Richard Hudson

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this amendment, I rise to speak in support of eliminating the Essential Air Service program. I thank my colleague from California (Mr. McClintock) for his work on this amendment. Another Californian once said, ``There's nothing more permanent than a temporary government program.'' Mr. Chairman, I'm sure all my colleagues recognize that famous line from former President Ronald Reagan. His statement was accurate then, just as it is accurate now, regarding the Essential Air Service program. This program was intended to be temporary. It was created as a transition program in the seventies after airline deregulation to help rural airports adjust to a free market system. We are now more than 25 years after the intended end date of 1988, and the taxpayers are still footing the bill. This is yet another example of Washington's spending problem, Mr. Chairman. It has to stop. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, North Carolina state representative Jerry Dockham has been a public servant of Davidson County for 23 years. Appointed to the North Carolina House of Representatives in 1990, Representative Dockham was continuously elected to serve 12.5 terms to represent the 80th District in the NC House. A business graduate of Wake Forest University, Jerry operated an insurance company in his hometown of Denton, North Carolina for 38 years. During his time in the North Carolina House, Jerry served as Chairman of the Committee on Insurance, Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Banking and a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Commerce and Job Development. Representative Dockham was consistently ranked in the top 10% of House legislators by the North Carolina Free Enterprise Foundation. He has received numerous awards, such as, `Legislator of the Year' by the North Carolina Society of Anesthesiologists and the `Emergency Medicine Advocate of the Year Award' by the North Carolina College of Emergency Physicians. The husband of a teacher assistant, Representative Dockham has served on the Davidson County Community College Board of Trustees for 26 years. Jerry is an active member of his community, serving as a member of the Thomasville Chamber of Commerce and a member of the Denton Lions Club. He and his wife, Louise, are the proud parents of Andy and Matthew. In his farewell speech on the floor of the North Carolina House, Representative Dockham left his colleagues with these words of advice: ``I would just leave you with two requests. First of all, always honor this chamber. Always honor the House of Representatives and what it stands for. This is the People's House. And secondly, I would ask you this: always be kind to each other. We're down here, we're away from home, we're away from our family and we deserve to be kind to each other. Whether you agree or disagree with someone, it doesn't cost anything to be kind to that person.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise to call his extraordinary service and devotion to North Carolina to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker. It's an honor to be here tonight. I'm a new Member of Congress. I was elected just last year. I ran for Congress the first time I had ever run for office because I want to come up here and fight for people, because there are folks back home that are frustrated, they feel like their government is not being responsive to their needs. So I'm here to represent them and be a voice for those people. I think of the homebuilder in Monroe, North Carolina, who told me he's just struggling to keep his head above water and he'll take any kind of work just to keep his crew intact so he can keep them together. He'll do remodeling work or anything. He's not even worried about profit so much as being able to keep afloat. I think about the families across the Eighth District of North Carolina who are looking to us for solutions. That's why I'm here tonight to join this conversation, to talk about immigration reform. The key to immigration reform, as far as I'm concerned is, we've got to look at compassion and we've got to look at fairness. When it comes to fairness, we are a Nation of immigrants, but we're also a Nation of laws. So we've got to make sure we're enforcing the law in this country and we're respecting the rule of law when we're looking at making changes to immigration policy. We also need to look with compassion on those who have come here to the United States seeking that American Dream when we try to determine what we're going to do going down the road. But I think the key to this is the approach we're taking here in the House of Representatives. The Senate has passed an immigration bill. It's a bill that was cobbled together behind closed doors. It was a bill that in my opinion went too far too fast. We're taking a much more thoughtful approach here in the House. We're going to go through the committee process. We're going to bring legislation to the floor so that we can debate these key issues affecting immigration as single issues and let the American people take part in this conversation and tell us what they think about issues like border security. Now, the key to immigration reform in my opinion is we've got to secure the borders first, and any legislation that we pass out of this Chamber, any agreement we make with the Senate on immigration, we've got to have a trigger so that no other pieces of this immigration puzzle fall into place until we've got that border secure. So we're going to work hard to make sure that's part of our solution. There are actually five pieces of legislation that have already passed out of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee. We passed the Border Security Results Act of 2013. What this does is it requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive strategy to secure the border. What a radical concept: let's actually have a plan. And so what we're saying in the House is: give us a plan. We want the Department of Homeland Security to work with the border sheriffs to come up with a plan to secure that border and come back to Congress and say, here's what we need. Here's the sections where we need fences. Here's the other types of technology, whether it be drones or other types of technological monitoring. These are the pieces of the puzzle we need to secure the border. And a key to this is we have to have a metrics so we can measure whether the border is secure or not. Currently, we know the numerator, but we don't know the denominator. We know how many folks we're stopping coming across the border, but we don't know how many we aren't rounding up. And if you talk to any of the border sheriffs, you'll know that we're not anywhere close to being secure. So that's a key component of this legislation. I look forward to talking more about some of the legislation that came out of the Judiciary Committee, some of the pieces of this immigration reform puzzle that we need to discuss.

Mr. HUDSON. I appreciate my colleague pointing out some of the legislation that the Judiciary Committee has already passed because I think it is important to understand that the House of Representatives is taking a different approach when it comes to immigration reform. So we passed the Border Security Results Act out of Homeland Security. We have also passed the Legal Workforce Act, which is the bill that reforms the E-Verify system, which gives us a much more workable E- Verify program, that gives our employers the certainty and the assurance that they can verify the citizenship of potential employees. The second piece of legislation that came out of the Judiciary Committee already is the Skills Visa Act. This has to do with what's called the H-1B visas. These are for your high-skilled workers. These are for folks in math, science, and technology who may come to the United States to go to university to learn these skills and get on this career path, but then they don't have a visa to stay here. Most industrialized nations in the world, 80 percent of the visas they give out are based on work skills and needs of the workforce. Here in the United States, it's about 12 percent of the visas we give out. We have a lottery to give out visas; and to me, that's ridiculous. We need to reform the system so we're giving out visas to the type of people that we want to attract to this country. So the Skills Visa Act is legislation we're considering here in the House that will do that. The third piece of legislation is called the SAFE Act. One of the issues we've talked about, we have to enforce the rule of law. Frankly, we don't have enough Federal agents enforcing the law. So what we need to do is empower States and municipalities, local governments that want to enforce the immigration law to be able to do that. That's what the SAFE Act does. And then the fourth piece is the agriculture guest worker, AG Act. That is a critical piece for our economy. There are at least 11 million undocumented workers here in this country that we know of. Many of those folks don't want citizenship. What they want is the ability to work here legally. If we have an ag worker program that actually works, this is the H-2A program. Frankly, when I'm home, and I go home every weekend and meet with our local folks and I see farmers across our my district, I ask them, How many of you are using H-2A program? You'd be amazed how few use the program, because it's not workable. And so as my colleague from Colorado asked the question that he hears at town hall meetings, Do we really need to do immigration reform, yes, we do. We can't just secure the border with a fence and technology if we still have that attraction, that need for illegal workers to fill jobs in this country. We've got to have a pathway to bring in legal workers, whether it's in agriculture or home-building, or some of the more high-skilled types of jobs. We need a legal pathway to fill those positions; otherwise there's going to be this tug of illegals that will continue to happen. So we can build a 10-foot wall, but someone is going to invent an 11- foot ladder. So it has to be a comprehensive approach. That's why we need the ag guest worker program, as well. So as you can see, we in the House are looking at this step by step. We are looking at what are the actual problems so we can address them in a very thoughtful way so that we aren't just rushing to get a big bill, as was once said by a former Speaker of this House, Let's pass this bill so we know what's in it. Well, we don't want to make that mistake again. We don't need a big, huge, comprehensive bill. We need to look at these issues in a very thoughtful, comprehensive way.

Mr. HUDSON. I appreciate that. And I think it's many of the same things. First of all, people don't trust Washington to actually address this problem. We've got a pretty bad track record here in the Congress. I think the other thing, though, I hear from my farmers, from my homebuilders, that they need labor, and we've got to have a legal pathway to get that done. And so we've just got to do it in a way that's fair and respects the rule of law. If any of you would like to close, I believe we're getting near the end of our time.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Well, I'm happy to jump in. I thank my colleague from Colorado for giving us this opportunity. I think the problem is just the general distrust in the way Washington does things, and you only have to look at the process we just went through to understand why; because any problem that we ever face as a Nation, Congress can solve it by very quickly passing a big piece of legislation with a great title and saying the problem is solved. Unfortunately, in 1986, when we passed immigration reform it didn't solve the problem. It gave amnesty now with a promise of border security later that we never saw, and I believe that's the same thing that happened with the Senate bill. We very quickly put out a bill that has a great title, thousands of pages that I doubt many folks have even read, and saying the problem is now solved. And then you immediately hear the pundits and the folks who talk on TV about what happens in Washington saying, Well, the House, since you aren't quickly moving a huge bill with a nice title, you don't care. But the truth is we do care, but we're here to represent the people of the United States of America that sent us here, and we're going to do this in a very thoughtful way, and we're going to do immigration reform the right way so that we don't have to do it again in another 20 years.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Absolutely.

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I'm Richard Hudson from North Carolina, and I represent a district that's been hit very hard with job losses. People out there are really struggling. I go home every weekend and I travel my district and I talk to real people every day who are struggling to get by. I talk to folks who have lost their jobs either in the textile industry or in the furniture industry. I talk to folks who are just trying to keep their companies afloat. I talked to a homebuilder the other day who is just trying to keep enough work so he doesn't have to lay off any more of his crew so he can keep a skilled labor force there, so when the economy does pick back up, he'll have the folks that he needs to get the job done. People are really hurting out there, and there are some signs that the economy is getting better. But, Mr. Speaker, in my district, we're just not feeling it yet. In fact, I was in Richmond County, North Carolina, yesterday, and the folks there tell me that home foreclosures have increased this year over last year. We aren't out of this yet. On top of this economy, where folks are struggling and just trying to stay afloat, trying to keep food on the table for their families and paying the bills, the President comes out today 4 years to the day from when he introduced his disastrous cap-and-trade ideas and has this new scheme that's going to add cost to our energy, that's going to destroy jobs in this country, and it's just unconscionable. The people in my district are wondering the same thing they are in other places around the country: why doesn't the President understand what's going on here. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to continue to fight for an energy policy that makes sense. We've got energy off the shore of North Carolina that we ought to be going after. We've got huge reserves of oil and natural gas. We've also got a potential for fracking in North Carolina. I want to get North Carolina in the energy business. I want to create those energy jobs in North Carolina like we see in western Pennsylvania and North Dakota and other places. Now is the time. Now is the time to start getting American energy sources, getting Americans in the energy game, not taxing and regulating our energy industry out of business, which is not only destroying the jobs but is increasing the cost of energy. When the cost of energy goes up, Mr. Speaker, everything gets more expensive, whether it's food or the cost of transportation of goods. It's hitting us really hard.

Mr. HUDSON. I would love to address this war on coal a little bit more. I just think it's outrageous that the President of the United States' advisors say that the President wants a war on coal. You know, we ought to have a war on gas prices. We ought to have a war on energy prices. We ought to have a war on joblessness. I mean, these are the things that we should be concerned about and angry about and upset about. You look at the fact that the United States has more coal than any country in the world, and we've got technology to use that coal for energy production in a clean way. Clean coal technology, liquefied coal, there are plenty of ways we can use that energy, Mr. Speaker, here in America, putting Americans to work to reduce our energy costs. That's what we ought to be focusing on. Let's get Americans to work making American energy. Let's bring American energy costs down, and let's stop the war on jobs, which is what we are seeing from this administration.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our commonsense amendment to allow the States to conduct drug screening on applicants for welfare. If adopted, this amendment would join a list of good government reforms contained in the FARRM Bill that save taxpayer money and ensure integrity and accountability within our nutrition system. From preventing lottery winners from receiving food stamps to closing loopholes and preventing illegal immigrants from receiving benefits, I commend the chairman and ranking member on the work done to reform the food stamps program in the FARRM Bill. Mr. Chairman, our amendment simply allows the States to conduct drug testing to ensure addicts and criminals are not taking food out of the mouths of hungry children. This debate is not about hungry children. We all agree that we need to take care of the least among us, those who need this type of assistance. We all agree that we don't want children to go hungry. What this amendment is about is making sure that addicts and criminals are not taking what is not theirs, taking food from the mouths of these children, taking food from those who are in need. So I ask my colleagues to just consider this as a simple measure, a commonsense measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I ask my colleagues to consider this as a commonsense measure that does nothing to take food away from those who need it, but it makes sure the integrity of this program is upheld. We don't make any presumptions about folks on the program, but we think that States need this tool so that they can make sure that folks who are on the program are the folks that need to be on that program. I thank the gentlelady, my colleague, from Connecticut for endorsing this farm bill this year because we do eliminate direct payments. As she alluded, I agree, that is a practice that we should end, and so I appreciate her endorsement of that piece of it. Mr. Chairman, with that, I will conclude by just saying I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure that does nothing but allow the States to have the tool to use drug testing should they see fit when administering this program. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. HUDSON. At this point, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa). Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join my colleagues, Representatives Hudson and Yoho, to again offer a commonsense amendment that will further assist in diminishing the abuse in the SNAP program. This is a no-nonsense amendment. If you have enough money to buy drugs, you do not need taxpayer money to buy food. This amendment protects the taxpayer from directly subsidizing the purchase of drugs. Without this amendment, drug users will continue to use their money to buy drugs and your money to buy food. This amendment gives States the ability to implement a drug screening program in the way that works best for them, but it needs to be part of the SNAP benefit qualification application. There are already 29 States that have proposals to do this, and eight States have already passed this type of legislation for this type of screening. Letting drug users abuse the SNAP program diverts funds from those who truly need it. That's what we're about here. Of course, this is what taxpayers, when you talk to regular folks, this is the kind of thing they complain about around the kitchen table, like, ``Why are my tax dollars going towards this?'' If I had a dime for every time I've heard this. People want this sort of thing to happen for those that are abusing this program. Taxpayers deserve better; the folks that really need the benefits of food stamps deserve better. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HUDSON. At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. HUDSON. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 254, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the city of Thomasville, North Carolina, for being named a 2013 ``All-America City.'' Thomasville, built on a foundation of furniture manufacturing and textiles, was hit hard over the last 25 years by job losses and plant closings. Instead of folding during trying economic times, the city took the challenge head-on and rallied together, as a community, to rebuild and bounce back. The leadership of the entire community, including Mayor Joe Bennett and Chamber of Commerce President Doug Croft, were instrumental in advancing new projects that made Thomasville stand out as an All- America City. Initiatives such as Envision 2020, a 20-year development plan for the city; Children At Play, a program to redevelop the city's parks to reduce crime; and Project Divine Interruption, which helps homeless students in the city, are just a few examples of the city's resolve to succeed. Through the fortitude of its citizens, Thomasville stands as a shining example of what can happen when an entire community collaborates for the betterment of its citizens. I'm proud to represent Thomasville, North Carolina, and I congratulate them on truly practicing the values that make America great.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the farm bill--a product of several years of hard work and patience from Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and their staffs at the Agriculture Committee. Madam Chairman, I would like to call attention to the patience of our farming community across this Nation, the economic engine of rural America, and especially to the farming families in the Eighth District of North Carolina, which I call home. When I go home every weekend and travel across my district, I hear one resounding thing, and that is get a 5-year farm bill done to provide us the certainty we need. Madam Chairman, this bill is not perfect. In my opinion, it does not contain enough cuts or reforms, but our alternative is the status quo. I would like to see more cuts and will offer and support amendments to do just that. Ultimately, I will support this bill because not supporting it, again, means the status quo. Not supporting this bill means not getting over $40 billion in mandatory cuts when we had the chance. Not supporting this bill means not having a 5-year bill to provide certainty that our farmers need. From the important provisions found in the commodities title to ensuring the critical safety net of crop insurance remains intact to making responsible cuts and reforms to bloated programs, saving the taxpayers' money, this bill is a bill we need to support. This a bill that provides the tools our farmers need to keep them producing food and fiber for our country and the world. Like I said, this bill is not perfect and I look forward to the debate we will have in the coming days, and considering the amendments my colleagues and I will offer to make this the best bill we can for the Agriculture Community and the American taxpayer. On behalf of the farmers and agribusiness community of North Carolina, I am eager to get this bill finished and providing long awaited certainty and reforms.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise amongst a broad bipartisan coalition to oppose this misguided amendment offered by my colleague from Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, facts are a stubborn thing. The National Guard has reiterated time and time again the immense value of their recruiting and retention programs in professional motor sports. The facts of this program show a successful return on investment for the taxpayers. To demonstrate the success of this program, I would like to cite three crystal clear numbers which support strong opposition to this amendment: First, 90 percent. In the June 4 letter to House Appropriations, the National Guard Association of the United States and their counterpart, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, stated that a recent independent study found that 90 percent of the Army National Guard soldiers who enlisted or reenlisted were exposed to the Guard from recruiting or retention materials featuring NASCAR drivers and their cars. That's a real return on your investment, a return on the invest of the American people; Second, 85 percent. Of those who enlisted or reenlisted during that time period, 85 percent agree that professional sports are beneficial to attracting and retaining good soldiers. That's, again, a good return on your investment; And the last number is 400,000. Since embarking on a more robust use of professional sport sponsorships in fiscal year 2007, the Army National Guard has added more than 400,000 new soldiers. That, Mr. Chairman, is a return on your investment. Mr. Chairman, these facts come from sound research and independent study which the National Guard has shared with us, and I will enter into the Record my remarks here today. I submit these facts to my colleagues and encourage them to consider the tremendous return on investment we would be stealing from our Nation's military and hardworking taxpayers if this amendment were to pass. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' National Guard Association of the United States, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, June 4, 2013. Hon. Bill Young, Chairman, House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Washington, DC. Hon. Pete Visclosky, Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense: As you may be aware, there have been proposals in Congress to restrict the Department of Defense's ability to utilize sports sponsorships as part of recruitment and retention campaigns. We would urge you to oppose any effort to restrict DoD leadership's ability to utilize creative and innovative tactics to ensure that the National Guard is able to promote their career opportunities. Recruiting for the all-volunteer force isn't what it used to be. Only one in every four young people today is even eligible to join. Today, you have to know how smart, fit young people think, where they live and play, and go to them. Innovative techniques such as sports sponsorships help the National Guard do just that. The enhanced use of sponsorships was a direct response to specific recruiting challenges faced during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, when traditional and more expensive recruiting efforts were failing to attract enough quality applicants. It was during this time period that recruiting goals were reached, partly, by lowering minimum entrance requirements and accepting enlistees who lacked high school diplomas, had low scores on the military's aptitude test, or received waivers for criminal and medical problems. However, since embarking on a more robust use of professional sports sponsorships in fiscal year 2007, the Army National Guard has added more than 400,000 new soldiers. A recent study has found that 90 percent of Army National Guard soldiers who enlisted or re-enlisted since 2007 were exposed to the Guard through recruiting or retention materials featuring NASCAR cars and/or drivers. Of those who enlisted or re-enlisted during that time period, 85 percent agree that professional sports are beneficial to attracting and retaining good soldiers. The survey also found that racing fans are an especially receptive group for National Guard recruiting. NASCAR enthusiasts aged 18-34, the National Guard's target age demographic, are twice as likely to consider a military career than non-fans. For the National Guard, marketing through sports is a direct appeal to our target audience and their influencers, providing the opportunity to reach individuals who are like- minded. Any limitations or bans on this may look good on the surface in a tight fiscal environment, but, in reality, it would provide no savings and hinder the National Guard's effort to reach the most qualified potential recruits. Sponsorships provide the Guard a national platform to build relationships, promote our image and aid in recruiting efforts. The recruiting and retention dollars spent through sports sponsorships increase the National Guard's prestige and visibility, as well as help generate recruiting leads at events. But these sport sponsorships go beyond a race or match. They extend into the community, creating partnerships to develop a national effort to address issues affecting military personnel and their spouses, including providing education assistance, combating unemployment, fostering technology sharing and innovation, and sharing the story of the National Guard. Pro sports sponsorships are not just a matter of money. They are an effective and important marketing platform for awareness and development to target future potential recruits, while also working to improve the lives of our Guardsmen and women. I ask that you please support the National Guard's continued efforts to partner with professional sports programs and create lasting community partnerships that positively impact our National Guard. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Gus Hargett, Major General, USA, (Ret.), President, NGAUS. John Helbert, CSM, ARNG, President, EANGUS. New Research: Sports Sponsorships Valuable to Military Recruitment New research paints a clear picture of the value sponsorships and marketing around professional sports provide the U.S. military and its efforts to recruit and retain soldiers. Conducted by respected independent firm Alan Newman Research, the empirical study was deployed through a joint initiative by the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS) and the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS). The effort surveyed thousands of Americans, including general population, sports fans and, for the first time, more than 1,300 currently serving and retired National Guard soldiers and airmen. NASCAR Drives Recruiting The Army National Guard has added more than 400,000 new soldiers since fiscal year 2007 when the Department of Defense embarked on a more robust use of professional sports sponsorships for recruiting purposes. During this time, the National Guard has leveraged NASCAR as a key platform to promote its career opportunities, reporting a three-to-one return on the current sponsorship program while routinely meeting and exceeding recruiting targets. Most recently, the Army National Guard exceeded fiscal-year-to-date 2013 accession goal by more than 1,000 recruits (or 104 percent). Ninety percent of Army National Guard soldiers who enlisted or re-enlisted from 2007-2013 said they have been exposed to the Guard through recruiting or retention materials that incorporated NASCAR. Of those who enlisted or re-enlisted since 2007, 85 percent agree that professional sports are beneficial to the National Guard's overall efforts to attract and retain soldiers. More than six of ten of all National Guard respondents have seen NASCAR leveraged at a recruiting center or event. Fans Advocate for Military Careers Research confirms the NASCAR audience is tailor-made for programs promoting career opportunities in the U.S. military. Young fans (age 18-34) of NASCAR are twice as likely as non- fans in the same age group to consider the military as a career option. In addition, NASCAR fans are more passionate advocates for military careers. They are 20 percent more likely than non-fans to be ``very likely'' to support a friend or family members choice to pursue military service. The Power of Patriotism National Guard members consider NASCAR, which hosts swearing-in ceremonies for hundreds of new recruits each year, the most patriotic of all major professional sports. In a powerful statement for recruiting and retention programs that utilize NASCAR, a nearly unanimous 92 percent of National Guard respondents say they are more likely to engage with an organization that they perceive as pathetic over competitors. Americans Support Military Recruitment Americans clearly support the ability of the U.S. military to recruit where it sees fit. An overwhelming 83 percent believe military branches should be able to promote career opportunities where the branches feel a receptive audience will be found. Just 12 percent of Americans do net feel that fans of professional sports represent a reasonable target audience for recruiting programs. Opportunities Across Pro Sports Nearly all members of the National Guard are avid fans of at least one major professional sport, notably the National Football League, Major League Baseball and NASCAR. Guard soldiers are similarly interested in pro sports in their home areas--such as minor league baseball and hockey, arena football and local short-track racing--indicating opportunities for recruiting and retention programs at the grassroots level in hundreds of communities around the country. A majority of Americans--64 percent--are more likely to engage with organizations that, like the National Guard, are affiliated with a favorite sport, team or athlete. Conclusion: Sponsorships Work for the Military For the same reasons they are a preferred venue for corporate advertising, NASCAR and other professional sports are a prime place for recruitment advertising due to wide and devoted fan bases and demographics ideal for messaging regarding military careers. For the National Guard, participation in NASCAR allows the opportunity to leverage the largest American spectator sport with a massive and loyal fan base of 75 million. Sports marketing is a widely accepted and important piece of the marketing mix for the most successful brands and organizations in the world, and it should remain so for the U.S. military.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, which requires the CFTC and the SEC to cooperate on a single rule for how U.S. derivatives regulations are applied overseas. This bill and several others we will consider today are critically important to the work we have begun in the House Agriculture Committee to reform Dodd-Frank and make this bill less onerous for our farmers and bankers. As Commissioner Jill Sommers noted, it appears as though the CFTC was ``guided by what could only be called the 'Intergalactic Commerce Clause''' as they prepared their cross-border guidance when it was released last summer. How foreign institutions comply with Dodd-Frank is of enormous consequence. The CFTC has taken the position that virtually everyone everywhere is a U.S. person and subject to its jurisdiction. Without question, this expansive claim of jurisdiction is going to raise the cost for farmers and end users in my home State of North Carolina to hedge their risk and diminish global competitiveness of our domestic financial firms, which employ many people back home in North Carolina. The CFTC is risking all this to an end that no one seems to fully understand. Their actions are making financial regulatory reform more burdensome and more complicated, while serving only to alienate the CFTC and U.S. markets from the rest of the world. The Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act would force the CFTC to cooperate with the SEC on a single standard for cross-border application of swaps regulations. In addition, the bill is narrowly tailored to guarantee that the top nine foreign swaps markets will be recognized by the CFTC and SEC as having comparable rules so foreign firms would be governed by the laws of their home countries. This bill does not allow unchecked swaps markets to spring up in Caribbean island nations or the four corners of Southeast Asia, as some on the other side of the aisle have alluded. Instead, it directs the CFTC to do what it should have done in the first place: to cooperate with its fellow regulators both down the street and around the world. I urge its adoption.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HUDSON

Mr. HUDSON. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Mica