Michael Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, if the government's handling of the outbreak of H1N1 flu, known as swine flu, is any indication of how it will administer a public health care option, we should all be greatly concerned. With the media reporting that lines of hundreds of people wait for H1N1 vaccinations, it took a Presidential national emergency declaration just to cut through the bureaucratic red tape. If this Congress is serious about health care reform, why not start with simple principles on which most of us can agree, such as prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, portability of health care coverage, investing in medical research to ensure quality care, deductibility of health insurance premiums, ensuring access to health savings accounts, limiting frivolous lawsuits which raise health care costs, and allowing small businesses to group together to negotiate insurance plans. Instead of the President's sweeping overhaul, which will likely result in pitfalls, we should look at simple reforms to adhere to mutually agreed upon principles ensuring that those who have health insurance can keep it and those who don't can obtain it.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for introducing this legislation commemorating the 90th anniversary of the establishment of U.S.-Polish Diplomatic Relations. The Polish people and the people of the United States have a long history of friendship that dates back to the American war of independence when Polish patriot Casimir Pulaski volunteered to serve in the Continental Army and led his own cavalry regiment in fighting the British. We have stood shoulder to shoulder during dark times in both our histories, and in more recent times, we rejoiced together as the iron curtain that had enshrouded Poland and Eastern Europe was cast aside. And, in 1999, the United States and NATO welcomed Poland into our security partnership. In 2008, America signed a cooperative security agreement with Poland to further our mutual security interests. This included the establishment of a missile defense system to protect both Europe and the United States from ballistic missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran. This agreement was signed as a result of the strong courage of Poland's leaders who believed the United States government when it promised to help protect their homeland. Ironically, on September 17, 2009--the 70th anniversary of the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland--the Administration withdrew U.S. support for this mutual missile defense system in Europe. The Administration must now respond to find other ways that our cooperative partnership may be advanced. As a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the author of the NATO First Act, I believe the United States must remain committed to working with the Polish people to sustain our mutual partnership. I urge support of H. Res. 266.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their leadership and their steadfast support for our men and women in uniform. The portion of this bill that relates to our strategic forces legislation reflects broad bipartisan agreement. The conference report retains a provision to establish the stockpile management program, strengthen the stockpile stewardship program and preserve the intellectual infrastructure. I am pleased that the report includes a provision on the START follow-on treaty, which makes it clear that the treaty should not include limitations on missile defense or advanced conventional weapons; and that the enhanced safety, security and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile and modernization of the nuclear weapons complex are key to enabling further stockpile reductions. I am disappointed that the conference sustains the President's cut of $1.2 billion to our missile defense systems. These cuts come despite significant activity in Iran and North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs. I introduced a provision which would have increased funds for the European missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic and open the door to an alternative only if the Secretary of Defense certified that it was at least as cost effective and operationally available as the Czech and Polish-based system. Unfortunately, my amendment was diluted as the Defense bill passed. However, I still expect the administration to address its intent. In missile defense, I am pleased that the report authorizes an increase of $20 million to sustain the GMD industrial base and $23 million for additional SM-3 interceptors. In another area, I am concerned that this report does not include the House-passed language protecting child custody arrangements for servicemembers. I want to thank Chairman Skelton for his bipartisan support on this issue. The language which I offered has consistently been opposed by the Senate and the Department of Defense, although it has passed the House four times. While the report includes a study to be undertaken by March 31, 2010, studying this issue and waiting for States to enact custody protections is not a strategy to solve this problem. Our men and women in uniform serve in a Federal military and deserve Federal action on this issue. I appreciate the work that has been done on this bill.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, United States Air Force Lieutenant General Terry Gabreski, the highest-ranking female officer in the Air Force, is retiring after 35 years of distinguished and honorable service to our nation. General Gabreski distinguished herself as Vice Commander of the U.S. Air Force Material Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, located in my congressional district, from August, 2005 through January, 2010. During her leadership, she catapulted the Air Force Material Command into one of the most highly efficient and productive organizations within the Department of Defense. General Gabreski executed over 40 percent of the entire U.S. Air Force budget during her tenure and oversaw the full operational capability of the F-22A. General Gabreski supported the warfighter, ensuring our forward- deployed operations have the resources they need. She also oversaw the development and deployment of AngelFire persistent surveillance and the reconnaissance program, which was lauded by the U.S. Marine Corps as ``war-winning technology.'' She is also responsible for the Aeronautical System Center's Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) program, which was established in response to the portable anti-aircraft missile threat to intra-theater airlift. General Gabreski worked to effectively make sure the Air Force lived within its budget. She radically simplified and streamlined the Air Force sustainment funding system through the development and implementation of Centralized Asset Management (CAM). These efforts allowed the Air Force to make decisions within constrained funding, enabling warfighters to focus on their primary missions, and established a new level of credibility in warfighter support overall. General Gabreski was a leader and inspiration to the Dayton community. During her time at WPAFB, she participated in many events, offering advice to women in leadership roles. She is a credit to the Air Force and a source of support and inspiration to many throughout the military and the Dayton community. As General Gabreski culminates a distinguished career of more than three decades of Air Force service, I appreciate her dedication to her country, her outstanding performance as the highest ranking female officer in the Air Force, and her significant contributions toward strengthening our military.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 758, 759, and 760, I was detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on 758, ``no'' on 759 and ``yea'' on 760.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Res. 693, honoring the life and accomplishments of Jim Johnson and expressing condolences to his family on his death. Today we honor Jim Johnson for his life accomplishments and for his positive attitude he exhibited, even as he battled with cancer. Mr. Johnson began his coaching career as head coach at Missouri Southern University. He went on to coach at Notre Dame, winning the national championship in his first year with the university. He entered the NFL in 1986 with the Arizona Cardinals and coached for 22 years for the Cardinals, the Indianapolis Colts, the Seattle Seahawks and the Philadelphia Eagles. Mr. Johnson's achievements in life and his career are truly inspiring. He was one of the top defensive masterminds in NFL history. In fact, his aggressive style, noted for its frequent blitzing, kept Philadelphia at or near the top of the NFL in nearly every major defensive category since Mr. Johnson joined the Eagles staff in 1999. With Mr. Johnson at the helm of the defense, the Philadelphia Eagles appeared in five NFC championship games, including in 2004 when they advanced to the Super Bowl. Philadelphia Eagles Head Coach Andy Reid stated: ``Johnson really represented everything the City of Philadelphia is all about, with his toughness and grit. That's the way he fought this cancer.'' It is clear that Mr. Johnson made a large impact on those around him on and off the field. Sadly, Mr. Johnson passed away from melanoma on July 28, 2009, at the age of 68. Though he has left this world, he will forever be remembered for his accomplishments. I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Johnson and expressing our condolences to his family in his passing by supporting H. Res. 693. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of House Resolution 693, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, as the Cincinnati Reds wind down their 2009 season, many in Dayton and southwest Ohio are feeling a sense of loss for the departure of the Reds' best known sports writer, Hal McCoy, who retires next week. To call Hal McCoy an institution in sports journalism is somehow not giving him due credit. Hal McCoy is the Reds to the readers of the Dayton Daily News. He's been on the Reds' beat for 37 years--longer than any other sports reporter following a single team. His ``Real McCoy'' blog on the Dayton Daily News site notes ``McCoy has covered more than 7,000 major-league baseball games, written close to 18,000 baseball stories and eaten enough hot dogs to give Babe Ruth indigestion.'' An honors graduate from Kent State University's School of Journalism, Hal McCoy has 43 Ohio and national writing awards. Most appropriately, he is also a member of the writer's wing of the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. Hal McCoy's retirement comes as the Dayton Daily News ceases its special reporting on the Cincinnati Reds due to budget limitations. As McCoy put it, ``I'll finish the season covering the Reds and baseball, the last hurrah, then say my final goodbyes. They're putting me out to pasture. I only wish it was center field.'' While he notes retirement is not something he looks forward to, Hal McCoy admits he may still do some writing for the Dayton Daily News. We hope so. Good luck and thanks for everything, Hal.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H. Res. 16, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Again, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 3614. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of the chairwoman's request to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3614, as amended. The bill extends until October 31, 2009, the authorization of all programs authorized by the Small Business Act, the Small Business Investment Act, and any program operated by the Small Business Administration for which Congress has already appropriated funds. While the goal is to pass comprehensive legislation reauthorizing the SBA for a longer period, this short-term extension ensures that these programs will remain available to small businesses across the country. Without enactment of this extension, a number of essential programs that the SBA operates would cease to function. Given the importance that small businesses play and will continue to play in the revitalization of the American economy, we cannot allow the SBA authorizations to run out. Enactment of this legislation will enable the House and Senate to continue to work in a diligent manner to address necessary changes to SBA programs. I urge all of my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3614. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the passage of H. Res. 734, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Ohio, the author of H. Res. 734, Mr. Latta.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H. Res. 725. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise today to urge passage of the resolution, to congratulate the Chula Vista Park View Little League team of Chula Vista, California, for winning the 2009 Little League World Series championship. The players kept their sights high, even after falling behind by three runs early in the game. Through their perseverance, the players were able to come through with the win by a score of 6-3. ``We knew we could come back,'' said 13-year-old Kiko Garcia. ``We always do.'' The fantastic attitude of these players definitely helped them in achieving victory. There were many notable achievements on the field, including Bulla Graft's single, which scored the go-ahead run in the fourth inning, and Kiko Garcia pitched three-plus scoreless innings of relief to lead the team to victory. The amazing attitude and determination of the Chula Vista Little League team is not unique to this championship game. It is something that they have learned through hundreds of hours of practice and previous games played. Our Nation should be proud of the great sportsmanship displayed by the players, coaches and fans of the Chula Vista Park View Little League team. After the win, the Chula Vista players invited the Taipei team players to join them in a victory lap around the stadium. These young men should be proud of the way they played the game of baseball, even more, the way that they represented their country. It is for these reasons that I rise today to honor the Chula Vista Park View Little League team of Chula Vista, California, for winning the 2009 Little League World Series championship. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H. Con. Res. 186, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This resolution seeks to bring attention to sickle cell disease and to support the designation of September as Sickle Cell Awareness Month. Sickle cell disease, SCD, is a deadly genetic blood disorder that strikes, primarily, persons of African descent. Those affected by the disease most often appear to be healthy, but their lives are disturbed by sporadic and painful attacks in their arms, legs, chest, and abdomen. SCD also causes the rapid destruction of sickle cells that results in multiple medical complications, including anemia, jaundice, gallstones, strokes, and restricted blood flow, causing tissue damage, cardiovascular, and organ damage. Approximately 80,000 African Americans suffer from sickle cell disease, and millions are affected worldwide. Statistics shockingly show that 1 in every 350 African American babies born in the United States has the disease. One in eight African American babies carry the sickle cell trait. There is a one in four chance that a child born to parents who both carry the sickle cell trait will have the disease. Life expectancy is limited, as an average lifespan for an adult with the disease is only 45 years old. A universal cure, though, remains elusive. However, early diagnosis through newborn screening and education has improved survival and quality of life for those who suffer from SCD. Because SCD affects so many people and research funding is critical to effectively treating and ultimately to preventing the disease, we are grateful for organizations such as the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America that continues to shine the light of hope for all of those who are affected. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the designation of the month of September as National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month so that communities throughout the country will become aware of this disease and the need for additional research, effective treatments, and prevention programs that will ultimately lead to a cure. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. You are right, the deterrence, the deterrence effect it would be. Speak for a minute, Representative Franks, on Russia because this also amazes me. This President has had Russia say to him abandon your missile defense of the country. He has done so without a concession from Russia. At the same time he is on the eve of going into the START negotiations where Russia is going to be asking for additional concessions from the United States. But there are those in the press, because I was on a couple of talks shows, and they said, well, this really isn't about Russia because this missile defense system was no threat to Russia. Why is it, if it's no threat to Russia, that Russia would be asking or that we should be conceding? Do you really think the administration is going to be able to advance our security by putting our missile defense system down for Russia?

Mr. TURNER. One of the things I find fascinating about this administration's funding requests is that they've cut ground-based missiles in Alaska. They've cut the ground-based missiles that were planned to go into Europe. They have done so by trying to sell that they're committed to Aegis and THAAD as defensive systems. And in their plan that they put out upon canceling the system in Europe, they said we're going to invest more heavily in those systems. Well, let's look at what they really did. Because, obviously, if they say they're going to do it, we'd all think here that in this body, the legislation that's coming through this body would reflect the administration's commitment to that. However, although this administration has talked about increasing theater missile defense inventories, Aegis and THAAD, and have added $900 million in the budget, we're not seeing the sizable inventory increases reflected in the budget. For example, in FY 2010, the budget acquires less Aegis SM-3 interceptors than the initially projected FY 2009. So what does that mean? It means that in FY 2009, when the budget came through this House, there was a certain level of purchases that had been indicated for the SM-3 interceptors. And what did the administration do? They came in asking for less. The FY 2009 budget projected that 24 additional SM-3s would be required in FY 2010; yet the FY 2010 budget requests only 18. Budget documents indicate that the SM-3 inventory will grow from 133 interceptors to 329 within 5 years. Let's do that again. The budget documents indicate that the SM-3 inventory is supposed to grow from 133 interceptors, what we currently have, to 329 within 5 years. Where will the additional SM-3s come from in the out years? If so, what other programs are going to be squeezed? How are they going to go from 133 to 329 when they're buying less than what was proposed? Where's the big request for the additional ones? The FY 2009 budget indicates three additional THAAD batteries will be acquired; yet the budget requests no funds for additional THAAD radars. According to the contractor, major suppliers could go cold in FY 2010. So for the administration to say, We're not against missile defense. We're not eliminating missile defense. We're just shifting focus. They're not shifting focus. They're not even buying what was planned. Representative Franks, I know you have been a big advocate for all of these systems.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Representative Franks. I appreciate your comments on that. It's very important we look at this through the lens of the administration's policies with respect to Russia. There is no historical perspective where conceding to Russia early has ever gained anything at the bargaining table. When you concede to Russia prior to entering into negotiations, they say, What else am I going to get when I get to the negotiating table? They never say, Well, that was very great of you, and I appreciate what you have done. I'm now going to do something, too. In this instance, the President had already signaled in a letter that allegedly went out in the beginning of the year that he was willing to look at conceding on missile defense for Russia's help on Iran without any indication whatsoever that Russia is willing to help. In fact, as you have pointed out, Representative Franks, they have done the opposite. They have been active in selling technology and providing technical assistance to Iran. But also, Iran has shown no indication of their interest in being dissuaded, and, in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency said, Time for persuasion and time for dissuading is over; that Iran is now declared by the International Atomic Energy Agency to have the capability to create a nuclear weapon. That was announced the very same day the President decides to abandon the nuclear shield that we should have had with our missile defense shield, with the President moving from what would have been a 2013 deployment for a missile defense shield in Europe to a 2020 protection. So I appreciate your points with respect to Russia. As we enter the START negotiations, obviously we have a significant amount of concern as to what this administration is going to be doing with respect to our strategic assets, having already compromised on our missile defense. Representative Franks, thank you for being with us and participating in this. Just to recap for a moment as to where we are timewise, the President has put forth an alternative plan for missile defense that he says is going to be available for protection for the United States for intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2020. He scrapped the plan that was intended to provide protection for the United States from ICBMs by 2013. All the intelligence that we have to date shows that Iran could have ICBM capability by 2015. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran already has nuclear capability. Let's put that into a calendar. We would have had a system that would have protected us by 2013. The President has taken that off the table. The intelligence agencies say that Iran could have nuclear capability, coupled with missile technology, that could reach the United States by 2015. The President says, That's all right. We'll wait for another 5 years and have capability to protect the United States by 2020. That's an unreasonable time period to put the United States at threat with this threat, and it's one that we should all be concerned about. I have asked the President and the Secretary of Defense to declassify this report from the Institute for Defense Analyses. It's an unclassified excerpt, executive summary, which I'm holding here, of an independent assessment of the proposed deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Europe that said that, actually, the system that he scrapped would have been the most cost effective. It would have been a system that would have provided 24-hour coverage at the least amount of cost and, by the calendar that we just have discussed, would have been available as early as 7 years earlier than the President's plan for protecting the United States. While the administration has dismantled our capabilities in Europe, at the same time they have cut missile defense overall by $1.2 billion, lessening our capabilities in some very important systems, including diminishing, by a third, our capabilities in Alaska. The administration has indicated that they can use our Alaska ground- based missile systems to protect the United States if Iran should get capability earlier than their system is available in 2020, but to show their commitment to that system, they've cut it by a third. So we're actually going to have less capability there. Now, in addition to the lessening capability in Alaska, we are losing the opportunity for what would have been an integrated system. With THAAD and Aegis and the European system and Alaska, we would have had opportunities for multiple shots if the United States should have a threat that is posed to us. And, as Representative Franks indicated, this system, once in place, would have acted as deterrent to stop the advancement of missile technology and hopefully say to countries that the United States is advancing the type of technology that would provide us the important protection that we need. The impact of the President's decision on our European allies is one of which many people have grave concern. Both Poland and the Czech Republic are very concerned that this administration unilaterally made the decision to abandon the missile defense shield and to leave them having taken the step of agreeing with the United States, in the face of Russian opposition, without a United States partner there, without a system moving forward; both of those countries having made statements indicating their concern of a continuing strong relationship with the United States. I know that we all remain concerned about showing to our NATO allies that we remain committed to a strong missile defense for this country, strong deterrence in the area of nuclear proliferation, and this administration, by taking this step backward, weakens, overall, our capabilities and certainly those relationships. Representative Bishop, I know one of the areas that you spoke on at the House Armed Services Committee as we were moving forward with the National Defense Authorization Act was this overall cut to missile defense of $1.2 billion. When we look at what it's doing to Alaska, it is lessening our capability. The missile shield that was there was intended to have 40 interceptors. The administration has cut it to 30. They've significantly diminished the airborne laser. They have reduced the other programs that they've indicated that they're going to rely on with Aegis and THAAD, actually lessening the amount of investment that was projected in FY 2009. I know you're concerned about what that cut represents, and so am I. Perhaps you could speak for a moment on that $1.2 billion cut that this House and Senate and this administration is advancing at a time that we know that North Korea and Iran are getting increased technology.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Representative Bishop. I appreciate your tenacity on this and your advocacy for national defense. To give a recap of the time frame that we're dealing with, this administration scrapped a plan that would have provided a missile defense capability to the United States mainland from Europe that would have been available as early as 2013. All of our intelligence agencies are indicating that by 2015, Iran could have missile technology to reach the United States. That's why we needed that missile defense technology in 2013. They were going to have ICBM capability by 2015. The International Atomic Energy Agency said just last week that Iran already has the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. So when we're talking about 2015, and they are going to have the ICBM capability to reach the United States, we are talking about a missile perhaps with a nuclear warhead. This administration scraps that plan and, instead, proposes a plan that will not be available until 2020. So by all the information we have right now, this administration's action has a 5-year gap that has developed in the time period where the administration is accepting the capability by Iran without having the missile defense technology to protect the United States. What else are we hearing from Iran? Today there was an announcement that Iran has a covert uranium enrichment facility. This should come as no surprise. This is a country that has continued to seek missile technology, nuclear technology and nuclear capability. We understand that Tehran is not just trying to do this for civilian purposes, that it actually represents a threat to the United States, and that's why people have been such advocates to ensure that this country has the appropriate missile defense technology to protect the country. So the administration responds and says, It's not just 2020. We have capability in Alaska. That will be our backup plan. We can use our missiles in Alaska to protect the United States from Iran. The problem with that is that this administration, through this House just this year, cut Alaska's missile defense capabilities by a third. So we would have had our AEGIS and THAAD capability, we would have had our European capability, and we would have had our Alaska capability, perhaps for multiple shots that could have occurred in order to protect this country from Iran's quest for an ICBM with it, as is now said by the IAEA, to have a nuclear capability. Instead, this administration says, We're taking Europe off the table. We are going to rely on what we have, and we're going to take our Alaska capability and cut it by a third. It puts our country at risk. It puts our families at risk. The President should reverse this decision and should proceed with supporting our allies in NATO, supporting the Czech Republic and Poland, who have been there for us, and put the system in place, protecting the United States. The President said that the system that he is doing is more cost effective. There is a classified report--I have an unclassified version of it--an independent assessment of the proposed deployment of ballistic missile defense system in Europe. This report says that the most cost-effective plan was the one that he just scrapped. I will end with reading a letter that I sent to Secretary Gates, requesting that he make this independent assessment and study available. We hope that he releases it so we can have a robust debate on that.

Mr. TURNER. There had been tremendous pressure on them not to agree to work with the United States. For a moment, talk about what the unilateralism of the Obama administration does to those allies.

Mr. TURNER. Representative Akin, to piggyback on what you're saying here, you're making the point that the system that was intended to be in Europe was the system that would provide the greatest capability at the lowest cost.

Mr. TURNER. You have a great reputation with your leadership in the House and for being the ranking member of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces for the Armed Services Committee. You were elected in 2001, and you've got a great record of service. One thing that, I think, is important is that we don't just have to take your word for it. There is the Institute for Defense Analyses' unclassified excerpt of the executive summary for the independent assessment of the proposed deployment of the ballistic missile defense system in Europe. This was presented to our subcommittee at the beginning of this year. This was asked for by the Democrat leadership to do an assessment of exactly what you just said--to compare the system that's being proposed by the administration and the system that was intended to go into Europe. This report, which is an independent assessment, reads that the most cost-effective way to protect the United States was the system that this President just scrapped.