Jim Bridenstine

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I just wanted to take a moment because there's a lot of information out there, Madam Speaker, about what's going on in our country right now--and a lot of misinformation. I thought it would be appropriate just to set the record straight. A little over a week ago we sent a bill to the Senate. That bill funded the entire government. It kept the government open and it defunded ObamaCare in its entirety. Senator Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats stripped from that bill the defunding mechanism and they sent it back to the House. So we looked at it and we said, What can we do that they might agree to? Well, the President has already unilaterally delayed major provisions of ObamaCare, including the employer mandate. He did that because he saw the jobs report. People were being forced from full-time work to part-time work. Many of them were being forced out of a job. In my district, I talked to an employer that has 57 employees; they're trying to get down to 49. And guess what they did. This is happening across our country. So the President unilaterally decided he's going to delay the employer mandate. So we said, okay, if he wants to delay that for 1 year, let's give him an opportunity to delay the entire ObamaCare for 1 year. So we passed a bill that funded the government, kept the government open, and we sent it to the United States Senate with a 1-year delay of ObamaCare. We did that at about 1 o'clock in the morning. Interestingly, the next day, the Senate Democrats took the day off, and the day after that they didn't even show up until 2 in the afternoon. This was my first indication--as somebody who's new to Congress, I've seen a lot of crazy things--it was my first indication that maybe they wanted a government shutdown. Astonishingly, they just didn't show up. When they did show up, they tabled it. So then we said, okay, well, what if we just delay the individual mandate? He has already given multibillion-dollar corporations a 1-year reprieve. He's given Members of Congress a subsidy. It's not written in the law; in fact, it's illegal. He had a meeting with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and the next thing you know Members of Congress get a subsidy. So we said, look, if Members of Congress are going to get a subsidy and multibillion-dollar corporations are going to get a break, why don't we give hardworking Americans a 1-year reprieve? So we passed a bill that funded the government, kept the government open, and delayed the individual mandate for only 1 year. Of course Harry Reid took that bill and he immediately moved to table it. So then at about 1 o'clock in the morning we decided, okay, let's just ask for a conference so that we can have some people from our side and some people from their side get together and work this out. Astonishingly, they didn't even want that. If you can imagine that, they didn't want to sit down and talk to Members of Congress. Interestingly, the President called on the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, to go to the White House, and he went and he talked to the President. Guess what the President told him? The President said, We're not going to negotiate. He said, We're not going to negotiate on the continuing resolution to fund the government, nor are we going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. This is not how it's supposed to work in our constitutional Republic in split government, but that's where we are. This is indicative of the fact that this is Harry Reid's shutdown. This is President Barack Obama's shutdown. This is not the Republican shutdown. We have done everything we could to keep this government open, and Harry Reid and President Barack Obama have shut it down. But here's the good thing. Here's what we have done: We passed a bill, and that bill said we're going to fund the troops. We passed it unanimously in the House of Representatives. We passed it unanimously in the Senate. The President signed it into law. That's a good thing. Then we had another bill. We thought we could pass it under suspension, so it would require a two-thirds vote. That bill was to fund the veterans of the United States, the Veterans Administration. Interestingly, Members of this body on the other side of the aisle killed it, if you can imagine that. It is every bit as indefensible to kill funding our veterans as it is to not fund our troops, every bit as indefensible. Then, after that occurred, we wanted a bill that would fund our National Guard and our Reserve. I'm a reservist. I've been on Active Duty. I've been a reservist. I can tell you firsthand that reservists serve this country every bit as honorably as those on the Active Duty side. So we wanted to fund them. And guess what? We brought up a bill. We passed it under a rule so it only required a simple majority, and we passed it. We sent it to the Senate, and they haven't done anything with it. This is where we are. Harry Reid and Barack Obama are holding our veterans hostage and they're holding the National Guard and our reservists hostage to ObamaCare. It's that simple. And, by the way, it's not just to ObamaCare. It's one very simple provision that is only a 1-year delay of the individual mandate. When you think about it, it's really they're holding it hostage to having a meeting. At the end, we just said, Okay, let's have a meeting. They said, No, we're not going to have a meeting, and, oh, by the way, we're shutting down the government. That's where we are. So I just wanted to clarify that for my constituents back home. We are opening the government one bill at a time, and we're being blocked by the Senate. Certainly it's in nobody's best interest in this country to have a government shutdown. It's nothing any of us wanted. Yet Harry Reid and Barack Obama gave it to us.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3230 for our National Guard and Reserve. I would be astonished if any Member of Congress votes against this bill. In the midst of a shutdown, due to the President and Harry Reid's unwillingness to negotiate, Congress came together, and we acted to fund our Active Duty troops. Following this vote, the radical left voted against funding our veterans; they voted against funding our national parks; and they even voted against funding cancer patients. Now we are trying to pay the Reserve and Guard components, who have fought valiantly for this country all over the world. The citizen warriors of my State of Oklahoma and across this country should not suffer because the radical left, which includes our President, is unwilling to negotiate. Voting against our Guard and Reserve servicemembers is every bit as indefensible as voting against our Active Duty servicemembers and our vets. I urge my colleagues to act responsibly and to fund our Reserve and Guard.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Thank you for your leadership here in the House of Representatives, and also thank you to my friend from California. I would just like to maybe have a brief dialogue with the gentleman from Texas if that's okay. It wasn't too long ago we passed a bill to fund the entire government. That was something that was hard for a lot of us to swallow because there's a whole lot of things in a continuing resolution that we're not, frankly, interested in funding, but we swallowed that pill because it defunded ObamaCare. We sent it to the Senate. Harry Reid stripped out the defunding, and he sent it right back to the House of Representatives. So we said, Okay, let's just take 1 year. The President has already delayed major provisions of ObamaCare. He saw the jobs report. People were shifting from full-time work to part-time work. Some people were losing their jobs. People were losing their health insurance. Health insurance premiums were spiking. Companies were trying to get down below 49 employees. So we said, Okay, the President wants to delay major provisions of ObamaCare, let's give him a year. We'll delay it for a year and fund the entire government. Again, I voted for that. I would just like to ask the gentleman from Texas, I'm new here. I've been here for 9 months now. We passed that at about 1 o'clock in the morning on a Saturday night--I guess it was a Sunday morning--and the next day the Democrats didn't show up. The next day after that, they didn't even come in until 2 in the afternoon. I would just, with your vast wisdom and experience, sir, maybe you could clarify for the American people what was going on. I mean, we're on the brink of a government shutdown and they just didn't show up. Was it maybe that they were looking for a shutdown?

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. When you think about what we did last night, we talk about common ground a lot in the House of Representatives. It is a couple of words I hear all the time: common ground, common ground, common ground. Here we had an opportunity last night in the midst of a government shutdown knowing that we have warriors coming back from the battlefield--I am one of them myself; I flew combat in Iraq and Afghanistan--and we wanted to pass a bill where there is strong common ground, we want to fund the Veterans Administration, we want to make sure that our veterans get the care they need. Yesterday, on the floor of the House, the Democrats in this body killed that. Maybe you could shed some light on why they would want to do that?

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. The only thing--and I have thought about this a lot--the only thing I can possibly think of why they would not want to fund the veterans is that they want to hold the veterans hostage for something else, namely ObamaCare. That is the only thing I can think of.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Kelly from Pennsylvania, for yielding me the time. I would also like to thank my good friend, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe, who has been the upper Chamber's fiercest opponent of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I am proud that Senator Inhofe also stands firmly with Senator Cruz in his fight to defund ObamaCare. There seems to be some confusion about that back in Oklahoma, but he has been standing with Senator Cruz from the beginning. Mr. Speaker, already this year, the President tried to ban guns he thinks look scary. They don't operate any differently--they just look scary--so he tried to ban them. Rejected by Congress, the President tried to create what is effectively a national gun registry. The American people and their representatives rejected that plan as well. In response, President Obama today had his Secretary of State sign what is effectively an international gun control treaty that will ultimately force all of us to register our guns and our names and our information into an international database. President Obama once again demonstrated his hostility to the Constitution, to the Second Amendment, and to the U.S. sovereignty by signing the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. This President is fundamentally antagonistic toward both our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and American independence from international bodies. Why is the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty so dangerous? First, the treaty is ambiguously worded. Its basic terms are not even defined, which permits gun-grabbing U.N. bureaucrats the widest possible interpretive scope. We all know that the U.N. gun-grabbers will interpret this treaty just as loosely as the President interprets the Constitution of the United States. Second, the Arms Trade Treaty is a direct shot at the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Lawful ownership and use of firearms-- including for self-defense--are basic constitutional rights. The treaty does not recognize this. In fact, the Arms Trade Treaty ``encourages governments to collect the identities of individual end users of imported firearms at the national level.'' This is the core of a national gun registry. The treaty also creates a national ``responsibility'' to prevent the ``diversion'' of firearms to illegal trade. Since illicit trade is not defined, does this mean one American selling a gun to another American counts as illegal? Who is to say? Groups like Amnesty International have already stated that the Arms Trade Treaty is a ``start'' down the path of control for ``domestic internal gun sales.'' This is international gun control, plain and simple. Mr. Speaker, the Arms Trade Treaty is fully consistent with the President's policy of ceding more U.S. sovereignty to international bodies. He's pushed the Senate to ratify treaties that do nothing except diminish U.S. sovereignty. These treaties include the U.N. Conventions on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, the Rights of Children, and the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Does this mean that the United States finds no morally compelling interest in protecting disabled persons, children, or women? Of course not. In each of these, cases U.S. domestic law imposes far higher standards of protection than many of the countries that have ratified all three of these treaties. For example, such beacons of human freedom as Cuba, China, Nigeria, Russia, and Syria have ratified all three of these treaties. North Korea and Iran have ratified two of the three. Unlike these countries, though, the United States actually upholds its treaty obligations. Mr. Speaker, the Arms Trade Treaty is a perfect example of a dangerous trend in international legal thinking called ``transnationalism.'' The goal of transnationalists is to ``circumvent resistant legislatures'' and ``download'' so-called ``global norms.'' We've heard the President talk about global norms ad nauseam. But the idea is to circumvent resistant legislatures and download global norms into U.S. and other domestic law. Let me say that again: the transnationalists pushing the Arms Trade Treaty, like Amnesty International, want to avoid Congress, they want to avoid us--the people's representatives--and impose international law from foreign bodies. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the pro-Arms Trade Treaty supporters need a lesson in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. We choose those that govern us and under which laws we live. We should not give up our God-given rights and liberties to foreign bodies such as the United Nations. The Second Amendment is not up for debate. The individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms is not a matter of discussion for foreigners. The President will treat the Arms Trade Treaty as binding on America no matter what the Senate does. He can't impose gun control in Congress so he's going to use an international treaty instead. I pray that the Senate rips this treaty to pieces and that our next President removes America's signature and, with it, this hideous assault on our Constitution.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the minority whip would like Republicans to help in fixing this bill, considering that they weren't interested at all in Republican input when they passed it in the middle of the night with a pure party-line vote. I think everybody understood that the promise of ObamaCare has been thoroughly discredited, but the worst is yet to come. The authors of the bill promised that it would bring down the cost of health care, but premiums have gone up substantially. They promised that if you like your health care plan and the doctor you have, you can keep it. Now, when you go to the President's healthcare.gov Web site, it says that ``Depending on the plan you choose in the marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor.'' Many supporters promised that the bill would actually create jobs, but even Teamsters Union President James Hoffa has now said that the bill will ``destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek.'' A small group of Members, in 2010, led by former Congressman Bart Stupak, had the chance to inviolably prohibit any funds in ObamaCare from being used to pay for abortions or abortion-inducing drugs. Unfortunately, they caved. And now, companies like Hobby Lobby are being forced into court to prevent ObamaCare from requiring that they provide health care services which directly violate their conscience and their religious principles, values and rights that are enshrined in the First Amendment. The IRS, too, has irrefutably proven the political nature and intimidation tactics of the work it performs every day, an attitude that will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, carry over into its tag-team partnership with HHS in enforcing ObamaCare. Let's pass H.R. 2009 and start putting a stop to this madness before it gets even worse.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, the House passed H.R. 2397, Fiscal Year 2014 Department of Defense Appropriations Act on July 24, 2013. My amendment, made in order as Amendment #77, was adopted by the House in En Bloc package number one offered by Mr. Young of Florida. I want to be clear about the intent of this amendment. The amendment reduces the Defense-wide Operations and Maintenance account by $11 million and reallocates $10 million split evenly between Army and Air National O&M accounts for National Guard State Partnership Program (SPP) activities. Specifically, this amendment would reduce the lowest priority internal media activities within the Defense Media Activity (DMA) Operations and Maintenance account. The Department should not apply this reduction to DMA overseas media activities. My intent is that the increases in Army and Air National Guard O&M accounts specifically fund the National Guard State Partnership Program. I would like to thank my colleagues, Ms. Bordallo and Mr. Wilson, for co-sponsoring this amendment. These two members are champions of the National Guard and its security cooperation programs. The Bordallo- Wilson bill, H.R. 641, codified SPP in statue and became Section 1204 of this year's House-passed National Defense Authorization Act. The State Partnership Program is a vital component of the DOD's security cooperation mission. In contrast, Defense Media Activity includes numerous ``nice to have'' activities such as the Pentagon Channel and all of those glossy brochures that fill our in-boxes during budget season. This very modest funding readjustment signals Congress's commitment to fully leveraging SPP as a security cooperation tool. SPP is particularly important given the budget cuts to active duty deployed forces that will be less able to fulfill these requirements. SPP is a DOD security cooperation program run by the National Guard that links state and territorial National Guards to military and civilian personnel in 70 partner nations. Almost every state and territory participates in SPP. In my state of Oklahoma, our National Guard has developed a robust relationship with Azerbaijan, a country increasingly important to energy security in Europe and Israel. Unlike some security cooperation programs, SPP is not a ``talking shop'' where nothing of substance takes place. Typical SPP missions include: 1. Subject matter expert exchanges 2. Demonstration and training of certain capabilities and technologies 3. Senior leader visits; and 4. Mentor and liaison teams in which National Guardsmen actually embed with partner personnel on operations. In times of budget cuts and sequestration, regional combatant commanders will reduce active duty participation in theater security cooperation activities. SPP can help plug this hole in support of joint COCOM and Chief of Mission objectives. No activities can occur without the joint approval of the COCOM and Chief of Mission. The types of activities eligible for funding are limited to those within the National Guard's core competencies. By using the National Guard, SPP adds value in ways that, frankly, active duty forces cannot match. SPP brings three unique attributes to the table. First, SPP creates enduring relationships between particular individuals over the course of careers. Some National Guard and foreign military personnel have literally been training with each other for over two decades. As a Navy pilot, I can tell you that trust is indispensable in terms of fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with allied forces. Trust is built through constantly engaging with our allies and friends. Second, the National Guard's dual-status gives it expertise in certain operations that partner nations must execute regularly. Our National Guardsmen are experts in disaster relief, border security, search and rescue, and civil disorder operations, among other operations. Finally, SPP brings our states and territories into security cooperation and provide conduits for developing non-security relationships such as strengthening economic or educational exchanges. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of the work the Oklahoma National Guard has done working with Azerbaijan. My amendment is a modest step toward properly funding this vital program.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, the recent news of the kidnapping of a U.S. Marine Corporal Armando Torres in Mexico is an incredibly tragic story. Corporal Torres was kidnapped on May 14, 2013 while visiting his father's ranch in La Barranca, Tamaulipas, Mexico just across from the U.S. border. The Torres family believes the ranch was the target of drug cartels as transshipment for drugs. I strongly urge those holding Corporal Torres to release him immediately. As a Navy pilot with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe that Congress must send a message to our government and Mexico's government that we do not turn our backs on our men and women in uniform. I urge the U.S. State Department to prioritize securing the release of Corporal Torres in terms of our foreign policy with Mexico. As a member of Congress, I will do everything in my power to bring attention to Corporal Torres's kidnapping.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Dr. Fleming, for your leadership on this. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I support this amendment to prohibit the appointment of atheist chaplains. My constituents back in Oklahoma are shaking their heads. The secular left is so invested in ripping God from everything that I must stand here with my friend Dr. Fleming in order to prohibit Obama's Department of Defense from establishing an oxymoron--atheist chaplains. Military chaplains have a duty to faithfully serve all servicemembers and to facilitate the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. As a Navy pilot with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I recognize that war affects all servicemembers--believers and atheists. However, those without faith have plenty of options, from counselors to psychologists, from whom to seek emotional support. Why does the secular left insist on ruining the integrity of the chaplaincy in order to serve their agenda of institutionalized godlessness? I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Walorski amendment to prohibit transfer or release of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Yemen. Mr. Chairman, over the weekend, hundreds of convicts, including senior members of al Qaeda, broke out of Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail. The Abu Ghraib prison break perfectly demonstrates that most countries cannot credibly secure highly dangerous terrorists, including Yemen. Indeed, Yemen has a particularly bad record of prison breaks involving al Qaeda terrorists. In December 2011, several al Qaeda militants escaped from an Aden prison. In 2006, 23 al Qaeda militants broke out of a Sanaa jail and established the core leadership of al Qaeda in Yemen, a group which has since metastasized into al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Given Yemen's terrible track record, it seems obvious that we should not consider transferring a single detainee to Yemen. Yet President Obama is so ideologically committed to fulfilling his misguided promise of closing Guantanamo Bay that I fear he may try. Mr. Chairman, recidivism among the transferred Gitmo detainees is a huge problem. According to the Director of National Intelligence, the latest report, 97 of the 603 transferred Gitmo detainees have re- engaged in terrorism. A further 72 are suspected of re-engaging. Nearly one-third of all transferred Gitmo detainees are either confirmed or suspected of getting back in the fight. Clearly, Congress needs to get involved and set acceptable boundaries on the President. As a Navy pilot with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you that our troops' job is already difficult enough. We don't have to fight the same people twice.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I rise today to offer an amendment that will provide temporary relief and assurance for communities who otherwise will soon be hit by some of the sharpest increases in water storage prices ever seen. My amendment is simple. It prohibits the Army Corps of Engineers from using any official resources or funds to set new, increased water storage prices for municipal use on any non-hydropower lake that was built by the Corps. The Corps would only be permitted to set the same rates on local communities that were in place when the lake was completed, a dollar figure that is well documented and not subject to any sort of interpretation by the Corps. A source of funding for the operation lakes owned by the Corps of Engineers is derived from water storage contracts with municipalities. The formula for pricing of water storage contracts on Corps lakes is defined legislatively as ``current cost.'' This fixed formula creates a prohibitive financial burden on the citizens of municipalities desiring to contract with the Corps and, as a result, the Corps does not receive any income for the operation and maintenance of the lake. In drought-stricken areas like Bartlesville, Oklahoma, the Corps' current flawed methodology threatens to raise water storage prices on local residents from around 6 cents to nearly a dollar for the same 1,000 gallons of water. It also raises the total fiscal impact of water storage prices on Bartlesville from around $1.6 million a year to more than $24 million a year. Earlier this year, the Senate adopted by unanimous consent an amendment by Senator Inhofe to their WRDA bill that requires the GAO to complete a study on the Corps' outdated and flawed methodology when it comes to these water storage prices. As the WRDA bill develops in the House and hopefully moves towards conference and enactment, I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on a long-term legislative solution to replace this outdated formula with one that is fair, reasonable, and affordable to all parties. By adopting this amendment today, we can provide 1 more year of certainty and assurance for communities like Bartlesville by ensuring that they do not see outrageous increases in their water storage prices that they quite simply cannot afford. The American taxpayer spends billions of dollars every year to fund the operations of the Army Corps of Engineers; but by adopting this amendment, we can ensure that none of those funds are used to enforce a formula that is outdated, unfair, and unjust as we move through the WRDA bill and other avenues towards a long-term solution. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, the President decided to raise energy prices on all Americans, which adversely affects the poor the most--and he didn't ask Congress. The President decided to unilaterally reduce our strategic nuclear deterrent when more countries than ever have nuclear weapons. No treaty. That would require the consent of the Senate. The President has decided which health insurance plans the people are allowed to have. The President didn't ask Congress--or the people for that matter. The list goes on. In America, we are either moving more towards liberty or more towards tyranny. I think we should ask ourselves what tyranny would look like in the United States of America: An executive branch that picks and chooses which laws it wants to enforce; a judicial branch that would allow it to do so on the grounds that the executive branch did not defend the laws in court; the legislative branch would have very limited power because they turned it all over to the President; and the people would feel like they had no representation. The President told us he was going to fundamentally transform America, and I think that is exactly what he is doing.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. In a report commissioned by the Department of Justice, Dr. Anand, a fetal pain expert, wrote: It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children. The reality of Dr. Anand's statement is seen in the fact that surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children before performing neonatal surgery. The truth is that at 20 weeks these unborn children feel every bit of pain inflicted on them in the name of ``choice'' and in the name of ``convenience.'' Mr. Speaker, what we do with this knowledge says a lot about us. If we turn a blind eye to the agony and suffering of our most vulnerable, can we say that we are still a Nation that pursues life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If we willingly embrace cruelty in the name of ``choice,'' then can we say with integrity that we continue to secure the blessings of liberty not only for ourselves but for our posterity? The good news is that, for those who have been affected by the pain of abortion, there is one who chose, who made a real choice, to endure pain on behalf of all of us, and by His stripes we are healed. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, let us remember that even though we may not be able to hear their cries we are not absolved from the guilt of ignoring their pain.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I appreciate that. It is an honor to be here, and thank you for inviting me to participate in this. I have been certainly accused of maybe being critical of the President from time to time, as many of us Republicans are sometimes, but I'd like to share a few points where we agree, the President and I. I've got a number of quotes here, and I think these quotes cross party lines and certainly indicate how important fathers are in the lives of their children. Here is a quote from our President, Barack Obama: We need fathers to realize that responsibility doesn't end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child; it's the courage to raise one. Here is another quote from our President: I wish I had a father who was around and involved. That's a profound statement, and certainly it shows a great deal of courage by our President to say that. I remember when I was a young child in the Cub Scouts, the Pinewood Derby came around every year. My father, my brother, and I would spend a great deal of time weighing our little Pinewood Derby car to make sure that it weighed precisely 5 ounces. We would spend all night graphiting the wheels because we wanted our little Pinewood Derby car to be the absolute fastest car that we could possibly make it. Whether we won or lost, it didn't matter. We were going to make this little car as fast as we could possibly make it. I also remember not too long ago my 7-year-old, who was 6, wanted to participate in the Pinewood Derby in the Cub Scouts himself. And because of my relationship that I had with my father and the time that we spent involved in that project, it was a desire of my heart to be involved in his Pinewood Derby to the same extent. And I'm proud to say that when I was a child, we won the Pinewood Derby; and I'm proud to say that as Walker's dad, together we won the Pinewood Derby when he was 6 years old. These are the things that I think are critically important in the life of a child. Some other quotes from our President: Obama has said that his hardest but the most rewarding job is being a father. I think that is absolutely true, as well. I want to quote some statistics here: Currently there are 24 million children in America living in a home without their biological father. The World Family Map report by Child Trends found that even when controlling for income, children who live with both parents have better educational outcomes than children living with one or no parents. Fathers play an important role in teaching children life lessons and preparing them to succeed in school and in life. Some other quotes: According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, a father's involvement in education of his children is associated with a higher probability of A's for their children. Interestingly, I remember when I was in fourth grade, there was a competition called Math Olympiads. My dad was a mathematician, and he came from a family of mathematicians. And my dad would spend hours with me working on these math problems that were really college-level math problems. We would go over and over these problems again and again. I remember in fourth grade, when it came time to do Math Olympiads, there were just five problems, and if you could get one or two of them right, it was really tremendous for a fourth grader. I remember at the end of the first Math Olympiad, I had four out of five correct. And it wasn't because I was smart, and it wasn't because I was brilliant. It had nothing to do with that at all-- in fact, quite the contrary. But what it had to do with was the fact that I had a dad who was so engaged, so involved, and so interested in making sure not that I would get an A in the class--quite frankly, that was really not relevant to him. What he cared about was whether I learned the material. I remember taking tests in sixth grade. I would do the math problems entirely different than how the teacher taught and the teacher would count it wrong. My dad would go to the school and he would say, you know, he may have done it differently than you taught him, but he did it the way we taught at home because he's preparing for higher math in a different year. Having a dad involved in your education that way is something that was tremendously important to me as I was growing up. And certainly, now that I am a father myself and I have a child in first, now soon to be second grade--and of course other children on the way that are entering kindergarten and a 1-year old at home, these are areas where it's important for me. There is a generational trend. When a child has that impact from their father, certainly it's an impact on them that they want to have on their own children. So that's why it is so important for fathers to be involved in the lives of their children. That's my personal experience. Children with involved fathers are more likely to do well in school. They have a better sense of well-being, they have fewer behavioral problems. When fathers are actively involved in the upbringing of their children, their children demonstrate greater self control and a greater ability to take initiative. Along with Father's Day, this June will also bring an important announcement--the Supreme Court's much-anticipated rulings on both the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8. These cases have put the national spotlight on this issue in a new way and provide an opportunity for Americans to discuss the question: What is marriage? Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be a father and a mother to children, and the institution of marriage is intended for life. This is very important when it comes to the rearing of children. A few more statistics. In 2012, about one-third of all children lived in families without their biological father present. According to some estimates, as many as 50 percent of children who are currently under age 18 will spend or have spent a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their biological father. Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children raised in two-parent families, with both biological parents, to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes. In 2011, the poverty rate for children living in homes without a father was 48 percent, compared with 11 percent for children living with married-couple families. Single-parent families are more likely to be poor than two-parent families, especially if the lone parent is the mother. That's why it's so important for fathers, and that's why I commend the President when he talks about the importance of fathers. Here's a final quote from our President: As fathers, we need to be involved in our children's lives not just when it's convenient or easy, and not just when they're doing well, but when it's difficult and thankless, and they're struggling. That is when they need us most. With that, I thank the gentlelady from Missouri.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank my friend from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp) for offering amendment No. 236. He is a champion for religious freedom. As a Navy pilot with Iraq and Afghanistan combat tours, I am concerned that senior Air Force officials have taken advice from an anti-Christian zealot when drafting guidance on culture and standards. The president of the badly misnamed Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Mr. Mikey Weinstein, has described Christians as human monsters and monstrously savage, responsible for racism, bigotry, and prejudice. He even called the presence of committed Christians in the military a national security threat comparable to al Qaeda. Mr. Chairman, we're not asking to approve the military's calendar appointments, but given this situation, Congress needs to know when the military meets with anti-Christian fanatics on issues regarding religious liberty. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Turner amendment. The President, as everybody remembers, told then-Russian President Medvedev that we would have more flexibility to cut a secret deal--of course, he didn't use the word ``secret,'' but I think we all understand that's what it was--on missile defense after the 2012 elections. We also know that the National Security Adviser, Tom Donilon, conveyed a letter from the President to Russian President Putin that reportedly proposed a missile defense agreement that would avoid congressional review and consent. Given this administration's lack of transparency, I have no confidence in the President's abilities to negotiate on missile defense or on nuclear weapons. Mr. Chairman, missile defenses protect our Nation. They protect our deployed forces and our allies from attack. Our nuclear deterrent is a stabilizing force that promotes restraint and assures our allies of security. Given our economic and military superiority currently, we have military dominance when compared to Russia. I personally don't trust this President to negotiate it away. And I think it's important that we, as Members of Congress, should have oversight here.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I would just like to make a couple of points. Number one, these troops are not for NATO. These troops are for the European Command. These troops are for the United States of America. I'm a Navy pilot myself. I've been a part of units that deploy, that rotate. What I can say is that, when units rotate, the training that we get with our allies is less robust and is just not as good as if you have a permanent presence where you can integrate with our NATO allies. It's true that we are integrated with our NATO allies, but it is also true that these troops are for European Command.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendments, No. 116 and No. 158, in the en bloc package. My first amendment requires the Department of Defense to annually assess military and security developments involving the Russian Federation. To be quite frank, the Obama administration's so-called ``reset policy'' with Russia is in shambles. Moscow has been intransigent on Iran, continues to supply Syria with weapons, occupies Georgia, has repeatedly threatened our NATO allies with nuclear strikes, and continually seeks to undermine the political independence of former Soviet satellite states. Vladimir Putin announced plans to spend about $750 billion to modernize the Russian military. The Putin build-up envisions modernized and robust nuclear, space and cyber forces. By the way, Madam Chairman, not too long ago Putin called the Soviet Union's collapse ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe for the century.'' Russian military modernization concerns us and our allies and our friends, particularly those in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. It is imperative that Congress understand the implications of Russia's military buildup for our bilateral relationship and regional stability.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with Sun output and ocean cycles. During the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D.--long before cars, power plants, or the Industrial Revolution--temperatures were warmer than today. During the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1900 A.D., temperatures were cooler. Neither of these periods were caused by any human activity. Even climate change alarmists admit that the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years. But here's what we absolutely know. We know that Oklahoma will have tornadoes when the cold jet stream meets the warm gulf air. And we also know that this President spends 30 times as much money on global warming research as he does on weather forecasting and warning. For this gross misallocation, the people of Oklahoma are ready to accept the President's apology, and I intend to submit legislation to fix this.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, the President's Justice Department sold weapons to narcoterrorists south of our border who killed one of our finest. The President's State Department lied about Benghazi with false information provided by the White House. The President's Attorney General authorized spying on a Fox News journalist and his family for reporting on a North Korean nuclear test. The President's Justice Department confiscated phone records of the Associated Press because they reported on a thwarted terrorist attack. The President's Treasury Department uses the IRS to target political opposition. The President's Health and Human Services Secretary pressures the insurance companies she is supposed to regulate to promote ObamaCare, which is the same law she uses to force citizens to pay for abortion- inducing drugs against their religious liberties. Mr. Speaker, the President's dishonesty, incompetence, vengefulness, and lack of moral compass lead many to suggest that he is not fit to lead. The only problem is that his Vice President is equally unfit and even more embarrassing.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of Representatives that on May 21, 2013, I was unable to participate in three recorded votes due to my participation, along with the entire Oklahoma delegation, in a tour of tornado affected areas in and around Moore, Oklahoma. I wish to submit for the record a summary of these bills, as well as statement on how I would have voted on each had I been present. I would also like to note that these are the only votes I have missed so far as a Member of Congress. H.R. 1412, the Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013, passed the House by a vote of 416-0. Had I been present, I would have voted for H.R. 1412. The bill incentivizes private sector companies to participate in Veterans Administration (VA) on-the-job-training (OJT) training programs by reducing the level of employer contributions. It also requires the VA to enter into OJT agreements with other federal departments and agencies, which will encourage the federal government to hire veterans by fully leveraging available authorities. Finally, H.R. 1412 offsets any additional costs by extending for one month the VA's authority to pay reduced pensions to veterans using Medicaid- approved nursing facilities. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 1412 would reduce direct spending about $14 million from FY14-FY18 and produce an ``insignificant effect on discretionary spending.'' H.R. 1344, the Helping Heroes Fly Act, passed the House by a vote of 413-0. Had I been present, I would have voted for this bill. H.R. 1344 directs the Department of Defense to develop processes to expedite airport screening for severely injured and disabled service members and veterans. H.R. 324, to grant the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the First Special Service Force, in recognition of its superior service during World War II, passed the House by a vote of 415-0. I co- sponsored this bill and I would have voted for it had I been present. The bill authorizes two Congressional Gold Medals for the First Special Service Force, a joint Canadian-U.S. special operations unit that served with distinction during WWII. The First Special Service Force was the precursor unit for both the U.S. and Canadian Special Operations forces.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I rise today as an Eagle Scout and one who has a stake in the future of our scouting programs. Some of us in America still believe in the concept of sexual morality, that sex is intended for one man and one woman within the institution of marriage. Organizations that hold this philosophy and promote it among our youth should be commended--or at least, you would think, tolerated. Unfortunately, the intolerant left bullies and browbeats private organizations like the Boy Scouts into accepting their philosophy. Notice, they didn't start their own organization; they went after the Boy Scouts of America. The left's agenda is not about tolerance and it's not about diversity of thought. It's about promoting a world view of relativism, where there is no right and wrong, then using the full force of the government to silence opposition and reshape organizations like the Boy Scouts into instruments for social change. To my friends on the left, this is not tolerance. But here's the good news about true tolerance: the most tolerant One of all has the ability to redeem us all.