tv [untitled] May 15, 2012 4:30pm-5:00pm EDT
okay, all you people that want to get home in time for breakfast -- committee will come to order. and i am pleased to yield to the ranking member for a unanimous consent request. >> thank you mr. ash, the unanimous consent that individually marks the two minutes instead of the normal five. >> hear hear! >> no objections, so ordered. are there any amendments? >> yes, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. we ask the clerk to please distribute the amendment, without objection, reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from alabama. to offer and explain his amendments. thank you, mr. chairman, this amendment is patterned after an amendment to the national defense authorizization act that i introduced last year this committee adopted in which became law. multiple sources reported that the obama administration may share our defense -- i am concerned these reports may be accurate, particularly since mr. obama has stated his -- congress passed last year that prohibits the president from sharing america's expensive missile technology with russia. this amendment establishes a two-tier approach to missile defense technology sharing with russian federation in line of the two-minute limit, i will not go into the details of that, but i will add and ask the committee to please bear with me as i share with it statements by the
russian federation concerning our missile defense capabilities in europe. this is from an associated press report last week. there's been many other news outlets reporting the same thing. russia's top military officer has said -- nato missile defense facility in eastern europe if washington goes ahead with its controversial plan to build a missile shield. president dmitry medvedev says that russia will retaliate if the -- chief of general staff went even further thursday saying a decision to use pre-emptive force will be taken if the situation worsens. he said that in a conference with u.s. and nato officials n light of the great expense that the united states of america has
gone to develop this technology i think we should exercise the greatest caution in -- >> chair now recognizes ms. sanchez from california for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, the amendment to limit funds for sharing technology and/or sensitive information would levee a requirement that would inhibit the administration's ability to -- on missile defense matters. both by lat try and in the nato context. i believe that such discussions are essential to u.s. efforts to cooperate with russia on missile defense which has been a political and security priority for our last four administrations. such discussions are also important to our nato allies who welcomed russia's participation in missile defense of europe in the lisbon summit of 2010.
the agreement would prohibit the -- where the appropriate reciprocal exchange of such data may improve the ability of the united states to provide effective missile defenses of our deployed forces and aallies. this resip row call -- would improve our missile defense. constitutional concerns as it appears to encroach on the president's exclusive authority to determine the type, scope and
to. this is an excellent amendment, i want to comment representative brooks for it. it's well considered, it gives a two-tiered approach so that the most sensitive information is what would be kept to ourselves and other less sensitive information could be shared if certain conditions are met. and i just want to say that unfortunately, the president has opened up some of this to be in an issue when he spoke into the open microphone as we talked about earlier in the day and talked about flexibility and who knows what that means. i think that there's a question there, that there may be secret agreements or a desire to enter into secret agreements that were clearly not being disclosed to
the american public. so for that reason, i think we have to have an amendment like this, so that our most precious secrets are kept to america and we consider carefully anything beyond that. >> how very tiresome. how many time dos we have to hear about a secret agreement that doesn't exist? can't we put aside this political game that's being played and deal with the realities? this amendment goes far beyond what's been stated here. there are three sections here. do we know what the other two sections are?
it's critically important that the president be able to negotiate and to discuss things. the business about getting back the information and telling us about it, that's fine. but it goes far, far beyond that. there are three other sections in this thing. we ought to be aware of that. those sections do impinge upon the president's current authority to engage on internation international. today is a new day, all of these talk of secret agreements because they don't exist. >> gentleman yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? chair recognizes mr. turner from ohio for two minutes. >> thank you. this amendment is incredibly important. what we know is that the
president was caught on an open microphone saying that after this election i will have greater flexibility. we have asked the president to tell us what does he mean by that when he was telling medvedev to give a message to vladimir putin. that e the president has declined to tell us. this amendment is about ensuring what it isn't. it should not be about sharing our secret data and the technology about how our missile defense system operates and that's why this amendment is so important. if the president would tell us what the secret deal is, we would have less concern since we don't have that, we can only operate on what it should be, it should been this, this amendment should pass. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? if not, questions on adoption of
the amendment offered by mr. brooks, as many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. >> the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. any other amendments? >> this gentleman has an amendment. the clerk, please pass out the amendments. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. or do read this? >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman, the u.s. state department has restricted imports of infrared technology, for example focal plane arrays, cryogenic coolers, the
unintended consequences of this action has been the creation of an international competitor's market of infrared components. hence our adversaries of the markets are enjoying technologies of which we had a major competitive advantage. foreign competitors have been able to -- reinvested their profits in the research and development. with declining defense budgets in overseas high performance infrared performance product -- infrared technology and maintain our war fighting edge. this amendment would ensure that dod -- thus maintaining technological ed. we talk all the time about maintaining the industrial base. this is a very bafblg amendment, it says if we are restricting
you from exporting it, we're not going to go through the backdoor and buy it from somebody else so that they can enjoy both access to our market and other markets. >> gentleman yields back for what purpose was the gentleman from washington sec recognize? >> seek recognition to offer an amendment in the form of a substitute. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. this is a second-degree amendment. i recognize the gentleman now for purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> and it's with reluctance and regret that i offer this, but i think mr. turner's headed down the right road. there's a couple of issues i just want to discuss on this. the amendment he offers would -- including increaseded costs for weapons systems or components.
i can understand the need for domestic only requirement for some highly specialized components as well as major delivery platforms, but infrared technology is widely available in the commercial markets. the stipulations in mr. turner's amendment restrict our acquisition systems to only domestic -- ability to innovate over the long run. i know he would like to try to protect our defense industrial base but oftentimes we forget that we have to entreprenenurtu well. the basic point i want to get to is mainly this, i have think this legislation is premature, we don't have a handle on what the industrial based foreign technology is and the basis of my amendment is very simple. it would ask that the department of defense's deputy secretary for defense for manufacturing and industrial based policy as
part of the ongoing sector bicek for tier by tier analysis of what it is doing currently. that they look at the specific area of the -- we have a better idea of what we are impacting. just a quick note, according to congressional research service, two examples of where a policy of protection would have hampered or capability for our war fighter is and moist of that technology came from israel. so i'm merely asking that we study this for 90 days, have the dod do that and get back to this immediately and i offer that in good spirits. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone else wish to speak on the amendment? the gentleman from new jersey, recognized for two minutes. >> i would like to yield my time to mr. turner. >> thank you mr. chairman, as
everybody knows, this committee has one bill, one year. intuitively we understand this you cannot restrict an industry and have it re -- we don't need to study that, we can intuitively understand it. if we study it, we could have the study delivered to us and by the time we get to take any action we will be told we have lost the industry and competitive edge. >> gentleman yields back t chair recognize mr. smith from washington. >> i just want to support mr. washington's amendment. made it difficult for our domestic companies to compete but one of the realities of is that other companies from other companies will begin to develop better technology because they have that competitive advantage. so i will -- then point out the
very important examples that mr. larsen pointed out, where our ability to support the best national security products were dependent on our ability to get technology from israel and great britain. two very strong allies. this amendment would prohibit us from doing that and clearly harm our national security by restricting the only domestic content at a time when our best -- so i think mr. larsen is perfectly fine to delay it for a year. i think we need to really understand the harm that this could do to our ability to produce the best national security equipment. >> any other discussion on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. larsen, so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. >> and in the chair, the no's
have it. the amendment is not adopted. question is now on the underlying amendment. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. >> no. >> and in the chair the aye's have it. the aye's have it. the amendment is agreed to. any other amendments? >> mr. kissell's amendment, the clerk please distribute the amendment. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. chair now recognizes the gentleman to offer and explain his amendment.
>> mr. chairman, this amendment is very close to me, as i am co-chair of the tech tile caucus here and also spent 27 years in textiles before coming up here. this is a simple situation when we went into afghanistan, the uniforms that was being made for the afghan police and afghan armies was american made. as it should be by the very amendment. somewhere recently someone as made a decision to outsource this to another country, we cannot find out who made that decision, why they made that decision. we have heard some things, afghan first. this is not about readiness, this is not about getting the materials there in time. the cut operation is in afghanistan. that is no problem, we have heard the military has flexibility, but when you make bad decisions, it's our job for oversight. we have scores if not hundreds
of americans that are working, paying their taxes, and justi justify -- this is a decision about trust, this is a decision about doing the right thing. how ironic would it be for someone to make a decision and the taxpayers -- all the history of the berry amendment, how ironic it would be after we talked tonight about industrial base, we talked about protecting small jobs and growing this type of business and then if we let these scores and hundreds of americans lose their jobs because of some decision made somewhere, that once again, we can't even find out who made it, how sad that would b this is about trust, these people pay their taxes, they support our military. they should be able to keep doing their jobs. >> the gentleman yields back.
the chairman recognizes the gentleman from texas for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, mrs. an exception to the berry amendment for procurements made outside the u.s. in support of combat operations and combat procurements. i don't know exactly who made the decision, what i do know is our whole purpose in afghanistan is to try to help these people stand on their own two feet. and that is to make their own uniforms, provide their own equipment, we're providing the training, the administration strongly opposes this amendment and says it would make that job more difficult and it just seems to me if there's anything we don't want to do in afghanistan is make the job of our troops whether it's training or whatever it takes to get them standing on their own two feet, what we don't want to do is make their job harder. so i think it would be best not to change the berry amendment by eliminating the exception that
exists for procurements in support of combat operations and procurements. that's what's going on here. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. r >> i yield my time to mr. kissel. >> i just want to point out that i have no problem at all with the teerm materials cut and sewn in afghanistan. they're not knit or dyed in afghanistan. this is a complex operation. they've done done here in america by american operations up to this point in time. the knitting and dye kg not be done in afghanistan. it's going to another country. so this is americans losing jobs. have no problem at all with the afghans doing the piecing and cutting and sowing together but have a problem with them knitted
in another country. >> gentlemen yields back the balance of this time. any further discussion? if not, the question on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. kissel. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. any of the chair -- the nos have it. gentleman asks for a recorded vote roll call vote is ordered and we'll call this at the end of the chairman's mark. any further amendments? >> yes, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk, please, distribute the amendment. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, ranking member, to offer and explain his amendment. >> the most important part of this amendment is what it strikes within the base bill. the base bill has a comment on afghanistan, makes a number of
statements and findings, sense of congress, about the state of the war in afghanistan and where we're at, but the part that is concerning to me comes at the end under subsection 11 b and c where it basically -- i'll read it. no order to reduce this unsermtdy, about the future of afghanistan is what's referenced earlier, and promote further stability and security any afghanistan the president should maintain a force of at least 68,000 troops through december 31st, 2014. so that would be another, gosh, almost two years. 2.75 years at any rate and lastly maintain a credible troop presence even amp december 31st in 2014. basically the underlying vote we're going to vote on requires a substantial troop presence for another 2.5, almost 3 years. i don't think that's the wisest strategy at this point.
our troops have done amazing work training and equipping the afghan national security force, beating back the taliban in a number of different places. the fundamental point here it is time to transition to afghan control of security and having a requirement in this mark for 68,000 u.s. troops to the end of 2014 is unnecessarily prescriptive and prescriptive in the wrong direction. calling for a troop presence that is not something that is in the best interests of our national security, and something that strongly is opposed by the american people. i offer a substitute to this that just eliminating all in there on afghanistan and says the sense of congress and the president should accelerate transition of security responsibility to the afghan national security force and draw down u.s. military forces as quickly as possible to the minimum force level necessary to conduct counterterrorism missions against al qaeda and train and equip the afghan national security forces. so i think that's the direction
we need to go in. not what's in the underlying bill and i urge support for the amendment. >> the question is about whether or not this -- this is in order, and i know the chairman's going to make a ruling on that. if i can be permitted a quick 30 seconds to lodge my complaint. what's in the bill requires a certain number of troops for a certain length of time. that does not require a sequential rereferral. but mine sdp prefer a referral. increasing troops doesn't. decreasing troops does. that doesn't make a great deal of sense. champion is why i'm just not withdrawing that and will wait
for a better explanation when the underlying words in the bill right now don't. >>ed amendmentamendment -- the required a referral. >> they waived for the underlying referral, not the amendment. again that doesn't make a great deal of sense, bumt i guess it's a slightly better explanation. i will withdraw it. i have another amendment, which would be up next on this same subject. >> gentleman withdraws his amendment. and has another amendment at the desk. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> would that please be distributed by the clerk. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purposes
of offering and explaining his amendment. >> this amendment merely strikes the language that i just described in its entirety, does not offer the suss student, since i'm not able to do that and i've already explained why. so i would urge support for this amendment. i don't believe the american public wants us to have this long-term troop commitment up through the end of 2014 with a minimum of 68,000 troops, nor do i think that's what's in the best interests of the long-term stability of afghanistan or u.s. national security. so i would urge adoption of the amendment, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway for two minutes. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak against this amendment. part of the reason why we're seeing a low approval ratings for this fight that we're in, that the president has on many occasions said, well, previous occasions, said that this was
the most important fight going on, is the complete failure of him to sell his vision for what we're trying to get done over there. he's been almost absent from the field of play and having these, this language of 2016 in the bill lays out a much better explanation as to why we're there and what's going on and the reasons of the american people, and the president, in my view, that failed to support his own program properly through the bully pulpit he has used hourly since he's been in office, and he has dropped this subject from his conversation, and i think the, dropping it out of the base bill would be derelict as well. so i speak against striking this section. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi for two minutes. >> we ought to very carefully
read, which i hope all of us have done, the underlying base bill that this amendment would strike out. the base bill would augment american presence in afghanistan, put us in the middle of a civil war, and require that we take sides in that civil war, and protect endefinitely a corrupt government, mr. karzai's government. and significantly endanger american troops by giving us a completely new task of intervening and protecting indefinitely into the future. the karzai government. >> does the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield? because -- you know, one of these issues we always have when people talk numbers is the confusion that it can lead with -- >> excuse me. >> my understanding -- >> i don't believe that i yielded. >> i'm sorry. i thought you did. >> i did not. >> does not include a troop
increase. >> you'll have your own time and you've taken some of mine. the language that is in this base bill presents an enormous challenge for the united states to carry out, and forces the united states to intervene directly and continuallien inyin continually in a civil war. the purpose was to get al qaeda. we succeeded. took out their bases and leaders and just a couple days ago took out another leader. the president has been very successful, very successful, in carrying out the intention of the united states from the outset. we are now, with this -- with the language that is before us entering a completely different purpose in afghanistan. it is nation building on steroids, and it is engaging us in a civil