At multiple points over the last 5 years, the Navy has only had 10 carriers. They actually had to request a waiver from the current law. This is ridiculous to put the Navy through this political decisionmaking process rather than a military decision process about the number of carrier groups that exist. On a basic level, this idea of statutorily requiring weapons for future decades makes very little sense. Do we tell the Army, ``You need precisely X number of tanks for Desert Storm; therefore, you have to have `this many' tanks for the next 30 years''? Do we tell the Air Force, ``You need `this many' helicopters for Somalia; therefore, you have to have exactly `this many' regardless of changing threats or challenges or budgetary realities''? That is exactly what this amendment will help change in order to give the naval force the flexibility it needs to meet the changing dangers of the world. I reserve the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from Jared Polis
Isn't that amazing? Republicans can't even find elected Representatives willing to come down here on the floor and defend taking kids away from their parents. They are out of speakers because Republicans are embarrassed. They know that…
I also remind my friend from Miami that we have reached several compromises. He and I are both members of the Problem Solvers Caucus. I am proud that the Problem Solvers Caucus--more than 25 Democrats, 25 Republicans--we agreed. We reached…
The Trump administration is now looking to house up to 20,000 children taken away from their parents at military bases. They are looking to take 10 times as many children away from their parents as they already have. It is time to stop…
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This rule provides for the consideration of three bills out of the Financial Services Committee. Before I turn to the bills, I want…





