oppose it. i would also yield to the ranking chair, mr. -- mr. smith. >> gentle lady yields back. the chair now recognizes gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the amendment. section 526 basically the federal law states, no federal agency shall enter into a contract procurement alternative synthetic fuel, including a fuel used for non-conventional petroleum sources, et cetera. section 526 does not prohibit production or importation of alternative or unconventional fuels, it prohibits tax dollars from being used to procure fuels that have a higher global warms emission than conventional fuels. section 526 has not applied to d.o.d., has not applied to d.o.d. purchasers of fuel and military operations and does not anticipate that will change. however, section 526 provides for useful framework for the development of all tifb fuels. this exemption is not needed or warranted by the department of defense. clearly, if we are going to continue to be dependent on fossil fuels then you want to support the gentleman's amendment. if you want to look at the -- the future needs, alternative

, just to follow up on mr. langevin's questions, the mississippi, which was christened just a few weeks later had come in $64 million under budget, 12 months ahead of schedule. and there is no question that the momentum of two subs a year, which took 20 years to get us up to that pace is achieving savings. that contract shift, which by the way that's the third time it's been changed, not the second time, mr. hale, there is no question that in terms of materials, management, in terms of workforce management, in terms of layoffs, which is inevitably going to flow from that shift is going to result in costs. i guess the question is did you include that in your fit-up in terms of the costs of that dip in production. which again, we're seeing real results now in terms of savings because of the higher production rate. >> so far as i know, the fit-up is fully funded. i hear your point. take $487 billion out of the budget, and we tried to do it in a way consistent with our strategy. but we had to do it. this is one of the issues raised with the navy, discussed with them. and they would have pre