Michael Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the United States and our allies currently face some of the most complex security challenges in our recent history. ISIS continues to sweep across much of the Middle East. An expansionist China continues to develop its military prowess in order to counter the United States and its allies in the region. We continue to face a nuclear threat posed by countries such as North Korea and Iran; and an increasingly hostile Russia seeks to destabilize much of Europe. It is imperative that the Department of Defense not lose continuity in leadership, administration, and governance. General Mattis must be confirmed expeditiously. Such a lapse would create vulnerabilities in our national security strategy and would be detrimental to the safety and security of our Armed Forces. Civilian control of military is undoubtedly crucial to the success and health of our Defense Department. This candidate's military experience alone should not bar him from serving in a civilian role as the Secretary of Defense. It actually enhances the capabilities he brings to the job. This is a unique exception for a candidate whose exemplary leadership and experience would come at a crucial time for our country and for our men and women in uniform. I understand that many of our colleagues across the aisle are choosing to vote against a waiver for General Mattis, despite the fact that they support General Mattis himself as an eminently qualified nominee for the Secretary of Defense. That is a mistake. To do so is self-defeating. Under these circumstances, a vote against the process by which General Mattis is nominated is, in fact, a vote against General Mattis himself from becoming our next Secretary of Defense. I thank Chairman Thornberry for his leadership throughout these important deliberations and for his work for obtaining this waiver for General Mattis and for the future of the service of General Mattis to our country. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support S. 84.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as the co-Chairman of the Congressional Romania Caucus and as the former President of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly, I congratulate Romania on its Great Union Day. Romania is celebrating the anniversary of its unification on December 1, 1918. Romania is a loyal U.S. and NATO ally. Romania and the United States work closely together to confront a host of global challenges, including through our joint efforts to bolster regional defense, halt nuclear proliferation, and increase energy security. With the signing of the U.S.-Romania Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement in September 2011, Romania established itself as a key strategic partner in NATO's emerging missile defense capabilities effort. The Missile Defense Interceptor site at Deveselu Air Base near the Bulgarian border, which became operational in May 2016, now provides missile defense protection to our allies in Europe and the Middle East. Tragically, ongoing events in Ukraine are unsettling the region and testing the transatlantic alliance. As you know, Russia seeks to once again destabilize much of Eastern Europe and restore influence over territories lost following the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is why it is critically important for the United States, Romania, and other European allies to continue to work together to strengthen the transatlantic alliance and bolster regional security. The strategic partnership between the United States and Romania has greatly advanced our common interests in promoting transatlantic and regional security and free market opportunities. Our partnership should continue to foster greater economic and cultural exchanges, trade and investment, and social contacts. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in celebrating Romania's Great Union Day.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Mr. Speaker, consideration of this important bill comes at a critical time for our Nation and for our military. Under the leadership of Chairman Thornberry, this bill, if funded, begins the process of rebuilding our military and restoring readiness back into the force. The bill stops the harmful end-strength reductions in our military service and it begins the process of reversing this damaging trend in reducing our military capacity. I thank Chris Gibson, my colleague, for his efforts in ending those end-strength reductions. The bill provides an additional $600 million to address shortfalls of critical munitions. I want to repeat that. We had to put in $600 million to address shortfalls in munitions. That is how much we are suffering in our military in spending. The bill also continues to address the needs of the National Guard and Reserve components by authorizing an additional $250 million for equipment modernization for the Guard and the Reserve. Additionally, this bill calls for continued action to eradicate sexual assault in the military by providing greater transparency in the military criminal justice system. It also acknowledges the need for intensive treatment for male victims and continues to address the critical issues of retaliation. This bill also includes important provisions on the protection of child custody rights of our members of the Armed Forces. However, it is important to note that the military services submitted over $22 billion of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2017 alone. I had hoped we would be able to address these modernization shortfalls, as we did in the House-passed bill. This bill falls short of the House-passed bills. It is also essential that we begin to correct these funding shortfalls in the next Congress. Currently we have a lack of readiness and a heightened level of risk. I look forward to working with the new Trump administration in regards to an early supplemental request to fully fund these requirements, and I would expect that the House-passed bill would be used as the minimum starting point in order to start the process for rebuilding our military and working with our allies to create conditions for credible U.S. deterrence. It saddens me that we might pass this bill fully funding the military and then pass a CR that underfunds our military. Before I conclude, I thank our subcommittee's ranking member, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, who has truly been my dear friend. She will be sorely missed. I will miss her guidance and her friendship.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to recognize the service of Kim Holmes as she retires from over 32 years of combined constituent services to the citizens of Ohio. Kim Holmes joined my Dayton office in July of 2007 as a caseworker. She began working for me after the retirement of her former boss, Congressman Mike Oxley. Since 2007, Kim has helped thousands of people on my constituent services team. Those numbers increase exponentially when you factor in 23 years of service in Congressman Oxley's office. Kim's direct, persistent, and dedicated work has helped make a difference in the lives of Ohioans in several of the counties in Ohio: Montgomery, Greene, Fayette, Allen, Auglaize, Champaign, Hancock, Hardin, Logan, Marion, Morrow, Richland, Shelby, and part of Wyandot. Kim expeditiously resolved problems across multiple issues from veterans, Social Security, Medicare, and immigration by developing a strong and long-lasting relationship with fellow agencies. I made the point to stop by her office every day I saw her and thanked her for being there. In the words of her constituents, it is probably best reported as to her impact. They have said: ``I don't know what I would have done without you.'' ``I will never forget your kindness.'' ``We deeply appreciate your attention to our claim.'' ``We cannot express our gratitude to you enough.'' ``I appreciate your help more than words can express.'' ``There are still good people in this world who still care and want to help. You are one of those.'' On behalf of your coworkers and the countless constituents you have assisted, your knowledge, compassion, and efficiency will be sorely missed. Thank you for representing my office in the highest standards. I hope that you enjoy your retirement with your grown children, Jason and Tori, as well as your grandson, Luke. I wish you all the best.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Chabot for hosting this important opportunity for us to come to the House floor to speak about our good friend, Steve LaTourette. Ohio has lost a great advocate and a public servant. And to Jennifer and to Mr. LaTourette's children, I want to add my voice and comments to those who have spoken before. We have heard words such as bipartisan, mentor, substantive, inspirational and fighter, and I want to add my voice to underscore how those words were so important in this body and so important for the legacy of Steve LaTourette. Bipartisan: As we all know, standing outside off the House Chamber is the Speaker's lobby where the press stands, and I was stopped many times by the press asking me this simple question. The press would approach and say that they had been speaking to the Members of the House and asking them who is the most bipartisan Member of the House, and frequently, on both sides, people would mention Steve LaTourette, and they would want to know how he did that and how he would accomplish that. Where is the work that would have a Member be identified as the most bipartisan? But we all knew it to be true. Whether it be on substantive issues reaching across the aisle or fighting for what was right, Steve looked not at what side of the aisle people were on but what was the outcome, and everyone in this body saw it. Mentor: Like Bill Johnson, I came here having not served as a legislator before. Steve LaTourette was willing to sit down, assist me in understanding how this body works, how an office works, how to make certain that you are successful, how Congress operates, and how a new Member can become an important part of it. Substantive: Congressman Pat Tiberi was saying that this corner over here was Steve LaTourette's. But what is important about that corner, not just that Steve LaTourette was there but the line of people that would form to speak to Steve because they were seeking that bipartisan voice, his mentoring, but also his substantive comments. Steve LaTourette was always the individual who knew more about what was happening on this floor across all subjects than anyone else. It wasn't just his committee or his bills. It was everything that was going on. He knew what was happening, and he had advice for everyone who would stop by to take it. Inspirational: Steve always had a cause. When you would stop by and talk to him, it wasn't just what was happening on the House floor, it was what other issue needed to be addressed, what other issue needed to be righted, and he would call many people to the cause for that inspiration. And he was a fighter. He was always on the right side. Marcy Kaptur was speaking about the fight of BRAC. When Ohio was facing a BRAC, and we had many military facilities that were at risk, DFAS and NASA in Cleveland were facing significant cuts and effects to them. NASA would have been secondarily affected by the cuts in the Department of Defense. Steve LaTourette singularly stood forward and went directly to the data that the Department of Defense was using, substantively attacked it, substantively repackaged it, and won on the argument that these facilities needed not to be closed or impacted but they needed to be sustained. It was that fighter aspect, it was that substantive aspect that allowed him to be successful and allowed him to be a leader for many. He will be strongly missed, but, by all those who had an opportunity to learn from him and his mentorship, he lives on in the inspiration he has provided to us in do the right thing, work hard, substantively focus, and make certain that you work and honor all of the Members of the body of Congress, not just those who are of your party.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on July 6, 2016 through July 8, 2016, I was unable to vote on Roll Call votes 357 through 400. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Roll Call 357--No, Roll Call 358--No, Roll Call 359--No, Roll Call 360--No, Roll Call 361--No, Roll Call 362--No, Roll Call 363--No, Roll Call 364--No, Roll Call 365--No, Roll Call 366--No, Roll Call 367--No, Roll Call 368--No, Roll Call 369--No, Roll Call 370--No, Roll Call 371--Yes, Roll Call 372--Yes, Roll Call 373--No, Roll Call 374--No, Roll Call 375--Yes, Roll Call 376--Yes, Roll Call 377--No, Roll Call 378--No, Roll Call 379--Yes, Roll Call 380--Yes, Roll Call 381--Yes, Roll Call 382--Yes, Roll Call 383--Yes, Roll Call 384--Yes, Roll Call 385--Yes, Roll Call 386--Yes, Roll Call 387--Yes, Roll Call 388--Yes, Roll Call 389--Yes, Roll Call 390--Yes, Roll Call 391--Yes, Roll Call 392--Yes, Roll Call 393--No, Roll Call 394--No, Roll Call 395--Yes, Roll Call 396--Yes, Roll Call 397--No, Roll Call 398--Yes, Roll Call 399--Yes, Roll Call 400--Yes.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 451, I inadvertently voted ``aye'', when I intended to vote ``no.'' On rollcall 452, I inadvertently voted ``no'', and I intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to honor a great Ohioan, former Congressman Del Latta. Mr. Latta served northwest Ohio from 1959 to 1989. During his thirty-year career he found himself at the center of history as he sat on the Judiciary Committee in 1974 during the Watergate scandal. He also helped President Ronald Reagan cut the federal budget and fought for a robust defense budget. Mr. Latta bravely served in the Army and Marine Corps Reserves before serving in Congress. He will be remembered for his unwavering service to his country and the great state of Ohio. Mr. Latta is a true statesman and his legacy will be remembered for years to come. I continue to send my condolences to Congressman Bob Latta and his family.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on June 7, 2016, I was unable to vote on roll call votes 269, 270, 271, and 272. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 129, ``yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4906, ``yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4904, and ``yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1815.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to make some sense of this. We just had an amendment where we were debating providing the Authorization of Use of Military Force to the President, and we wanted to make certain that the President had the authority, and this is the portion of our bill where we actually provide authority. The word ``authority'' is throughout these sections that are, by this amendment, being asked to be deleted. But as Mr. Ellison stated, we should look to the commanders on the ground. So let's look at what they have said. General Campbell, testifying about the Haqqani network, said that it remains the most capable threat to U.S. and coalition forces. Now, what does threat mean? It means that they are trying to kill us and our coalition forces. It is a State Department-designated terrorist organization which harbors al Qaeda and is the most lethal actor on the battlefield. These provisions that will be deleted relate to our ability to fight them. Approximately 30 percent of district centers are under Taliban control and influence or are at such risk, says General Campbell. Now, General Nicholson, who is currently the commander, is doing his review. That is correct. But what we are doing in these provisions is providing the status quo. We are not presuming that he is going to come back and say: Let's cut; we can go do this with less troops. We are allowing that he would have the same resources that General Campbell had so that he would have an ability to defend our troops. Basically, if you go down to these paragraphs that are being deleted, this comes down to some fairly easy decisions: If you believe that ISIL is not a threat to our troops, vote for this amendment. If you believe that ISIL is not a threat to our allies in the Middle East, vote for this amendment. If you believe that the killings that were directed and inspired by ISIL in Brussels and Paris are not a threat to our Nation or our NATO allies, vote for this amendment. If you believe that it is okay for the Taliban to control portions of Afghan territory, even though al Qaeda planned and directed 9/11 under Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, vote for this amendment. If you believe that the U.S. and NATO troops should be responsible for Afghan security, and not Afghan security forces, vote for this amendment. If you believe, however, that we have a responsibility for our national security and to our troops, vote against this amendment.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, when we read our newspapers, we certainly know that the world is becoming a much less safe place. The conflicts around the world and the ability of our military to respond are incredibly important. But also, if you read the newspaper, you understand that our military is at a critical juncture. The effects of sequestration have significantly undermined the readiness of our military. The argument that Mr. Ellison is making about what pot of money funds come out of is kind of irrelevant in that his amendment isn't pure and that he doesn't take all of the money out of one pot and move it into another. He only takes a portion. The President does the same thing in this shell game of where dollars come from. It is not an issue of where do dollars come from. It is an issue of, where do they go? If you read this bill, the issue of where these go, which is what Mr. Ellison wants to stop, is moneys that go to readiness. It goes to the ability of our military to be prepared. The Admiral Vice Chief of Staff, General Daniel Allyn, recently explained that to build readiness ``the Army has been forced to cancel or delay military construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization across our posts, camps, and stations. Additionally, the Army reduced key installation services, individual training programs, and modernization.'' In essence, readiness. This amendment strips away funding from critical programs that have been identified by our military services that were not fully funded by the President's budget request that go to readiness. We are currently in a readiness crisis. Marine pilots are having to cannibalize museum parts to get their F- 18s ready to deploy. Of the Marine Corps 271 strike aircraft, only 46 can fly. Of the most severe type of aviation accidents, Marines are 84 percent above their 10-year average. The Air Force maintainers are also cannibalizing museum parts to get aircraft in the air. Of the 20 B-1 bombers, which are workhorses in Iraq and Syria, only 9 can fly due to parts and maintenance shortfalls. Pilots are getting less than half of their training required during a time when our adversaries are becoming increasingly capable and technologically advanced. The Air Force's Vice Chief of Staff, David Goldfein, recently stated during congressional testimony that lower than planned funding levels have resulted in one of the smallest, oldest, and least ready forces across the full-spectrum of operations in our history. Voting for this amendment supports cutting our troops' strength, cutting training and maintenance, forcing our armed services to maintain crumbling facilities, and forcing our servicemembers to continue to rely on faulty and worn out equipment. It is not an issue of what pot this money comes out of. It is a matter of where it goes. It needs to go for our servicemembers, so vote against this amendment.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. As the chairman has indicated, the President has issued a veto threat on this bill claiming criticism that the bill uses overseas contingency operations funds for base requirements. This is a hypocritical attack by the President because the President, in his own bill, included $5 billion in overseas contingency operations funding to be used for base requirements as part of the President's budget for 2017. The reality is that $5 billion is not enough to address the readiness crisis that is facing our military, and it does not ensure that our troops are ready to deploy and are fully prepared. The military, in fact, submitted $22 billion in unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2017 alone. I want to thank Chairman Thornberry for his leadership as he begins the process of rebuilding our military and restoring readiness back into the future. As the chairman said, this bill came out of our committee, 60-2. It is the same bill that is going to come to this House floor. I certainly hope we are not in the situation, as we were last year, where we had Democrats on the committee who actually voted for the bill in committee and then voted against the bill on the House floor. This is a bill that deserves passage. It deserves the support for our men and women in uniform. In my subcommittee, the bill authorizes almost $6 billion in additional funds to address critical unfunded requirements, a benefit provided by the military services. I want to also thank Chairman Thornberry, in this bill, for reversing the President's proposed cuts to our end strength, our numbers of those serving in the Army and the Marine Corps. He has incorporated the POSTURE Act, which was first introduced by Representative Chris Gibson. The bill also includes funds for the European Reassurance Initiative, which is incredibly important as we move to respond against Russian aggression. Additionally, this bill calls for continued action to eradicate sexual assault in the military, and I appreciate the chairman's support for those provisions. The bill provides greater transparency in the military criminal justice system, acknowledges the need for intensive treatment for male victims of sexual assault, and continues to address the critical issue of retaliation. Before I conclude, I want to thank our subcommittee's ranking member, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, for her support in completing the markup of this bill as well as that of other Members, and I want to thank Loretta Sanchez for her long service on the Armed Services Committee. I ask everyone to support this bill.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Donovan) for yielding and for his work on this amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is simple: increase access to substance abuse treatment for pregnant women. We accomplish this by making clear that States receiving grants from an existing Department of Justice program may use them to provide family-based treatment. Currently, nonviolent mothers and fathers have access to family- and community-based substance abuse treatment options that help keep their families together, and that should be true for expectant mothers as well. Our amendment would help provide this access to the 60 pregnant women in Ohio State prisons last month and countless others across the country, all of whom are ineligible for it today. I have met with doctors, nurses, hospitals, law enforcement, and treatment professionals, and have seen firsthand the devastating effects that heroin and opioid abuse have inflicted on pregnant women and newborns in my own southwest Ohio community. In December of 2013, I toured Soin Medical Center in Beavercreek, Ohio, and discussed the concerning trend the hospital was observing: increasing numbers of infants born addicted to opiates. At the Dayton Children's Hospital neonatal intensive care unit, I witnessed the hardship that heroin and opioid addiction inflicts on both women and their babies. I met with mothers struggling with substance abuse who had given birth to infants who had become addicted in the womb. I watched newborns just starting their lives suffering through the painful symptoms of neonatal abstinence syndrome. At the Women's Recovery Center in Xenia, Ohio, I spoke to young women participating in opiate abuse intervention and treatment programs. One former heroin user I spoke to shared with me her story about how the intervention and treatment she received at the center allowed her to overcome her addiction before giving birth to her son. It is vital that we provide women access to this treatment--for their own health and for the health of the children that they will bring into the world. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Bipartisan Task Force to Combat the Heroin Epidemic, I would like to thank our co-chairs for arranging this special order to discuss the faces of heroin and opiate addiction. The faces of heroin and opiate addiction are getting younger. In my home State of Ohio and across the country, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of infants born with opiates in their system and needing for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, or NAS. Tragically, these children are born addicted to drugs and have no voice or awareness as to why they are suffering. The symptoms of withdrawal begin almost immediately. They may suffer from low birth weight, difficulty feeding or breathing, seizures, dehydration, tremors, and excessive or continuous high-pitched crying. Hospital personnel may spend ten hours in a single day to holding and rocking these newborns in an effort to console them, but over 80 percent of children with NAS still require medication to treat their withdrawal. The toll that the heroin epidemic takes on these children can go beyond the terrible physical symptoms and complications, and the effects can be lasting ones. The faces of heroin addiction are young and they are fighting an incredibly difficult and painful battle without ever choosing to suffer. Through no action of their own, these children are victims of the heroin epidemic. Parents who do not successfully treat their addiction have overdosed and died, leaving these children without their mothers and fathers. We must work to ensure that children are not born addicted and not left without a parent. I would encourage all of my colleagues to do as I have, and go out into your communities and meet with your local hospitals, doctors, and healthcare professionals to see how they are dealing with the growing number of heroin and opiate addicted newborns. I have held multiple forums to better understand how we can begin to prevent addiction beginning at birth. The faces of the heroin epidemic are not limited in age or gender. We know now that it can be anyone: a child born unknowingly addicted or a parent who does not know where to turn for help. We must remain committed to combating the heroin epidemic and the devastating effects it has on these children and families.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on December 9, 2015, I was unable to vote on roll call votes 681, 682, and 683. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on consideration of the resolution, ``yea'' on ordering the previous questions, and ``yea'' on agreeing to the resolution.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment because it does correct an injustice.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this earmark, as I am a cosponsor and am in support of this amendment, No. 57, offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler. This has been interesting in the debate because it has been absolutely clarified on both sides that we see this as an earmark. Basically, seven States take from this bill a disproportionate amount based on a formula that declares them high-density States: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Delaware. If you do not live in one of these States and if you are a Member of Congress, you should vote for this amendment because declaring them high-density States is a meaningless designation. For example, Chicago, Los Angeles, and many, many urban areas throughout our country are high density and deserve to be able to participate in this fund, but they cannot because they are not located in one of these States that has largely been, as the ranking member has indicated, a Senate formula set-aside. Our Founding Fathers, when they came together to create the system of the House and the Senate, did so so that we would have equality, a balance between each of the States and their populations. This is not a balance when you have a set-aside for seven States. Once again, I would call on all of my fellow colleagues who do not live in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Delaware to vote for this amendment by Ms. Herrera Beutler. She has identified that this is an earmark for these States and that it robs money from other States that need assistance with public transportation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1735, what would be the 54th consecutive National Defense Authorization Act. What we have here today is, unfortunately, partisan politics at its worst. You have people who are coming down to the House floor condemning a bill that they voted for, and now they are going to vote against it because the President has decided that he is going to veto it. He is not going to veto it because of what is in this bill. He is going to veto it because there is not enough spending on the bureaucracies of the IRS and the EPA. We know this because not only has the President said it, even Defense Secretary Ash Carter has said it in front of the Armed Services Committee. Now, if this were such a bad bill, you would think that it would not have come out of our committee with full, almost unanimous, support by both sides of the aisle, bipartisan, unbelievable support for this bill in virtually its same structure that is coming to this floor. Only when President Obama stepped forward and said, I am going to veto it because you are not funding the IRS and the EPA, did it suddenly lose its bipartisan support. This is not an issue about Republicans and Democrats. This is an issue about this administration. This administration, the author of sequestration, President Obama, set forth a plan that has been dismantling our military and needs to be set aside. Now, what we have in this bill is a bill that fully funds national defense, even as Minority Leader Steny Hoyer said, that fully funds it at the level that is requested by the President. Now, you can say there are gimmicks, you can say there are tricks, but you can also say what is important; and as you go to the experts to determine whether or not this bill works, Chairman Dempsey of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stood in front of our committee, and when asked the question of does the structure of this bill fully fund national defense, he said, absolutely, that he could spend it and that it would be the number that is necessary. He also said it was the lower jagged edge of what is necessary for national security. Mr. Speaker, if Chairman Dempsey says in front of our committee--and he certainly is the expert--that this works, it works. I urge everyone to support this bill. Set aside sequestration, set aside partisan politics, and support our men and women in uniform.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, today, the United States House of Representatives votes on two important pieces of legislation that offer us the opportunity to take a strong stance supporting life--H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 and H.R. 3504, the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act of 2015. We must demand that all human beings be treated equally, with the dignity that each human life deserves. The right to life is one of the most fundamental and precious rights we enjoy as Americans. We must protect it with a degree of strength that equals its significance. Time and time again over my years in Congress, I have stood on the side of life, and I am proud to do so again today. I urge my colleagues, in the strongest terms, to do the same--to stand on the side of life.

Mr. TURNER

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

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report to Congress on the funding of political parties and NGOs in former Soviet states by the Russian Federation and its associated security and intelligence services. As Congress well knows, a resurgent Russia, led by President Vladimir Putin, is once again determined to destabilize the West and various Euro-Atlantic institutions such as NATO. While we have seen the blatant use of military force both in Georgia and Ukraine, Russia has employed a variety of nontraditional methods to disrupt the West. These methods include the use of propaganda through state-owned media outlets such as Russia Today, manipulation of European natural gas markets, and the use of money to influence political parties and nongovernmental organizations throughout Europe. In a recent New York Times article, authors Peter Baker and Steven Erlanger highlight a series of instances in which the Russian Federation covertly funneled money to political organizations in Europe in order to influence various decisionmakers and parties. While their ultimate goal remains the fragmentation of institutions such as the EU and NATO, Russia hopes to achieve incremental victories like influencing the EU's upcoming decision on whether or not to renew sanctions against them. As president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and chair of the Assembly's U.S. delegation, I have had the opportunity to meet frequently with my European counterparts to discuss this issue. In all instances, Assembly members continue to validate and echo the concerns discussed here today. Only through an increased understanding can we begin to effectively plan and combat President Putin and a resurging Russia. I ask all of my colleagues to rise in support of this bipartisan amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman well remembers, with the cold war, there was a time when the conflict between the United States and Russia was very tense. This amendment will help us bring to bear light on the actions of Russia so that we can make certain our policies reflect the new aggressiveness of the Russian Federation.

Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, despite a longstanding U.S. policy against the use of offset agreements, many foreign governments continue to insist on using offset agreements, which clearly distort trade, are an unfair trade practice, and result in lost opportunities for American workers. Offset agreements and military sales contracts are add-on provisions that require U.S. companies to reinvest in foreign companies through the purchase of additional goods and services, technology transfer, foreign-based subcontractor mandates, and other similar activities. Chairman Ryan, under TPA, how will the Federal Government curb a foreign country's use of military offsets?