The house is gaveling back in for more work on the Defense Authorization bill. Will the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Thompson, kindly resume the chair. The chair the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of the bill, h. R. 2810, which the clerk will report by title. The clerk a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018, for military activities of the department of defense, and for military construction. To prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. The chair when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 14 printed in part b of house 212 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. Mcclintock, had been disposed of. Pursuant to House Resolution 440, no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in house report 115217, and amendments en bloc described in section 3. Each further amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. It shall be in order to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divide and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on Armed Services, or their designees. Shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for ivision of the question. It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 115217. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Garamendi i have amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk the clerk the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 1 offered by mr. Garamendi of california. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 440, the gentleman from california, mr. Garamendi, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Mr. Garamendi mr. Chair, i yield to myself as much time as i might consume. This amendment facilitates the construction of badly needed icebreakers. The United States does not have any heavy icebreakers that are available all year round. We only have one. And thats used in the antarctic and therefore unavailable in the summer in the north. Joining me on this amendment is the Ranking Member and others from the coast guard maritime subcommittee of the transportation infrastructure committee. We need icebreakers. In fact, we need six icebreakers. We need to build the first one immediately and get it under way. Language in the underlying bill provides a mechanism for us to fund those to fund that icebreaker, using the authorities of the department of navy, specifically one of their sections. This amendment, which clarifies the language and makes it clear that the navy can act as the fiscal agent to carry out the icebreaker task that does not require in any way that the navy ship building account be used in any way to pay for the icebreaker. The money for the icebreaker will have to come from other sources. But it makes it clear that the navy can expend money as a fiscal agent, using the special account that was designated that has been in existence for some time. I can go into great length about why we need icebreakers. But the very short story is that russia has over 40 icebreakers, probably closer to 50. Many of them heavy icebreakers capable of operating in very thick ice in the arctic. The United States really has none. We have some light icebreakers but they will not suffice during the arctic spring and winter. And therefore we have to get with it. We do know that in the future, well, today and this year, this summer, the Northwest Passage will be open for shipping. And the east passage, which is along the russian coast, is also open. So the arctic is a navigable ocean. The u. S. A navy cannot operate there without an icebreaker. We cannot conduct the civil and maritime, as well as military, exercises without a heavy icebreaker. This allows us to do that. With that, i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i claim time in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment to strike a critical provision of this years ndaa. I do share my colleagues concern for the current state of our u. S. Coast guard icebreaker fleet. And do i believe there are ways we can address that issue. But i disagree with their proposed solution. To be clear, the national Defense Authorization act authorizes funds for the department of defense. The u. S. Coast guard falls under the department of Homeland Security. This amendment seeks to take millions of dollars away from the navy in the long term and shift it to the coast guard for their expenditures. Mr. Wittman make no mistake about it, if this amendment passes, theres no stopping the department of Homeland Security or any other agency from poaching enormous sums of our Defense Department budget in the future. Today its coast guard icebreakers. Next year it may be the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research and survey vessels. And the possibilities are endless. Unfortunately the funds are not. I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, to ensure that our navy and department of defense funds are used only by the navy and the department of defense. And i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from california. Mr. Garamendi i yield one minute to my friend from the state of washington. The chair the gentleman from Washington State is recognized for one minute. Thank you. And i rise in support of the garamendihunter amendment. Because i know how important a strong icebreaker fleet is to National Security. The committee recognizes this reality, as elsewhere in the bill we give the d. O. D. Some important authorities to support icebreaker procurement. However, this section, 123, prohibits d. O. D. Funding for icebreaker procurement. This amendment strikes this provision because flexibility will be essential to funding new icebreakers. Coast guard ship building budgets are insufficient for icebreaker procurement, absent radical cuts elsewhere. As cochair of the arctic working group, i know that the United States needs icebreakers. Mr. Larson these shifts protect mr. Larsen these ships protect economic interests in the region. The importance of icebreakers will only grow and urge my colleagues to support the garamendihunter amendment. With that i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Mr. Wittman thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman rom nebraska, mr. Bacon. The chair the gentleman from. Braska is recognized mr. Bacon mr. Bacon thank you, mr. Speaker. These are indispensable tools to assure the safe and rabbit Rapid Movement of waters. However, the responsibility and accountability for constructing and operating americas icebreakers must rest solely where the congress has assigned it. Department of Homeland Security and the u. S. Coast guard. The questions we are debating today is not whether we need icebreakers, but whether how to appropriate the funds and who should build them. As important as ice breaksers are, they are not warships. We must not allow funding legitimately appropriate for our combat fleet to be diverted for nondefense needs. I acknowledge the temptation to raid defense accounts for a worthy cause, we must be mindful of how deep in the hole we are with our air, land, sea, space and cyberforces. We need to keepure oioop the ball. And rebuilding our militarys readiness and modernization. I urge a no vote against this amendment understand i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from california. Mr. Garamendi how much time do i have remaining . The chair the gentleman from california has 1 1 2 minutes remaining. Mr. Garamendi thank you. Just a couple of thing. First of all, theres a thing called the national sea lift fund, which has been in existence for a lightning time. Thats been used to build nonnavy ships nonnavy ships. Thats exactly what we intend to do here. To use the national sea lift fund. Not the navy ship building fund. Secondly, you may notice, or you may want to know that the u. S. Coast guard is in fact a defense as well as a civilian vessel. Has both obligations. We also need to understand that were not stealing money from the navy. This is simply a mechanism in which the navy acts as a fiscal agent to carry out the task. The coast guard is not well suited to build ships of this type. Were looking for the most efficient and effective way to carry out the task and the use of the national sea lift fund together with the u. S. Navy as the fiscal agent is the best way to accomplish that. And i would end by simply saying the u. S. Navy is toothless, useless in the arctic unless it has an icebreaker. If you care about the arctic ocean and the role of the u. S. Navy in carrying out our National Defense functions in the arctic, then you must help us find way to build these icebreakers. We will do so without in any way taking funds away from the u. S. Navy ship building. Indeed, it will be up to the appropriators to appropriate money, quite hopefully, from the department of Homeland Security for this purpose. Putting the money into this national sea lift fund. So that it can then be used to build the icebreaker with the navy acting as the fiscal agent. With that i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from virginia. Mr. Wittman thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from ohio, mr. Turner. The chair the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. Michael turner mr. Chairman, i want to mr. Turner mr. Chairman, i want to join with chairman wittman in expressing opposition to this amendment. The navy has no indication that they have a military requirement for icebreakers. Right now were trying to reverse the effects of sequestration. Were fighting against budget cuts. When you use money for something other than it was intended for, it is a budget cut. And thats what this would be. No ones talking about raising the top line of the overall Defense Budget. But they are talking about using the funds otherwise for something thats nondefense. I want to join with everyone who is speaking on this issue of the importance of the coast guard and certainly its impact nd certainly the issues of ice breaking. But ship building for the navy and for our military should be concentrated on our military. And certainly the funds that we are appropriating to the department of defense should remain in the department of defense. I rise in support of the opposition with chairman wittman. Thank you. I yield back. The chair the gentleman from virginia. Mr. Wittman i reserve. I reserve my time. The chair the gentleman has the only remaining time. Mr. Wittman thank you, mr. Chairman. In closing i want to say that going to admiral richardsons words, admiral richardson clearly states that the mission of icebreak something a Coast Guard Mission icebreaking is a Coast Guard Mission. The disagreement is using resources that are within the Defense Budget in order to do that. If youre going to put the responsibility for building icebreakers and maintaining and operating them with the coast guard, yet youre going to put the money in the department of Defense Budget, where theres no control, no oversight, that is a catastrophe waiting to happen. It if this is to happen, it should happen within the department of Homeland Security budget, or there needs to be a debate about whether where ultimately the coast guard needs to be located. But to put money in one area of the budget and expect that the going to be managed properly and applied properly someplace where theres not even jurisdiction i think is problematic. Again, its clear where the missions are, its clear where the responsibility lies, between the Homeland Security department and the coast guard and the navy and the department of defense. I want to make sure were building more cutters and icebreakers, but if were going to do that, lets make sure we do it in the proper way. I think theres ways to construct language to make that happen. But this is not the way to do it. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. All time being expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ins have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Garamendi i ask for a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. It is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in ouse report 115217. For what purpose does the it is no now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 115217, for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition . Mr. Buck mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will dez egg nate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 3 printed in house report 115217, offered by mr. Buck of colorado. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 440, the gentleman from colorado, mr. Buck, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. Mr. Buck thank you, mr. Chairman. For the opportunity to speak about my amendment to the national Defense Authorization act for fiscal year 2018. Our military is the greatest fighting force in the world. I applaud the department of defenses efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. However, with our limited resources, we must ensure that these resources are being put to use in the best possible way. Every penny spent by the department of defense must be used to advance our militarys mission and support our troops. Incorporating higher cost fuel sources into the Departments Energy acquisition process is money lost to repair planes, buy ammunition, and defeat the enemy. Moreover, Congress Must ensure we are being good stewards of the american peoples money. With our debt soaring toward 20 trillion, it is irresponsible to ask American Families to subsidize with their tax dollars fuel sources that have not yet been proven Cost Effective. Of course the department of defense would still be allowed to research alternative sources of energy. My amendment ensures that the department of defense can conduct research on alternative fuels to ensure these Energy Sources can be cost competitive in the future. My commonsense amendment is simple. It provides a framework for ensuring the department of defense is engaging in responsible Energy Acquisition practices. It prohibits Renewable Energy mandates placed on the department of defense and ensures that every unit of energy our military purchases is the most Cost Effective option available while still maintaining the ability to research new sources of energy. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition . I claim time in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Langevin mr. Chairman, this amendment is a blatant attack on use of alternative energy by the department of defense. So we have existing contracts right now for Renewable Energy, both liquid fuels and electricity at the department of defense and this amendment puts the brakes on those policies and bury them in a web of unnecessary requirements. Requiring procurement managers to track all federal subsidies and cackstet tax credits would be a burden to the government and requiring suppliers to provide such information would be onerous, expensive and may in fact actually drive them away. Also, this would result in less competition for contracts and higher costs to the department of defense and ultimately its going to be higher cost then for the taxpayer somple most alarmingly, this amendment does not include any waivers for times of emergency when time sensitive purchase of readily available alternatives fight be imperative to completing the mission even if its at a price point higher then the usual market cost. Mr. Chairman, it also does not provide consideration for Renewable Energy projects for military installations that, though they may not reduce costs do have other quantity final benefit, increase combat effectiveness or enhance mission resiliency. This amendment is also redundant for bulk purchases of which the d. O. D. Has many current already prohibits the department from alternative fuel purchase unl