sally votes no. ms. murphy votes aye. mr. knight? mr. knight votes no. m vot vot votes aye. mr. russell votes no. votes no. mr. swaze votes no. dr. abraham votes no. mr. walls? mr. walls votes no. mr. kelly. mr. kelly votes no. mr. gallagher votes no. mr. gates. mr. gates votes no. mr. bacon. mr. bacon votes no. mr. banks. mr. banks votes no. ms. cheney? ms. cheney votes no. mr. schuster votes no. mr. groves. mr. graves votes no. the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, there were 19 aye votes and 43 no votes. >> the amendment is not adopted. there are no further amendments to this portion of the mark. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. whitman, to offer a motion. >> sub committee on c-power and projection forces as amended. >> questions on the motion offered by the gentleman from virginia. in favor, aye, oppose the, no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it, and the motion is adopted. i think we're going to keep rolling. we're supposed to have votes at 1:30. there are sandwiches back there, but don't miss your amendment, and we will make as much progress as we can before we have to break for votes. the committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on readiness pursuant to committee rule 17 in consultation with the ranking member, we'll, again, postpone reported votes on amendments this this particular subcommittee mark until consideration of all amendments of the subcommittee mark concluded. chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the members have before them the readiness of committee mark. i'd like to begin by thanking ranking member of congresswoman of guam for her tireless efforts and participation in the process. and thank the readiness subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle for their attendance and participation at the hearings and briefings throughout the year. additionally, the extraordinary staff worked diligently to make this mark happen. we appreciate your effective dedication. thank you, all, for your resolve. over the past several months, we've heard testimony from each of the service branchs about the critical necessity to address our military's readiness short falls. here, today, we have the responsibility to reduce the risk for our war fighters by making sure that they are well-trained and supported, and that the equipment they use is properly maintained and combats ready. i believe this mark accomplishes this task. the product of bipartisan negotiations marked before you and states legislative provisions and direct language that i believe makes significant progress in resolving our most critical readiness concerns. last week, i gave a more detailed account of the readiness mark and today, review of the highlights. specifically, this mark provides increase military construction over 2017 levels. it gives the department of defense more responsive construction, repear, and real estate authorities and expands several of dod's authorities so that critical manpower capability gaps especially in the industrial base, can rebuild quickly. furthermore, enhance exercises, mod earnize training requirements, and addreshort fan the public shipyards. we recommended 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 facility sustainment, restorati restoration, and modernization accounts. i urge the members of the full committee to support the readiness mark, and i yield back. >> chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentle lady from guam. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, extend special thanks to the chairman and ranking member smith and i want to thank all the staff who spent countless hours working with us to develop this bill, and 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 find critical readiness accounts that have been two decades of enduring conflicts. this streamlines to track and communicate readiness needs and steps taken to address them, and furthermore, the bill makes targeted investments and provides additional authorities and flexibility for military construction. many of the facilities that our service members live and train in need critical repair and modernization, and deferred investment and facilities as only compounded costs. so this mark helps address these short falls and recapitalizes critical infrastructure. this bill also addresses several critical issues facing guam. most notably, it includes a provision that addresses the critical work force crisis that is compromising the labor force needed to support construction in health care deficits, associated with the realignment of agreements to guam. this is language that we passed last year, and i hope we can ensure adequate solution is sustained in conference. it is also my hope that moving forward we can ensure we're doing what we need to engage the asia pacific region as many colleagues like to say, a budge is a strategy, 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 members' efforts to signal support, not just to the european theater, but the theater of today and tomorrow in the indo-asia-pacific area. however, i am concerned by what i believe to be the overreliance on what's been and remains a budget gimmick, relying on base requirements. with $75 billion for opal in our mark, we are discussing a $7 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. i'm concerned 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 opal funding now and in the future. dod funding, for now and in the future. i hope we, in congress, reserve this trend and allocate resources to appropriately support our defense and nondefense agencies that advance our national security interests. so, again, i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and all colleagues for your work on this important deal, and i look forward to continuing the discussion and the process evolving. i yield back. >> chair yields the ranking member. ? thank you, mr. chairman. a brief moment. i thank the chair and ranking member for their work, but i particularly thank vicki plunkett who is retiring, 11th and final markup in the committee staff, and as chairman and i as as we note, we have the best staff in congress, without question. the work that you have to do, i mean, we have 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 the work that's done constantly is impressive and a great service to the country, and vicki has been fantastic from the entire time i've. in congress. i appreciate her service. i congratulate her on her retireme retirement, so thank you very much for the service to this committee and to the country. we look forward to a great retirement and thanks again. great working with you. round of applause. [ applause ] these are great issues she works on. i appreciate her expertise. >> i add we were very grateful for all the help that her distinguished accomplishments works in the texas delegation where she was deputy chief of staff for a former colleague, 23 years working with congress, and 23 years of various ones of relying on your expertise and judgment. we are grateful. by the way, i hope that you understand you can't leave until this bill is signed into law, just saying. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i do wish to say something about vicki. to thank her for her 23 years in congress and ten years on this committee, and her thoughtful and deliberate approach to conflict problems is an asset to us on the committee, and throughout the years, she's continually impressed me with how she commands the respect of others through her intelligence, her candor, and her thoughtfulne thoughtfulness, and i've enjoy seeing her no nonsense attitude surprise many given her soft spoken demeanor. i further appreciated her friendship, consul, and daily presence here on capitol hill will be deeply missed. i speak for all of us when i say thank you, and in guam, i say -- i yield back. >> i'd like to join with the ranking member and commend you for service and, of course, any training you had by ortiz would be positive. congratulations, god speed. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i speak briefly about section 280, page 22, but before that, i also like to say thank you to vicki. when i returned to congress, she was the first person who came running up to me and gave me an amazing hug, so, thank you, vicki, and i'll miss you. mr. chairman, this section 2831 began on page 22 talks about withdraws of public land for military purposes. the section would withdraw public land associated with certain military installlations. it was included in the mark with the input of the department of defense as a means to reduce costs associated with renewing existing withdraws. typically congress provides 20-30 year withdraws of public lands for military purposes. if the land is still needed for military purposes at the end of the period, the department of defense works with the department of interior to complete an environmental impact statement before requesting a new withdraw from congress. the customary review allows for input and provides the department of interior with an opportunity to check out on any resource and management needs. it does cost money, and takes time to complete, but it is a system that has worked well since at least world war ii. i recognize that some find this process costly, time consuming, and, perhaps, even duplicative, but they are tries to find processes to reduce processing time and save money. if we want to find a working solution to the concerns, it's important we get it right. i look forward to working with you and others to make sure this is the answer we are looking for. dod is a great steward of public land, but section 2831 is a big departure from the status quo. we have not had the opportunity to get meaningful input from the department of interior, and i would like to get a commitment to continue working on this section in conference. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >>. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank chairman wilson, ranking member, and professional staff for working with me to include a provision in this subcommittee mark stressing the importance of maintaining a modern, efficient, and resilient facility infrastructure for the military. in order to support the missions of today and tomorrow, we must ensure that we are not relying on ageing and inefficient systems. this committee must work with the department to look at ways to reinvest, operate, and sustain utility systems. we must invest in an 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 were required dod to provide this committee with the briefing on the conditions of the current utility systems and their plan for modernization and recapitalization of its ageing utility system. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> further discussion on this subcommittee mark? are there amendments to this subcommittee mark? gentleman from colorado. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i have an amendment on the screen. >> the clerk will electronically distribute the amendment. without objection, the amendment is considered read and you are recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i have a district with five major military installations, and people are coming and going all the time, and i rarely question dod and whether they are bringing or taking people away. it's just accepted as part of the normal course of operating the military, but occasionally a decision is made that just really does not make sense, and that's what this amendment addresses. this would prevent the air force from spending funds on movement or divestiture of c-21 aircraft from peterson air force base. representative coffman, already also in the colorado delegation supports me in this. we just recently learned that the complete divestment of the 200 air lift squadrons, 20 military members and two c-21 aircraft after reaching air force's budget justification attached to the president's budget. we received no notifications, phone calls, briefings, or otherwise on this, and the 200 air lift squadron at peterson provides secure, priority air lift of military and civilian leaders, which would have to be, i guess, farm out to private vendors, sensitive cargo air lift for norad's defense targeting mission, and all to save $482,000, and i'm convinced, mr. chairman, this someone of the cases where the military is making a penny wise and count foolish decision because to save $482,000, you're going to lose twenty pilots, experienced pilots, 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 count foolish. i'm offering the amendment and asking for support. normally i don't question the pentagon on these kinds of decisions, but i think this is one that cries out for saying, wait a minute, go back and do something else, but don't do this. because losing 20 pilots is just not a good decision. it's not that they are going elsewhere. they are just being lost. i would ask support for this, and i would yield back. >> the gentleman will hit his butt t button please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i support the colleague's amendment because the decision to divest of the two c-21a aircraft from the 200th air lift squadron is premature and not properly documented or justified. the squadron provides secure air lifts for military and civilian leaders, supports missions, and flies airborne target missions for the north american aerospace command, norad. despite this is the second busiest distinguished visitor terminal in the department of defense, indicates to me, this decision was made out of the lack of appreciate for the true readiness issues we face in our military today. in particular, i opposed this action due to the simple fact the air force has not followed its own strategic process for the crucial decision. the process is there to provide assurances that these decisions are not made, that are made in the best interest of national security of the country, and sense this process was not followed, how we know that we simply don't know this was a great decision, and in addition to now following the air force's own basing process for this decision, congress was not provided with any strategic level communication or justi justificati justification. truly dismayed by the lack of transparency. this year this committee and my military personnel subcommittee, questioned air force leadership about the huge pilot shortage they face. this adds up to 1500 pilot shortage and 300 mobile pilots like those piloting the c-2 is 1st at the air force base. shifting these from a fully commanded squadron to active duty squadron when demand is short of pilots strikes me as an odd form and reverse logic. to me, the more logic approach and most appropriate way for aircraft to flow is to move every ability to fully man reserve and guard units. we can begin to dig ourselves out of the shortage crisis by helping retaining pilots we do have. we should be supporting units like the 200th squadron rather than divesting them and encouraging active service members as they leave active duty service to transition to the guard reserve retaining their experience. i urge colleagues to support the amendment and ye back the balance of my time. >> i yield to myself in opposition to the amendment. i have tremendous respect for mr. lamborn and his oversight and advocacy for military installations in the district. he does a great job. this is about moving two airplaning from colorado springs to peterson air force base. if this committee gets involved in every movement of two 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's efforts to get more information and justification for this. the only other thing i would say this is this is part of a bigger movement between the air force and international guard, some things are coming into colorado as things go out, and so there's all this shuffling going on, but i just don't think we can legislate two 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's trying to do, and it drives up the costs of what they are doing. they have to go through it over and over and over again to justify all decisions. now, every single member of the committee is going to have a decision that the pentagon makes that we disagree with, but if relegislate on them, every single one, as the chairman said, in the case of moving two aircraft, then we are going to tie the pentagon up in knots as when we all acknowledge they have a lot more to do. they have to fight over every single minor decision they make in terms of how they move personnel or equipment. i concur and oppose the amendment. >> questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman of colorado. aye, no? noes have it. noes have it. the amendment is not greed to. votes have been called. this is a good time for us to recess, go vote, gobble a sandwich, and be back promptly at the end of votes. committee stands in recess. live from capitol hill, house arms services committee in a markup session today of the 2018 defense authorization bill going through the bill, bit by bit, going through amendments through the day. this -- we're three and a half hours into what's expected to be an all-day work session. this markup could go past midnight tonight. we'll continue with our live coverage here on c-span3. the markup session now in a recess as votes have been called on the house floor, so members are going to take care of that, and then we'll return. our live coverage will continue when members return to the markup session, but during this recess, we're going to show you some of the house arms services committee work from earlier today beginning with debate on an amendment that related to combat ships. again, from earlier today, the 2018 defense authorization bill being marked up by the house arms services committee. >> mr. chairman, this amendment would remove funding for one lcs from the overseas contingency fund and set the mark to fund two ships total. in the original 2018 president's budget request, the navy requested one lcs. now, a day after the president's budget was submitted, the white house requested one more, and to take it further, the mark added an additional lcs for a total of three. the day after the president's budget was dropped, asking secretary of the navy defended the white house's decision to fund just one ship, but later that day, it was revealed that omb now endorsed a second ship, which at the time was unknown where its funding would come from. three weeks prior to the budget being released, omb director acknowledged that, "the navy does not want them," referring to the lcs. the second and third ship not requested were from oco, funds never intended to be used for long term shipbuilding. moreover, they face serious shortcomin shortcomings. in a june services hearing, john mccain stated unequivocally, "one of the greatest disasters i have seen recently was the lcs, cost overruns doubled the cost of each lcs and costs exceed $6 billion and keep rising. meanwhile, key war fighting capabilities of the lcs including counter measures and submarines have fallen years, i repeat, years behind, remaining unproven." a quote from senator mccain. this redirects funding from one of the lcs's and establishes accounts to fund mission short falls identified. in fact, on a recent issue, admiral harris had poignant words to us in singapore. he remarked, and i quote, "the lack of ammunitions and how quickly we burn through the current inventory in conflict is what keeping me up at night." they identified present needs for replenishment that seem more pressing and appropriate for this committee to fund than additional ships that go beyond the navy's request and do not get us closer to the replacement that corrects the lcs's short com comin comings. when i asked before the committee to identify examples where congressional politics interfere with the ability to provide for national defense, this is a prime example that comes to mind. adding these ships, which according to tests cannot survive combat, has more to do with parochial congressional district politics than the needs of our sailors and our troops. make no mistake, it's affording these boondoggles absolutely does burn our troops who, in turn, be not get munitions and other resources they truly need. in short, we are forcing on the navy a ship they do not want, a ship they do not need, and a ship they did not request. with that, mr. chairman, i yield to california. chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose the amendment. first of all, we have had extensive hearings in the c-power subcommittee concerning lcs, concerning want need for the right high-low mix of surface. destroyers, cost associated with it, issues with the program, ships are built exactly as specified. the issue right now is with mission modules. the only one left to be put in place is the countermeasure modu module. we point out in the 2016 structure assessment the need for 52 small surface combatants. lcs is part of that. the navy is on track to select to a new bearing, a small service combatant in 2020. this allows us to bring costs down to deliver ships, and we can bring -- if we take out of production one of the ships, we increase costs by 10%. also, if you are to take money from this account to take away from getting 355 ships, and you put that money towards ammunitio ammunitions, you are going to let money set idle. in this mark, there's money there for fully funds production munitions for ucom and pay com at the capacity today. this is throwing good money to bad. you can't execute this money because there's not capacity or capability there to produce these munitions. this is feel-good stuff. if you want to make sure that you get something that is usable, that can be put in the hands of sailors, that we can put to sea, that we can get things dope, if you do that less expensively and transition properly under what i think is a very thoughtful plan for the navy to get from this ship to the next generation of small service combatants, funning this ship gets us there. again, i speak out in adamant opposition to the amendment in what it hopes to accomplish, which is money setting on the sidelines and the capability that we need today to the ships in transitioning into the next generation of small service combatants. >> gentleman -- oh, the ranking member's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to speak in support of the amendment, it's a good example of what i was talking about in the opening statement, about us making choices in the size of the budget that we have. now, i enjoyed mr. turner's comment going back in history again and imagine this is all president obama's fault. i guess everything's president obama's fault, and that's the easiest way to think of the world. sequestering was passed -- sorry, i have to bring up the reason we did it because republicans controlled house refused to raise the debt ceiling, so we would be three days away from basically failing to meet our obligations. now, i did not vote for the budget control act, but i will not criticize anyone who did when the choice basically was between that and basically stop paying the bills. i tried in open marks to not engage in that partisan argument. we are better off to recognize it was the result of bipartisan failings and not relitigate whose fault it was. it was a problem. it was created partisanly and continues to be a bipartisan problem. i will also say that it is not really the only problem, and that's what i was trying to say in the opening remarks. get rid of the budget control office, it's gone. we still don't just magically have trillions of dollars. we still have a $20 debt. we still have a $706 trillion deficit. i'm pretty sure between that side and this side it's the votes. this side here, most adamant about the fact that we need to balance the budget, so even if we get rid of the budget control act, we do not have $900 billion to spend on defense unless we pretty much completely eliminate all non-defense discretionary spending, which there is not support for doing. what i'm trying to get us to wake up to is we have to confront this larger choice. instead of just -- we just got rid of the budget control act rkts we ha, we have all the money we want, spends on defense, it's all good. there's mandatory programs, but the enthusiasm for doing something mandatory is limited, as i understand it, the budget -- the chairman of the budget committee, chairwoman of the budget committee, proposed as part of giving us this $621 billion, a $50 billion cut in mandatory spending, which, chairman of various committees would have implemented that, all fought, $50 billion. $706 billion deficit, find $50 billion in mandatory savings, and the majority can't even do that, all right? so it is a much larger problem than just saying, by gum, we have to get rid of the budget control act, and then we'll spend all the money we want on defense. okay? we got to look at revenue. we got to look at mandatory, all this stuff so we actually create a budget with money in it to pay things that we're talking about. which brings me to this, okay. lcs is a controversial program. i don't personally score in eliminating it, there's good elements where it's important, but as pointed out, we're not getting rid of it. the president -- well, he put one in the budget, and then after the budget was submitted, and i had to quote on this, which i won't repeat, all the sudden they said, we want two, and they asked, where do you get the money? they said, oh. and then eventually just found it somewhere. in our mark, we put three. now, is it better to have three lcs's in the abstract? sure. but we're making choices here. i compliment mr. multon for offering up what i think is a better choice in terms of where we spend our money. if this is what we do in this committee, every time, we try to cut anything, and i won't even get into the practice discussion, every time we try to find savings anywhere, there's -- no, no, no, we have to have that. we have to have that ship. that plank. this number of troops. it doesn't add up. at some point, we in this committee, if we are committed to supporting the military that we claim we are supporting, we have to make a choice to cut something. i keep asking the question, all the money coming in, pentagon people, where in the pentagon are we spending money that we shouldn't? and, yes, that's the answer i got. well, you know, we'd have to go back and take a look at it, we'd have to think about it, we'd have to think about it? i mean, what the hell, you know, we're way under to fund this stuff, and you're in the even thinking about where to find savings to get us there? this is a small piece that i realized i just took mr. multon's modest amendment and blew up it in a large argument, but that's an example of decisions we make as a committee if we're going to fund the military we want. we want to fund readiness, take two lcss instead of three. if we can't do one tiny little thing, then we're going to be in a lot of trouble in terms of funding the priorities that the chairman roughly outlined. so i urge support to the amendment and yield back. >> mr. barnes recognized. >> thank you. the small service combatants called for 52 combatants. it's not been amended by the navy. the navy clearly has stated through the report it needs these ships. in fact, admiral harris pay com was before the subcommittee in april and talked about how he's presently using the ships in the south china sea where it fulfills a important part of the mission. now, why produce these at a level of three per year? we had admiral before the subcommittee just a couple months ago, and he said funding three lcs ships a year is critical to maintaining cost and schedule efficiency. those were his words. lcs is on budget and below the cost out. both shipyards are efficiently producing ships. the two shipyards cannot continue without funding three ships a year: that's also the navy's conclusion. three ships maintains a healthy industrial base because without these ships, they suffer a 10-40% layoff, result in production timelines, and unit cost increases of 10-15%, which comes out to be about $70 million annually in future ships. it's not a spigot. you turn it off, you can't just turn it on again. people will find other jobs. we have to ensure the work force in both shipyards will remain in tact and poised to produce lcs in future small service combatants on time and under cost benefits the taxpayers and the navy told us they need it. three ships also ensures proper supplier base remains in tact, and proper supplier base continues to provide new repair parts in an economic order of quantities, maintaining low cost to taxpayers as well. the navy cannot get to a $355 fleet ship requirement with 52 ships. repeated testimony to that. lcs fills the gap, they are at low coast capability in the navy's goal, and lcs removes burdens from large service combatants needed for high end missions. with regard to munitions, most munition programs saw plus-ups in funding in the bill and president's requests. production lines are near capacity and more money won't actually make more munitions. our mark also adds $26 million to the torpedos and 9 million to the side winder missiles. we're doing a lot there. i appreciate the gentleman from massachusetts comments. i invited him to come to the shipyard in mobile. i invited him to come to san diego and actually ride on the ship and talk to the commanding officer and other officers and sailors on the ship and learn far more than just by reading reports. i recently learned the gentleman is engaged. i know that when he has his wedding, east going to go on a great honeymoon. i can't think of a better honeymoon than coming to the shipyard in mobile or taking her on the ship in san diego. i renew my invitation to the gentleman from massachusetts. i know this will be a great time for him and his wife to do this, and i think you'll learn something in the consequence. i yield back. >> gentle lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to my colleague from massachusetts, do not take that advice, you'll be divorced by the end of the week. i'm going to associate myself with the ranking member and with mr. multon. this is a disaster of a ship. i don't know what it's going to take for us to finally recognize that sometimes we have to say no to things that just don't work. in february 2011, uss freedom, an lcs, sprung a 6 inch crack in its hull that required several months worth of repairs. in june 2011, severe corrosion sidelined the uss independence, and in december, 2012, the defense department in december 2012 the defense department's director of operation and evaluation releasing report saying the lcs is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment. that's why we've changed the name so it's not literal combat ship now, it's now called a frig at. confirmed until the navy completed technical and design studies and figured out how much it will cost to fix the vessel -- these were ignored. in december 2014 secretary of defense hagel studies ways to improve the program, however the navy doubled down on its failed strategy and prioritized cost and schedule considerations over mission requirements. in december 2015 the "uss milwaukee" broke down and had to be towed 40 miles after a software malfunction. that same month secretary of defense carter directed the navy to cut the program which would save billions of dollars. once again my colleagues resisted these efforts. and sidelined in 2016 because operator failed to follow proper maintenance procedures. in 2016, what did we do? in a strained military budget did we heed the gao? no, we didn't. the nda authorized not one, not two, but three new ships adding $1.5 billion to the budget. but there's more. in july 2016 the "uss freedom" yet again encountered more mechanical issues. how bad is it? this time its engine will need to be rebuilt or replaced. most recently in august 2016 the "uss coronado" broke down because of an engineering problem. every one of these lcsess ha ha suffered maintenance problems with the exception of two. why don't we go back to the drawing board and build a ship that will work, that won't sink, that won't lose its power and have to be towed in? it's really a disgrace. and to say it's low cost is absolutely a canard. these maintenance problems cost us tens of millions of dollars -- hundreds of millions of dollars. meanwhile we can't pay the widows of our military service members what they deserve from their life insurance policies. but we can keep billing $500 million ships that sink. i yield back. >> gentleman from wisconsin, mr. gallagher is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it's a healthy debate. it's no secret to anyone that's observed this that the lcs requirements have changed over the years. the global environment has changed as well. since the navy started thinking for the first time about a new surface combatant dating back to the 1990s, and as we take steps to continue the transition to the frigate in 2020, i look forward to continuing to work with all members of the committee, my colleague from massachusetts i respect immensely to make sure we transition responsibly and effectively and we shore up any survivability requirements or le that willty requirements that the navy wants us to address. but let us all recognize what the omb director says in an off hend comment on hugh hewitt's radio station 6:30 a.m. does not represent the u.s. navy. let's look instead at what the navy has said and written. and the claim laid on the table that the navy doesn't want the ship is patently false. as deputy secretary defense bob work who authored the most thor row, honest and unsparing program concluding the navy is getting nearly the exact ship it asked for and in some key aspects a better ship than expected. we spent months asking the navy this very question in a subcommittee. the program executive officer told chairman whitman and myself and everyone else that the navy needs three ships per year and need it to keep the production line hot to facilitate that transition. stack li's name was invoked. let's also recognize the administration was forced to defend top line number 603 sent to them by onb without doing strategic evaluation behind what numbers actually needed. lcs program is of critical importance to our navy. the designs are stable, new yard facilities are in place with the right size qualified workforce and both shipyards and industry teams are in full productions in order to ensure each can deliver two ships per year. today the lcs program is on budget and below congressional cost cap. gao was invoked. if you actually read the gao report, which is not friendly to the lcs in a manner of respects conclude cost simply isn't the issue. strategically, what are we talking about with this ship? why do we need it? why do the war fighters keep asking for it? lcs is not only ideal platform from which to employ unmanned systems which will increase importance in the future, it can simply go places where bigger ships can't. rear admiral don gabrielson, commander of western group put it combat ships can go places and do things that no other american ships can with flexible large payloads that enable easy integration with regional navies for both military and humanitarian missions. there are over 50,000 islands across a broad arc from the fill fe peens to sri lanka, larger ships can only visit 50 ports across this entire territory. the lcs can dock in over 1,000 ports. later that night in a meeting tho thornberry, myself and many other members of this organization you had to leave through no fault of your own told us the lcs is playing increasing role in the pacific and want more of them. if the navy doesn't want the ship, then why are they actually expanding missions in singapore to deploy two ships simultaneously. if the ship doesn't work why are allies asking for more? why did admiral harris testify before this committee a lot of our partners in the region have small navies, they want to learn from somebody and i'd rather they learn from us than other potential partners. their navies are small and when a cruiser comes in it can overwhelm them. the lcs is the right platform to do that. it's also the right platform to train in areas of shallow depth. i appreciate very much my colleague's concern about munition shortfall in key regions. i share that view, but i believe the chairman's mark already takes important steps to address these gaps. the mark rightly adds over $1.5 billion above and beyond the president's budget request for missiles across the services. under chairman leadership the committee has also correctly emphasized america's enduring commitments to asia and europe so we prioritize munitions and forward presence in the asia pacific while supporting joint exercises with regional partners. we also strengthen our position in europe by transitioning european -- to the base budget which i strongly applaud. this appropriate where joins the list of enduring requirements. i think we're doing things to shore up our munitions shortfall. und i understand this is a contentious issue. i've tried my best to listen to issues of all sides but more than that tried to listen to the navy. if you've listened, the fourth fleet wants the ship, the fifth fleet wants the ship, the sixth fleet wants the ship, the seventh fleet wants the ship. we need to continue to build to meet operational requirements. i yield, mr. chairman. >> mr. garamindy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's with enormous respect and admiration for the chairman of the committee and the other members of the committee, but this ship really doesn't sail. only purpose it seems at the present time is to show the flag and to get us closer to 355. it's a half a billion dollars, over $500 million for each ship. we can surely spend that money better elsewhere. it's 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 actually can sail. but if it ever has to be used in a contested environment, without a doubt it isn't going to survive. and so therefore it's kind of like, you know, 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 the ship that really doesn't work well tharks is the lcs. so we ought to right now say enough is enough, don't build another one, use the money elsewhere. advance the frigate design which incidentally is going to have to be a significant improvement over the lcs design, so that it actually can survive in a contested environment. and get on with it. but the industrial base is always a great argument to use. by the way, if we don't want to build munitions, maybe we ought to build an ice breaker so we could actually do something in the arctic ocean. i know, i see my colleagues here saying, oh, yeah, garamendi and hunter are back to the ice breaker. we are indeed. let's do this, why don't we swap two lcss for one heavy ice breaker so we can actually have the u.s. navy in the arctic, which we cannot now do? in any case the amendment is a good one, munitions we clearly hear we do not have enough munitions. somebody says the industrial base can't build -- or cannot supply more munitions chrks probably tells us that particular industrial base needs to be augmented. so i support mr. molten's amendment. and i'm going to -- mrs. speier, do you want more time? >> no. >> i yield back. >> gentleman from texas, mr. o' rourk. >> we are constantly bombarded about unfunded needs capabilities we need to have we don't have today and promgted costs that were not on a trajectory to me. i heard the chairman of tactical air and land talk about the urgency of these unfunded needs and here we have a colleague asking us to make one of these tough decisions. he's saying that only one of these littoral combat ships at a cost of $563,382,000 that those resources could be put to one of those unfunded urgent needs that we have right now. and while we have these open questions and concerns about the viability and safety and seaworthiness of this program, i think this is a very rational suggestion from one of our colleagues. so i support and urge my colleagues to join me in doing so. and i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i want to address the munitions issue where some of my colleagues have said that we don't have the production capacity to make the munitions that we need. whether we need to fix that capacity, that's the job that 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. now, my lovely fiancee 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 efficiencies as the per person cost would drop. i would welcome the gentleman from alabama to take that proposal to my fiancee. finally, mr. whitman said repeatedly that the navy needs this ship. my colleague from wisconsin cited various fleets that would like this ship. my colleague from wisconsin and i are both marines. that's like asking a marine if he would like more chow. of course you would like more chow. but the bottom line is that when the navy made their budget requests, they did not request it. mr. chairman, if the navy needed this ship, they would have requested it just as the pacomm commander has requested the additional munitions that my amendment would provide. i yield back. >> gentleman from arizona. no? any further discussion on the amendment? i'd yield to myself just briefly. i think everybody acknowledges we need more ships. as i mentioned at the beginning one of the major differences between the president's request and the mark before us is to add more ships. i am convinced a different mix of high/low ships is best. i'm also convinced the navy is moving from the lcs towards the frigate. they believe they can do that smoother and better by continuing the lcs line. and it is a matter of economics if we're going to buy a certain number if you can buy three, avoid some of the ups and downs of the industrial production costs than having more of a stable basis for cost you can ultimately save the taxpayers more money. i think the bottom line is we have cut too much. and this -- you know, while lcs doesn't do everything, it is also a third of the cost of a destroyer. it can do some stuff, some stuff that we need doing. and so i am opposed to the amendment. questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, those in favor -- >> mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. >> wait. i haven't got there yet. >> oh, sorry. >> those in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. >> is there 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. and back live on capitol hill, the house armed services committee still in a recess of its markup of the 2018 defense authorization bill. we expect committee members to start filtering back into the committee room here as house floor votes have been completed, at least this first round on the house floor today. so the house armed services committee to get back to work on marking up the defense authorization bill for the next fiscal year. according to role call chairman thornberry recommended $631.5 billion for the base budget. another $65 billion for war funds that would surpass president donald trump's initial request. so far today the committee has kpleetded work on three of six subcommittee titles. they will resume working on the readiness subcommittee title when members return here to be followed by the military personnel strategic forces and full committee titles and amendments. a full day of work, could go past midnight tonight. our live coverage of the house armed services committee markup of the defense authorization bill on c-span3. okay. we're going to resume. just before we left for votes, the amendment was disposed of. are there further amendments to this section of the gentle lady from hawaii? >> yes. mr. chair, i have -- [ inaudible ] >> the court will distribute the amendment. without objection, the amendment is considered as read -- is gentle lady having trouble with her microphone? >> i think it's okay now. >> okay. gentle lady recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair, what i will be doing is offering the amendment and then withdrawing it because i do not have the -- at the end because i do not have the requisite waiver. however, having said that i would like to present the amendment and withdraw at its conclusion. so amendment 171 seeks basically a pacific war memorial at pearl harbor, hawaii. mr. chair, this is a very unique situation in that there is a rear admiral retired by the name of lloyd joe vasey who served in world war ii under the command of john s. mccain jr., father of united states senator john mccain iii. and he's advocated for many years for the creation of the pacific war memorial at pearl harbor. in his own words he says there is no recognition of well over 150,000 brave americans who were lost in the pacific war. they are resting on the bottom of the pacific ocean somewhere, or their remains are scattered across the south pacific islands. we need to honor them and their family needs a place to mourn. admiral vasey turned 100 years old this year, and he has asked that something be done with his lifelong dream of having seen a war memorial, a little monument at pearl harbor so people could come and mourn those we have not yet identified or found. to give you an idea of what admiral vasey is like, he tells the story of being hon the submarine and then wondering there's got to be a different and a better way. we cannot fight these kinds of wars. so he is actually the founder of the center for strategic and international studies, we all know it as csis. he has it in the pacific and it's called the pacific forum and there have been many people gone through it as fellows because of his interest in peace. he clearly epitomizes what the greatest generation defines and means and that all american service members who gave their lives is something he does not forget. and he wants to see them memorialized but more importantly than that he wants the families to have closure. however, mr. chair, unfortunately i do not have the waiver from the natural resources committee. so with that i will withdraw my amendment. >> gentle lady withdraws. other amendments to this section of the bill, gentleman from south carolina? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call out on block package number 1 consisting of -- >> without objection so ordered. if the clerk will distribute the amendments, without objection the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> on block package 1 is comprised of the following. amendment 001 requiring a briefing on the guam micronesian king fisher habitat in specific impacts to that agreement. amendment 002 requiring the department of defense to develop guidance regarding the use of organic industrial base. amendment 10 by mr. scott directs the air force to brief the committee on the status of the advance adversarial air training program. amendment number 17 by mr. larson directs the director of defense contract management agency to brief the committee on compliance with the department of defense item unique identification policy. item 37r-1 by mr. cook requires that secretary of defense to report on mutually beneficial infrastructure projects between military bases and local municipalities. amendment number 38 by mr. shus ter clarifies nothing in the ndaa can be construed as authorizing a base realignment and close your round. amendment number 40 withholds 25% of funds of the office of secretary of the navy until request for proposal for a dry dock in the western pacific has been issued. amendment number 47r-1 authorizes the secretary of the army to sell and convey three plots of land in massachusetts and use the proceeds to fund military family housing and other supporting facilities. amendment number 106 by mr. coffman directs the secretary of defense to provide a report on each military services existing process for stationing, basing and lay down decisions. amendment number 108 by mr. coffman directs the secretary of defense to provide a briefing on the potential of using additional military solution ranges for a counter unmanned aerial systems testing and training. >> is there further discussion on on block package number one? if not, the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. further amendments to this portion of the mark, gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call on bloc package number 2 consisting amendments have been proved and work with minority. >> without objection so ordered. the clerk will distribute the amendments which are considered as read. and the gentleman is recognized to explain the amendments. >> on block package number 2 is comprised of the following, amendment number 48 requires the secretary of defense to provide a briefing on the department's timeline and efforts to develop infrastructure master plans to support laboratory and research infrastructure requirements. amendment number 54r-1 by [ music playing ] shea-porter to develop joint minimum standards for commercial off the shelf equipment protective covers to improve readiness by preventing corrosion. amendment number 122r-1 by mr. rogers requires -- reach back functions. amendment number 140r-1 by mr. bishop directs military departments to report on the amount of military based facilities used by contractors. amendment 144r-1 by mr. bishop extends the time for the multitrades dimension project -- demonstration project through the year 2024. amendment number 145 by mr. bishop improves existing biannual reporting requirements on corp depo level maintenance and repair capabilities by clarifying when specific data should be included in such reports. amendment number 198 by mr. souuozzi includes reports by the environmental restoration and active installations formally utilized defense sites and past realignment and closure locations. amendment number 199 requires briefing on how the department of defense can leverage the smart city concept on military installations to improve readiness, delivery of services, infrastructure management and installation physical and cyber security. amendment number 253 by mrs. cheney amendments section 2825 of hr-2810 to amend the transfer of quebec-01 missile alert facility to agree to previous provisions between the state laid out in the agreement. amendment number 2258r-1 requires a cost benefit analysis of afghan military and security forces uniform specifications prior to entering into a contractual agreement. >> is there further debate on on block package number 2? if not, the question occurs on the amendments as offered by the gentleman from south carolina, those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. being the chair the ayes have it, the amendments are adopted. chair recognizes gentleman from south carolina for further amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call up on block package number three consisting of amendments worked out and approved by minority under the leadership of ranking member of guam. >> without objection so ordered. the clerk will distribute the on block package. without objection the amendments are considered as read. and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized to explain the on block package. >> on block package number three is comprised of the following. amendment number 43r-1 by mr. kelly modifies the boundary of the shy low military park to establish cross roads battlefield. amendment 55r-1 by mrs. shea-porter requires a briefing on security and flagship program meet the department of defense requirements for language training. amendment 80r-1 by mr. knight requires a report on the chase aircraft availability at nasa armstrong flight. amendment by mr. rogers requires annual report on the procurement and retirement of military working dogs. amendment number 123 by mr. cook prohibits type 1 highway glance speeds from being used to mark the department of defense airfields. amendment 131r-1 by ms. davis -- amendment 219r-1 by mr. o'halloran requires a briefing from the defense logistics agency on all agricultural related equipment disposals for the past five years. amendment 223r-1 by mr. wittman requires a report on the air crew training requirements for the fifth generation weapons systems and advanced munitions. the air force enterprise range plan and joint air force range training. amendment number 298 by mr. brown allows the navy to lease approximately three acres of land to the naval academy alumni association and the u.s. naval academy foundation. >> further discussion on on block package number three? gentleman from california. >> mr. chairman, i don't understand what the glass bead issue is on military airfields. this would be mr. cook's amendment. prohibiting highway glass beads from being used to mark department of defense airfields. what's the problem here? >> sounds like -- >> does the gentleman want to yield to somebody to describe -- >> colonel cook. >> glass beads, goes back a long ways in california. originally i ran a glass bead bill. part of it was safety, part of it was because the type three were made in china. it was originally run as an environmental bill, just to educate you on this, because part of the problem with the chinese bill it wasn't as pure as the other ones. and there was a substance in that called arsenic. and as the roads -- as i said, originally it was for transportation to mark the main lines. the arsenic would wear away, go into the soil. and this was a big issue in my area because of the water contamination by arsenic and chromium 6, you might have heard of hinckley, california. >> you mean erin? >> so i ran a bill and the bill was taken away from me because republicans did not run environmental bills. okay. the bill was taken over and it was actually passed. okay. we go fast forward, i am concerned with this because i think the bill that -- the beads that are submitted there give more lukman nation. and the question is about where they are made. the ones they are made right now are in austria. there is another part that goes into these other beads that they're recycled bills that including some from china where they're all ground up. so it goes back all the way to a certain extent to my original concern about glass beads and how i got involved in that. >> would the gentleman yield -- >> pardon the expression, does that illuminate the question for my colleague from california? >> i'm wondering would the gentleman yield? >> sure. >> i want to hone in on one thing. your suggesting these are not made in america? >> that's right. >> well, then, i'm with you, sir. >> thank you. >> any further discussion on on block package number three? if not the question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. >> ay sglerks those opposed say no. being the chair the ayes have it, and the amendments are adopted. further amendments on this portion of the mark? gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have the amendment on the computer. >> and if the clerk will press send or whatever it is y'all do. without objection the amendment is considered as read. and the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment that i offer today that has the co-sponsorship of every one of my democratic colleagues on the house armed services committee will recognize that climate security is a fundamental part of our national security strategy. we've studied a number of vectors for readiness on this committee, but we often overlook this major multifaceted threat. climate change as we know is real. and it can effect our readiness both tactically and strategically. we know this because former and current military leaders agree. secretary mattis was correct when he stated, and i quote, the effects of a changing climate such as increased maritime access to the arctic, rising sea levels, desertification among others will impact our security situation, end quote. and, mr. chairman, i have a letter here from admiral stravites spoken out on this issue and supports this amendment and i would like to enter that for the record if i could. >> without objection. >> so, mr. chairman, naval bases just as norfolk or key west already at risk for flooding. and that's just going to get worse as storm surges and rising tides increase in magnitude. so inland bases will experience other weather volatility such as extreme heat and wildfires, all of which can and do in fact impact the training capabilities. so thinking strategically the changing climate will totally alter our joint battle space. so we've already seen display of dominance in the arctic where new sea lanes will connect continents more directly than ever before. russia and other world powers recognize the value of this area. and we must be ready. so moreover the changing global climate will lead to increased instability in the form of economic migration, increased competition over resources and possibly more failed states, which we know to be breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism. now, we know this because the leaders of the intelligence community as well have alerted us to this fact. they recognize that climate is a long term threat, and we should as well. so my amendment is straightforward and simple. it instructs each service to assess the top ten military installations likely to be impacted by climate change over the next 20 years. it also asks for combatant commanders to incorporate the effects of climate into their strategic battle plans. this amendment, mr. chairman, is a step in the right direction. i believe that we have to continue to be realistic and to explore the changing ways that a volatile climate will effect the department's mission. the truth is that the department can study this on their own as they have a wide berth when it comes to assessing threats to national security. but this amendment shows that congress has the department's back. it signals that we are not naive to the dangers of climate change or defense strategy. and it tells those researchers on the front lines a threat assessment that congress took off not in spite of them as we together -- defending the united states from a variety of threats. i believe we have to ensure that the department remains resill i can't -- resilient, remains prepared as well as to conduct operations both today and in the future. so with that i want to thank all of my democratic colleagues for their support of -- and cosponsorship of my amendment. i welcome the support and the comments of all of the members of the committee on this topic. and i urge everyone today to support its passage. with that i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. mceachin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, in hampton rose, virginia, flooding is already sadly an effect of life. sea levels rise and pose threats to communities right outside of my district and to the bases those communities contain. if anyone doubts me, i invite you to come down and visit our region. local officials from both parties will gladly explain to you how much is at stake. in the chesapeake bay tangier island is slowly disappearing. the city of norfolk needs more than $1 billion to cope with just sea level rise and scientists expect far larger increases than that. as everyone in this room knows, the entire hampton roads region is littered with military bases. many of the most critical sit right on the coast, notably naval station norfolk, joint base langley and oceaners dam nick -- over the last 80 years waters at naval station norfolk have climbed more than 14 inches and counting. it's inconceivable to me that this committee would not want to better understand this looming threat and would want to take proactive steps to address it. delay will affect capability and readiness at these coastal installations, eventually destroying the value of investments we've made over many decades. this amendment would give us a clearer picture of the exact challenges we face. it would require the department of defense to lay out potential solutions giving us a road map for how to meet those challenges in short would move us from passivity to active participation. our military planes and trains every day for wars that god willing we'll never have to fight. we should prepare with equal vigor for the threats that we actually know we have to face. i thank my friend, the gentleman from rhode island, for his leadership on this issue. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> ms. tsongas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm a co-sponsor of this amendment and strongly support its passage. scientists tell us that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and could have devastating effects across the globe. it is a very real crisis that if left untouched will cause irreparable harm to current and future generations. our military leaders, secretary of defense mattis, chairman of the joint chiefs dunford, former secretary of defense gates have all testified to the risks that climate change poses to military readiness and our national security. this amendment is a common sense addition to the national defense authorization act. i thank representative langevin for his support and with that i yield back. >> ms. rosen. >> thank you. i want to say that we can debate the causes of climate change all day long, but nonetheless climate change that challenges us to deal with the current and future issues that we have the d.o.d. must pay attention to the adverse potential effects of climate change. and as secretary mattis said, it really impacts us in the food and water and all of our agriculture areas. it's how it drives instability in the middle east. the melting of the arctic will thaw, russian ports, it will clear those northern sea lanes and drive de -- increased resource extraction activity. and we also have to consider plans to respond to climate driven disasters and the instability that they cause. as the weather gets warmer, droughts and famine will create more failed states. former secretary of the air force james said in an interview failed states are the natural breeding ground for terrorists. more countries including our own can be hit by droughts and famines. governments can be destabilized and can pave the way for the rise of dictators and dissolution of countries into lawless regions similar to what we have in isis. what i want to say is that water really affects our agriculture, here at home in very important ways. we can live without a lot of things, but we can't live without a safe, secure water grid. that means safe secure drinking water and safe secure farming within our borders. and if we don't also have that globally, we will have worldwide crisis. for those reasons and so many more, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. >> mr. carbajal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this should not be a partisan issue. the risks are too high. it is not just our oceans and ecosystems at risk, but our nation's security. climate change is impacting all parts of the world in different ways. and as a military that has committed to invested and maintaining a global presence, we must be prepared to protect our personnel and assets from the impacts of climate change. and this amendment does exactly that. in 2008 the national intelligence council found that over 30 military sites in the continental u.s. are already facing elevated risks because of sea level rise. in the western united states drought has amplified the threat of wildfires and floods have damaged roads, runways and buildings on military bases. last year in california fires threatened camp pendleton as well as vandenberg air force base in my district. a year's worth of rain fell in 80 minutes at ft. irwin in the mojave desert, there's no question climate change will increasingly impact our nation's military infrastructure here and abroad. ultimately making it more difficult to defend america's interest. climate change will continue to pose a serious threat for the american people and the health of this nation. we must make the necessary investments to address climate change as its impacts will increasingly disrupt our ability to carry out critical missions in defense of our country. and this amendment will not only help us further identify weaknesses and vulnerabilities, but also investments we must make within the department to protect it from the impacts of climate change. mr. chair, i yield back. >> let's see, mr. o halleran -- okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we've heard from many senior officials that climate change is a national security issue. the report in this amendment will help define the risks to our installations and identify potential mitigation efforts in the future. climate change threatens our installations particularly coastal installations where rising sea levels and threats of tidal flooding raise serious concerns. i certainly wouldn't want guam to disappear. our recent study noted that tidal flooding events have increased fourfold since 1970 and conservative forecasts estimate increase of tenfold over the next 35 years. so climate change is holding many of our facilities at risk today. and this report will clearly detail which installations are at risk and potential mitigation efforts. so i urge my colleagues to vote yes on mr. langevin's fact finding amendment. and i yield back. >> chairman bishop. >> mr. chairman, i guess i am first grateful that we are no longer using paper, we're doing this electronically because four of the six pages is rhetoric on this particular issue before you actually get to the report language. we would have cut down a lot of trees had we been passing out paper. but there is a line in the play 1776 about the declaration of independence, when stephen hopkins, of rhode island, was also quoted as saying i have never seen, smelt or heard a danger it couldn't be talked about. whether the first four pages in here are accurate or not, there's nothing dangerous about talking about it. this asks for your support, i'll support the idea of having a report. i yield back. >> mr. suozzi. >> i want to associate myself with mr. bishop's comments. thank you. >> ms. davis. >> thank you. i'll do the same. but i just wanted to point out that this is really a start. it wasn't an effort to look at military installations all over the world but to select the top ten. and i think that's why this is a good start. it will be looking at mitigations as well. this is one of those issues that is in that bucket that we ignore at our peril. so moving forward beginning this discussion as we look at our installations is a worthwhile thing to do. and i appreciate my colleague saying that. >> ms. cheney? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hate to disagree with chairman bishop, but i'm going to. i oppose this amendment strongly. we have heard testimony in front of this committee consistently about the array of imminent threats we face, about the extent to which the russians, the chinese, isis, al qaeda, iran, north korea are presenting in some cases imminent threats to us as a nation. and as these threats have grown our own capabilities have diminished. we face a situation today in which our adversaries are developing weapons systems against which we may not be able to defend ourselves. and there is simply no way that you can argue that climate change is one of those threats. it's not even close. at a time of significant resource constraints we simply cannot afford to instruct the department of defense to take their eye off the ball. there is no evidence that climate change causes war. if you look at the refugee flows that are often cited for example, the refugee flows across syria or iraq are the greatest today, people are not leaving their homes because they're too hot. they're leaving their homes to escape isis. and the regime. north korea's not developing nuclear tipped icbms because the climate's changing. russia's not engaging in increasingly aggressive behavior against its neighbors and threatening nato because it's too hot. isis and al qaeda aren't attacking the west because of the weather. at this moment of crisis for our military, particularly in the area of readiness, we on this committee have an obligation to do everything we can to begin to dig out of the hole we're in and to ensure maximum lethality for our forces. declaring that climate change requires additional reporting from the department of defense makes that more, not less, difficult. we have to face our responsibilities and the threats with a clear eye determination. and i believe we should take steps on this committee that make it more possible for us to build the military that we all know we need to begin to rebuild. we shouldn't take steps that impose additional requirements based on political issues. and many my view that's exactly what this one is. we have an obligation in my view to vote against this amendment and to ensure that we provide the resources our military needs to keep their eye on the ball, which is an array of complex and critical and in some cases imminent threats to the security of the nation. and climate change is not one of those. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. >> that's what i was afraid of. ms. murphy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm speaking in support of this amendment. when i was at the department of defense more than a decade ago conversations about climate change changes impact on our national security were already being had and they were being had at the service staff level, at the combatant commands and in osd policy. and for a number of years secretaries of defense of republican and democratic administrations alike and numerous other uniformed defense leaders have identified climate change as a challenge to national security. in fact, secretary mattis has acknowledged that the effects of climate change such as increased maritime access to the arctic, rising sea levels, desertification and among others impact our security situation. this amendment simply requires the assessment and report on vulnerabilities in combatant commander requirements, things they're already talking about over in the department. the department and congress need to understand these impacts and integrate the responses and plan -- in plans and in resourcing activities. i think we should value fact based decision making. and the effects of climate change are something we deal with on a daily basis in florida. and it has an effect on our economy and our way of life. so we can no more deny climate change's impact on our life and state than we can deny its impact on our national security. so i think that i would request the support of my colleagues for this amendment. i yield back. >> mr. garamendi. >> one could debate whether climate change is real or not. i think that's a debate that we don't need to get into, but to suggest that there's no connection between the changing climate and its effects on wars is incorrect. there are major conflicts now underway in areas where america has troops. you might take a look at thein do cush mountains, india and pakistan are having a bit of a discussion about dams on the indus river. and the reduction and flows of that river as a result of climate change and the recedings as a result of climate change and receding glaciers. similar effects are occurring in the great rivers in china as a result of climate change and the receding glaciers, you might want to take a look at the great m mekong river and look at the debates and conflicts, not yet wars, but could become. and you only need to look at the environmental impacts of climate change with regard to food production. to suggest that there is no relationship between food production or the lack of production, and wars, is to ignore the reality. long before or shortly before there was a civil war in syria, there was a serious reduction in agricultural production on another great river, on two great river systems in that region. in part as a result of climate change, and certainly in part as a result of over-use of the aquifers in the area. you may want to consider turkey's relationship with syria and iraq, with regard to the rivers in that area. in fact, climate change does directly relate to war. yield back. >> mr. bridenstine. >> just like make a quick comment here, associating myself with mr. bishop. i think it's important to note on this particular issue, there are real changes in the arctic that do affect the navy. the arctic ice is disappearing, there's strategic changes that are being implicated here. and it's important for the department of defense to report to congress on this. we're talking about a report here. and i would just like to associate myself with mr. bishop on this issue, it's just a report, and there are strategic implications that we need to be aware of. >> ms. shayporter? >> thank you. i have to say that i live in a coastal state, and i think it's a very nonpartisan issue in new hampshire, that people recognize the impact that it's having, we do have streets that have water in them in the middle of the sunshine days. and we also have some installations, military installations that are looking at this. this is a very real threat. and it isn't just congress, although it is congress's responsibility to do something about this. and i appreciate the fact that we're talking about a report. but vice admiral lee gunn, u.s. navy retired said the national security community is rightly worried about climate change because of the magnitude of the expected impacts around the globe, even in our own country. climate change poses a clear and present danger to the united states of america. but if we respond appropriately, i believe we will enhance our security, not simply by averting the worst climate change impacts, but by spurring a new energy revolution. those words give me hope, and i think we are responding appropriately, i urge my colleagues to vote yes. i yield back. >> concluding comments from mr. lambborn. >> i have a quick question for the sponsor of the amendment for clarification purposes. on page 3, paragraph 8, says a three-foot rise in sea levels will threaten the operations of more than 1 28 united states military sites and the study that's called for at the end of the amendment says to d.o.d. to look at threats within the next 20 years. so are you saying or predicting that there's going to be a three-foot rise in the ocean in the next 20 years? >> i'm not sure of the timeframe for when that is. but that would be an assessment that d.o.d. could include, as they assess over the next 20 years, what areas and what basis would be most affected within that timeframe. i don't want to prejudge the data that they would use to make that calculation. i want this to be science-based, facts-based and let them come to that determination and look to what mitigating factors they, steps they would take in the event of what they anticipate based on science, what they outcome would need to do to change. >> okay. thank you. i yield back. >> questions on the amendment offered by. those in favor say aye. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. further amendments, gentleman from south carolina? >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call an enblanc package number 4 consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. >> the clerk will distribute the en-blanc package which will be considered as read and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized to explain the amendment. >> the en blanc package is comprised of the following amendment number 6 by mr. kelley require as briefing on the air force's efforts to maximize undergraduate pilot training. amendment 14-r-1 by mr. larson reinstates the navy mine warfare readiness certification program. amendment 172 r-2 by miss hanna busa requires a briefing on the history of the accelerated promotion program in the navy's considerations to enable the accelerated promotions act between january 2016 and december 2016. amendment 226 r-1 by mr. whitman require as briefing on potential use of water quality credits to comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations to include the cost, benefits and challenges associated. amendment number 291, by mr. brown, directs the designation for corrosive control and prevention executives for the military dpafrltmentes. amendment 301 r 1 by mr. wals regards that the national park flyovers at public events may only be flown as part of an approved training mission and makes the state or territory ajudant general the guard or authority for the flyovers in that state or territory. >> other discussion on en blanc package number 4? >> if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye? those opposed, say no. being a chair, the ayes have it the amendments are adopted. if there are no further amendments to this portion of the market, the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move adoption of the report as amended. >> questions on the motion, of the gentleman from south carolina. those are in favor say aye? those opposed, say no? being the chair, the ayes have it. a quorum being present, the motion is adopted. committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on military personnel. pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone recorded votes on amendments to this particular portion of the mark until considering of all amendments to this subcommittee's mark has concluded. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from colorado, mr. kaufman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the military personnel subcommittee mark was adopted unanimously last week, reflecting the support and participation by all members of the subcommittee. the provisions adopted by the subcommittee and other military personnel related provisions found in the full committee mark provide our war fighters, retirees and their families necessary pay and benefits to sustain them in today's highly stressed force. the highlight to highlight just a few items, the subcommittee recommends increasing an increases in the instrengths for most of the military services, including the full unfunded requirement set by the chief of staff in the united states army of 10,000 more soldiers in the active component 4,000 in the army national guard and 3,000 in the army reserve. recognizing the relentless demands of military life, we recommend a full 2.4% pay increase rather than the lesser amount recommended by the department of defense. in addition, we prohibit the reduction of hospital beds overseas. to insure troops and families continue to receive excellent medical care. when hospitalized abroad. and include a provision that clarifies the role of the surgeon general's in maintaining medical readiness in their respective military departments, we also included a provision to help military families to defray the costs of a spouse obtaining a professional license in another state. and provide an extension of special pay and bonuses for service members designated to enhance retention in high-demand specialties like air force aviation. the mark would also improve support to those suffering from post-traumatic stress or post-traumatic brain injury by enhancing the process for consideration of discharge upgrades, by the military review board agencies, and insures service members understand their rights related to applying for important va benefits. the proposal would continue to refine sexual assault prevention. and response by adding a new provision to the uniform code of military justice, specifically prohibiting nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, expanding special victims counsel training, to include training on the unique challenges often faced by male victims and clarifying the process by which a designated representative can be appointed for a victim prior to a court-martial. in conclusion i want to thank ranking member spear for her support, as well as other members of the subcommittee. yield back, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from california, ms. spear. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. kaufman and i enjoyed a very good working relationship this year and i want to thank him as chair of the committee for his efforts to make sure that we dealt with all the issues brought to me by my colleagues. the subcommittee mark includes provisions that will provide the military services flexibility to recruit and retain members of our armed forces, and to continue our commitment to take care of military families. the mark includes the private act, which was authored by congressman martha mcsally and many of us joined in that effort to prohibit the wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images and insure the military services have the tools to prosecute those that violate the law. this was the result of marines uthed. the mark also provides support for victims of sexual assault by mandating training for special victims counsel to recognize and address unique challenges often faced by male victims of sexual assault. the mark also continues the committee's emphasis on families by including $30 million for continued assistance to local education agencies and authorizes the reimbursement of spouses for state professional licenses and certifications when required to relocate to another state with their military member. the subcommittee continues to provide oversight of important programs by including in the mark reviews by the comptroller general of the united states to insure the morale, welfare and recreation programs are properly funded to required levels and that the department of defense's debt collection practices are fair and do not place undue burden on service members and their families. i'm pleased that the mark emphasizes the consideration of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury during review by the board for corrections of military records by codifying into law the requirement to review these cases with liberal consideration and requiring the boards to consider medical evidence in these cases from the va and civilian health care providers. the mark also requires the secretary of defense to create a plan to notify service members how to donate to d.o.d.'s brain tissue repository, in order to further the tbi research. i'm concerned that the subcommittee's mark increases the active army by 10,000 soldiers and increases significant reserves. i recognize the chief of staff of the army submitted an unfunded requirement for this increase, we still do not have a strategic plan from the pentagon that would inform congress how large the army should grow or why. further, by just adding funding to the nda this committee is not providing the stable predictive funding the army needs. the chairman's mark will provide a 2.4% well-deserved pay raise for our service men and women this is above the president's request. once again the committee has increased funding to cover the $200 million increase. but where did it come from? i also hope we have the opportunity today to find the required offsets to fund an extension to the special survivors indemnity allowance to insure it does not expire in may 2018 this falls short of my strong desire as well as other members on this committee, to permanently fix the survivors benefit compensation offset. for receiving dependency and indemnity conversation. this offset amounts to a shameful tax on surviving spouses who as widows are already struggling emotionally and financially. why the ssia extension would be an important temporary fix, i hope this committee can work with leadership and other committees to make a permanent fix to offset a priority for next year. lastly, i want to acknowledge the outstanding staff who has worked with us in a bipartisan manner, including craig green, dan synot, david giangeti, andrew peterson and danielle sykes, thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> further discussion on the personnel portion of the mark? are there amendments to this portion of the mark? gentleman from colorado? >> sir, i ask unanimous consent to call up en blanc package number one, a pack j of amendments that have been worked out and approved. >> without objection so ordered. the clerk will distribute the en block package which is considered approved as read. the gentleman is recognized to explain the en bloc package number one, comprised of the following amendment, number 5 by ms. bordayo which directs dca to provide a briefings on guam's commissaries vendors. amendment number 18 r 1 by mr. larson which extends garnishment authority to include judgments for child abuse. amendment 29 r 1 by mr. jones, a provision regarding hyperbaric oxygen therapy for certain members of the armed forces. amendment 33 by mr. cook which directs the establishment of a pilot program that provides job placement assistance to employment services to members of the national guard and reserve. amendment 44 r 2, by ms. tsongas, which require as briefing by the office of the secretary of defense on the military services ability to provide child care development services, on military installations. amendment 63 by mr. wilson. which works to stabilize military families in the event of a pcs that is not adventurous to work or school for the family. amendment 66, by mr. scott, which changes the regular update for the regular update for prescription drug pricing standards under tri-care retail pharmacy program. amendment 74 by mr. o'rourke. which require as mental health examination for service members before they transition from military along with existing physical exam. amendment 87 by ms. spear which directs the secretary of the navy to revise a policy to make former

Related Keywords

Alabama , United States , Langley , Virginia , China , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Austria , San Diego , Syria , Russia , South China Sea , Brunei General , Brunei , Sri Lanka , Arizona , India , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Singapore , Iran , Afghanistan , Texas , Rhode Island , Wisconsin , Navy Mine , Colorado , Guam , Hampton , Pearl Harbor , Hawaii , Iraq , China Sea , Norfolk , North Korea , Capitol Hill , Camp Pendleton , Americans , America , Chinese , Russian , Afghan , Russians , American , Craig Green , Martha Mcsally , Al Qaeda , Andrew Peterson , Lloyd Joe , John S Mccain Jr , Arctic Ocean , Don Gabrielson , Pacific Ocean , Lee Gunn ,