In order to ensure each can deliver two ships per year. Today the lcs program is on budget and blows the congressional gao to actually read the gao report which is not a friendly one. They conclude cost isnt the issue. Strategically, what are we talking about . Why do war fighters keep asking for it . It is not only an ideal platform from which to employ Unmanned Systems to increase important in the future, it can go places tanker ships cant. The commander of logistics in the western pacific said they can go places and do things no other american ships can with flexible large payloads that enable easy integration with Regional Navy for mandatory missions. There are 50,000 islands across the philippines to sri lanka. Larger ships can visit 50 ports, the lcs can darken 1000 ports. Admiral harris was invoked, in a meeting with chairman thornberry, myself and many members of the delegation who had to leave for no fault of your own told us the lcs is playing an increasing role in the pacific. You dont want a fleet like that but the navy doesnt want the ship, why are they expanding missions in singapore to deploy two ship simultaneously including in 2018. The ship doesnt work, why are allies asking for more. Why did admiral harris testify before this committee. A lot have small navies, they want to learn from us, learn from somebody and i would rather he learned from us from other financial partners. There navies are small and when the cruiser comes in, it can overwhelm them. It is the right platform to train. I appreciate very much my colleagues concern about munitions shortfall in key regions. I share that view. Over 1. 5 billion above and beyond, the committee is correctly emphasizing americas enduring commitment to asia and europe. We prioritize munitions in the asiapacific while supporting joint exercises with regional partners by transitioning the European Deterrence Initiative to the base budget which is where it joins the list of enduring requirements. We are doing things to shore up the munition shortfall. It is a contentious issue. Listen to all sides but more than anything else i tried to listen to the navy and what the navy actually said. The fifth fleet once a ship, the sixth fleet once a ship, time to listen to what our war fighters are saying and continue building to meet major operational requirements. Thank you, mister chairman. It is with enormous respect and admiration for the chairman of the committee and other members of the committee but this ship really doesnt sail. This ships only principal purpose is to show the flag and get us closer to 355. Half 1 billion, over 500 million for each ship. We can surely spend that money better elsewhere. Nice to have a ship out there in the ocean, nice to have it in the South China Sea or singapore or wherever else until it has to be used, assuming it can actually sail but if it ever has to be used in a contested environment, without a doubt it isnt going to survive. Therefore it is kind of like showing the flag and nothing more. We really do need to transition to the frigate which some say can only be built if we continue to build a ship that really doesnt work well. We ought to right now say enough is enough, dont build another one, use the money elsewhere, advance the frigate design which is going to have to be a significant improvement over the lcs design, to survive in a contested environment and get on with it but the Industrial Base is always a great argument to use and by the way if we dont want to build munitions we could build an icebreaker so we could actually do something in the arctic ocean. I know i see my colleagues saying back to the icebreaker, we are indeed. Lets do this. Why dont we swap two lcss for one heavy icebreaker so we can have the u. S. Navy in the arctic which we cannot now do. In any case the amendment is a good one. Clearly we do not have enough in munitions. Somebody says the Industrial Base cannot supply more munitions which probably tells us that particular Industrial Base needs to be augmented so i support mister boltons amendment and im going to you want more time . I yield back. The gentleman from texas. I also support the gentleman from massachusettss amendment. We are constantly bombarded by information about unfunded capabilities we need to have we dont have today. Projected costs we are not on a trajectory to meet. I heard the chairman of tactical air and land talk about the urgency and we have a colleague asking us to make one of these tough decisions, only one of these combat ships at a cost of 556,382,000, those resources could be put to one of those unfunded urgent needs we have right now and while we have open questions and concerns about the viability and seaworthiness of this program, this is a very rational suggestion from one of our colleagues so i support our colleagues to join me in doing so and i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from massachusetts. I want to address the munitions issue where some of my colleagues said we dont have the Production Capacity to make the munitions we need. Whether we need to fix that capacity, that is the job congress is here to do, to get our sailors, marines, soldiers and airmen the munitions they actually need, i am grateful furthermore to the gentleman from alabama for his invitation. As you might imagine we are currently planning a wedding. My lovely fiancee has said she would like a 200 person wedding. That sounds like a lot to me but by your logic we should triple that to 600 because undoubtedly we would be able to achieve cost efficiency as per person costs would drop. I would welcome the gentleman from alabama to take that proposal to my fiance. Finally, Mister Whitman said repeatedly that the navy needs this ship. My colleague from wisconsin cited various fleets that would like this ship which my colleague from wisconsin and i are both marines, like asking a marine if he would like more chow. Of course he would like more ciao but the bottom line is when the navy made their budget request they did not request it. If the navy needed this ship they would have requested it just as the pay calm commander requested additional munitions my amendment would provide. I yield back. Any further discussion on the amendment . I yield myself just briefly. I think everybody acknowledges we need more ships. One of the major differences between the president s request is to add more ships. I am convinced a high low mix of different kinds of ships makes sense. Im also convinced navy is moving from the lcs towards the frigate. They believe they can do that smoother and better by continuing the lcs fine and it is a matter of economics we are going to buy a certain number, if you can avoid the ups and downs of Industrial Production costs, having more of a stable basis for costs, you can ultimately save taxpayers more money. The bottom line is we have cut too much and lcs doesnt do everything but it is a third of the cost of a destroyer. It can do some stuff, some stuff we need doing so i am opposed to the amendment. Questions on the amendment . Request a recorded vote. I havent gotten there yet [laughter] those in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts ai. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it and the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. I request a recorded vote. Support for a recorded vote . There is. This vote will be postponed as i previously announced to the end of this section of the mark. Are there other amendments to this section of the mark . Gentleman from massachusetts . I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will distribute the amendment without objection. The amendment is tendered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on this amendment. This amendment would strike language that eliminates the requirement for the navy to subject the uss gerald ford to shock trials before its for first deployment. Cvn 78 has an impressive array of new, hightech that propels the new carrier class to the challenges of today and tomorrow. However these challenges and technologies remain unproven, have been troublesome in initial testing and have an unreliability in tough positions. Although the new electromagnetic launch system has improvements over the Steam Powered catapults, it, along with new advanced arresting gear have proven to be unreliable in testing and operation. In addition, the dvr radar, advanced weapons elevator and new electric plant remain unproven in combat. Aside from the new military spec equipment cvn 78 also has many commercial equipment and systems that need to be tested to the fullest extent possible to assure proper shock hardening. The fy 2016 annual report on the cvn 78 ford class defense to permits own director of Operational Testing said unlike past test on classes of ships with legacy systems the performance of cvn 78s Critical Systems is unknown. Inclusion of data from shock trials early in the program has been an essential component of building survivable ships. Shock trials play only a minor role in determining when the carrier will be available for its first deployment. The drivers of cvn 78s schedule are primarily mandatory certification and training events for the crew and shock trial phase itself is expected to only take two or three month providing valuable information for when the ship these combat. Following the full ship shock trials conducted on the uss theodore roosevelt, cvn 71 only a two week Maintenance Period to conduct minor repairs was required before the ship went back to full operational status. It is critical we conduct shock trials of cvn 78 as originally planned postponing testing to a later date, it is fraught with risk and potential costs. We need to identify shortfalls so corrections can be made prior to sending her off in harms way to enable corrective design modifications, in the followon new class of carriers. Conducted shock trials on cvn 78 is vitally important, sending ship and sailors who take it into battle on an unproven design that is not been fully tested is something we cannot responsibly do. With that i would like to yield. I think the gentleman and once again, enthusiastically support his amendment, it is the height of your responsibility to send 4300 crew members to see on a 13 billion carrier with the hope that new missionCritical Systems that have yet to be tested for susceptibility to shock and battle damage. I cant believe we are having a debate on whether the navy should test a new Nuclear Reactor to determine whether or how it might fail under battle conditions. With shock trials likely would not be completed until 2025, those tests reveal fundamental design problems, the navy would then have to engage in an expensive retrofit of the kennedy and ford, even the enterprise which will by then be under construction. That was what our sailors at risk for years and for what . I remain entirely unconvinced of the need for the ford is so urgent that it outweighs common sense tests the navy has been performing since world war ii. I support the amendment and yield back. Gentleman from virginia. I rise in opposition to the amendment. To give a little background on where the navy is, the navy has already gone through and shock tested every major subcomponent of the ship. The navy also has today new technology through simulation to do shock trialing in a new and innovative way that it has never done before. The navy also looks at getting into a class of ships before its shock trial so if you look for our destroyers, the third ship in the class or the lpd 17, shock the third ship in the class. Today we are constantly of carrier gaps, of not having carriers in certain areas for months on end. The navy has stated they are required to shock cvn 78 it will delay the availability on a rotational basis for cvn 78 by two years. We could go down this road, we could look at the data that is there, we can understand the navy has done the responsible thing in shocking major subcomponent and doing virtual shocking which gives very good information, very highly reliable, making sure too we look at where we are with the current gaps in carrier availability. This ship class will be shocked, we will learn lessons from that. There are major systems on board but getting this ship to theater is critical especially today, the delays we have had with this ship, being ten carriers, being there for an extended time, that i think is critical. The navy i believe has the data necessary to make sure these subcomponents have the data necessary to go forward and make sure it will operate the way it is designed to operate. With that i yield back. Further debate on the amendment . The gentleman from texas. I want to agree with my colleague, delaying this ship any further into the lines is unnecessary. Two your estimate is better than the three or four month estimate that was touted and the reasons we support this is an unacceptable length of time to keep this out of the system and i have great confidence that if there are things that show up they will show up and they will take care of those. Opposition to the amendment. I yield back. No further ebay. Questions on the amendment offered from the gentleman in massachusetts, say aye, those opposed say no. The nos have it. Nos habit and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill . Gentleman from virginia. I ask unanimous consent to call package number one consistent with amendments that have been worked and approved with minority. Objections awarded, the clerk will please distribute the amendments on block and without objection the amendments are considered as red. The gentleman is recognized. Number one, comprised of the following, amendment 00701 by mister kelly regarding congress recognizing the navy cbs. Amendment number 052 one by mister banks regarding torpedo defense. Amendment 061 by mister byrne regarding combat ship capability enhancements. Amendment number 173 are one by mister abraham to amend section 3501 to include other than a replacement vessel under subsection f. Amendment number 177, Mister Hunter to amend section 54101, 46 us codes clarify this is related to shipbuilding, ship repair and associated industries. Amendment number 222 by Mister Whitman regarding expenses of authority related to construction of certain vessels. Let me scroll down, mister chairman if you will give me a second here. Amendment number and 249 to amend section 2218, us code, providing additional certification for the purchase of a foreign vessel for the reserve force. Amendment number 271 are one by mister lobiondo to amend section 116 to allow the secretary of the navy to waive limitation of funds if the secondary of the navy determines the cost schedule risk associated with integration of new air and Missile Defense radar is unacceptable or incongruous with a Business Case. Amendment 279 to amend section 3501 for the cost as defined for loan guarantees on program provided by chapter 537 title 46 of the United States code. Amendment to a 2 for one regarding the ukraine arbitration proceedings under annexed routine of United Nations convention of the law of sees. Is there further discussion on the package . If not the question is on amendments offered by the gentleman from virginia. Those in favor say i. Those opposed say no. The eyes have it. The amendments are adopted. Further amendments to the subcommittee, gentle from new jersey have an amendment . If the clerk would please distribute the amendment, without objection the amendment is considered as red and the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. This amendment would ensure we are not overstepping on shipbuilding negotiations on this committee. As written, the bill has a provision relating to the destroyers that limit funding on what we believe is an unrealistic flight. The bill requires two of these three ships to include the new air and Missile Defense a mdr. The problem is it should be one instead of two. Seems a slight change but it prevents the committee from getting between the negotiations of the navy and those building the ship. Why are we having this discussion. During testimony the navy told us an agreement to include the new radar and the next three ships. We should be ensuring the testimony doesnt add additional language used in those negotiations. We take a look at what is going on, we had testimony of the unrealistic nature of designing new systems. A quote comes to mind by ronald reagan, this is a twist, lets trust the even like there is a problem, leave the options available. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. It would not limit use of the new radar. The best things that could happen to go in place without a hiccup, we need to be ready in the event it isnt. I yield back. From virginia, Mister Whitman. I understand where my colleague from new jersey is expressing concern but i want to go back to what this committee did last year under the fy 17, we approved two radar sets to be put on board these destroyers. This would reduce by one ship a. The fdr radar is 30 times better than the existing radar. We here in this committee all the time about antiaccess issues, standoff, how do we operate in an antiaccess environment . How do we provide more capability to counter what our adversaries have . This is that ability. We said last year we want to get this to the fleet quickly, the navy said we got it, we are manufacturing it, we have it in hand, the navy already ordered it, it will be available for these ships to put in place. The question is do we want to delay it again or do we want to put it in place . If we delay at the navys plot to look at ways to reduce cost is complicated, they are looking at getting the capability to our sailors as quickly as they can. We talk about what the navy needs today and its platforms and how it utilizes upgrades to the system, the baseline, this radar brings them that capability. If you have to put this radar on ships later when you bring them in for modernization, the configuration radar is different from radar here today, you have to make significant modifications to the superstructure of the ship. This really is about making sure we get this technology to our sailors as quickly as we can, to the fleet as quickly as we can. In the unblocked package, i believe there is a proper middleground on this that allows the secretary of the navy to waive the limitation of funds if the secretary of the navy