I was unavoidably detained due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``YEA'' on rollcall No. 132. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. The amendment was agreed to. The…

I was not present for Roll Call Vote No. 130 on ordering the previous question of H. Res. 252 and Roll Call No. 131 on adoption of the rule, H. Res. 252. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 130 and No 131…

I want to make sure that at the top of the list for the Navy is that sustainment element of making sure that we are not extending these maintenance availabilities.

I want to talk to you specifically about aircraft carriers.

It is nice to talk about building new. It doesn't make the headlines to talk about maintaining what we have.

If the Navy force structure assessment doesn't support this reduction in aircraft carriers... it seems to be a counter as to why we are finding ourselves on a path to go to nine with early retirement of the Truman.

Every combatant commander that I talk to indicates that they are not sufficiently supported by the Navy based on their plans.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

We are with you 100 percent on that and the maintenance plan, which is the partner in that sustainment plan as we are going forward.

The latest of 2016 force structure assessment still is a 12-carrier requirement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks again for your leadership.

I am never happy delivering a ship back to the fleet late.

One other thing too which lends itself to that is, as we are looking to get to the 479 number and the delivery of KC-46As and the challenges that we're having KC-46As with cameras and booms, we are going to have to keep KC-135s it appears…

Well, General Lyons stated that it was significant risk associated with the OSD CAPE assessment of what the tanker force structure would be numbers-wise.

Yes, there would be a lot of--a lot of patients in ICU.

Listen, KC-135 is a great aircraft, great maintenance crews there, but you know, we talk about the B-52 being old, KC-135, some of these aircrafts are even older, so there is a whole element there in modernizing and keeping them maintained.

I asked him the question specifically, would you quantify significant risk as unacceptable. And he answered in the affirmative.

What are you doing with modernization and service life extensions to be able to keep KC-135s available for a longer period of time?

I think that is key and I want to make sure, too, that we are keeping in mind because we talk about time all the time...

What my element is, is I want some specific definition about the time to completion on corrective action.

He did. I asked him the question specifically, would you quantify significant risk as unacceptable. And he answered in the affirmative.

I want to make sure, too, that we are keeping in mind because we talk about time all the time...

As we are looking to get to the 479 number and the delivery of KC-46As and the challenges that we're having KC-46As with cameras and booms, we are going to have to keep KC-135s it appears to me longer.

Is that 6-year window, that assessment, is that about correct?

the place where we find ourselves with tanking capability is beyond the point of where we should be comfortable with that.