[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 171 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H7508-H7511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NAVAL VESSEL TRANSFER ACT OF 2012
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 6649) to provide for the transfer of naval vessels to
certain foreign recipients, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6649
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Naval Vessel Transfer Act of
2012''.
SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF NAVAL VESSELS TO CERTAIN FOREIGN
RECIPIENTS.
(a) Transfers by Grant.--The President is authorized to
transfer vessels to foreign countries on a grant basis under
section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2321j), as follows:
(1) Mexico.--To the Government of Mexico, the OLIVER HAZARD
PERRY class guided missile frigates USS CURTS (FFG-38) and
USS MCCLUSKY (FFG-41).
(2) Thailand.--To the Government of Thailand, the OLIVER
HAZARD PERRY class guided missile frigates USS RENTZ (FFG-46)
and USS VANDEGRIFT (FFG-48).
(3) Turkey.--To the Government of Turkey, the OLIVER HAZARD
PERRY class guided missile frigates USS HALYBURTON (FFG-40)
and USS THACH (FFG-43).
(b) Transfer by Sale.--The President is authorized to
transfer the OLIVER HAZARD PERRY class guided missile
frigates USS TAYLOR (FFG-50), USS GARY (FFG-51), USS CARR
(FFG-52), and USS ELROD (FFG-55) to the Taipei Economic and
Cultural Representative Office of the United States (which is
the Taiwan instrumentality designated pursuant to section
10(a) of the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3309(a))) on a
sale basis under section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act
(22 U.S.C. 2761).
(c) Alternative Transfer Authority.--Notwithstanding the
authority provided in subsections (a) and (b) to transfer
specific vessels to specific countries, the President is
authorized, subject to the same conditions that would apply
for such country under this Act, to transfer any vessel named
in this Act to any country named in this Act such that the
total number of vessels transferred to such country does not
exceed the total number of vessels authorized for transfer to
such country by this Act.
(d) Grants Not Counted in Annual Total of Transferred
Excess Defense Articles.--The value of a vessel transferred
to another country on a grant basis pursuant to authority
provided by subsection (a) or (c) shall not be counted
against the aggregate value of excess defense articles
transferred in any fiscal year under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
(e) Costs of Transfers.--Any expense incurred by the United
States in connection with a transfer authorized by this
section shall be charged to the recipient notwithstanding
section 516(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2321j(e)).
(f) Repair and Refurbishment in United States Shipyards.--
To the maximum extent practicable, the President shall
require, as a condition of the transfer of a vessel under
this section, that the recipient to which the vessel is
transferred have such repair or refurbishment of the vessel
as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval forces of
that recipient, performed at a shipyard located in the United
States, including a United States Navy shipyard.
(g) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to transfer a
vessel under this section shall expire at the end of the 3-
year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
General Leave
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material in the Record on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
[[Page H7509]]
There was no objection.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 6649, the Naval Transfer Act of 2012, as
amended.
According to the Secretary of the Navy, authority to transfer surplus
vessels is an important element of the U.S. strategy for decommissioned
ships. It enables our Navy to manage its inventory while strengthening
ties with our key security partners and with allies by transferring
ships that meet key operational requirements.
This legislation authorizes the transfer of 10 decommissioned Oliver
Hazard Perry class guided missile frigates to Mexico, to Thailand, to
Turkey and Taiwan. Six of the 10 vessels would be authorized for
transfer on a grant basis as excess defense articles under section 516
of the Foreign Assistance Act.
Mexico, Thailand, and Turkey would each receive two frigates. With
respect to Turkey, I remain greatly concerned with the deterioration in
that country's relations with, and policy toward, the democratic Jewish
state and our ally, the State of Israel.
{time} 1310
Since the 2010 flotilla incident--a crisis on the high seas that
triggered a tailspin in Turkish-Israeli relations--we have witnessed a
Turkey that is increasingly hostile toward Israel.
From its recall of its Ambassador to Israel, its attempts to
marginalize Israel in other international fora, and its continued
occupation of Cyprus to the embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood and its
offshoots, current Turkish policy is unacceptable. I will continue to
challenge those and take steps to ensure, for example, that Turkey is
sanctioned for its activities regarding the Iranian regime.
But, Mr. Speaker, the proposed transfer that we're talking about
today is not validation of the current Turkish policy in the region. It
is about our Nation's long-term national security interests. That is
what this bill is all about. Turkey is a NATO ally that we need to
continue participating in joint anti-piracy operations, for which they
would use these frigates. It has even commanded the Combined Joint Task
Force 151, fighting piracy in the Gulf of Aden and along the Somali
coast, protecting American citizens who are traveling in that volatile
region.
Additionally, in light of the deteriorating security environment in
Syria and Turkey's critical role in that arena, the Department of
Defense feels that it was necessary for our foreign policy priorities
and security objectives that Turkey receive these transfers.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the last time that Congress authorized
such naval transfers, we approved the grant transfer of three OSPREY
class mine-hunter coastal ships to Greece, but no transfers to Turkey.
Lastly, these transfers are job creators here at home. Each frigate
transferred will require 40 to $80 million of repair and refurbishment.
This represents economic benefit to the United States through labor and
services during the transfer process, as well as the potential for
millions more in follow-on services, equipment, and training. According
to estimates from U.S. sources, each frigate transfer creates or
sustains approximately 100 shipyard jobs and 50 services jobs in the
U.S. for approximately 6 months. Performing this ship transfer work in
domestic shipyards that perform U.S. Navy overhauls and repairs lowers
the cost of U.S. Navy maintenance by spreading costs over a wider base.
The end result is an overall lower cost to our U.S. Navy and thus for
the American taxpayer.
The alternative to foreign ship transfers for ships no longer
required by the U.S. Navy is to place the decommissioned ships into
cold storage or have them be sunk. Navy funding is required for both
the storage and the sinking option.
Turning to the other four frigates, Mr. Speaker, these would be
authorized for transfer to our close friends and ally, Taiwan. The
transfer of these four frigates is not only a symbol of our enduring
commitment to a secure and democratic Taiwan but will also provide the
island with additional capabilities to conduct maritime security
operations in the Taiwan Strait.
The legislation also requires that any expense incurred by the U.S.
in connection with a transfer authorized by this bill shall be charged
to the recipient.
Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill will help advance United States
foreign policy interests and our broader national security
requirements. Therefore, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 6649,
as amended, and yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the transfer of decommissioned
frigates to four foreign countries. The governments of Turkey, Mexico,
and Thailand would each receive by grant two Perry class frigates. That
means for free. Taiwan would be authorized to purchase four of the same
class of frigates, which they clearly need to protect their territorial
waters.
I object to this bill primarily because of Turkey. While I recognize
that Turkey is an important NATO ally, I regret that I have to oppose
this bill in light of Turkey's problematic behavior and disturbing
rhetoric regarding Israel and Cyprus over the past year and a half. For
example, in May, with no apparent justification, Turkey sent combat
aircraft to intercept an Israeli aircraft that was flying near Cyprus.
This could have turned into a significant confrontation between a U.S.
NATO ally and the United States' closest ally in the Middle East.
Fortunately, it did not.
In September 2011, Turkey announced that it would send warships to
escort aid convoys to Gaza. It has not followed through with this
threat, but nor has it rescinded it.
Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu have been
famously competing to see who can issue the most vile denunciations of
Israel, as we saw, once again, during the recent Gaza crisis. Indeed,
their allegations of ``ethnic cleansing'' and ``crimes against
humanity,'' quotes from them, topped even the claims of Hamas for
stridency and falsehood. Of course, the prime minister called Israel a
``terrorist state.'' Is that the kind of rhetoric we should expect from
a NATO ally?
Some people say this should continue because, after all, Turkey is an
ally and we need to help them. Well, I look at it the other way.
They're a NATO ally, so they have responsibility. And the way they're
acting has been anything but responsible. This is not an
inconsequential or trivial matter. As many public opinion surveys show,
and as is widely acknowledged, Turkey wields enormous influence among
Middle Easterners, with the sway to exacerbate or tamp down tensions as
it sees fit. For too long, it has been exacerbating these tensions,
particularly since the new government--well, it's not new anymore--a
government for several years with an Islamist bent has been in.
Moreover, Turkey's longstanding recognition of Hamas has done nothing
to moderate that group. It has merely lent legitimacy to a terrorist
group and undermined the standing of the Palestinian Authority in
Ramallah. Indeed, in the aftermath of the Gaza hostilities, Turkey's
extreme rhetoric and one-sided approach to Israel's conflict with Hamas
disqualified it from playing the useful mediating role which should be
its natural vocation.
Turkey's unnecessarily harsh anti-Israel rhetoric over the last
several years actually did cost the Turks the support of Congress to
authorize the transfer of two decommissioned U.S. frigates in the last
Congress. It should have that result again in this Congress, and it
should be denied.
But Turkey's poisonous rhetoric and menacing behavior towards Israel
is not the only reason to oppose this ship transfer, and perhaps not
even the most potentially explosive. To cite the other important
reason: Turkey has repeatedly threatened Cyprus and its energy
explorations. One year ago, Turkey used its naval forces--and, by the
way, the very naval forces this bill would enhance--in an effort to
harass and intimidate Cyprus and workers employed by the Houston-based
Noble Energy company as they sought to explore for offshore natural gas
in Cyprus' exclusive economic zone. Prime Minister Erdogan also
threatened that Turkey would use force to stop these explorations.
Probably because of U.S. opposition, it has not done so, but, again,
Turkey has never rescinded the threat. Almost exactly 1 year ago,
Turkey conducted a dangerous live-fire
[[Page H7510]]
naval exercise in the vicinity of both the Cypriot and Israeli offshore
natural gas explorations, which Cyprus and Israel are doing jointly.
The Turkish attitude is epitomized by Turkey's Minister for European
Union Affairs, Egemen Bagis, who addressed the issue of Cypriot natural
gas exploration last year. This was his warning, and I quote:
This is what we have a navy for. We have trained our marines for
this. We have equipped the navy for this. All options are on the table.
Anything can be done.
And I want to remind my colleagues that Turkey has continued to
occupy the northern part of Cyprus since the 1970s. It's just
unacceptable.
{time} 1320
Mr. Speaker, I realize that Turkey is an important member of NATO. It
accepted radar emplacements for NATO's missile defense initiative, and
it is an important element of the solution to several regional
problems--notably, Syria--but it has become a major problem for U.S.
interests in terms of its relations with Israel and the inflammatory
and distinctly unhelpful role it has assumed in the Palestinian issue,
as well as its threats against Cyprus.
In the last several years, the once warm relationship between Israel
and Turkey has unfortunately frozen over. We would truly like to see a
thaw in that relationship, just as we would like to see Turkey respect
the sovereign right of every country in the region, like Cyprus, to
utilize their natural resources. Until then, I believe we should hold
off on sending powerful warships to Turkey and encourage the government
in Ankara to take a less belligerent approach to their neighbors.
Early in the next Congress, I would look forward to working with my
colleagues on a new ship transfer bill that excludes Turkey, if we can
defeat this bill, or appropriately conditions our ship transfer so that
the government in Ankara gets the right message.
So I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida, my colleague, Mr. Bilirakis, an esteemed member on our
Committee of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate it very
much.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6649, the Naval Vessel
Transfer Act of 2012. As part of this legislation before us, the United
States would transfer two Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile
frigates to the Government of Turkey.
I have serious concerns, and I oppose this military transfer, Mr.
Speaker, because the Turkish navy, as recently as last year, held naval
live-fire exercises in the eastern Mediterranean. These provocative
exercises took place near the natural gas fields of Israel and the
Republic of Cyprus and threatened to disrupt peaceful and productive
economic activity. Instead, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that, in the
eastern Mediterranean, Congress will continue to work to foster the
relationships between the United States, Greece, Israel, and Cyprus in
order to promote and foster issues of mutual, economic, and diplomatic
importance.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. ENGEL. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Woodrow Wilson noted that Congress in committee is Congress at work.
Congress ignoring the committee process is a Congress that doesn't
work.
This bill has not been the subject of hearing and, more importantly,
a markup in the Foreign Affairs Committee. And in the dead of night,
provisions to transfer two frigates to Turkey, a controversial
provision, was added to this otherwise innocuous bill.
There are arguments on both sides of the issue: Should we transfer
the frigates to Turkey at no cost, a gift from the American taxpayer?
Should we condition that transfer? Should we limit it to perhaps only
one ship?
I'd like to have hearings. I'd like Congress to work its will.
Instead, a bill is brought to the floor on a day we were not scheduled
to be in session for a last-minute discussion and a last-minute vote.
In prior discussions in our committee dealing with providing frigates
to Turkey, we've been told that Turkey lives in a dangerous
neighborhood, that it shares a border with Iran. I would ask: Where on
the Turkish-Iranian border will these frigates be deployed? The last
time an oceangoing vessel has been seen in eastern Anatolia, it was
Noah's Ark.
Now these frigates will be deployed in the Mediterranean, and we've
seen what the Turkish navy does in the Mediterranean. In 1974, there
was the invasion of Cyprus. More recently, there are the actions taken
against Israel and in support of Hamas. In June of 2010, after a Gaza
flotilla attempted to aid the terrorist group Hamas with supplies,
Turkey threatened to send armed naval escorts to back another aid
convoy to Hamas. The Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan, called for Israel
to be punished for interfering with the previous effort to aid Hamas
with the flotilla. In September 2011, after a U.N. report on the Gaza
flotilla was released, Turkey threatened to send an armed naval
presence to the eastern Mediterranean to confront Israel, and Prime
Minister Erdogan said that Israel should expect more naval presence
from Turkey in the area, and I quote:
``Turkish warships will be tasked with protecting the
Turkish boats'' bringing aid to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
The gentleman from New York pointed out how the Turkish navy has
interfered with both the Cypriot and Israeli efforts to exploit natural
gas deposits on the seabed between those two countries. This is
particularly outrageous when you realize that the Cypriot natural gas
fields are off the shores of South Cyprus, an area where Turkey has not
tried to assert its military presence. And they've gone further and
even interfered with Israel exploiting its own natural gas fields off
of its coast.
This is the action of the Turkish navy in the Mediterranean. Is this
something that we should be furthering by two free frigates? I don't
know. We haven't had hearings. We haven't had a markup. We haven't had
a discussion on what limitations, what conditions, and what quantity of
ships should be transferred.
I've come to this floor on over 100 occasions to vote on suspension
bills renaming post offices. Most of those bills were subject to a
markup in the appropriate committee. Shouldn't we give that same level
of attention to the transfer of frigates to Turkey?
Send this bill back to committee. Let us have a real discussion. Let
us follow the rules, not suspend the rules, when we're dealing with a
matter of this importance to our foreign policy in the eastern
Mediterranean.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the soon-to-be ranking
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Engel, for
yielding this time, and I want to thank him for his eloquent opposition
to H.R. 6649.
This is not a noncontroversial bill. I know it's being brought here
on suspension as though it is, and I'm sure in the past when we've had
these transfers of vessels, excess defense materials and so forth,
often that is a noncontroversial action to take. In this case, it's
anything but noncontroversial, and I'm surprised, frankly, that the
majority would bring the bill to the floor in this form.
Turkey is the problem here. There are vessels that are being
transferred to Turkey. These are vessels that apparently are obsolete
from our standpoint, surplus material that can go to them. And, yes,
Turkey is a NATO ally, but it's a problematic ally at best.
At critical moments over a period of many years, when the United
States has looked to its ally Turkey for assistance for some critical
support, Turkey has been absent. You've heard already, discussed at
length here, the unlawful occupation of Cyprus. We're
[[Page H7511]]
talking about 38 years of unlawful occupation of our ally Cyprus. The
adventurism of Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean and its recent
conduct towards Israel has been detailed here at length.
{time} 1330
So what you have is, yes, an American ally but one that has created
some real problems for us and is a destabilizing actor in the eastern
Mediterranean.
You can only characterize Turkey's behavior in that region as gunboat
diplomacy. When you look at its conduct towards Cyprus, towards Israel,
its interference with American commercial interests that are trying to
operate in the exclusive economic zone of these two nations that are
critical to U.S. national security, Turkey has threatened to use force
to stop Texas-based Noble Energy from drilling for oil and gas off the
shores of Cyprus and Israel. Texas-based Noble Energy is an American
company, and yet we are now going to transfer these vessels to Turkey
for further adventurism on the high seas. You've heard this now
detailed on both sides. At one point in the last year and a half,
Turkey threatened to mobilize its air and naval assets to escort ships
to Gaza.
As Congressman Engel says, we're about to enhance those naval assets,
with high anxiety on my part and, I think, on the part of other Members
that they'll be used in furtherance of this same kind of provocative
behavior. If we are going transfer these things, at the very least we
ought to be putting some conditions on this transfer--that no offensive
use of these vessels can be made and that they can't be used to
traverse these exclusive economic zones that we've talked about. But
this is going free of any conditions, and it's why I have severe
reservations about it.
This could be an opportunity to step back and think about how we
conduct our foreign policy. Every bill we pass here matters. It all
makes a difference. This may be on suspension, and it may be getting
rid of excess material, but it's a chance for us to send a powerful
message in terms of the kind of foreign policy that the United States
is going to exercise. Frankly, I don't think that Turkey should be a
beneficiary of this bill given its conduct over many years, but
particularly over the last couple of years. It sends the wrong message.
It rewards bad behavior. For that reason, I oppose it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in a snapshot, this is the background to this bill and
the inclusion of Turkey. I'd like to explain this.
These are DOD requests for our U.S. national security interests.
Turkey is a NATO ally that DOD needs to continue participating in joint
anti-piracy operations for which they would use these frigates. In
light of the deteriorating situation regarding Syria and Turkey's
critical role, DOD insisted that it was timely to do this transfer.
Now, just a few years ago, in 2010, Congress authorized the grant
transfer of three Osprey class minehunter coastal ships to Greece--
Osprey MHC-51, Blackhawk MHC-58, and Shrike MHC-62.
So today's bill, Mr. Speaker, maintains the Turkey-Greece balance.
This lowers costs to our U.S. Navy, as they won't have to deal with
decommissioned frigates. This bill creates U.S. jobs, as the mammoth
portion of maintenance work is done here in the United States.
On the issue of granting to Thailand, to Mexico, to Turkey versus the
selling of the ships to Taiwan, this is what our U.S. Navy says:
The determining factor on the grant or sale of extra
defense articles is always what is in the best interest of
the United States. Granting the hull does not make it free to
the receiving nation. Among the types of extra defense
articles that are granted to partner nations, ships are
unique in that there is always a significant refurbishment
cost paid by the receiving nation. The current legislation
requires the refurbishment of the hulls here in the United
States. This is approximately $60 million per hull; though
with Turkey our experience has been that they will spend even
more. Because of the high cost of refurbishment, we always
try to grant the hulls.
Both Armed Services Committee Chairman McKeon and Intelligence
Committee Chairman Rogers support this bill with the inclusion of
Turkey.
Mr. Speaker, when our military officials tell me that they need these
specific transfers, including to Turkey, because it is in our Nation's
security interests and it advances our priorities, I believe that all
of us here should take note. I trust our U.S. military when it comes to
the operational needs and joint military and anti-piracy activities.
This is why Turkey was included--and not at the last minute under the
cover of night.
No, quite the contrary. For almost 2 weeks, the text of this bill has
been posted not just for our fellow colleagues to review but for all of
the American people to review at their leisure. This bill is a standard
bill that is done at the end of each Congress. Two years ago, as I
stated, under a different majority, a similar annual transfer bill was
considered at the end of the session.
So, in short, Mr. Speaker, this bill helps our ally Taiwan. It
advances our U.S. national security interests, and it reduces costs to
our Navy. It creates jobs for Americans right here at home, and I hope
that our colleagues see it as such.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6649, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________