Michael Turner

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to extend my sincere and best wishes as five of my fellow Ohioans will be leaving the House at the adjournment of this Congress. Ohioans have benefited greatly from the dedication and service of Representative Steve LaTourette, who occupies the Speaker's chair today; Representatives Dennis Kucinich; Jean Schmidt; Betty Sutton; and Steve Austria. On a personal note, I want to thank Representative Steve LaTourette for both his mentorship and his guidance and leadership in Congress. I've had the privilege of working across the aisle with each of these lawmakers in support of our fellow Buckeyes and Americans. Their service to our home State of Ohio and to our Nation will not end with this Congress. Their innovative ideas and selfless service will be felt long after they leave the people's House. I look forward to their future roles as Ohioans, committed to advancing the interests of our communities, our State, and our great country.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on November 29, 2012, I was unable to vote on rollcall vote 611. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 821, providing for consideration of H.R. 6429.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate two women from southwest Ohio who represented the United States in competition at the Games of the XXXth Olympiad this summer in London, England. Kayla Harrison, a native of Middletown, Ohio, entered the Olympic Games ranked number one in the United States and number four in the world. Kayla competed in the 172-pound women's division defeating four competitors along the way to becoming the first United States judo athlete to win Olympic Gold. Kayla's success serves as a role model for thousands of young girls to pursue their dreams and reach their goals. Holley Mangold, a native of Dayton, Ohio, a former junior national champion, competed in the 165-pound plus division and was one of two American women weightlifters to qualify for the London Olympic Games. Holley began competitive weight lifting in 2008 and competed in two events at the London Games. Although a wrist injury kept Holley from winning an Olympic medal, her competiveness and determination has won the hearts of sports fans throughout our community, our State and our Nation. Mr. Speaker, through hard work, discipline and determination, these young women trained vigorously for the opportunity to compete against the world's finest athletes. They represented our country with grace and sportsmanship, and have made all of us from Dayton and Ohio proud.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 557 I was unavoidably detained and did not vote. If I had been present, I would have voted ''yea.''

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. I just want to point out the importance of this amendment and also reiterate that this amendment says that classified information about our missile defense system should not be allowed to be provided to the Russians. We have two areas of concern: Obviously, one, Iran and their growing ICBM threat to the United States. I previously wrote a letter with Chairman McKeon to Secretary Panetta asking about specific information for the rising ICBM threat with Iran. The second aspect is that we're all aware that the President is currently in negotiations on a secret deal with the Russians. We saw that in the open mike discussion that the President was having with Medvedev in South Korea, where he said he wanted greater flexibility until after the election. Some of that flexibility should not be disclosing classified information concerning our missile defense system to the Russians. This amendment would say: Mr. President, you won't tell us what your secret deal is, but that secret deal better not include sharing classified information of the United States with the Russians about our missile defense. Again, Mr. Brooks' amendment is very important because it says: Mr. President, even though you won't tell us what the secret deal is, we will not allow you to exchange classified information and weaken the security of the United States. Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 13, 2012. Hon. Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Panetta: We write out of concern with the Administration's plans for missile defense, specifically, the continued sharp decline in the attention and resources invested in U.S. national missile defenses. We fear that this situation could be severely exacerbated under current plans, including the threat of defense sequester, which could be prevented under recent legislation passed by the House of Representatives. Further, we are in receipt of an $8 billion reprogramming request that could, in view of new information, continue to mis-prioritze scarce defense resources. In 2009, the Administration justified a significant shift in U.S. missile defense policy on the basis of what was labeled ``new intelligence assessments''. Secretary Gates, in a September 17, 2009, press conference, stated, ``our intelligence assessment also now assesses that the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities has been slower to develop than was estimated in 2006.'' (emphasis added). It therefore follows that a shift in intelligence could justify a further change in U.S. missile defense strategy. The recently released unclassified 2012 Report on the Military Power of the Islamic Republic of Iran suggests to us just such a shift may be at hand. For example, the report stated, ``Beyond steady growth in its missile and rocket inventories, Iran has boosted the lethality and effectiveness of existing systems with accuracy improvements. . . . Since 2008, Iran has launched multistage space launch vehicles that could serve as a test bed for developing long-range ballistic missile technologies.'' Because of our concerns that the 2009 judgments may be superseded based on new intelligence information, we have the following questions, which we request be answered by you with an unclassified written response: 1. Have key judgments about Iran's efforts to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) shifted since 2009? Does Iran now intend to develop an ICBM? If so, when is the earliest it could deploy such a capability? 2. Has Iran continued to improve its ICBM-related technical capabilities through its short-range, medium-range, and alleged space-launch vehicle tests since 2009? 3. If Iran has now decided to develop an ICBM capability, does that suggest anything regarding Iranian decisions to develop a nuclear weapons program? There appears to be no reason for Iran to develop ICBMs unless it has already decided to develop nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction, to put on top of those missiles. 4. Have there been any further developments that suggest North Korea could be preparing to deploy a new road mobile ICBM this year? Additionally, for almost three years, the Committee has been asking for, and repeatedly promised by your Department, a ``hedging strategy'' for national missile defense in the event that the Administration's plan, as articulated in the September 2009 decision on the Third Site and the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) and the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, is delayed for technical or budgetary reasons, or if the ballistic missile threat to the United States emerges faster than was assessed in 2009. Indeed, in the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act, such a plan was required by law. The Committee has thus far received no such strategy. The Administration's plan for national missile defense is almost entirely focused on assumptions for future changes to the shot doctrine of the GMD system--which would not happen for years under the program of record, assuming it is possible, or the SM-3 IIB missile, which is now a year delayed, and about which the Defense Science Board and the National Academies have all expressed grave concerns for its projected capability. Indeed, the Government Accountability Office has expressed concerns about the absence of any real Analysis of Alternatives to substantiate technical capability and requirements for the IIB missile and therefore has warned about the risk of delay and budget overrun. We urge the Administration to provide the Committee all the analysis that was prepared when the SM-3 IIB missile was recommended in September 2009. Committee staff were briefed in March of this year on some elements of the ``hedging strategy'', as then under consideration, including potential configurations of an East Coast site consisting of 20 ground-based interceptors. The Committee is now informed that the Department has determined not to share even those briefing slides with the Committee. We request you submit the hedging strategy mandated by section 233 of the FY12 NDAA not later than the week of July 30th, in time for Committee Members to be briefed before the August district work period and Senate consideration of the NDAA, and we request you immediately transmit the briefing slides of the March 6th briefing. The Committee is in receipt of almost $8 billion in FY12 reprogramming requests, with significant sums of money intended for missile defense capabilities and capabilities oriented to a potential conflict with a regional threat. We therefore believe it appropriate for our requests in this letter to be answered prior to any decision by the Committee on those matters. We appreciate your willingness to work with us on these requests in a timely fashion. Sincerely, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services. Michael R. Turner, Chairman, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. This is my time. The time that I am speaking is my time. You yielded me some and you kept your own.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Turner- McKeon-Thornberry amendment. I, as chairman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee, am offering this amendment, along with the House Armed Services Committee chairman, Mr. McKeon, and the vice chairman, Mr. Thornberry. For 66 years, the U.S. nuclear deterrent has kept us and our allies safe from large-scale war under a remarkably consistent policy supported by Presidents of both parties. Now, however, President Barack Obama appears to be unilaterally changing it--for reasons not yet explained. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon and 31 other committee members and I recently wrote to the President, expressing concern over reports that he is directing a review of U.S. nuclear weapons strategy that could result in U.S. reductions of up to 80 percent. We asked to understand what the President is doing, and why. We've received nothing back from the President. The Obama administration reportedly is weighing at least three options for reducing U.S. nuclear forces: Cutting to roughly 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800; or 300 to 400. Our arsenal now includes about 5,000 warheads, with approximately 2,000 deployed warheads permitted under the new START Treaty. The remaining 3,000 are kept in storage as a hedge against advancements by other nations. Russia has 4,000 to 6,500 warheads and China is reported to have more than 300, though no one outside of the Chinese Communist Party knows for sure how many they have. These countries, as well as India; Pakistan, which is building a stockpile expected to soon surpass Britain; Britain itself; France; North Korea; and perhaps soon Iran have active nuclear weapons modernization programs. Only the United States does not. Now, the President may soon seek to have the U.S. make the deepest reductions in its nuclear forces in history. The new strategic review could be on the President's desk within the next month. It is unclear whether he expects the cuts to be unilateral or within the framework of a treaty with Russia or China and others. At least one of the President's senior advisers has suggested that these reductions could be unilateral. It's worth noting that the impetus for this review is outside the norm. It is unexplainable. Traditionally, a President has directed his military advisers to determine, chiefly, what level of our nuclear force is needed to deter a potential adversary from attacking us or our allies. The answer to that question should be what drives the strategy, not a President's political ideology. For example, this is how Secretary Powell stated that President Bush looked at the issue. He stated: President Bush gathered his advisers around him and he instructed us as follows: ``Find the lowest number we need to make America safe, to make America safe today, and to make America safe in the future. Do not think of this in Cold War terms.'' The House Armed Services Committee has been asking questions, holding briefings with the administration, even hearings about the details that we need to explain what the administration is doing. Unfortunately, the only information we have at this point is what we're learning from the media. Why would the administration be unwilling to share even the basic terms of reference for this review, known as Presidential Policy Directive 11? Why wouldn't it share other basic instructions from the Defense Department? The President, after all, is directing a strategic review that could border on disarmament and significantly diminish U.S. strength. It is not even clear that the unilateral reductions to the U.S. nuclear forces that are currently required by the New START agreement are in the best interests of our national security. And the Defense Department refuses to tell Congress how it plans to implement that treaty. The Senate was ultimately comfortable with those reductions once the President promised to provide his own plan for modernization of our U.S. nuclear deterrent. The President's most recent budget, however, abandons the nuclear modernization funding that he promised. Case in point is the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility, the construction of which the President pledged a little more than a year ago to accelerate and which in this year's budget he deferred for 5 years, which basically means that this project will be canceled. Thus, the President leaves the United States with virtually no militarily significant plutonium pit production capacity, which other nuclear weapons state still possesses. And he wants to seek steep new reductions in the U.S. nuclear forces. This can only be described as a bait-and-switch strategy. Any further reductions must be met with ample justification for how U.S. nuclear security will be enhanced. Simply saying that U.S. should ``reduce the roles and numbers'' of its nuclear weapons is nothing more than putting hope in the place of our strategy. Our military leaders share these sentiments. General Chilton, in talking about the number of warheads that we currently have, said: ``The arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed to provide the deterrent.'' Clearly, any further reductions will undermine the deterrent that has kept our country safe. Our nuclear weapons provide for the safety of this Nation and our allies around the globe. A number of countries with the capability and resources to do so have not pursued this. We ask for support for this in Ronald Reagan's ``peace through strength'' policy.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I rise in agreement with the ranking member on the issue of this amendment. The subject matter of this amendment is really wholly inappropriate. It is the movement of brigades. From a policy perspective, we should not, on this bill or on any bill, be dictating the movement of brigades. Should we get out the map of the world and see where all of our brigades are and have a debate in Congress as to how they be moved about? No. That is something that is supposed to occur in consultation with the experts in full, and participation of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense. And no disrespect to the authors, but they have no expertise or experience in how the positioning of our brigades should go for our overall national security. Mr. Coffman has previously authored an amendment that was on the National Defense Authorization Act that used language of permit the reassignment or the removal of brigades. But this is directive. This says these brigades shall be moved, and it does so under the assumption that there will be cost savings. But we all know that when you actually move a brigade, there are a number of costs that are incurred that are greater than any savings that you would have in offset. It's been said that the Soviet Union no longer exists. You're right; the Soviet Union no longer exists. But we have commitments in the Middle East and our assistance to Africa and our relationship with Israel. These troops are not there standing guard against the Soviet Union that's not there anymore. They're in active deployment under the Secretary of Defense with the current threats that we have for our national security. Certainly, as the ranking member has indicated, there's ongoing assessments as to where these brigades should be assigned and where their responsibility should be, and those should be left to our oversight of the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense, not to our directive of the moving of brigades. There are some concerns that even the language of this and the directing of movement of brigades might be logistically implausible. One of the reasons we don't direct these things is that we don't really have the ability to understand all of the cascades of effects that occur. Now, I certainly understand the call for increased spending from our NATO partners. That is certainly something that this body should do; but in calling for our NATO partners to increase their participation in the expenditures of NATO in their own defense, we should not be directing the Secretary of Defense to actually move brigades. It is an expertise we don't have in a debate that should not be happening from a policy perspective on this floor. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. The reality is that our nuclear deterrent is used every day. And when you say that nuclear weapons won't be used, you can only say that with respect to our heart, the heart of this country, the heart of this country that wants to make certain that freedom is safe and our allies are safe. We can't say that for others. Iran and North Korea are pursuing nuclear weapons not because they just want the increased power, they want that technology. They want that ability to have weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his work on this on the appropriations side. This is an important issue, and this really goes to the heart of our national security. My amendment does nothing, by the way, to prohibit the implementation of New START. But the thing that is important here is that there are those who talk about nonproliferation, and I think we are all wanting nuclear weapons to be restricted and to stop their growth. But there's a difference between nonproliferation and disarmament of the United States. Only the United States is reducing our nuclear weapons. In New START, Russia wasn't required to reduce at all. Only the United States was reduced. You have India, you have Pakistan, you have Iran and North Korea. North Korea already is a recognized nuclear weapons state. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. And both of those nations are seeking ICBM technology for the purposes of placing the United States at risk. Secretary Gates, upon his departure, was saying that North Korea is becoming an absolute threat to mainland United States with its nuclear weapons and its ICBM technology. We can only be confident that others will not use nuclear weapons to the extent that we can stand strong as a nuclear weapons state. That needs to be derived from what is the threat and the number of weapons to ensure that we have both survivability and the ability to place their assets and their nations at risk. A couple of hundred--and all due respect to the ranking member--is based upon no science whatsoever. Our commander of U.S. Strategic Command, General Chilton, who has been through this science and who is charged with keeping the United States safe, said that the arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent. Our concern is that the President, on his road to zero, has made it clear that even though it will have no effect on reducing the nuclear arsenals of other nations, he would move to unilaterally reduce ours. That's why we're on this floor, not as the Senate, but as the House to say we are going to restrict funding to prevent the President from unilaterally disarming us. If the President is committed to a road to zero, show us any evidence that he is able to persuade anyone else to reduce their nuclear weapons, because we don't have any evidence of anyone else reducing except the President's trying to reduce ours.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Sir, thank you for yielding me time. And I know you certainly do know about this topic, which is why I know that you also know that we use our nuclear deterrent every day. While we stand on this floor and speak with the freedoms that we have, our nuclear deterrent keeps us safe. Abandoning our nuclear deterrent would not make us safe.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. To respond to the gentleman, again, our nuclear deterrent is used every day. Every day, it keeps us safe because it ensures that our country----

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today, my colleague, Congressman Russ Carnahan, and I, as co-chairs of the Historic Preservation Caucus, introduced the Rehabilitation of Historic Schools Act, which would incentivize private investment to help rehabilitate our country's older K-12 public school buildings. It is imperative that we improve our educational facilities to help our children learn and compete in today's economy. According to the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics, 28 percent of all public K-12 schools were built before 1950. In addition, a study by the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the quality of our nation's public school facilities a ``D'' rating. As state and local governments continue to feel pressure in this difficult economy, Congress must remove red tape that hinders private investment in our public schools. Established by Congress over thirty years ago, the Historic Tax Credit, HTC, has helped create 2.2 million jobs, incentivized nearly $100 billion in private investment, and renovated more than 38,000 buildings, while helping to revitalize our communities and protect our country's cultural heritage. In 2011, the HTC leveraged more than $4 billion in private investment and helped create nearly 56,000 jobs to rehabilitate 937 projects. Unfortunately, under current law, a restriction on the prior use of a property limits the ability of local governments to partner with private developers to rehabilitate older public schools through the use of the HTC. This bipartisan and bicameral bill would remove this barrier, incentivizing the renovation of older K-12 public schools, improving the learning environment for our nation's youth and helping spur local job creation. Our communities must have the ability to provide our children with the premier, 21st Century education they deserve. By allowing this incentivized private investment, school districts can rehabilitate their facilities at lower costs and dedicate more funding to educating their students. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to co-sponsor this important bill.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking in honor of United States Marine Scout Sniper CPL Joshua Sams of Wilmington, Ohio. On January 12th, 2012 while on foot patrol, CPL Sams almost lost his life in an improvised explosive device, IED, explosion in Helmand Province in Deply Marsh Garsha, Afghanistan. Losing both his legs and suffering numerous other injuries, Joshua with only his will to live has come back from the brink of death. His father Peter, who served in the Air Force in the Vietnam War and Joshua's lovely wife Lindsey are the unsung heroes of the family. They have stood by Joshua throughout his recovery. Joshua has always been a winner in the game of life. Whether a star quarterback who led his team towards a championship in high school in Ohio, or on the battlefield of honor, his character, courage, and leadership as a Marine and Scout Sniper have inspired all who have been around him. On this day, in tribute to CPL Sams, remember why we live in such a great Nation, and remember men like Joshua and their fine families who provide the bed of Freedom for all of us. Remember the fallen heroes and their families. I ask that this poem penned in honor of Joshua and his family by Albert Caswell be placed in the Congressional Record. Going Deeppppppp! Going . . . Going Deeppppp! All In The Game of Life . . . What will our hearts so seek? And so strive for to achieve! Will we fall short? Or will we go deep? All in our hearts of honor, what promises will we so keep! All in our souls, to so strive for and so very deep! Will we shine bright? Will we put it all on the line? Will we make each shot so count, all in our time to so complete? Wam! Bam! Thank you Sams! As Hero, your life is one that is ever so very sweet! Because, on battlefields of honor bright! There are but all those who so bring their light! Who aim so very high, as onto greatness they so set their sights! Who so make the shot, and make it count all in that fight! Who but give all that they've so got! Who so lead, not follow . . . and that says it all . . . that says a lot! Or on football fields of green . . . There are but those who are so seen! Who come up to the line to so convene . . . Who do not follow, but so lead! For in The Game of Life, every step that we so take, will our very futures all so make! All in what we have so left, until we so take our last and final breath's! Will this world our lives so bless? Will we go deep all in our life's quest? Or will we come up short, only to in our old ages our lives will we so regret! When, we so realize . . . That In The Game of Life, our hearts were not so pledged! Better to die for something, than live for nothing at all! Better to give up your two strong legs, and walk like a hero and stand ever so tall! Than, walk on two legs and crawl! Better to go deep, and put it all on the line . . . than not at all! Do we do it? Do we hear that call? Or in the end, are we but left with nothing at all! For In The Game of Life, Cpl Sams, you've made a difference with it all! And still you're coming up to that line, and going deep with that long ball each and every time! For, your life has been and will always be, all about going deep and making that call! Because, some men are put upon this earth! To So Beseech Us, To So Teach Us . . . in all their worth! To Lead one and all! Yea, you United States Marine . . . all in your most heroic shades of green! As a sniper out into that darkness of night, or in the brightness of day unseen! Inspiring all of your brothers, fellow Marines! Yea, just like on those football fields of green . . . You've always completed the long one, if you know what I mean! And then when you lost your legs, and death was but days away! You could have given up, and given way! But, you've got miles to go before your last days! And you've got hearts to so touch in so many ways! As you run to day light each day! And you've got that lovely wife Lindsey who is the love of your life, and so helped your heart to stay! And children in the future to so raise someday . . . For you are the kind of son, that every Father so wished he so had one! Marine, for you are a Champion in all that you have done! And it's not even halftime yet, and In The Game Of Life you have so many victories ahead my son, so many Championships to so achieve! As all in your heart of courage to keep! As what you've always done, compete! Because, you put GD in Going Deeppppp!

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the flawed Obamacare law adversely affects American families, small businesses and millions of seniors. Even before the law is fully implemented, Obamacare already increases costs on hard-working American families and businesses. For example, healthcare premiums have already increased by $1,200 for the average American family. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate of the President's healthcare law is a tax. This tax will have tremendous consequences on individuals, working families, businesses, and local governments. In fact, the most recent Congressional Budget Office estimate indicates that the individual mandate will impose $54 billion in new taxes on Americans over 10 years. We have heard from many businesses across the country that the employer mandate will be devastating for them and their employees. For example, the employer mandate to provide healthcare coverage will penalize American firms by $113 billion over 10 years and could eliminate 1.6 million jobs. 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. That is why last week I authored H.R. 6048, the Healthcare Tax Relief and Mandate Repeal Act, with 125 of my colleagues, to repeal the Obamacare individual and employer mandates, providing relief for American families and businesses. Mr. Speaker, I am also troubled by the Obamacare 2.3 percent tax on medical devices. Mound Laser and Photonics Center, headquartered in Miamisburg, Ohio in my district, specializes in laser-based micro and nano-fabrication. The majority of its workers have backgrounds in science and engineering, critical fields our country needs to compete in the global economy. Unfortunately, the company reported it was forced to lay off 10 employees due to the loss of business from one of its medical device clients. Another company in my community, Ferno-Washington Inc., a global leader in manufacturing and distribution of professional emergency and healthcare products based in Wilmington, Ohio, says the tax increase will cause the company to scale back research, development, and production of new products, hampering the company's ability to compete. The executives at Ferno estimate the cost of the tax is equivalent to 23 jobs. This Congress, I authored H.R. 1310, a bill to repeal this tax for first responder medical devices and co-sponsored a bill to eliminate this unfair tax altogether. 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 Obamacare and am committed to working with my colleagues to carefully and thoughtfully implement real healthcare reform.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Madam Speaker, on July 10, 2012, I was unable to vote on rollcall vote 455. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to adjourn.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today we recognize General (ret.) Bruce Carlson, who will step down as the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office in July 2012 after three years of exemplary leadership. General Carlson leaves a legacy of remarkable accomplishments with the National Reconnaissance Office including, the most aggressive launch campaign in a quarter of a century, all major systems acquisition programs operating at or below budget, a corporate process for making critical budget and space architecture decisions, and a significantly more healthy space reconnaissance constellation. General Carlson's dedicated leadership; integrity and hard work have positioned the National Reconnaissance Office for continued success that will have an enduring impact on our national security. Prior to his time at the National Reconnaissance Office, General Carlson had a distinguished career spanning over 37 years with the U.S. Air Force. He began his military career as a commissioned officer in 1971 after graduating with distinction from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training program at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. He is a command pilot with more than 3,700 flying hours in ten different aircraft, and saw combat as a forward air controller in the OV-10 Bronco. His various flying assignments included commanding the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, the Air Force's first stealth fighter wing. His staff assignments included positions at Tactical Air Command, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, and the offices of the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of Defense. He also served as the Director of Force Structure, Resources and Assessment on the Joint Staff; Commander, 8th Air Force, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana; and Joint Functional Component Commander for Space and Global Strike, U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, Nebraska. Prior to his retirement from the U.S. Air Force, General Carlson served as Commander Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, which is responsible for development, testing, acquisition and sustainment of Air Force weapons systems. In that role, he had responsibility for 74,000 people and $59 billion annually. He was promoted from Lieutenant General to General, pinning on his fourth star, on September 1, 2005. He and his wife, Vicki, are very proud of their three children and ten grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Bruce Carlson has been a dedicated public servant, both in his service to his country in the U.S. military and as a senior executive at the National Reconnaissance Office. It is appropriate that we honor him today for his many contributions.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, we must ensure that the men and women who bravely served our country have access to affordable housing. My amendment seeks to make sure that conflicting government regulations do not pose an impediment to achieving this important goal. Currently, the VA requires a veteran's preference for housing built on VA property. However, HUD requires that HUD-assisted projects contain no preferences. These conflicting rules and regulations make it nearly impossible to help low-income senior veterans access affordable housing on VA property with HUD assistance. My amendment prohibits HUD from using funds to enforce the restriction against a veteran's preference for housing projects built on a VA campus or that use a VA-enhanced use lease. The language is identical to an amendment that I authored which the House unanimously approved twice and was included in H.R. 3288, the Fiscal Year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act. As a result, in my southwest Ohio community, St. Mary Development Corporation is currently building housing for senior veterans on the campus of the Dayton VA, which will help provide veterans close access to the services they need. Mr. Chairman, this project can be a model in that it can be used across the country to help homeless veterans, provide low-income housing for veterans, and respond to the needs of seniors in the community. I urge all my colleagues to support this important amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2012, I was unable to vote on rollcall vote 380. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on passage of S. 404.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the repeal of the ObamaCare medical device tax, which stifles research and costs jobs at a time when our economy is struggling to recover. My bill, H.R. 1310, which repeals this tax on first responder medical devices, shares the goal of H.R. 436, the Health Care Cost Reduction Act. In my community, Mound Laser and Photonics Center, which provides services to the medical device industry, was forced to layoff 10 employees as a result of this impending tax. Ferno, another company in my community which manufactures emergency health care products, says this tax will result in reduced research, development and production of new products. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 436 and repeal this burdensome tax. Mr. Speaker, beginning in 2013, a 2.3 percent excise tax will be imposed on the sale of medical devices by manufacturers, providers, or importers. This tax will place yet another burden on American businesses, stifling development of innovative life-saving products and costing jobs when our economy is struggling to recover, and will result in higher costs and inferior care for patients. I strongly support the repeal of the 2.3 percent medical device excise tax. That is why I authored H.R. 1310, to repeal this tax on medical devices used by first responders. My bill shares the goal of H.R. 436, the Health Care Cost Reduction Act, which includes a provision to completely repeal the excise tax. Earlier this year, a company headquartered in Miamisburg, Ohio in my district, Mound Laser & Photonics Center, MLPC, wrote to me about the negative effect of this new tax. MLPC specializes in laser-based micro and nano-fabrication and provides services to a number of markets, including the medical device industry. The firm is a tremendous research and development success story in southwest Ohio, growing from three employees to over forty. The majority of these workers have backgrounds in science and engineering, critical fields our country needs to compete in the global economy. However, MLPC recently scaled back its operations and was forced to lay off 10 employees due to the loss of business from one of its medical device clients. Specifically, Dr. Larry Dosser, President and CEO of MLPC wrote: This is an unprecedented and devastating decision, which I believe is a direct result of Obama's Healthcare Reform Act. Not only does this impact the lives of these very good people, it also impacts MLPC's progress on a new facility that would be a major demonstration project for advanced manufacturing in the Dayton region. I have also met with business leaders from Ferno-Washington Inc., a global leader in manufacturing and distribution of professional emergency and healthcare products based in Wilmington, Ohio. Ferno says the tax increase will cause the company to scale back research, development, and production of new products, hampering the company's ability to compete. The executives at Ferno estimate the cost of the tax is equivalent to 23 jobs. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to impose an extra burden on American businesses when our economy is struggling to get back on track. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 436 and repeal the 2.3 percent medical device excise tax.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, unbelievably, across this country in family law courts, in States, our servicemembers stand before family law court judges who take custody away from our servicemembers upon their return from either, previously, Iraq or, now, Afghanistan based solely on the fact that they were away from their children serving their country. Mr. Speaker, we should not have one arm of the government ordering our servicemembers to deploy and another arm of our government taking their children away from them based upon the fact that they were away servicing their country. One servicemember, Eva Slusher, who has been a champion of this issue, has said that she did not understand when she got back, by law, they had to give her her job back but, by law, no one had to return to her her child. Servicemembers risk their lives in support of the contingency operations that keep our Nation safe. State courts should not be allowed to use a servicemember's previous deployments or the possibility of future deployments when making child custody determinations. State courts should not be allowed to use a servicemember's previous deployments or the possibility when making these child custody determinations. Our bill would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to protect servicemembers against this injustice by providing a uniform national standard. The lack of uniform laws creates uncertainty that adversely affects readiness and morale. State laws differ on the question of whether deployment or the potential for future deployment can be used as a criterion for these courts, and many States have no laws at all. The difference in State laws provides an opportunity for ex-spouses to venue shop to find a State that will alter custody agreements. Many servicemember custody battles involve up to three States: the State of the original custody order, the State where the child is residing, and the State where the servicemember is stationed. This bill creates a protective floor to ensure that all military parents can feel confident that their service to our country will not be used against them in our courts. In supporting this legislation, Secretary Gates stated: ``I am convinced that the benefits outweigh the concerns and, thus, we should work with Congress to pursue an acceptable legislative formulation.'' The language of this bill has passed the House on seven separate occasions, and the bill has strong bipartisan support. I have a letter to Leon Panetta that is signed by every member of the House Armed Services Committee that I will enter into the Record. Our men and women in uniform sacrifice a great deal to serve our country. We owe it to them to provide uniform legal standards regarding child custody. Our servicemen and -women should never be in the position of having to choose between their country and their family; or while they're on service, they should not have to worry what might happen to them when they return. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 29, 2012. Mr. Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Panetta: We appreciate your interest stated during the February 15, 2012 House Armed Services Committee (HASC) hearing in protecting child custody rights for our men and women in uniform. As you know, legislative language addressing this issue has already passed the House of Representatives on six separate occasions. It has passed five times as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, every year from 2008 through 2012. Additionally, in 2008 this language passed the House as a stand-alone bill (H.R. 6048) by voice vote. Sixty members from both sides of the aisle signed on to H.R. 6048 as co-sponsors. Most recently, the bill was included in the Managers Package in the FY12 House NDAA and was supported by the Department of Defense (DoD). Enclosed are letters of support that both Secretary Gates and Secretary Stanley provided for this legislation last year. Also enclosed is the 2010 HASC letter to Secretary Gates. As we move forward with the current legislative session, we look forward to the same level of support from the DoD in addressing this important issue and ensuring that our men and women in uniform have their parental rights protected. Sincerely, Michael R. Turner, Member of Congress. Robert Andrews, Member of Congress. HASC Signatures Michael Turner, Rob Andrews, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Adam Smith, Ranking Member, Mac Thornberry, Vice Chairman, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Walter B. Jones, W. Todd Akin, J. Randy Forbes, Jeff Miller, Joe Wilson, Frank A. LoBiondo, John Kline, Mike Rogers, Trent Franks, Bill Shuster, K. Michael Conaway, Doug Lamborn, Rob Wittman, Duncan Hunter, John C. Fleming, Mike Coffman, Thomas J. Rooney, Todd Russell Platts, Scott Rigell, Chris Gibson, Vicky Hartzler, Joe Heck, Bobby Schilling, Jon Runyan, Austin Scott. Tim Griffin, Steve Palazzo, Allen West, Martha Roby, Mo Brooks, Todd Young, Silvestre Reyes, Loretta Sanchez, Mike McIntyre, Robert A. Brady, Susan A. Davis, James R. Langevin, Rick Larsen, Jim Cooper, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Joe Courtney, David Loebsack, Niki Tsongas, Chellie Pingree, Larry Kissell, Martin Heinrich, William L. Owens, John Garamendi, Mark Critz, Tim Ryan, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Hank Johnson, Betty Sutton, Colleen Hanabusa, Kathleen C. Hochul, Jackie Speier.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).