Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, the DeFazio amendment is ill-conceived. Creating jobs in the energy sector is creating American jobs, and this amendment would, in fact, inhibit our ability to reduce our trade deficit and also affects an issue of providing natural gas to our strategic allies.

As a result of increased natural gas production, the price of natural gas has fallen over the last few years, making it competitive in the global marketplace. This presents an opportunity to export U.S. natural gas.

Many of our allies rely heavily upon a single source or unstable regions for natural gas. For example, Russia has used its European market dominance to influence other countries, cutting off natural gas supplies over various disputes. Poland is so eager to wean itself off Russia for natural gas that it plans to buy LNG from Qatar at a price estimated to be 40 to 50 percent higher than the rate charged by Gazprom, Russia's state-owned monopoly, just to be able to have some independence.

Increasing natural gas exports would provide our allies with an alternative and reliable source of energy, helping to strengthen our economic and geopolitical partnerships.

It should be noted that the boom in natural gas production has already made an impact. Supplies previously destined for our shores but no longer needed as a result of increased production have been diverted elsewhere. This increase in global supply has helped several European countries successfully renegotiate their long-term contracts with Gazprom, Russia's state-owned monopoly.

Mr. Chair, in general, when it comes to trade, we often talk about barriers that other countries have to U.S. producers, ones that we must overcome in order to export. In this case, these are regulatory burdens we are placing upon ourselves that are preventing our ability to create jobs and preventing our ability to lower our overall trade deficits. Restraining U.S. natural gas exports would only hurt our abilities to bolster strategic partnerships and create jobs right here at home.

The DeFazio amendment does nothing to decrease the cost currently of natural gas. This is an important ability to create jobs and lower our trade deficit.

Madam Speaker, yesterday in Dayton, I hosted a community forum regarding the impacts of sequestration on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in the Dayton community. We had a distinguished group of local leaders who participated in the event. The expert panel included Colonel Cassie B. Barlow, 88th Air Base Wing and installation commander; Jeffrey C. Hoagland, president and CEO of the Dayton Development Coalition; Chris Kershner of the Dayton Chamber of Commerce; and Carl Francis of Dayton Defense, a nonprofit group that is an advocacy group for the defense community in Dayton, Ohio. Each of these local leaders explained how sequestration has affected our community in 2013, and what the effect would be if the sequester continues. For a community like Dayton with such a strong relationship to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio's largest single-site employer, the message was devastating.

The Budget Control Act of 2011, which I voted against, was signed into law on August 2, 2011. The Budget Control Act established a series of spending caps and forced reductions designed to indiscriminately reduce government spending by nearly $2 trillion over 10 years. These forced reductions, also known as sequestration, greatly impact our national security by requiring the Department of Defense to reduce its budget by roughly $500 billion. Already in its second year, this poorly conceived and flawed process continues to compromise our defense capabilities and greatly impacts military communities like Dayton, Ohio.

Reducing Federal spending is important, but the sequester, as proposed by President Obama, applies 50 percent of the cuts to less than 18 percent of the spending. The Department of Defense represents less than 18 percent of overall Federal spending. Due to the President's sequester, this year roughly 14,000 Air Force civilian men and women have been furloughed in the State of Ohio as a direct result of the sequester. These forced furloughs have not only cost our State tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue but have negatively impacted nearly 30,000 men and women who work at Wright-Patterson and reside in our community. If allowed to continue, I fear the effects of sequestration will devastate the region and potentially result in a loss of 13,000 jobs. The loss of jobs, matched with reductions in spending, could cost our community in Dayton roughly $8.6 billion.

While it is important to note the impacts to Dayton, we must also take into consideration the impacts to our national security and the future of our country. The President promised sequester would not happen, and yet, the Department of Defense suffers under the effects of these drastic cuts. As many of the experts pointed out, sequestration will greatly compromise military readiness and modernization for years to come. Without a ready and able force, our military will no longer possess the capabilities necessary to rapidly and effectively respond to conflicts around the globe.

During recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, the various service chiefs have made numerous statements outlining the devastating effects. Of note, the Army has been forced to cancel all combat training center rotations for those brigade combat teams not slated to deploy to Afghanistan or to be part of the global response force. That means that we only have two out of 42 combat Army brigades fully trained and ready to deploy in a crisis.

The Navy has canceled multiple ship deployments as a result of the devastating budget cuts, including the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group that was scheduled to deploy to the Middle East earlier this year. Due to the cuts in training and maintenance, we have had to reduce deterrent presence in order to retain the ability to surge our ships if needed in a crisis.

Important modernization efforts are also taking a hit as a result of sequestration. Air Force leaders have told Congress that ``modernization forecasts are bleak.'' These modernization efforts are critical as many of the assets in our current inventory are decades old.

It is imperative that we find spending cuts to offset sequestration on the Department of Defense. Our military leaders have come to Congress on numerous occasions to explain the limitations the budget cuts are putting on our national security. It is legislative malpractice for this Congress to continue to put our Nation at greater risk. The President needs to come to this Congress with a proposal to offset sequestration in a responsible manner so the Department of Defense can be restored, our national security protected, and the community of Dayton, Ohio, no longer suffers the effects of sequestration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his diligence on a provision of this bill that would protect the custody rights of our servicemembers. I also want to thank the ranking member and the staff of the VA Committee for also being so diligent as to include this provision.

This provision has passed the House five times as part of the National Defense Authorization Act and three times as provisions coming from the VA Committee. It is an essential provision that would provide servicemembers the confidence and protection of the custody arrangements once they are deployed.

Unbelievably, across this Nation, family law court judges have been taking custody away from servicemembers upon their return from deployment, using their time against them in deciding a custody case. There are even cases in our Nation where the family law court judge took custody away based on the potential threat of deployment of servicemembers. I don't think anyone believes that it is in the best

interest of the child for them to believe that there is something wrong with serving your country.

We have a national military that needs a national standard. Men and women who are serving need to know what standard is going to be applied. Many of these cases have multiple State provisions. This does not provide Federal jurisdiction for custody cases. It retains the State's authority on this, but merely provides a minimum standard upon which servicemembers can rely that says that their custody decisions will not be based solely upon the issue of their past or future deployment. This is the minimum that we could do for our servicemembers.

This arises in part out of the case of Eva Slusher, who was a Kentucky National Guard member. Her daughter, Sara, she had raised for 6 years alone after divorce. Upon returning from deployment, the court awarded her ex-husband custody. She fought for 2 years and spent $25,000 to get her daughter back. She should be the type of servicemember who knows that there is a standard so that when she returns, that her time away will not be used against her.

This is important also so that servicemembers, when they are making arrangements upon departure, do not have the anxiety, when they are deployed, that when they return they might not get their families back.

Eva Slusher famously said that, under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, she is required to get her job back when she returns. She believes that, under that act, she should also be able to get her child back.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for his dedication and commitment to the important issue of our strategic assets.

When we look at the NNSA, they have had for a number of years difficulty in getting support from this administration for the important efforts of modernizing our nuclear weapons infrastructure and ensuring the strategic assets that are so essential to our Nation's security.

This issue also is one that represents, I think, a great analogy to the difficulty that we are having in resolving this conflict. We have the President of the United States, who openly states that he will have negotiations with Russia on our strategic assets, on our nuclear weapons. He will even have secret negotiations--as we saw in his open mic incident--with his secret deal with the Russians concerning our missile defense systems; yet, the President openly says he will not negotiate with the legislature. He will negotiate with Syria, he will negotiate with Iran, but he won't negotiate with the legislature.

Also, this issue illustrates some of the difficulties that we have in this House itself. We are putting on House bills that should have 100 percent unanimous support. Yet when these bills come to the House, these bills predominantly have been divided on a partisan basis because people want to say, Well, it doesn't fund everything.

Everyone knows when you have a disagreement, you start first upon the things you agree. The bills that have been coming forth on this House floor should be the things that we agree on, but partisan politics continues to divide us where, instead of the House coming together on all of these bills and saying, yes, these are the things that we agree on, and we will put aside the things we disagree on for later, we have difficulty in getting even the important things done, and this is an important one.

I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for his commitment to ensure the safety of our nuclear deterrent, the workers, and the important work that is being done at the NNSA.

This is a discussion, though, that needs to go beyond just this stopgap bill and even the issue of a CR. This administration has continually cut the resources for our nuclear deterrent in ways which jeopardize the future of our strategic assets. We need to make certain that this conversation continues.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 538, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 371, I call up the bill (H.R. 3223) to provide for the compensation of furloughed Federal employees, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3223 and to include extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The House remains actively engaged in finding a solution to end the current impasse. The House has passed a number of commonsense bills to fund our troops, continue funding for veterans' benefits, and allow the District of Columbia to spend its own funds. The House has also passed legislation to bring defense civilian employees back to work. Unfortunately, the administration appears to be purposefully refusing to use the authority granted by the Pay Our Military Act, meaning roughly 400,000 defense civilian employees remain at home, unable to work.

While we wait on the President and Senate to reach across the aisle, it is important to provide needed certainty to Federal employees who have been furloughed without pay. Each and every one of us has Federal employees in our district, most of whom are guided by a sense of civic duty and take pride in helping make their country a better place.

Civilian defense personnel at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, doctors and nurses at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, records management professionals at the National Archives, and countless other dedicated men and women throughout my community are employed by Federal agencies and have been subject to furlough.

In the gulf coast region and other disaster-prone areas, NOAA employees help prepare for and monitor major storms. In the aftermath of these natural disasters, FEMA workers are sent into horrible and hazardous conditions to help restore broken communities.

At NASA, employees help us, figuratively and literally, to reach for the stars. They encourage future generations to not be bound by seemingly physical and intellectual barriers.

Our law enforcement agencies work tirelessly to investigate and capture those who seek to do harm to the homeland as well as our allies abroad. The list goes on.

H.R. 3223 ensures the Federal civilian workers will receive retroactive pay for the duration of the Federal Government shutdown regardless of their furlough status. Federal workers who have been furloughed under a shutdown have historically received their pay retroactively. H.R. 3223 provides today's workforce a guarantee that their pay will resume once the President and Senate Democrats agree to meaningful discussions that will ultimately resolve this impasse.

I urge support for this bill as we continue to work on legislation to reopen critical operations of the Federal Government, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the author of the bill we're considering today that would retroactively restore pay to Federal workers.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

I reserve the balance of my time.

We do not.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle would have us believe that this shutdown is somehow a Republican-engineered shutdown. They would have you believe that the government only shuts down with Republican leadership, and we know that that's not the case.

The government shuts down when there's a failure of the democratic process to work and parties to negotiate in good faith and the deliberative process of democracy to move forward. The President has absolutely shut that down with his refusal to negotiate.

We had a government shutdown when Mr. Reagan was in the White House. Under President Reagan, the Democrat-controlled Congress shut the government down a total of eight times, for 14 days. So a Democrat- controlled Congress actually shut the government down under Reagan for longer than it has been shut down now. Again, under Mr. Clinton, the House also shut the government down.

In each of those instances, there was something different than what's now--and that is that there were negotiations going on. President Reagan was negotiating with the House and Senate. President Clinton was negotiating with the House and Senate. But this President said absolutely no negotiations.

This President will negotiate with Syria. He'll negotiate with Iran. He'll even have secret negotiations with Russia and secret deals. But he will not negotiate with the legislature.

Now, what won't he negotiate over?

He won't negotiate over the debt limit. He wants to take the country from $17 trillion to $19 trillion in debt. No negotiations.

He won't negotiate on his sequestration. In my community, there were 12,000 people that were furloughed. The President will not negotiate on his sequester.

The President will not negotiate on funding the government. We have sent countless bills over to the Senate that would reopen the national parks, that would fund the veterans, that would allow Washington, D.C., to spend its own funds, and Harry Reid heartlessly has said in response to these bills that would provide needed services, Why would we do that?

But we know that the President is playing politics because this House and the Senate passed the Pay Our Military Act. It was signed by the President of the United States. I have sent letters to Secretary Hagel and to the President questioning why he would have furloughed 400,000 DOD workers when he had signed the Pay Our Military Act, and 8,700 workers in my community were furloughed.

How do we know they were playing politics by letting the Department of Defense employees go even though the President had full authority to fund them? Because he's going to be calling them back. He's calling them back without any other passage of any other law or any other law that he signs. So clearly, the President is admitting that he's been playing politics with these furloughs--and it needs to stop.

It also needs to stop so our Federal workers do not have to worry about their pay, they do not have to worry about the impacts on their personal lives. They have child care expenses, house payments to make, kids that are in college. And while the President refuses to negotiate, while he's playing politics, they shouldn't worry about whether or not they can make ends meet.

I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3223 that would restore the pay to Federal workers and ensure that they have the security that they need.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 1, 2013.

Hon. Chuck Hagel,

Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Secretary: On September 30, 2013, Congress passed

and the President signed into law the Pay Our Military Act to

reverse the devastating impacts of a government shutdown on

civilian employees. Under the law, you are authorized to

``provide pay and allowances to the civilian personnel of the

Department of Defense (and the Department of Homeland

Security in the case of the Coast Guard) whom the Secretary

concerned determines are providing support to members of the

Armed Forces.'' This certainly applies to the civilian men

and woman at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base who work

diligently in support of the Armed Forces. The law is clear

and provides the department as well as the United States

Coast Guard with the authority to immediately call its

civilian employees back to work.

I am deeply concerned with the impacts to the Department of

Defense caused by a government shutdown. The current

situation poses a great risk to military readiness and

undermines the department's ability to carry out its mission.

While our uniformed men and women may be exempt from

furlough, I remain deeply concerned with the status of our

civilian employees caused by the current shutdown of the

federal government. Just like our uniformed service men and

women, these civilians play an integral role in ensuring the

safety and security of our nation. At Wright-Patterson Air

Force Base alone, over 9,000 civilian employees have been

furloughed and therefore prohibited from coming to work.

I await an immediate update on the department's

implementation of the law and will continue to work with you

as we put the government back to work and mitigate the

impacts of a government shutdown.

Sincerely,

Michael R. Turner,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, as you and I have discussed, Tuesday morning, 8,700 employees at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base were unnecessarily furloughed. I have voted every single time to fully fund the government, and I have opposed this shutdown. This shutdown is just as harmful to our military readiness as sequestration is, which I also opposed because it undermines our national security.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Pay Our Military Act was passed by this Congress and signed by the President to ensure our Nation's uniformed servicemembers and the civilian employees that support them would be paid in the event of a shutdown. The administration has chosen to ignore this law and force our civilian employees to sit at home and go without pay.

I have written to Secretary Hagel and President Obama demanding clarification as to why they have chosen not to follow the law and have furloughed these hardworking people. The Armed Services Committee is holding a hearing to get to the bottom of this clear defiance of the law by the administration.

It is past time that we get all men and women back to work and those who work to support our military.

Mr. Speaker, over four years ago, President Obama asserted that his would be ``the most transparent Administration in history.'' Instead, we have seen the Executive Branch act in a manner wholly inconsistent with that statement and take great strides to conceal the truth from public scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better.

That is why today the House is considering several pieces of legislation aimed at curbing the widespread abuse that we have witnessed in recent years and helping to restore faith in the federal government for hardworking taxpayers across this country. As a senior Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I have been involved with investigating the many scandals that have been reported on throughout the last several months.

As we continue to see in the ongoing investigation of conservatives being targeted for their political beliefs, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, has failed to act in a fair, nonpartisan, and nondiscriminatory manner. In targeting an individual or group for audits and investigation on the basis of their beliefs--and not a legitimate tax-related purpose--the IRS has weakened its level of trust among both the American public and Congress. That is why I introduced H.R. 1950, the Taxpayer Nondiscrimination and Protection Act of 2013. With over 100 cosponsors and a companion measure in the Senate authored by Senator Marco Rubio, this bill is aimed at preventing biased, politically-motivated discrimination and seeks to strengthen taxpayer protections in current law by making such action a crime.

Earlier this year the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also heard from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration in which details were exposed of a lavish, taxpayer-funded conference for IRS employees in Anaheim, California. The IRS reported an estimated final cost of $4.1 million for the conference--$3.2 million of which were transferred from the funds appropriated by Congress for salaries, expenses, and personnel. In response to the revelation that taxpayers footed nearly 80% of the tab for this wasteful party, I introduced H.R. 2345, the Stop Internal Resource Slush Fund Act. This bill would address the back-door budgeting used by the IRS and put an end to these government slush funds.

In addition to the deeply troubling actions by the IRS, the Administration remains defiant in what may well be the lasting legacy of President Obama's scandals: the plight of Delphi Salaried Retirees. For over three years, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to hold the Administration accountable for unjustly terminating the pensions of an estimated 22,000 retirees in the wake of the General Motors bailout.

Both Congress and these hardworking men and women continue to press the Treasury Department, the President's Auto Task Force, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for answers and full and complete disclosure of their actions that have led to tremendous hardship for thousands across the country. Despite bipartisan efforts toward fairness and transparency, the Administration has thus far remained secretive and defiant.

It is my sincere hope that the measures we are considering today, the legislation I have authored, and the ongoing investigations of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will put an end to these government abuses and hold bad actors accountable to the American people.

Offered By: Mr. Turner

Amendment No. 16: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to enter into a colloquy.

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

I yield to the gentleman.

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

I yield to the gentleman.

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

I yield to the gentleman.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restrict President Obama from unlawfully divesting our Nation's strategic delivery systems.

Since the enactment of the New START Treaty in 2010, the President has continued to jeopardize the security of the United States by unilaterally pursuing policies and international agreements that call for the drastic reduction of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. Not only are these proposed policies and agreements harmful to the United States, but also they are in violation of standing laws such as the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which states that international agreements cannot limit or reduce the military forces of the United States unless enacted pursuant to a treaty or congressional-executive agreement.

It is unfortunate that amendments such as this one have become necessary, as the President chooses to ignore the role of Congress when negotiating arms reductions.

As recently as last month, President Obama delivered a speech in Berlin in which he outlined his plan to further reduce nuclear warheads by as much as one-third. Since that time, the administration has given no indication that he would seek to negotiate or seek Senate ratification of a formal treaty as required by law. Instead, the administration continues to engage directly with the Russian Federation while averting a formal treaty process in coordination with the Senate.

These drastic reductions by the President are ill conceived and have only encouraged the further proliferation of nuclear weapons by countries like Russia, China, and North Korea, which continue to expand their nuclear weapons programs.

This amendment seeks to rein in the President's misguided policies by ensuring that none of the appropriated funds be used to reduce the strategic delivery systems of the United States in contravention of section 303(b) of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

With all due respect to the gentleman from Indiana, I won't question his historical description of the issues of the use of nuclear weapons, although I find it confusing.

I will say that this amendment and its terms are not about the issue of the use of or even the number of weapons the United States or Russia might have. This is about the Constitution and the laws of the United States. All this says is that the President has to follow the Constitution, make certain that he seeks Senate ratification of any formal treaty, or that he conform with the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which would prohibit him unilaterally taking action.

The concern and the reason why this amendment is necessary is because the President felt the need to actually leave this country and go to another country and announce his attention, perhaps, to undertake unilaterally--both as President, and unilaterally, without even getting a bilateral agreement with another nation--his intention of further reducing our nuclear weapons.

This amendment is not about numbers, it's about the law. It's about our Constitution, it's about upholding it, and requiring that the President of the United States conform to it in something certainly as important as our national security.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, the administration recently announced that the Obamacare employer mandate, requiring businesses to provide their workers with health insurance, will be delayed until 2015. This decision is proof that even this administration acknowledges that the Obamacare law has adverse affects on American families and small businesses.

At a time when the economy is still struggling to recover, we should be focused on reducing taxes on hardworking Americans and providing incentives for businesses to grow and create jobs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the employer mandate will raise taxes on American businesses by $117 billion. In addition, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) estimates that the employer mandate will result in 125,000 to 249,000 lost jobs as a result of higher insurance costs.

Unfortunately, the administration is still moving forward with the implementation of the individual mandate in 2014, which will have negative effects on the American people. The average individual premium is expected to increase somewhere between 20 and 30 percent in 2014. CBO also estimates that the individual mandate will increase taxes on American families by $55 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I support passage of H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act, and H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. At the same time, we must permanently repeal these burdensome mandates. That is why I authored H.R. 582, the Healthcare Tax Relief and Mandate Repeal Act, with 97 of my colleagues, to repeal the Obamacare individual and employer mandates, providing relief for American families and businesses.

Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to impose extra burdens on American families and businesses when our economy is struggling to get back on track. I strongly support repeal of the individual and employer mandates and I am committed to working with my colleagues to carefully and thoughtfully implement real healthcare reform.

I have an amendment at the desk

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2906.

I offer this amendment in response to the President's recent address in Berlin in which he outlined his plan to further reduce the United States strategic nuclear arsenal below acceptable levels and in contravention of current law.

The President's latest proposal would once again call for unilateral reductions in our strategic nuclear arsenal at a time when countries like Russia and China continue to expand and modernize their nuclear capabilities.

To make matters worse, the President has undertaken this most recent effort without the consent of the United States Senate, as required under the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which states international agreements cannot limit or reduce the military forces of the United States unless enacted pursuant to a treaty or congressional-executive agreement.

Not only do the President's continued calls for weapons reductions jeopardize the safety and security of the United States, but he compromises the safety of our partner nations.

It is unacceptable that the President continues to make secret deals with countries like Russia while at the same time breaking promises with the American people and our allies.

The current threat environment around the world is very real and should not be underestimated. A robust nuclear arsenal is critical in deterring against emerging threats like Iran and North Korea.

My amendment simply ensures that none of the funds appropriated by this act may be used to further reduce nuclear force reductions outside of the formal process established under existing law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday over 14,000 civilian Department of Defense employees at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in my community were furloughed as a result of sequestration. For 11 days, over the next few months, these hardworking members of my community will see their pay cut by 20 percent.

I voted against this mess. I knew the effects of sequestration on our national security and our community and its citizens would be significant and for many devastating. These vital members of our national security structure have essentially been told they are expendable. Morale at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and DOD facilities around the United States is suffering because of this.

I've spoken to not just these civilian employees, but to car dealers, restaurant owners, small businesses, all of who feel the pain and frustration because of inaction here in Washington. It doesn't have to be this way. The House has passed an act to avert sequestration. The Senate has failed to pass a single bill to avert sequestration. The President, who promised the American people that this would not happen, has done nothing. Meanwhile, families and businesses, not only in Ohio but across the country, are suffering. It's time for the President to keep his promise that he made during his election campaign and to work to set aside sequestration.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against sequestration. The House has passed legislation to halt it, and it's time that the Senate and the President come to the table and work to find a way to avert these furloughs and their devastating impact on the lives and businesses of hardworking Americans and its impact upon our national security.