Michael Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. We do not.

Mr. TURNER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle would have us believe that this shutdown is somehow a Republican-engineered shutdown. They would have you believe that the government only shuts down with Republican leadership, and we know that that's not the case. The government shuts down when there's a failure of the democratic process to work and parties to negotiate in good faith and the deliberative process of democracy to move forward. The President has absolutely shut that down with his refusal to negotiate. We had a government shutdown when Mr. Reagan was in the White House. Under President Reagan, the Democrat-controlled Congress shut the government down a total of eight times, for 14 days. So a Democrat- controlled Congress actually shut the government down under Reagan for longer than it has been shut down now. Again, under Mr. Clinton, the House also shut the government down. In each of those instances, there was something different than what's now--and that is that there were negotiations going on. President Reagan was negotiating with the House and Senate. President Clinton was negotiating with the House and Senate. But this President said absolutely no negotiations. This President will negotiate with Syria. He'll negotiate with Iran. He'll even have secret negotiations with Russia and secret deals. But he will not negotiate with the legislature. Now, what won't he negotiate over? He won't negotiate over the debt limit. He wants to take the country from $17 trillion to $19 trillion in debt. No negotiations. He won't negotiate on his sequestration. In my community, there were 12,000 people that were furloughed. The President will not negotiate on his sequester. The President will not negotiate on funding the government. We have sent countless bills over to the Senate that would reopen the national parks, that would fund the veterans, that would allow Washington, D.C., to spend its own funds, and Harry Reid heartlessly has said in response to these bills that would provide needed services, Why would we do that? But we know that the President is playing politics because this House and the Senate passed the Pay Our Military Act. It was signed by the President of the United States. I have sent letters to Secretary Hagel and to the President questioning why he would have furloughed 400,000 DOD workers when he had signed the Pay Our Military Act, and 8,700 workers in my community were furloughed. How do we know they were playing politics by letting the Department of Defense employees go even though the President had full authority to fund them? Because he's going to be calling them back. He's calling them back without any other passage of any other law or any other law that he signs. So clearly, the President is admitting that he's been playing politics with these furloughs--and it needs to stop. It also needs to stop so our Federal workers do not have to worry about their pay, they do not have to worry about the impacts on their personal lives. They have child care expenses, house payments to make, kids that are in college. And while the President refuses to negotiate, while he's playing politics, they shouldn't worry about whether or not they can make ends meet. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3223 that would restore the pay to Federal workers and ensure that they have the security that they need. I yield back the balance of my time. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 1, 2013. Hon. Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: On September 30, 2013, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Pay Our Military Act to reverse the devastating impacts of a government shutdown on civilian employees. Under the law, you are authorized to ``provide pay and allowances to the civilian personnel of the Department of Defense (and the Department of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard) whom the Secretary concerned determines are providing support to members of the Armed Forces.'' This certainly applies to the civilian men and woman at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base who work diligently in support of the Armed Forces. The law is clear and provides the department as well as the United States Coast Guard with the authority to immediately call its civilian employees back to work. I am deeply concerned with the impacts to the Department of Defense caused by a government shutdown. The current situation poses a great risk to military readiness and undermines the department's ability to carry out its mission. While our uniformed men and women may be exempt from furlough, I remain deeply concerned with the status of our civilian employees caused by the current shutdown of the federal government. Just like our uniformed service men and women, these civilians play an integral role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation. At Wright-Patterson Air Force Base alone, over 9,000 civilian employees have been furloughed and therefore prohibited from coming to work. I await an immediate update on the department's implementation of the law and will continue to work with you as we put the government back to work and mitigate the impacts of a government shutdown. Sincerely, Michael R. Turner, Member of Congress.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as you and I have discussed, Tuesday morning, 8,700 employees at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base were unnecessarily furloughed. I have voted every single time to fully fund the government, and I have opposed this shutdown. This shutdown is just as harmful to our military readiness as sequestration is, which I also opposed because it undermines our national security. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Pay Our Military Act was passed by this Congress and signed by the President to ensure our Nation's uniformed servicemembers and the civilian employees that support them would be paid in the event of a shutdown. The administration has chosen to ignore this law and force our civilian employees to sit at home and go without pay. I have written to Secretary Hagel and President Obama demanding clarification as to why they have chosen not to follow the law and have furloughed these hardworking people. The Armed Services Committee is holding a hearing to get to the bottom of this clear defiance of the law by the administration. It is past time that we get all men and women back to work and those who work to support our military.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, over four years ago, President Obama asserted that his would be ``the most transparent Administration in history.'' Instead, we have seen the Executive Branch act in a manner wholly inconsistent with that statement and take great strides to conceal the truth from public scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. That is why today the House is considering several pieces of legislation aimed at curbing the widespread abuse that we have witnessed in recent years and helping to restore faith in the federal government for hardworking taxpayers across this country. As a senior Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I have been involved with investigating the many scandals that have been reported on throughout the last several months. As we continue to see in the ongoing investigation of conservatives being targeted for their political beliefs, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, has failed to act in a fair, nonpartisan, and nondiscriminatory manner. In targeting an individual or group for audits and investigation on the basis of their beliefs--and not a legitimate tax-related purpose--the IRS has weakened its level of trust among both the American public and Congress. That is why I introduced H.R. 1950, the Taxpayer Nondiscrimination and Protection Act of 2013. With over 100 cosponsors and a companion measure in the Senate authored by Senator Marco Rubio, this bill is aimed at preventing biased, politically-motivated discrimination and seeks to strengthen taxpayer protections in current law by making such action a crime. Earlier this year the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also heard from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration in which details were exposed of a lavish, taxpayer-funded conference for IRS employees in Anaheim, California. The IRS reported an estimated final cost of $4.1 million for the conference--$3.2 million of which were transferred from the funds appropriated by Congress for salaries, expenses, and personnel. In response to the revelation that taxpayers footed nearly 80% of the tab for this wasteful party, I introduced H.R. 2345, the Stop Internal Resource Slush Fund Act. This bill would address the back-door budgeting used by the IRS and put an end to these government slush funds. In addition to the deeply troubling actions by the IRS, the Administration remains defiant in what may well be the lasting legacy of President Obama's scandals: the plight of Delphi Salaried Retirees. For over three years, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to hold the Administration accountable for unjustly terminating the pensions of an estimated 22,000 retirees in the wake of the General Motors bailout. Both Congress and these hardworking men and women continue to press the Treasury Department, the President's Auto Task Force, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for answers and full and complete disclosure of their actions that have led to tremendous hardship for thousands across the country. Despite bipartisan efforts toward fairness and transparency, the Administration has thus far remained secretive and defiant. It is my sincere hope that the measures we are considering today, the legislation I have authored, and the ongoing investigations of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will put an end to these government abuses and hold bad actors accountable to the American people.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to enter into a colloquy. Madam Chair, I rise to speak about the Abrams tank. The Appropriations Committee has wisely included funding in the last 2 years for continuing to upgrade the Abrams tank. That action kept the Abrams production line warm and preserved a critical industrial capability. However, there is no funding, as I understand it, in the FY 2014 Defense appropriations bill for additional tank upgrades.

Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. TURNER. Madam Chair, in reclaiming my time, I understand that, earlier in the year, both the administration and others believed that foreign military sales alone may be sufficient to keep this production line running. Those sales have not yet materialized, and I remain concerned that we are risking a critical national asset based solely on the anticipation of foreign sales.

Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. TURNER. In reclaiming my time, I understand that the committee intends to wait until the Army announces its force structure changes and then will assess the need for additional upgraded tanks. While I respect that position, I think that, with whatever changes the Army makes, we will still need to keep that smaller force as effective as possible. The way to ensure that is to provide all remaining Armored Brigade Combat Teams with M1A2 SEP tanks.

Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. TURNER. In reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his continued interest and for his support in this matter.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restrict President Obama from unlawfully divesting our Nation's strategic delivery systems. Since the enactment of the New START Treaty in 2010, the President has continued to jeopardize the security of the United States by unilaterally pursuing policies and international agreements that call for the drastic reduction of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. Not only are these proposed policies and agreements harmful to the United States, but also they are in violation of standing laws such as the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which states that international agreements cannot limit or reduce the military forces of the United States unless enacted pursuant to a treaty or congressional-executive agreement. It is unfortunate that amendments such as this one have become necessary, as the President chooses to ignore the role of Congress when negotiating arms reductions. As recently as last month, President Obama delivered a speech in Berlin in which he outlined his plan to further reduce nuclear warheads by as much as one-third. Since that time, the administration has given no indication that he would seek to negotiate or seek Senate ratification of a formal treaty as required by law. Instead, the administration continues to engage directly with the Russian Federation while averting a formal treaty process in coordination with the Senate. These drastic reductions by the President are ill conceived and have only encouraged the further proliferation of nuclear weapons by countries like Russia, China, and North Korea, which continue to expand their nuclear weapons programs. This amendment seeks to rein in the President's misguided policies by ensuring that none of the appropriated funds be used to reduce the strategic delivery systems of the United States in contravention of section 303(b) of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. With all due respect to the gentleman from Indiana, I won't question his historical description of the issues of the use of nuclear weapons, although I find it confusing. I will say that this amendment and its terms are not about the issue of the use of or even the number of weapons the United States or Russia might have. This is about the Constitution and the laws of the United States. All this says is that the President has to follow the Constitution, make certain that he seeks Senate ratification of any formal treaty, or that he conform with the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which would prohibit him unilaterally taking action. The concern and the reason why this amendment is necessary is because the President felt the need to actually leave this country and go to another country and announce his attention, perhaps, to undertake unilaterally--both as President, and unilaterally, without even getting a bilateral agreement with another nation--his intention of further reducing our nuclear weapons. This amendment is not about numbers, it's about the law. It's about our Constitution, it's about upholding it, and requiring that the President of the United States conform to it in something certainly as important as our national security. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 372, on this vote I inadvertently voted ``yes'' intending to vote ``no.'' personal explanation

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the administration recently announced that the Obamacare employer mandate, requiring businesses to provide their workers with health insurance, will be delayed until 2015. This decision is proof that even this administration acknowledges that the Obamacare law has adverse affects on American families and small businesses. At a time when the economy is still struggling to recover, we should be focused on reducing taxes on hardworking Americans and providing incentives for businesses to grow and create jobs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the employer mandate will raise taxes on American businesses by $117 billion. In addition, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) estimates that the employer mandate will result in 125,000 to 249,000 lost jobs as a result of higher insurance costs. Unfortunately, the administration is still moving forward with the implementation of the individual mandate in 2014, which will have negative effects on the American people. The average individual premium is expected to increase somewhere between 20 and 30 percent in 2014. CBO also estimates that the individual mandate will increase taxes on American families by $55 billion. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act, and H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. At the same time, we must permanently repeal these burdensome mandates. That is why I authored H.R. 582, the Healthcare Tax Relief and Mandate Repeal Act, with 97 of my colleagues, to repeal the Obamacare individual and employer mandates, providing relief for American families and businesses. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to impose extra burdens on American families and businesses when our economy is struggling to get back on track. I strongly support repeal of the individual and employer mandates and I am committed to working with my colleagues to carefully and thoughtfully implement real healthcare reform.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I have an amendment at the desk

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2906. I offer this amendment in response to the President's recent address in Berlin in which he outlined his plan to further reduce the United States strategic nuclear arsenal below acceptable levels and in contravention of current law. The President's latest proposal would once again call for unilateral reductions in our strategic nuclear arsenal at a time when countries like Russia and China continue to expand and modernize their nuclear capabilities. To make matters worse, the President has undertaken this most recent effort without the consent of the United States Senate, as required under the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which states international agreements cannot limit or reduce the military forces of the United States unless enacted pursuant to a treaty or congressional-executive agreement. Not only do the President's continued calls for weapons reductions jeopardize the safety and security of the United States, but he compromises the safety of our partner nations. It is unacceptable that the President continues to make secret deals with countries like Russia while at the same time breaking promises with the American people and our allies. The current threat environment around the world is very real and should not be underestimated. A robust nuclear arsenal is critical in deterring against emerging threats like Iran and North Korea. My amendment simply ensures that none of the funds appropriated by this act may be used to further reduce nuclear force reductions outside of the formal process established under existing law. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday over 14,000 civilian Department of Defense employees at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in my community were furloughed as a result of sequestration. For 11 days, over the next few months, these hardworking members of my community will see their pay cut by 20 percent. I voted against this mess. I knew the effects of sequestration on our national security and our community and its citizens would be significant and for many devastating. These vital members of our national security structure have essentially been told they are expendable. Morale at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and DOD facilities around the United States is suffering because of this. I've spoken to not just these civilian employees, but to car dealers, restaurant owners, small businesses, all of who feel the pain and frustration because of inaction here in Washington. It doesn't have to be this way. The House has passed an act to avert sequestration. The Senate has failed to pass a single bill to avert sequestration. The President, who promised the American people that this would not happen, has done nothing. Meanwhile, families and businesses, not only in Ohio but across the country, are suffering. It's time for the President to keep his promise that he made during his election campaign and to work to set aside sequestration. Mr. Speaker, I voted against sequestration. The House has passed legislation to halt it, and it's time that the Senate and the President come to the table and work to find a way to avert these furloughs and their devastating impact on the lives and businesses of hardworking Americans and its impact upon our national security.

Mr. TURNER

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

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I join with the chairman and ranking member, a fellow Ohioan, in opposition to this amendment. I strongly oppose the gentleman from Texas' amendment, as it would seriously undermine our national security. Specifically, this amendment would strike a provision providing the Department of Energy with the authority to use existing funds for domestic uranium enrichment technology development. Let me emphasize that there is no direct funding in the bill for the project. The provision simply provides the authority to transfer existing funds from other Department of Energy programs. In the last Congress, as we have previously spoken, the Congress beat two amendments that were offered that were similar, both with strong opposition to these amendments. According to the National Nuclear Security Administration, in the near future, the United States will need a fully domestic source of unrestricted enriched uranium, based on domestically-developed technology, to support the nuclear weapons program and Navy nuclear reactors program. The United States is prohibited from seeking this material internationally. Regardless of the agreements, the United States must never rely on foreign companies for such a critical component of our nuclear deterrent. Simply stated, we need U.S.-owned domestic supply of enriched uranium, and the use of a foreign supplied material would violate these long-standing policies and agreements. This has been defeated twice before, and this is really simple. It has been defeated because this is a critical component of our nuclear deterrent. Do we want to depend on foreign or do we want to have a domestic source? Congress has twice said it would be crazy to jeopardize our nuclear deterrent and rely on foreign sources. Congress should again for the third time defeat this amendment because we need to rely on domestic in protecting the United States nuclear deterrent. I urge my colleagues to once again oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly, I am introducing a bipartisan resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that it is in our national interest to support and enhance Europe's energy security through opening of the Southern Gas Corridor. Many of our allies in Europe are heavily dependent on natural gas supplies from one country or from unstable regions. For example, several European countries have experienced natural gas supply disruptions from Russia, the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe, over various disputes. In addition, Turkey relies on Iran for 20 percent of its natural gas imports. And earlier this year, Islamist militants attacked a natural gas facility in Algeria, which is the third largest exporter of natural gas to Europe. The Caspian Sea region holds significant energy resources and proven natural gas reserves. In particular, the Shah Deniz field in Azerbaijan is one of the world's largest gas fields, with over 30 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas. The Southern Gas Corridor will help our European allies diversify their energy resources by providing an alternative and reliable source of natural gas. This will bolster their energy security and help improve geopolitical stability in the region. Specifically, the pipeline will route natural gas from Azerbaijan through Georgia and Turkey to Europe. Current and past administrations have expressed support for the Southern Gas Corridor. At the U.S.-Azerbaijan Convention in late May 2013, U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar stated: ``. . . Azerbaijan's importance to European energy security will remain strong, helping to guarantee that our European partners are not overly reliant on any suppliers. Azerbaijan is now in the final stages of establishing a southern corridor for natural gas. ``. . . our overriding interest is that Azerbaijani gas reaches vulnerable markets in Europe . . . '' Additionally, a December 2012 report by Senator Richard Lugar's Foreign Relations Committee staff entitled ``Energy and Security from the Caspian to Europe'' states: ``. . . the Southern Corridor would advance several U.S. and NATO foreign policy objectives: it would further isolate Iran, assist in cultivating partners in the Caucasus and Central Asia and bolster their sovereign independence, and perhaps most importantly, curtail Russia's energy leverage over European NATO allies.'' Mr. Speaker, the Southern Gas Corridor will contribute to regional energy security for our allies in Europe and Eurasia, and help to strenghten our strategic partnership. I urge all my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, in 2008, Maria Lauterbach, a female marine from my community, stepped forward to report a sexual assault from another marine. She was subsequently viciously murdered by the accused. Her mother, Mary Lauterbach, took up the issue of sexual assault in the military, and I have worked with her since 2008 on legislative solutions and in trying to change the culture in the military. With that, I rise today in support of H.R. 1864, the work of Representative Sanchez and Representative Walorski, as part of that effort for us to change the culture and to provide the tools to victims in the military. The problem in the military with sexual assault is clear: victims feel revictimized by the system, and perpetrators feel safe. Our efforts legislatively are to change that dynamic in which perpetrators feel unsafe so that we can rise to the level of preventing sexual assaults and, of course, to rally around victims so they feel safe. Last year, I had the opportunity to attend a breakfast at the Commandant of the Marines' home to discuss the issue of sexual assault in the military. During that breakfast, a female marine, a lieutenant colonel, spoke up and admitted that if she were sexually assaulted that she would not report it. She said the cost in the military is just too high. No one should serve in the military and feel as if one who is subject to a crime is less secure if one steps forward and reports it, especially a crime as heinous as sexual assault. H.R. 1864 will strengthen military whistleblower protection laws by requiring that victims of sexual assault are protected from punishment or reprisal for reporting their attacks. Through the passage of this bipartisan legislation, introduced by Congresswomen Walorski and Sanchez, Congress has the opportunity to take the necessary step in providing victims with the confidence, assurance, and peace of mind that they cannot be threatened or punished for reporting a sexual assault. Recently, the Department of Defense indicated through a survey that 62 percent of those who reported a sexual assault felt that they were punished in the workplace for doing so by both their superiors and their fellow coworkers. This bill will add that additional protection in which they can feel safe once they report the crimes and as they move forward through prosecution. I applaud Representatives Sanchez and Walorski for bringing this forward. Everyone should support H.R. 1864.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as we consider H.R. 520, the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act, I would like to recognize the important contributions of Colonel Charles Young. As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee and Co-Chair of the House Historic Preservation Caucus, I have the privilege of frequently working with our servicemembers as well as a great appreciation for our nation's historic treasures. Additionally, Colonel Young's home, located in my community in Southwest Ohio, was recently designated as a National Historic Monument. Colonel Young, the third African-American to graduate from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1889, was a distinguished officer in the U.S. Army. He was a pioneer of military intelligence techniques, a commander of troops in combat in the Spanish-American War and the Mexican expedition against Pancho Villa. His first assignment after graduation was with the Buffalo Soldiers in the 10th Cavalry in Nebraska, and then with the 9th and 10th Cavalries in Utah. With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, he was reassigned as Second Lieutenant to training duty at Camp Alger, Virginia. In 1903, then-Captain Young was in command of the 10th Cavalry stationed at the Presidio of San Francisco. That summer, with the Army responsible for its management, Colonel Young was assigned to serve as Acting Superintendent of Sequoia National Parks in California. Colonel Young was then awarded a commission as a Major in the Ninth Ohio Volunteer Infantry. Later, during the Spanish-American War, he commanded a squadron of the 10th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers in Cuba. Throughout his military career, Colonel Young distinguished himself in service to our nation with the Buffalo Soldiers of the 9th and 10th Cavalries, and the 25th Infantry, as well as serving as Professor of Military Science at Wilberforce University, Ohio. Today the House will continue to honor the legacy and leadership of the Buffalo Soldiers. Colonel Charles Young stands out as a shining example of the dedication, service, and commitment of the Buffalo Soldiers throughout United States and world history. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to recognize the important historical contributions of Buffalo Soldiers such as Colonel Young.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. We have a significant problem of sexual assaults in the military, and this bill addresses many of the issues that we know legislatively will help both change the culture and change the environment in the military. Recent surveys indicate that over 28,000 people have indicated that they have been sexually assaulted in the military, but slightly fewer than 3,000 are willing to come forward and actually ask that their perpetrators be prosecuted. When you look at that number further, the survey indicates that 62 percent of those who came forward indicated that they felt they were persecuted in the workplace for having done so. Many victims of sexual assault in the military report that they have been re-victimized, that they, in fact, fear the system, and that there is a sense that if one reports a sexual assault that it will negatively impact one's career and perhaps even put one at risk for further violence. What we have tried to do in this bill on a bipartisan basis, in working with Niki Tsongas--my cochair of the Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus--and in working with Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, is to look at ways in which the commander's role can be restricted and to require that the decisionmaking on sexual assaults be pushed up the chain of command, and to instill upon the entire system an evaluation process so that those who are making decisions are held accountable for those decisions. We have taken away from the commander the ability to set aside a conviction for sexual assault, and we have added a mandatory minimum so that, if you commit a sexual assault, you are out of the military. If there is an inappropriate relationship between a trainee and a trainer, you are out of the military. We tried to make certain in this that we had bipartisan consensus. Now, there are those who say that we need a whole new judicial system in order to be able to address sexual assault, but, in fact, the judicial system hasn't been the failure; the chain of command has been the failure, and we have addressed that by restricting the authority of the chain of command by requiring decisions be pushed up the chain of command and by imposing criteria of holding them accountable.