There are reports and theres a lot of oversight in this subCommittee Mark. So i would say while i agree with some of her comments and ideas behind why she wants to see this, i would also agree with mr. Turner that the unit cost as come down for us and make date in some ways more affordable as well as for many of our allies looking at some of these buys in order to make sure they are also applied by this. Thank you for your time. Appreciated. Gemmill and from mr. Castro appeared i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california ms. Speier. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have a question or to chair the subcommittee. Mr. Turner, the fact that the gao, the Inspector General and the department of Operational Testing and evaluation have all said that there are problems and that we need to recognize moving forward we dont even have to ramp up capacity as i believe the gao, do you basically disagree with the conclusions made by those various oversight entities . No. What i recommend this if you attend a hearing before us if you were so interested in this committee would hear the gao praise the accomplishments made any operation of the past 35 in their assertion that the need to continue development and production. You are misreading of the gao report and translating that into your amendment. I would be glad to arrange a meeting to discuss this directly with the gao sync can acquire what the recommendations how they would relate to your concerns into an oversight. I also invite you to any additional info they have the rest of the year. Let me thank the gentleman for your noxious comments and suggest to you that in respect to everyone who is party to this process, i think we can all read reports. I dont believe that the gao or they inspect your general is somehow not reflecting i need to go a little bit slower. The truth of the matter is if we are going to build planes that we are no arent adequate, it will cost more money to rehabilitate them a richer fit them when we do find with the fix is to make it operate properly. So with that, i yield back. The gentleman from texas eels back. It is going to be a long day. I suggest Everybody Needs to focus on the issues. Not each other. Any further discussion on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california . If not question arises by the gentlelady. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The amendment is not to agree to you. Are there further amendments to the section of the bill . The chair recognizes mr. Turner for offering a motion. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman i move to adopt the report of the subcommittee [inaudible] the opinion of the chair the ayes have it in the motion is adopted. The committee will receive the report of the subcommittee on pursuant to Committee Rule 17 in consultation with the Ranking Member we will postpone on record of those on the amendment in this particular subCommittee Mark until the end. The chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee the gentleman from virginia, mr. Forbes. Working with members on both sides of the aisle the subcommittee assert diligently to prepare a mark that provides resources and oversight that navy, Marine Corps AirMarine Corps Air force deserve and require. The programs including construction of uss john f. Kennedy, cbn 79 in the first year of appropriations for the uss enterprise also includes funding for two virginia class submarines. And three Littoral Combat ships. It also accelerates procurement of the next class of amphibian ships and funds to refueling and complex overhaul of the uss George Washington nospace dvn 73. It also begins the important process of filling the national fun that this Committee Established last year. This mark includes a provision to ensure vitality, capability associated with the force structure preserved with regard to the air force we continue to support the longrange strike robber and a tanker programs. These are critically Important Programs and this will provide them with the funding they can execute in fy 16. Finally, we reiterate the subcommittee believed that navy should Prioritize Development of an unmanned deep penetrating strike capability with the carrier air wing. Overall this is a stronger that enhances our nations power and ability to project overseas. I urge my colleagues on both sides to support it. I thank the chairman and i yield back. I thank the gentleman. The chair recognizes the Ranking Member the gentleman from connecticut mr. Courtney for any comments. True i have written comments that i have to be submitted briefly. First of all, i want to personally thank the chairman for again has access and collaboration during this whole process. The staff, so mcnaughton and mr. Sullivan helped us with aviation issues we were dealing with this year. Again not seen a job in terms of putting together a strong mark. The chairman said everything from Aircraft Carriers down to addressing the needs of our reserve fleet with training vessels for young maritime leaders that the future are included in this mark which again is critically necessary. The only point i want to underscore is that the national deterrent find which we created last year is that debated this year as a result of its mark. When we had our first ship in oneonone subcommittee hearing with the department of the navy she wont do the shipbuilding plan the next 30 years. If we dont deal with the issue in terms of absolutely essential component of our National Defense from a feebased deterrence platform that must be replaced and will be replaced. If it all comes out of the account, we will at this rate the size of our fleet and i think what the chairman smart guys in activating and funding the national feebased deterrence fun site among president s which rias for the Missile Defense program to get a program that is once multigenerational off the normal funds of the branch and again and sure it will not suffocate the rest of the navys much needed in critical fleet. This is an important step forward. The subcommittee in this committee will be wrestling with this issue well into the 2030s from attack a platform that will cost roughly 95 billion. The significance is really something that should be underscored and highlighted. I want to salute the chairman for his hard work on this issue and with that i will yield back. Is there further discussion on the subCommittee Mark . Are there amendments to the Sub Committee mark . Gentleman from connecticut. The click amendment. The clerk will pass at the amendment and without objection the amendment will be considered as red. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I am trying to give them a chance to ask at least a fair number before we start discussing some of us have the chance. The gentleman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes to discuss as a member. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its a Pretty Simple amendment to strike language in the mark with a new change to the Modernization Program the chairman referred to a minute or so ago. In framing this amendment i want people to recall when we passed the omnibus in december, the congress enacted a shipbuilding Modernization Program for again a bone of contention with committee and the administration in the navy over the last four years. I want to start isolating mr. Forbes forbes in terms of leadership in making sure cruisers that are an essential part are protected. We saw this recently with the uss Theodore Roosevelt iranian ship you the coast of yemen a cruiser was right there for the Aircraft Carrier. The examples of why this is an Important Program are even on the front pages of the news is very weak. The measure that passed and now is lost as a result basically says the cruiser Modernization Program will accept to a year. It will modernize it over a period of no longer than four years at no time was six cruisers be taken out of the fleet. This was negotiated with the appropriators in the administration. Baby is back in. It is on its way to san diego in the gettysburg is on its way to virginia. The sailor getting the order is to let their next assignments with the processes going forward. The chairman will ensure going to this in quite of lot of detail has been resisting some of the efforts by congress to make sure cruisers are modernized. It is the law now. They have embraced this program but the testimony before a subcommittee and what i would just note for those who are trying to sort of absurd the issue, which is somewhat complicated, you see in no couple days ago pretty clearly stating they embrace the law and understand the need to follow it and they again are concerned the amendment included in the mark which ensures the modernization from four years to two years when they get much what difficult to achieve savings, to deal with issues in terms of the assignment for the sailors and will reduce the ability to compete the work which is something before your timeframe will allow. It will allow the Shipyard Workers to fill in gaps for some of us who have shipyards in our district and this is a good flexible system to protect the industrial base. Again, i would just say we deserve credit for the effort a number of years ago to retire an entire fleet of cruisers will not have been in the country is better off for it. What is the measure now negotiated last year will allow the navy to implement the president signs in a way that is much more efficient and will extend the carriers into the 24 days and avoid bad pressure that i mentioned earlier that it will put on the entire shipbuilding budget. I would respectfully vote against the amendment which is done in the spirit of respect for mr. Forbes and ask folks to again more closely at admiral graders common and i hope again folks will support the amendment. With backup my yield back. The gentleman from virginia, mr. Forbes. Thank you. I would say mr. Courtney is articulately stated the position regarding carriers. Or cruisers. They do not want these cruisers. The administration does not like the language in the bill protecting cruisers. The administration does not like the language in the bill last year. The administration did not like the language the year before last. Why is the language in the bill better than the amendment . First of all, if you look at our fleet year or two before the administration came into office the navy was able to meet 90 of our requirements across the globe. They fear less than 50 . How does the Administration Deal with that . Taking half of the cruiser fleet out of the fleet. Second, if you look at the pentagon right now they are beginning to establish would need more combat troops and predict it. How does the administration respond . By taking ships out. If you look at what they need for the bmd capacity, they needed 44 last year. They are disabling and 77 ships next year. What are we doing . Hardships loved vmd capability they are taken out. Mr. Courtneys amendment would say no money. These are all funded through fy 18. Why did the administration take the position that . Four years ago they were proposing we take out and dismantle cruisers. When Congress Said no, they double down it came in the next year and wanted to take out seven cruisers despite the fact that was twice the combined firepower of the entire british navy they wanted to dismantle it. When Congress Said now is that the scene from a disney fairytale. They came back and said you guys misunderstood. We dont want to destroy the cruisers like we are talking about. We want to put them in his sleep and take off all of their electronic, radar and 11 years hope they will wake up and be refreshed and ready to go. The kicker is they have mr. Courtney is right in saying this is the law. It is the law because they force them to do it. To this day the navy has not put a penny in their future year Defense Program to wake up in the cruisers and they are not going to put any money in there. Mr. Chairman, i would also say mr. Courtney needed illustration would say this is about modernization. The bill we have will modernize cruisers. Weve given them an extra six months said two years. If you run into problems you can have additional six months. We say youve got to do it in the time you can do the modernization to make sure it gets done. I want to remind all of you here when the administration came into office and proposed a hundred Million Dollars of cuts, you know what the secretary said . We have to do this for modernization. That money is going to walk out of the door in about three months and 680 billion followed it. Just as the air force marines navy and army have the modernization has worked well. Mr. Courtney is right. If he took the cruisers out. Not that the amendment would do it, it would save money. If you took carriers that it would save money. If he took 60 stores, which by the way the administration was proposing to do it would save money. Mr. Courtney would quickly so you dont want to do that because they are strategically important to the country. There was nobody in the navy, no testimony weve had said these are strategically important. Just the opposite. The pentagon may be the guys in the pentagon who have to decide whether to support the the administration or not do some great things. The cml is a wonderful man. He does great things. The supported this is not one of them. Supporting the Administration Last year to not refuel Aircraft Carriers was not one of them. Supporting the Administration Last year when he wanted to do away with tomahawk production lines was not one of them. Supporting the amendment last year when they didnt want to fund a Marine Amphibious ship was not one of them. Mr. Chairman, at the end of all of this, when we dont have the cruisers the president will not come say my gosh, i did this. What theyll do is what theyve done before and say i proposed and congress agreed to it. We need to defeat this amendment. I yield back. Distinguished Ranking Member. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Leaning forward as one of those things i am not supposed to do so i will bring back. I hope you can hear me okay. Ill talk loudly. Mr. Forbes is right. I just want to make two points on that. First of all the bill itself cost money. By changing the agreement we reached last year to do with the way mr. Forbes is proposing, will cost us more money. There is an account set up so we dont have to find that money anywhere. I believe its the modernization fund. If we dont make a change mr. Courtney is proposing to go back to the deal that was reached last year we will spend more money out of the find and in this case on the new cruiser plan that mr. Forbes puts in the bill and there will be less money to do other things. So it does cost money. The reason for the compromise reached last year was in part to say i dont disagree with anything mr. Forbes said about the cruisers Aircraft Carriers attack submarines in all of that. Unfortunately as i said in my opening remarks a couple hours ago the theme of what we are dealing with, we do not have as much money as we would like to have or at this point that we need to have to adequately fund our priorities. Said theres two choices here. Number one is something im an advocate for, to get rid of the budget control act and be prepared to put up the money necessary to pay for the National Security and the National Defense will hear everybody on the Committee Say that we want. We are unwilling to do that but we played a couple games could make that work. I will mention the word tags quickly. If we are absolutely committed to providing a National Security they need and the cruisers we need, we could god forbid, raise revenue and pay for it. But since we are not doing that the department of defense and the department of navy is scrambling to figure out how to make it work. I forget what the number is. Mr. Forbes notes that. The number we keep saying we are going to have but we will not have because we dont have money for. If you are not going to do that not take the first choice and provide the department of defense with the money they need to meet the obligation because they have to find ways to save money in a compromise were out last year was a pretty good way to do it. It doesnt leave us many cruisers and services we would like, but the money is the money. We are where we are. In tales you can make money magically appear but we havent figured that out. Eventually it catches up with us. It is about money. The plane that came up last year as a way to do it. If we accept the underlying part that they will be less money for everything else. Need we go from 11 to 10 Aircraft Carriers. Im not sure. Cnl. That is why he sent a letter version so they can keep the budget plan in place instead of once again being forced to spend money that we in congress will not cave. It is a reasonable compromise. I support mr. Courtneys amendment as a way to deal with the budget situation we are in. But that i yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman. I yield my time distinguished subcommittee chairman. Chairman, i thank the gentleman. I want to point out it is whether you want these cruisers or not. Detox your cries about how important the cruisers are from the globe. The Ranking Member says the money is not there. The money is fair to ask why he is. The question is whether