tv Small Business Administrator Mc Mahon at Natl Press Club CSPAN May 21, 2018 11:12pm-12:16am EDT
breakdown in the communication on how to avoid stumbling into a nuclear war. at the height of the cold war with the soviet union, we had conversations to try to avoid that, and if you read the history and actually -- there is a really good book on it, my life on a nuclear brink, i think. talking about all of the times we very nearly had a nuclear war, that everybody knew about when it was going on. but the channels of communication that were open to say i'm looking at my screen, it looks like you lost a bus -- bunch of missiles at us, they were able to confirm that they didn't, and avoid a nuclear catastrophe. we want to have that sort of dialogue, and that is the express purpose of it. now, the majority negotiated with us on that, it is hard to negotiate when you are in the minority. you just don't really have that many cards to play. but you do your best. so, we came up with a generalized statement that said
yes, it would be okay for the militaries to talk to the militaries in russia and china and other places and there was a variety of different stated purpose is for that, but there was one sentence that they insisted on taking out. and that was that one of the purposes of mill to mill dialogue would specify the capability of reducing the risk of nuclear and conventional war. and this sort of gets back to the whole argument that i was making about why i am not terribly fond of the nuclear posture revealed. i am very concerned that we have thrown away all notion of concern about how do we avoid stumbling into a nuclear war, what steps do we take to make sure that doesn't happen? well, admitting that we have to have a deterrence, and i have said this in my previous debate, i'm not one of those, i don't even agree with the stated goal of a world without nuclear weapons. i don't think it will ever happen, and i don't think it
would be a good idea. we need to have a deterrent, you cannot on ring that bell. somebody somewhere can make a nuclear weapon and if we don't have them as well to make sure they don't use them, that increases the risk of it happening. we need that, but we also need things in place to make sure that we don't engage in a nuclear war. and whenever you start having conversations about low yield nuclear weapons, as i read the quote from former secretary of state scholz earlier, you start having those conversations, you say well, if we launch all of these, they would launch as well. sure, we would lose half the population, but we could win. it is not type of conversation that is deeply alarming. make no mistake about it, it may seem common sense to do this, but back to the cold war, there were a lot of people who thought we could win a nuclear war, it took a long time to drive that notion out of ventral policy and to some extent it is still there. i have a bill right now that says no first use of nuclear weapons that cannot get any ground.
even though nobody can give me a plausible scenario. it would be in our best interest. we have launch on warning law, which says if we make something happen, we have to launch. we are not doing anything to try to prevent an accidental nuclear war. i bring this up because the fact that i couldn't get the majority to agree that one of the goals of the mill to mill conversation, and i quote reducing the risk of nuclear and conventional war, why wouldn't we want to do that? i'm not saying that we will not go to war under any circumstances, we will not defend ourselves, just as a general principle we would like to avoid it if we could. that language has been stripped out. i don't want to have a prolonged debate or vote on this but i wanted to make that point, and i have. i yield back. i withdraw the amendment. >> i will yield myself just on
this issue because i think the ranking member was slightly unfair in his characterization. i want to talk about this because i have no doubt about his sincerity on these issues, and i share his concern, but it is also true that we, together, have been working on the joint staff to put in and they repeatedly asked the joint staff about any sort of language that they think would be helpful in mill to mill relations, and they came back physically with two points, don't do anything that makes it look political because we need to stay away from that, number two, we need maximum flexibility. the senate is talking but reducing the language of nuclear conventional war, absolutely. sometimes they need to have mill to mill just to avoid an accident. or some unforeseen circumstance. so, the reaction we got back was don't limit us too much in
anything you put in there so that we can deal with whatever circumstances we face. just in fairness, this was not really me saying no, i am not for reducing the risk of nuclear and conventional war, this is trying to work with the military leadership on what would be helpful in mill to mill conversations, and not be harmful. and that is the way we came to this one. >> i appreciate that and i don't doubt your sincerity. i don't know 100% trust the joint staff. that is part of our oversight. there is a lot of military leaders that are conjuring up the idea of what to do about a nuclear. second of all, this language doesn't say that is the only reason that you can have a mill to mill conversation, it doesn't even come within 100 miles of saying that. so how you could argue that this limits them, it doesn't.
it just says one of the things that you can talk about. i don't buy that second argument, they can talk about whatever they want to talk about. i did not mean this language in any way to limit his ability to talk about anything else, i think the language is very much making that clear. i yield back. >> they have paranoid lawyers just like we do. >> okay. will the gentleman withdraw the amendment, we are on to -- the consent to call up amendment -- package number five. the objection is so ordered, if the clerk would distribute the package number five with that objection, the amendments are considered as read and consist of the following. amendment 88 -- require secretary of defense on the department of defense's assistant to pakistan, 1361 by ms. gabbard at a report
requirement of ways to enhance our operability with india. amendment 246 one by mr. gallagher a minute to allies south korea, japan, and australia. amendment 294 by mr. conaway expressing sense of congress for georgia. mr. conaway 251 a statement on policy of naval transfers to japan, amendment 299 on mr. conaway ensuring i.t. systems are audits compliant, amendment 302 by mr. conaway directly part -- department of defense to provide senior defense and leadership. compliance with any service amendment 303 by mr. conaway expressed a sense of -- eminent 359 by mr. larson concerning the new start treaty, and amendment 384 by mr. wilson would extend existing limitations on support dough sheet this coalition support fund, is there further discussion of block number five?
if not, the question arises on the unblocked package, all of those in favor say aye. those opposed, say no. the amendments are agreed to. gentleman from mr. -- tennessee, mr. cooper. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the mac will distribute the amendment without objection, the amendment is considered as read. but he is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, this amendment would shift $115 million away from a project in south carolina that makes an oxide facility and devote that $150 million to army, readiness. the hundred $15 million is over and above the pentagon's budget request, and what it does is try to keep the project alive that really should have died
many years ago. that project, the box project is this committee's bridge to nowhere. we were able to kill the bridge to nowhere fairly easily, this one keeps on coming up almost every year, that is why i have called it the zombie earmark. i have nothing against south carolina or anybody from there, but they already got about $18 billion a year in federal help for various projects, which are worthy, this is not one of the were the ones. what we want to do is working with others, shift the use of that facility that has been in construction forever, that is 10 times over its original cost estimate, which really is -- has no purpose anymore, and shift the money to a more productive purpose. many amendments offered here tonight have asked for the use of some money for various work, the military projects, >> will the gentleman yield? >> you are talking but the wrong amendment. this is not the marksman met.
-- box amendment. >> i couldn't think of any other way to do that. the committee staff wants me to talk about the open skies project, which -- could i defer for a while and come back to it? >> we are withdrawing this amendment. >> gentleman withdraws this amendment. let's move to the next unblocked package and we will regroup. they have consent to call up
the package number six consisting of amendments that have been working approved with the minority. the clerk would distribute unblocked package number six, with that objection they are considered as read and comprise the following. amendment number 146 by miss janie, would provide for reporting on the threat posed by chinese telecommunications technology. amendment 181 by mr. rourke would require a -- amendment 198 directs a report and public notification of china's maritime and air activities in the indo pacific region, in the mid-203 by mr. lodge one. security communication with haiti. expresses a sense of congress for senior level engagement with taiwan. amendment 266 by dr. winthrop directs the production of a national intelligence testament on russian and chinese interference in democratic countries. amendment to 91 -- 291 requires
a report on military security between iran and russia. amendment 293 by mr. scott regarding the vetting process for gross violations of human rights, amendment 316 by mr. turner technical correction to section 1621, the roles and responsibilities of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. amendment 340 by mr. gallegos serving a great -- requirement for withdrawal of forces from korea. commitment 405, the amendment makes technical corrections regarding government communications. is there further debate on unblocked package number six? hearing none, the question is the amendments unblocked, those for it say aye. opposed say no. the amendments are adopted.
gentleman from wisconsin, mr. gallagher? >> we have the amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. the amendment as though she is considered as read. the mac mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our amendment which closely tracks with language support and overwhelming bipartisan basis last year, in- house pass and the aap are the committees on record noting the state department found in 2014, 2015, and 2016 that russia has been in violation of its obligations under the inf treaty. at the same time, china which is not a party to the agreement has been invested in thousands of ground-based missiles designed to deny u.s. forces freedom of access and movement in the event of a conflict. as admiral harris has testified, about 95% of rocket force missiles fall under inf ranges.
this puts us on the wrong side of the competition, no matter how capable or affordable our ships, fighters, and bombers will never be cheaper than ground-based missiles. at the risk of stating the obvious, and a long-term strategic conversation where the military balance in asia is the best defense to prevent chinese aggression, this is not a good situation to be in. as admiral harris put it, i have used inf as self-limiting to the u.s. arms agreement can be of course effective avenues to advanced security interests but when we are the only side that plays whether welcome these agreements sees advancing our interest, our amendment simply acknowledges this reality, it gives russia one year to return to inf compliance or finding the inf treaty as no longer binding. every member of the community -- committee voted for nearly identical language in last year's nda and i urged the committee to provide simpler and overwhelming judgment this year as well and i yield the balance of my time. >> ranking member. >> just briefly on this, my thing mr. gallagher makes a very good point in terms of russia, not being compliant and
in terms of what our interest might be in terms of dealing with china. but, the problem is, i am not sure congressionally we can simply pull out of the treaty, first of all. second of all, i think we should take some steps towards russia first to punish them for violating the treaty. we certainly within the treaty have the right to sanction the and do other things. i'm not in favor at this point of pulling completely out of the treaty, which this amendment would have us do. and again, i'm not sure legislatively how we would go about doing that. so i think rather than that, we should at least first try to push russia into compliance, then renegotiate if necessary. i don't think this is the right approach although there is clearly a problem to be addressed, i yield back. >> mr. kelly? >> i yield my time to mr. gallagher. >> the ranking member raises what is a very interesting and contested subject for debate, the constitution obviously sets
forth a definitive procedure for the president to make treaties for the consent of the senate but it is not describe how it should be terminated. there has been some legal precedent here both after bush pulled out of the abm treaty in 2002, but also in goldwater v carter, congress channeled -- challenge the constitutionality of jimmy carter's unilateral to determination of the defense treaty, the supreme court never heard the case but the majority of six justice ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an argument holding that the issue at hand was essentially a political question and cannot be reviewed at -- by the court. so, it is clearly an area where congress has a voice, and since treaties with foreign nations become a part of u.s. law, congress can repeal or modify them through federal action, notwithstanding the provisions agreed upon. there is no case, had money case that found the congress commanded fees for noncitizens
at ports of entry in the u.s. regardless of treaty operations. as someone who is deeply concerned about congress surrendering its responsibility to the executive branch, i think this is the best way to be heard on this issue while at the same time, i think getting to where we all want to get, which is to not rush into compliance, while not limiting ourselves and hampering our defensive in the pacific. i will yield the rest of my time to miss cheney. >> thank you. i am proud to cosponsor this amendment, with mr. gallagher. i would note that it has been now nearly 5 years since the u.s. first made the case that the russians are not in compliance with this treaty, so the notion that somehow we are rushing this issue, in fact we have moved far too slowly. this amendment gives an additional year, we are not saying that this will happen immediately, but we are now in a position, mr. gallagher talked about the fact that the treaty is self-limiting, what
this means is that the u.s. is the only nation in the world now that is bound by the terms of this treaty, at a moment when we are facing grave and growing threats to our security. when we find ourselves in a situation where the process the types of capability that this treaty is preventing us from obtaining are in fact being obtained by our adversaries. so, i think this is very responsible, it gives us one year, gives the department a year, gives the russians a year to come into compliance, and this is not a new issue, it has been over five years since we first formally raised concerns about lack of compliance. i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and i yield back to mr. gallagher. >> mr. chairman i yield back the balance of my time. >> i often speak perhaps too often speak, and i suspect all of you would like me to speak less, but i think this is a
rather important issue and i think we have to have a better understanding of what it is that we are doing here. first of all, the inf treaty is principally european issue. and also in this bill that we are putting forward, we are developing alternatives to medium-range missiles that are within the bounds of the inf treaty. these are basically missiles that are launched from ships or submarines. it is not that we are without some sort of response. secondly, there are provisions that are contrary to what this bill would achieve. specifically, there is in the bill a section 1233, which imposes a fence funding to the white house until the president imposes sanctions required by the physical 2018 national
defense authorization act with which the president has not yet imposed those sanctions. they have been available to the president to put pressure on russia with regards to the inf treaty for a year. secondly, section 1236 in this bill was carefully negotiated with the house of foreign affairs to impose significant additional sanctions on russia for its inf treaty violations. including advanced conventional weapons systems, providing support to russian industry. we are kind of going in two different directions here. which would leave the inf treaty in place, we are making moves, making very significant moves to provide alternative ways of developing missiles that are within the inf treaty
boundaries. we are also having a moral high ground as long as we are in this, secretary mattis deemed it beneficial to u.s. national security to remain in the treaty, and not withdraw. and finally, getting out of the treaty would give russia its excuse to not be in the treaty. i think we all understand that they are all operating outside of the treaty. is not a good idea to be doing it this way. a better idea to impose distinctions and find what is within the treaty, i yield back. >> thank you, this is an excellent amendment that recognizes reality, our adherence to this treaty is adjusting to the treatment -- one hand clotting.
you cannot have a treaty with oneself, that is the situation we are in. russia is not in the treaty, this sets up a process that considers the exit of the treaty. article 5, our bases and our troops, there are no issues from security that are nearly european issues. this amendment does not give russia an excuse to be in, they are not in. we need to recognize reality, we need to move forward. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. gallagher, those in favor of sai. those opposed, say no. the aye's have it. the amendment is agreed to. gentleman from tennessee, dr. digitally. >> i have an amendment at a
desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. with out objection it is considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> vladimir putin touted russia's development of new models of strategic weapons, missiles with predictable trajectories, long-distance hypersonic systems, and unmanned water dish underwater delivery systems. as many of my colleagues are aware, russia recently conducted an injection test for one of these systems, also known as the satan to. as expressed in the 2018 national security strategy, russia's investment in new military capabilities such as these delivery systems remains the most significant, it doesn't dish accidental crests she threat. secretary mattis stated that it is his belief that such systems should be limited under new start. if we are to accomplish the
threat reduction objective in the treaty, it is critical that an extension of this treaty ensure coverage of these weapon systems as strategic offensive arms pursuant to the treaty. my amendment propels action on this by making it clear that the coverage of these weapon systems will be a prerequisite for extending new implementation. i would urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. i yield back. thank you. i will not oppose this amendment, i do worry about the requirement of russia responding in writing, i certainly think it is perfectly appropriate that we put pressure on them to restart the negotiations about what the new weapons mean when we start the treaty, i think it is easily put together. it is late, so i won't. i don't object to the amendment. i yield back. >> questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor, say hi. those opposed, say no. the aye's have it. the amendment is adopted.
we are calling up en bloc package number seven. amendment's work and approved by the minority as the objections ordered. the clerk will distribute the package number seven, it is considered as read. it consists of the following. amendment number 30 by dr. digitally limits travel funding for national nuclear security administration until they submit a report on unfunded requirements to contain at least one unfunded requirement. amendment number 26 are one by mr. brown supports ms. her test and evaluation by the navy. amendment number 44 by ms. tsongas in support of war fighter technology development. amendment 56 by ms. spear requiring shock test results be incorporated to cb and 81 construction. amendment 84 by mr. vesey regarding core sampling at joint base san antonio. amendment 90 by mr. moulton to limit funds to the strategic capabilities office ghost fleet
overlord unmanned surface vehicle program until certification requirements are met. amendment 104 by ms. spear regarding report on activities by events, innovation, unit experimental. amendment 108 by mr. carbajal in support of female personal protective equipment. amendment 116 in support of advanced mitigation equipment for the u.s. special forces command. is there further description though she further discussion of en bloc number seven? all of those -- i'm sorry. >> i would like to speak very briefly. i propose the amendment will strengthen our development of
autonomous naval technology and particular unmanned service vehicles, i'm very concerned that our adversaries can leapfrog our development of the next generation of naval warfare because there are defense budgets of that raise incentives for more advanced and less expensive automated technology. we cannot let that happen. german women recently wrote a brilliant article in defense news about how significant this development technology is. and how we must prioritize the navy. i appreciate consideration of the amendment, i yield back. he met further discussion on en bloc number seven, if not the question is on the block. those in favor, c'est aye. the aye's have it , the amendments are adopted. i will call up en bloc package number eight approved by the minority without objections ordered, the clerk will
distribute en bloc package number eight. without objection they are considered as read and consist of the following. amendment 138 by mr. moulton, amendment 175 by miss potter -- amendment 202, madmen 225, amendment by miss murphy, amendment 256, amendment 257. amendment 279 by mr. shirazi, amendment 283, amendment 361 by mr. larson, 377 or one by mr. lamborn. 382 by graves, 390 by turner, 391 by turner. 394 by cheney, 395 by cheney, 412 by garamendi, 415 by ghana, 416 by winthrop, and for 18 by mr. bishop. anybody want to discuss any of that?
the question is on the amendments en bloc, those in favor say aye. the aye's have it, the aye's have it and the amendments are adopted. we are now going to proceed to vote on those amendments where a roll call vote was ordered. i think we have got eight of them, do you remember what the first one was? >> the committee postpone further proceedings on amendment number 406 by mr. gallegos that struck section
1109 which is a civilian hiring authority in the underlying market. the question occurs on the amendment offered by mr. gallego , the reported vote has been ordered, the clerk will recall the role. >> mr. thornberry, no. >> mr. smith votes aye. >> mr. jones. mr. bray, mr. bree votes aye. mr. wilson votes now. mrs. davis votes aye. mr. lobiondo votes no. mr. long even votes aye. mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson votes aye.
mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper votes aye. mr. rogers votes -- misprint i/o votes aye. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes no. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. conway votes no. miss august votes aye. miss lamborn -- mr. lamborn votes no. mr. garamendi votes aye. mr. whitman votes no. ms. spear votes aye. mr. hunter, mr. vesey votes
aye. mr. kaufman . miss gabbard, mr. kaufman votes aye. miss gabbard votes -- ms. hartzler votes no. mr. o'rourke votes aye. mr. scott votes no. mr. no crust votes aye. mr. brooks votes now. mr. gallego votes aye. mr. cook votes no. mr. moulton votes aye. dr. winthrop votes no. miss hannah brousseau votes
aye. mr. byrne votes no. miss shea porter votes aye. mr. graves votes no. miss rosen votes aye. miss stefano votes no. mr. mcgeechan votes aye. miss mc sally votes no. mr. carbajal votes aye. mr. knight votes no. mr. brown votes aye. mr. russell votes no. mrs. murphy votes aye. dr. digitally votes no. mr. cano votes aye.
dr. abraham votes no. mr. o herman votes aye. mr. kelly votes no. mr. swazi votes aye. mr. gallagher votes no. mr. panetta votes aye. mr. gates votes no. mr. bacon votes no. mr. banks votes no. miss cheney votes no. mr. ice votes no. mr. mitchell votes no. mr. jones, mr. rogers votes no. mr. hunter votes no.
>> court report the tally. mr. chairman, there were 27 aye's and 33 no's. >> the amendment is not agreed to. next is the vote on bishop 221 regarding -- the recorded vote has been ordered, the clerk will call the role. >> mr. thornberry, aye. mr. smith votes no. mr. jones. mr. brady votes no. mr. wilson votes aye. mrs. davis votes no. mr. lobiondo votes aye. mr. long german votes no.
mr. bishop votes aye. mr. larson votes no. mr. turner votes aye. mr. cooper, votes no. mr. rogers votes aye. misprint i/o votes no. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. courtney votes no. mr. conaway votes aye. miss tsongas votes no. mr. lamborn votes aye. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. whitman votes aye. ms. spear votes no. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. vc votes no.
mr. hoffman -- mr. kaufman votes aye. miss gabbard votes no. mr. hartzler votes aye. mr. o'rourke votes no. mr. scott votes aye. mr. norco -- norcross votes no. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. gallego votes no. mr. cook votes aye. mr. moulton votes no. dr. winthrop votes aye. mr. hannah brousseau votes no .
mr. byrne votes aye. miss shea porter votes no. esther gray -- mr. graves votes aye. miss rosen votes no. mr. phonic votes aye. mr. mcgeechan votes now. miss mc sally votes aye. mr. carbajal votes no. mr. knight votes aye. mr. brown votes no. mr. russell votes aye. mr. -- mrs. murphy votes no. dr. digitally votes aye. mr. cano votes no. dr. abraham votes aye. mr. halloran votes no.
>> will the clerk called the role of mist of -- of members who did not respond? >> is the clerk ready to report the results? the clerk will report the results. >> sir, there is 33 aye, 28 no. >> the amendment is adopted. now, the vote occurs on brown amendment 53 striking the provision regarding toshiba the recorded vote is ordered. >> mr. thornberry votes no.
mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones votes -- mr. brady votes aye. mr. wilson votes no. mr. davis votes aye. mr. lobiondo votes no. mr. laundromat votes aye. mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson votes aye. mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper votes aye. mr. rogers votes no. misprint i/o votes aye. mr. schuster votes no. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. conaway votes no. miss tsongas votes aye. mr. lamborn . mr. garamendi
votes aye. mr. whitman votes no. miss spear? miss spear votes aye. mr. hunter votes now. mr. vesey votes aye. mr. kaufman votes no. miss gabbard votes aye. ms. hartzler votes no. mr. o'rourke votes aye. mr. scott votes no. mr. norcross votes aye. mr. brooks votes no. mr. gallego votes aye. mr. cook votes no. mr. moulton votes aye. dr. winthrop votes no. miss hannah brousseau votes
aye. mr. byrne votes no. miss shea porter votes aye. mr. graves votes no. miss rosen votes aye. miss stefano votes no. mr. mcgeechan votes no. -- aye. miss sally votes no. mr. carbajal votes aye. mr. knight votes no. mr. brown votes aye. mr. russell votes aye. miss murphy votes aye. dr. digitally votes no. mr. cano votes aye. dr. abraham votes no. mr. o'halloran votes aye. mr. kelly votes no.
clerk will report the result, there were 29 aye's, and 32 no's. >> the amendment is not agreed to. now, the vote occurs on the amendment offered by mr. knight, striking the language regarding the test resource management center, the recorded vote is ordered, the clerk will call the role. >> mr. thornberry votes no. mr. smith, mr. smith. mr. jones, mr. jones. mr. brady votes aye. mr. wilson votes no.
mrs. davis votes aye. mr. lobiondo votes no. mr. launch men votes aye. mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson votes aye. mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper votes no. mr. rogers votes no. misprint i/o -- miss her bio votes no. mr. schuster votes no. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. conaway votes no. miss tsongas votes aye. mr. lamborn votes no. mr. garamendi votes aye.
mr. whitman votes no. miss spear votes aye. mr. hunter votes no. mr. vc votes aye. mr. kaufman votes no. miss gabbard votes aye. ms. hartzler votes no. mr. o'rourke votes aye. mr. scott votes aye. mr. norcross votes aye. mr. brooks votes no. mr. gallego votes aye. mr. cook votes no. mr. moulton votes aye.