as natural disasters, and be capable of continuing its mission during these events. The provision included in the mark will require dod to provide this committee with a briefing on the conditions of the current utility systems and their plans for modernization and recapitalization of its aging utility systems. I yield back, mr. Chair. Further discussion on this subcommittee mark . Are there and then months to this subcommittee mark . The gentleman from colorado. Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment on the screen. The clerk will electronically distribute the amendment. Without objection vmm is considered as read at the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Tried to other district with five Major Military installations, and people are coming and going all the time, and i rarely question dod, whether theyre bringing are taking people away. Its just except as part of the normal course of operating the military. But occasionally a decision is made that just really doesnt make sense, thats what this amendment addresses. This would prevent the air force on spending funds on that the vestige or ic 21 aircraft, Peterson Air Force base. Mr. Kaufman who is also in the delegation supports me in the spirit we just recently learned of the complete divestment of the 200 airlift squadrons 20 military members and the aircraft after Reading Air Force budget justification attached to the present budget. We received no notification, phone calls come briefings or otherwise on this. And the 200 and squadron at peterson provides secure, priority area for military and civilian leaders, which would have to be i guess farmed out to private vendors, sensitive cargo airlift support for critical Homeland Defense targeting mission, and all to say 482,000. And im convinced, mr. Chairman, this is one of those cases where the military is making a penny wise and pound foolish decision. Because to say 482,000 you are going to lose 20 pilots, experienced pilots come and we have a huge Pilot Shortage in the air force and guard, and to lose 20 of them for a very modest savings is to me penny wise and pound foolish. So im offering this amendment and asking support. Normally i dont question the pentagon on these kinds of decisions but i think this is one that cries out for say wait a minute, go back and do something else. But dont do this. Because losing 20 pilots is just not a good decision. Its not that theyre going somewhere else. They are just being lost. I would ask support for this, and i would yield back. Mr. Kaufman. [inaudible] the gentleman will hit his button, please. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I support my colleagues amendment because the decision to divest of the aircraft from the 200 airlift squadron for Mccollum National Guard is premature and not properly documented or justified. The colorado National Guard to wonder ho of the squadron provie secure priority errorless for military and civilian leaders, support sensitive Cargo Missions and flies highspeed airborne target missions for the north American Aerospace defense command, norad. The proposed the vestige or come despite the fact that Peterson Air Force base is the second busiest distinguished visitor, and the department of defense indicates to me that this decision was made out of a lack of appreciation for the two readiness issues we face in a military today. In particular i oppose this action due to the simple fact that the air force has not followed its own Strategic Basing process for this crucial decision. The process is very to provide assurances that these basic decisions are not made, that are made in the best interest of National Security of this country. And since this process was not followed, how we know that we simply dont know this was the correct decision. In addition to now following their own process for this decision, congress was not provided with any official strategic level communication or justification. I am truly dismayed by the lack of transparency. This committee and my military personal subcommittee heard from air force leadership about a huge Pilot Shortage economy faces the we were told that it adds up to more than 1500 Pilot Service wide and includes more than 300 mobility pilots like those piloting the c 21 at Peterson Air Force base. Shifting these aircraft out of a fully met and National Guard squadron activeduty squadron when mobility, recommend a short a pilots strikes me as an odd for him and reverse logic. To me the more logical approach and the most appropriate way for aircraft to flow is to move air Mobility Command aircraft to fully manned reserve and guard units. Doing so would provide a way to begin digging ourselves out of this Pilot Shortage crisis by helping retain a pilots we do have. We should be supporting units like the 200 airlift squadron instead of divesting them and encouraging active Service Members as a daily activeduty service to transition to the guard and reserve where we retained their experience. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. I would yield to myself in opposition to the amendment. I have tremendous respect for mr. Lamborn and his oversight and advocacy for the military installations in his district. He does a great job. This is about moving to airplanes from Colorado Springs to Peterson Air Force base. If this committee gets involved in every movement of to airplanes from one air force base to another, we will severely hamper the ability of the military to make decisions. Now, i will certainly support the gentleman said efforts to get more information and justification for this pick the only other thing i would say is this is part of a Bigger Movement between the air force and air National Guard come something to come into colorados go out and so theres all this shuffling going on, but i just dont think we can legislate to airplanes being moved. I think that is beyond what we should do, and, therefore, i oppose it. I yield to the Ranking Member. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I disagree completely and 100 with everything you just said. This is again an example of the committee micromanaging what the military is trying to do. And it doesnt drive at the cost of what theyre doing. Have to go over and over and over again to justify all of their decisions. Every Single Member of this committee will have a decision that the pentagon makes that we disagree with, but it would legislate on them, every single one and as a chairman said in the case of moving to aircraft, then were going to tie the pentagon up in knots when as in all of knowledge theyve got a lot more to do then have to fight over every single minute decision that they make in terms of how they move personnel or equipment or i concur with the chairmans mark. Questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado to live for those in favor . Those opposed . In the opinion of the chair the no sabot and the amendment is not agreed to. As a boy knows boats have been called. I think this is a good time for us to recess, go vote, gobble up a sandwich and feedback probably at the end of votes. The committee stands in recess [inaudible conversations] we will resume. Just before we left for votes, the lamborn amendment [inaudible] are there further