[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3912-S3914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ARMS SALES NOTIFICATION
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control
Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain
proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification,
the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be
reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the
notification of proposed sales shall be sent to
[[Page S3913]]
the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant
information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received.
If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is
available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations
Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Defense Security
Cooperation Agency,
Arlington, VA.
Hon. Bob Corker,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Pursuant to the reporting requirements
of Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as
amended, we are forwarding herewith Transmittal No. 17-25,
concerning the Army's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to the Government of the Netherlands for defense
articles and services estimated to cost $34 million. After
this letter is delivered to your office, we plan to issue a
news release to notify the public of this proposed sale.
Sincerely,
Greg Kausner
(For J.W. Rixey, Vice Admiral,
USN, Director).
Transmittal No. 17-25
Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to
Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as
amended
(i) Prospective Purchaser: The Government of the
Netherlands.
(ii) Total Estimated Value:
Major Defense Equipment * $30 million.
Other $4 million.
Total $34 million.
(iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or
Services under Consideration for Purchase:
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case NE-B-WFV, implemented in
June 2013, was below congressional notification threshold at
$26.3M ($20M in MDE) and included one hundred and eighty
(180) AGM-114R Hellfire II Missiles and twenty-four (24)
M36E8 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM). The Netherlands
has requested the case be amended to include an additional
seventy (70) AGM-114R Hellfire II missiles. This amendment
will push the current case above the MDE notification
threshold and thus requires notification of the entire case.
Maior Defense Equipment (MDE):
Two hundred fifty (250) AGM-114R Hellfire II Missiles,
Twenty-four (24) M36E8 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM).
Non-MDE includes:
Hellfire missile cutaway model, AGM-114R missile spare
parts, a Launcher Test Station (LTS), LTS spares, two (2)
maintenance support devices, integrated logistics support
tools, M299 launcher software upgrade and testing, aircrew
familiarization training, launcher test station training,
unclassified publications, technical assistance, AN/AWM-101A
software, CATM spare parts and related support services, and
other related elements of logistics and program support.
(iv) Military Department: Army.
(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: NE-B-WFV.
(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed
to be Paid: None.
(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense
Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached
Annex.
(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: July 11, 2017.
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control
Act.
POLICY JUSTIFICATION
Government of the Netherlands--AGM-114R Hellfire Missiles
The Government of the Netherlands has requested the
possible sale of an additional seventy (70) AGM-114R Hellfire
II missiles to a previously implemented case for Hellfire
missiles. The original FMS case, valued at $26.3M, included
one hundred and eighty (180) AGM-114R Hellfire II Missiles
and twenty-four (24) M36E8 Captive Air Training Missiles
(CATM) with various support elements. Therefore, this case is
for a total of two hundred fifty (250) AGM-114R Hellfire II
Missiles, twenty-four (24) M36E8 CATMs, to include Hellfire
missile cutaway model, AGM-114R missile spare parts, a
Launcher Test Station (LTS), LTS spares, two (2) maintenance
support devices, integrated logistics support tools, M299
launcher software upgrade and testing, aircrew
familiarization training, launcher test station training,
unclassified publications, technical assistance, AN/AWM-101A
software, CATM spare parts and related support services, and
other related elements of logistics and program support. The
estimated total case value is $34 million.
This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and
national security objectives of the United States by helping
to improve the security of the Netherlands which has been,
and continues to be an important force for political
stability and economic progress in Europe. It is vital to the
U.S. national interests to assist the Netherlands to develop
and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability.
The proposed sale will improve the Netherlands' capability
to meet current and future threats and will be employed on
the Netherlands' AH-64D Apache helicopters. The Netherlands
will use this capability to strengthen its homeland defense,
deter regional threats, and provide direct support to
coalition operations. The Netherlands will have no difficulty
absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of these missiles will not alter the
basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin. The
purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement
will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the
contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the
assignment of any additional U.S. Government personnel or
contractor representatives to the Netherlands.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness
as a result of this proposed sale.
Transmittal No. 17-25
Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to
Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act
Annex Item No. vii
(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:
1. AGM-114R: The AGM-114R is used against heavy and light
armored targets, thin skinned vehicles, urban structures,
bunkers, caves and personnel. The missile is Inertial
Measurement Unit (IMU) based, with a variable delay fuse,
improved safety and reliability. The highest level for
release of the AGM-114R is SECRET. Software and firmware
documentation (e.g., Data Processing, Software Requirements,
Source Code, Algorithms) are not authorized for disclosure.
The highest level of classified information that could be
disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is
up to and including SECRET. The highest level that must be
disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is up to
and including SECRET. Vulnerability data, countermeasures,
vulnerability/susceptibility analyses, and threat definitions
are classified SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL. Detailed information
to include discussions, reports and studies of system
capabilities, vulnerabilities and limitations that leads to
conclusions on specific tactics or other counter-
countermeasures (CCM) are not authorized for disclosure.
Reverse engineering could reveal SECRET information.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain
knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the
information could be used to develop countermeasures which
might reduce weapons systems effectiveness or be used in the
development of a system with similar or advanced
capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that the Government of the
Netherlands can provide substantially the same degree of
protection for the sensitive technology being released as the
U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary to the
furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security
objectives outlined in the policy justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this
transmittal are authorized for release and export to the
Government of the Netherlands.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, on June 29, 2017, the Agriculture
Committee reported by voice vote the fourth authorization of the
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, more commonly known as PRIA.
For nearly 20 years, PRIA has served as an example of bipartisanship,
bringing together a wide range of stakeholders in support of a
commonsense fee for service programs within the EPA's Office of
Pesticides Programs.
PRIA provides certainty for registrants; much needed resources to the
EPA to ensure regulatory examinations related to human health and
environmental safety risks are done properly; and PRIA also provides
vital funds for pesticide safety training and information to our
Nation's farmworkers.
Unfortunately, after several years of carefully revising and
finalizing an updated Worker Protection Standard, the EPA decided last
month to delay key elements of worker protections, including the much
needed revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule.
Without strong and timely farmworker protections, PRIA simply does
not make sense for some stakeholders who are a part of the coalition.
The funds from PRIA allocated to farmworker protection should be
meaningful resources that complement strong, effective protections and
should not be undermined by changes to EPA's Worker Protection Standard
and the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule that would weaken
farmworker protections.
Therefore, I strongly oppose any future efforts by the EPA to delay
or amend the worker protection rules that the Agency finalized in
November 2015 and January 2017, respectively,
[[Page S3914]]
without undertaking a negotiated rulemaking, which must include all
relevant stakeholders, to ensure that all voices are heard.
I hope the EPA will take a cue from our recent bipartisan and
consensus-based committee action on PRIA and proceed in a similar
fashion should they decide that any delays or adjustments to the Worker
Protection Standards or the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule
are necessary.
Should the Trump EPA dismiss the concerns of farmworkers and
environmental advocates, I fear that last month's committee vote may
unfortunately be the last bipartisan PRIA reauthorization that this
panel is able to report out. I hope that is not the case, and I know
other members of the committee share my concerns on the matter.
Once again, I want to thank Senator Roberts for his leadership. I am
glad we were able to move forward in a bipartisan and consensus manner
to reauthorize PRIA last month.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the ranking member
of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, for
engaging in this important discussion.
I am proud to stand before my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to
discuss some of the bipartisan work that we have accomplished through
regular order at the Agriculture Committee specifically with regard to
H.R. 1029, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of
2017, or PRIA 4.
PRIA, while technical in nature, is critically important with
assisting both EPA in carrying out administrative functions and
industry that relies upon timely, science-based pesticide registration
decisions to get products on the market and in the hands of farmers,
ranchers, and other consumers.
PRIA, historically, has received widespread support from a diverse
coalition of stakeholders, including members of the pesticide
registrant community--both agricultural and nonagricultural uses,
labor, and environmental advocates, which has contributed to Congress's
ability to pass reauthorizations swiftly and by unanimous consent. With
the Widespread support of the PRIA coalition, as illustrated by a
coalition letter addressed to our committee on June 29, 2017, which
expresses support of the amendment to H.R. 1029 and urges swift action,
this effort should be no different.
Our committee held a hearing earlier this year to review this issue
in an open and transparent manner. As we have heard time and time
again, farmers and ranchers want regulatory certainty. EPA and
registrants who rely on PRIA to get new products on the market and in
the hands of farmers, ranchers, and other consumers want certainty.
My colleague raises an issue that has historically been outside the
scope of the technical, fee-based registration process of PRIA. I
certainly understand the concerns that have been raised by some groups
with regard to certain actions EPA is considering with regard to the
Worker Protection Standard and the Certification of Pesticide
Applicators rules. My hope is that EPA and the relevant stakeholders
can constructively discuss areas of concern related to these issues
within the framework of our Federal regulatory process without
jeopardizing PRIA.
Current authority for PRIA expires at the end of this fiscal year.
With that deadline in mind, our recent committee action is timely and
necessary to get PRIA updated.
Should PRIA's authority lapse, pesticide registration will not be
available for a wide range of crops that rely on innovative and new
solutions for pest protection, and a lapse will have a negative impact
on the products requiring registration that are used to protect public
health and ensure public safety.
It is important that we get PRIA across the finish line not only to
provide certainty to the industry but to also provide new products to
growers for crop protection and to consumers to protect public health,
and the timely reauthorization provides resources to ensure safety
education components are maintained.
I thank my colleague Senator Stabenow and other members of the
Agriculture Committee for working with me on this issue together and in
a bipartisan manner. I look forward to working with Senator Stabenow
and the coalition in support of this legislation to get this bill
across the Senate floor as quickly as possible and ultimately enacted
into law.
____________________