Naval Construction and Operations Bill of 2007

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Argument for retaining Section 1

We've maintained foreign home ports in the past and currently.  Even with a total withdrawal from Iraq, I can't imagine any responsible commander-in chief not stationing a carrier battle group in the Indian Ocean on a full time basis. Thus establishing a home port in the region will save the government money and reduce the stress on naval dependents. While my preference is for a home port in Western Australia, I did write this bill so as to give sufficient flexibility to allow other Atlasian allies in the region to be considered.

Argument for retaining Section 4

The ships that Section 4 provides a design study for replacements of will be about 40 years old each when the proposed commissioning of the replacements occurs, which is well past their original planned service life.  New command ships will reduce maintenance costs and enable the latest technologies to be added at a lower cost than upgrading the existing ships would allow.

Argument for retaining Section 6

LPD's basically act as fast cargo ships capable of supplying our Marines with what they need after the landing has been accomplished.  There should be one per amphibious group and to do that we need three more of the vessels than are currently provided for.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nay to all three.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

aye