Michael Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, over the past year-and-a-half the administration and the majority in Congress have enacted legislation authorizing an unprecedented amount of government spending and intervention in private enterprise. I opposed many of these measures because I believed they spent money we don't have on programs that would not stimulate the economy. An Ohio-based economist recently released a report stating that the State of Ohio has lost a staggering 587,000 jobs since 2001. In particular, the report indicated that at the end of the last decade each of Ohio's 88 counties lost employment, a total of 338,000 jobs, or 6.6 percent of all employment that year. Specifically, my home county, Montgomery County, was one of the hardest hit counties in the State and the Nation. Over the past 9 years, Montgomery County has lost 20 percent of its total jobs and 53 percent of its manufacturing sector jobs. Today, current unemployment rates in my district for Montgomery County total over 12 percent, Clinton County over 17 percent, Highland County over 17 percent, Warren County over 9 percent. The American people are looking for both sides to find reasonable solutions to these critical challenges. Congress needs to curb our out- of-control spending and enact bipartisan, commonsense solutions to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as we turn on the news networks and we listen about the oil spill in the Gulf, the American people want to know, how could this happen? As Americans read the news about this particular oil platform having had problems over several years, and how equipment meant to prevent an oil spill malfunctioned, they want to know where was the enforcement of safety regulations to prevent this disaster? The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have called for an energy policy that includes more drilling. Americans are concerned, however, that if the administration can't manage this current crisis, how can we manage even more drilling? I agree with most Americans that we need an ``all of the above'' energy plan that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. However, the American people expect answers from this administration. How did this happen? How should this have been prevented? Why was there a delay in the administration providing a response to this disaster? And what will the administration do now? Our Nation awaits these answers.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the members of the House Armed Services Committee as well as Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their support in bringing this bill to the floor today. I also appreciate their leadership in incorporating language from the Turner Amendment into the en bloc amendment in Committee, which was approved when the bill was reported out last week. Our effectiveness on the battlefields of tomorrow relies in part on our ability to foster the innovation and technology that have made American armed forces the strongest in the world. As is the case with so many military issues, as we consider this bill we must ensure we consider our most important and precious resource: The service members who serve our country in the military. My amendment seeks to assist service members in their training and education. The Turner Amendment also seeks to ensure that DoD leverages the acquisition educational centers of excellence already in place. These organizations of excellence--such as those at Defense Acquisition University and the Air Force Institute of Technology, known as ``AFIT,'' located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base--do an excellent job of educating acquisition professionals. By enhancing and improving the programs at these existing institutions, my amendment will validate appropriate and effective acquisition curricula, and leverage institutional knowledge, educational professionals, and best practices. Finally, the amendment directs organizations to identify sufficient funding amounts required for training and education. Training requirements for personnel are important, and we must ensure that our educational institutions provide the updated and improved curricula to meet these requirements. We must also ensure the Department of Defense is planning ahead and providing the necessary resources to train the next generation of acquisition professionals. I thank my colleagues for their unanimous bipartisan support for the Turner Amendment language incorporated in this reform legislation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Exactly.

Mr. TURNER. It's a very good point. Because those nations that depend upon us, who have not developed nuclear weapons, who believe that they are part of our nuclear umbrella, that they believe that we extend, in cooperative understanding, our deterrents for their benefit. If that deterrence is removed, then, of course, there is the prospect that these additional nations will feel the need to develop their own weapons.

Mr. TURNER. Let me go back to that for a second. You said the administration is actually calling this an assurance policy, that they are providing assurances. But usually I think and the American people think of the word ``assurance'' being something you give your friends and allies. And, in this instance, this is an assurance that the administration is giving to a nation that would be an attacker to our Nation, someone who is attacking us. That's not the circumstance of what I would think of assurance.

Mr. TURNER. It's the reality, though, of the issue of defending our Nation. And here this President has said, I won't take anything off the table. I will always do what's necessary to defend the United States. Period. That was last May. And then now, with the administration's nuclear posture review, he is saying, but I am going to, in advance, tell you that if you are in compliance with the NPT, if you attack this Nation, if you attack the United States, even if you attack the United States with chemical or biological weapons, I am going to take off the table the nuclear weapons that are in my arsenal, even if it's necessary to protect the United States. Now, they go on to say, the administration says, well, we have overwhelming conventional forces and so that will make a bit of a difference. We don't really need our nuclear weapons. But they say they are doing this to try to encourage others to not develop nuclear weapons. Again, there is no historical basis for it. As we have reduced our stockpiles and Russia has reduced their stockpiles, other nations have continued to seek nuclear weapons. But the other issue is, what is the true message then to those other nations? Well, we have overwhelming conventional force. They don't have overwhelming conventional force. Certainly, developing nuclear weapons is an equalizer that they can look to. I think it's disingenuous to say that we are not going to use our nuclear weapons, but we might change our mind, but at the same time we want you not to use them. But it's in that framework of the hypothetical of saying that this, this country, if it's attacked, won't defend itself to the full extent when it might be necessary.

Mr. TURNER. Well, here is, I think, the most important thing. You invoked Ronald Reagan and you were saying how you shouldn't answer hypotheticals. I think here is what the blanket statement should be. The blanket statement should be, when it comes to defending the United States against a devastating attack, our message should be clear and simple. If our Nation is attacked, we will use all means necessary to defend ourselves, period. There shouldn't be an issue of whether they signed, whether they agreed that they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons and so we are not going to use nuclear weapons. I mean, first off, nobody is for using nuclear weapons. I mean, there is no advocacy group that says we need to be using nuclear weapons or no one, certainly--from a human value statement, the President's statement of a world without nuclear weapons is something that everyone would want to achieve.

Mr. TURNER. The administration is saying the what-if is if this country is attacked by someone who is in compliance with the NPT, even if we're attacked with biological or chemical weapons, they would not use everything that we have in our arsenal that might be necessary in order to protect ourselves.

Mr. TURNER. That is what this policy is. It's a what-if.

Mr. TURNER. I appreciate your leadership. We serve in the Armed Services Committee together so these are issues that we take up frequently. We held a hearing today on the Nuclear Posture Review and on the START Treaty, and there are a number of things as you outlined that I think people should be very concerned about. One, of course, is what they're referring to as the negative assurances where in the Nuclear Posture Review they've included a statement where the President has taken off the table the prospects of using nuclear weapons in defense of this Nation in circumstances where we are attacked by a nation that is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty, and even if that attack is with either chemical or biological weapons. Before we always had the posture of we'll do whatever it takes, whatever is necessary to defend this Nation. And the President himself last May said--he clearly stated, I don't take options off the table when it comes to U.S. security. Period. Unfortunately, this administration's Nuclear Posture Review does just that. It delivers a muddled message to both our allies and our adversaries that only seeks to weaken the strength of our deterrent. It's really unclear as to why the administration has done this if you look at the issue of threat. Certainly the threat has not been reduced to the United States. So to take a posture where you're going to restrict what we would use in order to defend ourselves is not based upon some change that has occurred in the threats that the United States is facing. They have said that they are pursuing this policy of restricting our use of our own defensive weapons in order to encourage others not to seek nuclear weapons. But there is no historical basis for that. The United States has continued to reduce the overall number of nuclear weapons, as has Russia. As we've seen, Iran is seeking to be a nuclear power; North Korea is becoming a nuclear power. Without any historical basis for an assumption that others would not seek nuclear weapons if the United States agrees to not use theirs, this administration has proceeded down this path.

Mr. TURNER. Dayton, Ohio.

Mr. TURNER. We will have to see what comes out of the conference that the President has held. He was identifying the increase, that threat that we have for nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation issues. And certainly those are the correct issues for him to be raising at this point, and we certainly wish him great success in accomplishing some visible reduction in the threat to the United States, besides just the visible reduction in the role and the number of U.S. deterrents.

Mr. TURNER. Congressman, you had also mentioned the the point of START and the issue of missile defense. I think one issue that people are concerned about that relates directly to this issue is any limitation on the United States' ability to defend itself in deploying what is a provable, workable technology in missile defense. The START treaty has in its preamble or recognition between the United States and Russia the correlation between defensive and strategic weapons. The Russians have stepped forward and said that this language, they believe, was essential in order to get their approval for START, because they want the United States' missile defense system to be counted against the issue of our nuclear deterrent--their nuclear deterrent. They haven't gone as far as to say that they might withdraw from START, depending on the extent to which we deploy a missile defense system. Well, what's really concerning is that the administration, at this same time that they are agreeing to and pursuing the START, which has been signed, with language that ties missile defense to our nuclear deterrent, the administration is pursuing for Europe a missile defense system. Now, it's unclear whether the President's own plan for a missile defense system already violates the Russians' concern under START. We may be in a situation where the President is pursuing a policy that will already cause the relationship with Russia start to be a terminal relationship. In the hearing today, I asked Secretary Tauscher, where are we with the Russians on this issue? The administration already knows what they want to do with missile defense. It is certainly something knowable by the Russians at this point. The Russians are saying they will withdraw if the missile defense is pursued. My concern is that the administration will get down the road, where they will have supported START, received ratification of START, be pursuing a missile defense system that Russia objects to and that it might weaken this administration's resolve for deploying that system.

Mr. TURNER. Absolutely.

Mr. TURNER. I think it's also a false accomplishment. When the administration promotes this statement of a world without nuclear weapons, again, it's a human-value statement that I think everyone would wish to be true. But in translating it then to a to-do list or a policy from the United States, going from a human-value statement to an actual to-do list and policy without a change that has occurred in the world dynamics, that's where we get dangerous for the United States. Here is the false accomplishment. This President will talk about his accomplishment of limiting the role and the number of U.S. nuclear weapons. I think what people are interested in is this President limiting the nuclear weapons risk that we are facing as a Nation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose a government takeover of our nation's healthcare system. It is irresponsible for Congress to approve a vastly unpopular and costly measure at a time of unprecedented budget deficits and uncertainty about the future of the economy. Despite overwhelming opposition by the American people, the Majority in Congress, led by Speaker Pelosi, has resorted to manipulating longstanding procedural rules to rush through an overhaul of our nation's healthcare system. My constituents understand that any bill that requires backroom special deals to pass is fundamentally flawed. Obtaining quality medical care is a top priority for Ohioans and their families. Instead of forcing an unpopular, one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare reform, Congress and the White House should listen to the American people and return to the drawing board to negotiate a real bipartisan agreement in order to achieve true reform. Real health care reform does not have to undermine the strengths of our current system, nor limit doctor choice or care availability. A series of commonsense measures will go a long way toward improving health care for all Americans. For example, insurance companies should be prohibited from excluding a person for coverage based on pre- existing conditions. Medical research is also essential to bringing health care costs down. Private ingenuity is the strength of our current system and should be preserved and encouraged. The federal bureaucracy cannot stand in the way of such important research. When employees change jobs, they should be able to take their health insurance with them. Continuity of coverage can be critical for a person in the midst of important health-related treatment. Our litigation system forces doctors and hospitals to raise operating costs. For decades, the cost of medical liability has risen much more rapidly than actual medical care. Limiting frivolous lawsuits would have a significant effect on containing health care costs and promoting accessibility to care. Individuals should be allowed to deduct the full cost of their health insurance premiums from their federal income taxes. Furthermore, we should expand the ability to put tax-free dollars into Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to be used for lifetime medical expenses. These measures alone would make health care more affordable for many. These are reasonable reforms that don't rely upon the creation of a new, massive government health system. Although I oppose this bill, I will continue to fight to replace this government takeover of our healthcare system, and I remain committed to supporting Southwest Ohioans' call for commonsense solutions.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, while we are debating this bill, Americans are concerned about the pending health care legislation. Americans know that advances in medical research are a strength of the American health care system and should be encouraged instead of restricted by additional layers of redtape. Unfortunately, this misguided health care legislation would reduce Medicare payments to CAT scan and MRI providers. It also creates a 2.9 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers. The lowered payments and increased taxes can reduce the availability of new and advancing medical imaging technology. This will inhibit future innovation in medical research and will delay or deny patient access to new and valuable technologies. Continued innovation that improves patient-centered medicine is vital to the long-term availability of health care services in America. This is just one example of the number of provisions buried in this pending health care bill. The unintended consequences of lowering payments and increasing taxes will constrain future research and development and hinder our doctors' ability to deliver the best quality care to our patients. This pending health care legislation will end up restricting the innovation and invention which is at the heart of the American economy. And for that reason, I strongly oppose the bill, and we should be debating that bill today.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I am just a bill, and I am sitting here on Capitol Hill waiting for a vote, apparently, unless you're in Nancy Pelosi's House. Unlike in ``School House Rock,'' Nancy Pelosi says that this little guy doesn't need to wait around for a vote. He can be deemed to be passed. Now, this is a new one for my daughter Jessica's high school government class. They can't understand how Speaker Pelosi can deem a bill passed without a vote. There is no deeming a bill passed in ``School House Rock'' or in the expectations of the American people. In today's Washington Post, Speaker Pelosi tells us why she wants to deem the health care bill passed without a vote. She suggests that it politically protects lawmakers who are reluctantly supporting the measure. However, the American people are smart. They know that for this bill to become law, it takes a vote. Madam Speaker, let's stop the parliamentary tricks. Let's bring this bill to a vote, and I will be voting ``no.''

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, it is irresponsible for Congress to continue debating an increasingly unpopular and costly health care bill at a time of record-breaking deficits and uncertainty about our economy. We should be focusing on reducing spending and creating jobs. In Tuesday's New York Times, columnist David Brooks editorialized that the majority's ``passion for coverage has swamped their . . . commitment to reducing the debt. The result is a bill that is fundamentally imbalanced.'' Brooks wrote that ``they've stuffed the legislation with gimmicks and dodges designed to get a good score from the Congressional Budget Office but that don't genuinely control runaway spending.'' He points out that the bill appears deficit-neutral because it immediately collects revenues but doesn't pay for benefits until 2014. It also doesn't include $300 billion in additional costs because it assumes Congress will cut Medicare reimbursements by 21 percent. Unfortunately, this proposed government takeover of health care has blocked the path to reasonable reform. We can and must work together on a bipartisan basis to achieve real reform that will bring down costs and increase access for all Americans without increasing the national debt.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my long-time staff member and dear friend, Stacy Barton, as she departs from her distinguished service to the United States Congress. Stacy has served as my chief of staff for four terms as the Representative from Ohio's Third Congressional District. She has served the people of my community with great enthusiasm and unrivaled commitment, and will be missed by all who have had the honor of working with her. Stacy grew up in Calvert County, Maryland, where her grandparents owned a tobacco farm. She attended both Northern Middle and Northern High schools, later enrolling at St. Mary's College to major in psychology and sociology. After beginning her graduate studies at the University of Delaware, Stacy enrolled in a fellowship program through the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. It was then that she began her Hill career, serving the distinguished Member from Washington, D.C., Eleanor Holmes Norton. Following her fellowship, Stacy remained in Representative Norton's office for another year before leaving the Hill. She later served as the director of government relations for a firm with a focus on urban development, representing clients such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I first met Stacy in her work with the U.S. Conference of Mayors and for the City of Dayton, Ohio. Stacy formed her own lobbying firm, the Barton Company, in January 1999, advocating for many mayors throughout the country. She served as the city of Dayton's Washington, D.C., office when I served as the mayor of Dayton. In 2002, Stacy closed her firm to serve as chief of staff in my Congressional office on the seventh floor of the Longworth House office building. She served with great distinction and, at times, has been the only African American chief of staff to a Republican Member in either the House or the Senate. It has been suggested that Stacy Barton may be the first female African American to serve as chief of staff to a Republican Member of the House. And I dare say that she probably is the only staffer from Eleanor Holmes Norton's office to serve as chief of staff to a Republican Member of Congress. As is often the case with life on the hill, Stacy's public service has come with many personal sacrifices, including spending a great deal of time away from her husband, Lee, and her two incredible children, Morgan and Miles. In addition to the battles fought daily on Capitol Hill, Stacy has lived with multiple sclerosis, cared for her mother who was diagnosed with cancer, and raised a daughter with autism. Stacy and I have worked together for over 10 years. Stacy, as you leave the seventh floor of Longworth this evening, I owe you my sincere thanks and gratitude for your friendship and for your counsel. I wish you a happy new beginning.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as the administration begins to finally focus on job creation, they should look to the auto industry. Last year, the Federal Government, at the insistence of the administration, provided a $30 billion bailout to General Motors to create, according to administration officials, ``a leaner and more efficient company.'' Recently, in House hearings, I questioned Assistant Treasury Secretary Allison about taxpayer dollars subsidizing GM expansion and investment overseas. This taxpayer bailout appears to have cost additional U.S. jobs and is jeopardizing automotive supplier companies. Harco Manufacturing, from my congressional district, is an example of a supplier being impacted by the bailout of General Motors. After receiving bailout funds, General Motors has selected suppliers from overseas, making it nearly impossible for domestic companies to fairly compete for business. Harco has requested that auto czar Ed Montgomery visit their facility to talk about these issues during his trip to Ohio tomorrow. It is my hope that Mr. Montgomery will work with them to help grow jobs here and not overseas. Mr. Speaker, American auto suppliers deserve better from their government.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, Member requests associated with the fiscal year 2010 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 3326). Project--Advanced Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) Requesting Member: Michael Turner Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Air Force, RDT&E Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Advanced Technical Intelligence Center for Human Capital Development (ATIC) Address of Requesting Entity: 2685 Hibiscus Way, Suite 110, Beavercreek, OH 45431 Description of Request: I am requesting $5,200,000 for Advanced Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) in fiscal year 2010. The entity to receive funding for this project is Advanced Technical Intelligence Center for Human Capital Development (ATIC), 2685 Hibiscus Way, Suite 110, Beavercreek, OH 45431. The funding being requested will enable ATIC to continue and expand its mission to educate future technical intelligence experts while conducting basic research necessary to sustain technology advancements in support of the Intelligence Community and the warfighter.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, Politico reported last week that the Democrat health care reform legislation has more pages than War and Peace, and nearly five times as many words as the Torah, costing over $2 million per word. The Republican Conference reports that over 100 new Federal bureaucracies are created in the bill. The Wall Street Journal Opinion Page stated that ``the bill may be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.'' America deserves better, and the American people demand more from their leaders on something that is so important to every American family. There is a better way to maintain care for those with health insurance, while decreasing the number of uninsured Americans. We should start with some commonsense reform, such as prohibiting insurers from excluding preexisting conditions, allowing insurers to offer plans across State lines, enacting tort reform, and allowing small businesses to pool together to purchase health plans for their employees. Mr. Speaker, it is not too late for us to work together to craft responsible legislation and decrease costs.