Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a very special occasion today--the 65th wedding anniversary of Billy and Laverne Cantrell. This event will take place on July 29th.

Billy Cantrell was born to Festus and Mary Lou Cantrell on December 31, 1926, and Laverne Cantrell was born to Oscar and Avis Jeffreys on March 22, 1932.

The couple met in Hamilton, Alabama, while attending high school and only dated six weeks before getting married.

Steve served in the Merchant Marines and worked for 27 years at 3-M in Qwin, Alabama. Laverne worked in garment factories until her retirement.

Together, Billy and Laverne had four children, nine grandchildren, 15 great grand children and three great-great grandchildren. Their favorite songs include ``Tennessee Waltz'' and ``Sentimental Journey''.

Please join me in congratulating this lovely couple on 65 years together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend an outstanding young leader who attends Auburn University, which is a leading research and educational institution in my district in Alabama. Auburn's political science department each year recognizes a student leader who excels in both the classroom and the community. It's my honor to announce that Mr. Elliott Lynn is this year's winner of Auburn's Political Science Leadership Award. A faculty committee selected Elliott after careful consideration of his outstanding credentials.

Elliott is from Phenix City, Alabama. He is a senior political science major with an outstanding 3.95 Cumulative Grade Point Average. Elliot is a National Merit Scholar and on the Dean's List. He is a member of many honor societies, including Phi Eta Sigma, Pi Sigma Alpha and Pi Lambda Sigma. Elliott is an Honors College Drummond Scholar and a recipient of the Auburn University Marie Glass Ward Endowed Academic Scholarship.

Elliott is active in helping the community, and he participated in multiple service trips to underserved communities in the U.S. and in developing countries. He went to Haiti to build housing for the victims of the 2010 earthquake. He also volunteered as a teaching assistant with the Victory Mission at a church in Columbus, Georgia, and volunteers at the Columbus Habitat. Last summer, Elliott had the opportunity to intern with our colleague in the other chamber, Senator Richard Shelby, and he has also interned with a Circuit Court Judge in Alabama.

After graduating from Auburn, Elliott plans to attend law school and work in human rights or public interest law. He hopes his career will allow him the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to Elliott and thank Auburn University for producing such outstanding students and citizens.

I urge the House to support the Turner-Rogers- Franks-Bridenstine amendment.

The New START treaty is perhaps the first unilateral arms control treaty the U.S. has ratified in that it is the first treaty where only the U.S. has to make reductions in the central limits of the treaty.

Every six months new data is released by the Department of State showing that only the U.S. is reducing its deployed nuclear forces to implement this treaty.

Last month, in Berlin, the President announced that he was changing the Nuclear Weapons Employment Guidance and Strategy of the United States to support further reductions in United States nuclear forces.

Never before has a President done something like this.

Yes, Presidents since Truman have updated the nation's nuclear war plan.

But there is no precedent for a President to tell the national security team that, regardless of the nuclear weapons modernization programs of China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea and others, the U.S. should plan to reduce our nuclear forces.

Every other President has asked one simple question when conducting a review like this: what level of nuclear forces do I need to ensure that a potential enemy or adversary knows that if he attacks the United States or our allies, we will have the ability to respond with nuclear forces that could result in nothing less than total devastation?

It has not been explained to me how fewer nuclear weapons in the U.S. nuclear deterrent is necessarily better for the country's security.

When allies see us backing away from our extended deterrent, and potential adversaries see us giving up these capabilities while they are growing them in practically every way--cascades of proliferation cannot be far behind.

Already we see that allies are concerned with the President's new approach.

For 66 years, since the U.S. used them to end World War II, our deterrent has kept the world safe.

This is not a recipe the Congress will let the President arbitrarily change to satisfy a small cloister of arms control and disarmament ideologues.

The reason the Turner-Rogers-Franks-Bridenstine amendment is so important is that in this new strategy the President announced, he refuses to commit to following the established precedent of only pursuing nuclear reductions with another nation through a treaty or a congressional-executive agreement that must be enacted by an affirmative act of Congress.

Practically every senior military officer who has testified before the House Armed Services Committee on the subject of further nuclear force reductions has been clear they must be ``bilateral and verifiable'' and that the only way to achieve this is through a treaty.

Yet, the civilians in the Administration refuse to state that this approach supported by the military is also the President's policy.

This amendment is consistent with language I offered, as Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee that overseas our nation's nuclear forces, which was adopted by the House Armed Services Committee and the House itself, in the recent FY14 National Defense Authorization Act.

The President may think he doesn't need Congress when it comes to international agreements with states like Russia.

He may think he can ignore gross violations in arms control agreements, like those Russia is engaged in today.

But he still needs money to implement his policies.

And that's what we can deny him if he attempts to ignore or circumvent the people's elected representatives in Congress.

I encourage the support of this amendment and I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for his support, leadership, and endurance during this long process.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The NNSA's weapons activities program is the core of the U.S. nuclear modernization efforts. Reductions of this magnitude, the $245 million being proposed in this amendment, will endanger the nuclear deterrent by delaying or canceling key warhead life-extension programs and facilitate modernization programs. These cuts will also cost taxpayers more in the future because the modernization program that the Obama administration has requested must be done and will only get more expensive with time.

President Obama committed to request robust funding for nuclear modernization to win Senate ratification of his New START treaty program. But unfortunately, to date, he's $1.6 billion behind in that commitment for FY 12 through FY 14. Without these robust funding levels, our ability to safely reduce the New START levels is in question.

The President's 2010 nuclear posture review says:

These investments are essential to facilitating reductions

while sustaining deterrents under the New START and beyond.

With this tight budget, we must provide every dollar we can to nuclear modernization efforts and prevent the draconian further reductions required by this amendment.

NNSA is the only national security spending in this bill. Taking money from NNSA to pay for renewable energy directly undermines our national security to subsidize energy technologies that can't stand on their own in the market.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the farm bill. The American people want Congress to cut wasteful spending and red tape. And I honestly believe the American people also want to have their food grown right here in America. It's my opinion this farm bill accomplishes both those goals. This farm bill also cuts spending for agriculture programs by over $40 billion--that's billion with a B.

The bill eliminates or consolidates more than 100 programs administered by USDA. It also ends the often criticized direct payments for farmers. The farm bill also cuts $20 billion in mandatory spending on food stamps over the next 10 years.

Many opponents of the bill have characterized this legislation as a bill to support the expansion of the food stamps. That couldn't be further from the truth. Like many of my colleagues here, I believe the food stamp program is wasteful and open to fraud. Food stamp spending has doubled since 2008, and it's tripled since 2002. Without reform, food stamp spending will continue to increase through loopholes the Obama administration has used to expand the program.

That's why we should pass this farm bill. I agree it's not perfect. But passage allows the House to join with the Senate in conference to pursue further reforms that are one step closer to signing this into law.

With that, Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the House's attention today to recognize Mr. Robert Houston, who will be retiring from BAE Systems after 35 years of service.

Robert began his career in 1977 with FMC Corporation as a manufacturing analyst. Since then, Robert has traveled the United States and globe--from Iowa to South Carolina to Iraq. He first held positions like welder, shop floor supervisor and operations and human resources manager. After much hard work, he rose into line management roles. Prior to his current position, Mr. Houston served as the vice president and general manager for the legacy Steel Products and Readiness & Sustainment businesses. During this time, he also acted as the Anniston site executive.

In addition to working for BAE, Robert has been extremely involved in his community. Robert served as the first African American president of the Aiken Rotary Club and the first African American chairman of the Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce. Robert also dedicated time to working with Anniston schools on STEM programs and reading initiatives.

After his retirement, Robert plans to spend time with his family, including his grandson, Cameron. He also plans to vacation with his wife of 35 years.

Mr. Speaker, please join Mr. Houston's family, his colleagues and myself in both thanking Robert Houston for his dedication to the community and wishing him the best of luck in all of his future pursuits.

I thank the gentlelady.

As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I rise in support of this amendment, and I don't have any silos in Alabama, although I would like to have some.

One of the things I want people to be cognizant of is we need to maintain our resiliency as we go through these negotiations. The New START Treaty does not require these silos be demolished. The fact is, as we just learned with our ground-based interceptors which President Obama decided 4 years ago to reduce from 44 to 30, he reversed course when the world got a little bit more dangerous, and now we're going back to put those additional 14 GBIs in Fort Greeley.

We never know when the world's landscape is going to change. It is much more expensive and cumbersome to try to put new silos in than it is to keep these warm. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Turner amendment.

This administration must be transparent with the Congress on negotiating proposals with foreign states, especially on something as important to U.S. security as missile defense. Numerous members of the HASC, including Chairman McKeon, have written asking questions of DOD and the President as to the content of proposals that the administration is and may be making with the Russians.

We see over and over again Russian officials, after visits by U.S. officials, referencing proposals that have been made on U.S. missile defenses. We know from these press reports that the President is proposing ``executive agreements'' and drafting executive orders to provide ``legally binding'' constraints on our missile defenses. When we, as Members of Congress, ask about these proposals, we're told next to nothing.

It's unacceptable for this administration to stiff-arm the Congress when negotiating over U.S. missile defenses. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I thank the chairman.

I rise in vigorous opposition to Mr. Holt's amendment. At a time when the technical and strategic case for missile defense has never been stronger, the gentleman's amendment would strike bipartisan provisions that will improve our missile defenses.

For example, the amendment would strike a provision the committee adopted that would improve the kill assessment capability of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. Why would the gentleman want a national missile defense system with a less robust kill assessment capability than is technically possible?

The amendment would strike a provision dealing with an Analysis of Alternatives on the future space sensor architecture for our missile defense system. Does the gentleman not want an informed judgment and study on a persistent overhead space sensor system? The gentleman may be laboring under misimpressions of missile defense.

I know there are so-called ``experts'' in the disarmament community who labor to create doubts about our missile defense system, but I ask, How many of these ``experts'' have been briefed on what the system does, on the incredibly technically demanding tests that the warfighters create? I would say none.

I urge the gentleman to withdraw his amendment, to come get some classified briefings; and let's see if we can't add him to the overwhelming bipartisan group of policymakers that supports a strong and robust national and regional missile defense system.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to vote ``no.''

I thank the chairman.

I rise in strong opposition to the McCollum amendment. The McCollum amendment would prohibit the Army National Guard from sponsoring and advertising in professional motor sports. This amendment would have a negative impact on the recruiting of soldiers to enlist or reenlist in the National Guard.

Recent studies have shown that around 90 percent of the Army National Guard soldiers who enlisted or reenlisted since 2007 were exposed to this form of advertising. Additionally, these creative advertising techniques reach a sport with over 75 million loyal viewers, many of whom are between the age of 18 and 34 years old, the target audience to recruit quality soldiers for the Army National Guard.

I fully recognize the need for Congress to cut unnecessary spending, and I have voted many times to rein in government spending; however, I see no need to prohibit this successful form of advertising which works to recruit quality men and women to help protect and defend our Nation.

I urge a ``no'' vote on McCollum amendment No. 25.

Mr. Chairman, I never ceased to be amazed in this Chamber. The only time I see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle concerned about fiscal restraint and cutting spending is when it comes to national defense. You know, one of the most knuckle-headed things this Congress has done is the sequestration framework that I, unfortunately, was a part of setting into place. But as you just heard my colleague from Texas state, we had already cut $480 billion out of defense before sequestration comes into play. Now we have sequestration coming into play.

The thought that we could be in a war, defend against potential areas of war that are emerging around the world with further cuts is mindless and irresponsible. We owe it to the men and women in this country who serve in uniform and their families to make sure they have everything they need to be safe and successful when we send them into a theater of war.

This amendment is dangerous, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

I thank the chairman.

Today I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) as well as my good friend from Washington State.

The committee zeroed out these funds because the administration appears to be expecting a blank check from the Congress to implement this treaty. The House, through the appropriation power, must have a chance to evaluate whether the implementation of a treaty and the manner in which an administration intends to implement a treaty is in the U.S. national security interest. That's the reason the 1042 report was required in the FY12 NDAA in the first place.

I remind the House, this report is mandated by law. Are we really comfortable in this House with letting the President ignore the law of the land as he sees fit?

Additionally, while the gentleman from Tennessee withdrew the amendment at the full committee level because the offset he selected was of concern, the offset he has now is also a problem. It takes a program in DARPA that has been eliminated recently, and the funds for that program are planned to support transition activities to two other DARPA programs. Diverting $50 million from this effort now would significantly slow down the schedule for these two programs.

Additionally, we expect President Obama to announce, likely next week in Berlin, that he will seek to reduce our deployed nuclear forces by one-third--beyond the New START treaty reductions we have yet to put in place. We need to put the brakes on this rush to zero. This President is proposing dangerous and irreversible changes to our nuclear forces.

I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Madam Speaker, where is the accountability? From Benghazi to the IRS to the Justice Department monitoring reporter emails, the trust Americans should have in their government is being shaken, and for good reason.

It's unfortunate we're spending time and resources searching for answers from our own leaders. Americans have questions like: Has the President been completely transparent about the Benghazi attacks? Who ordered the IRS to target conservative groups? Were more reporters monitored by the Justice Department, more than just the AP and FOX News? Did Attorney General Eric Holder mislead the U.S. Congress?

Because of his failed leadership on this and other scandals like Operation Fast and Furious, I have called on Eric Holder to resign. The buck has to stop somewhere. It's time for the Obama administration to come clean with the American people.

Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I rise in support of H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014.

It's important to understand what this bill does and why it deserves our support. For example:

It streamlines the acquisition of 14 ground-based intercepters announced by the Secretary of Defense on March 15, saving the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars;

It ensures that strategic competitors do not gain inadvertent access to vital systems or information because of reliance on commercial sitcom providers;

It prohibits the transfer of some missile defense technology to Russia and strengthens congressional oversight of administration efforts with regards to U.S.-Russia missile defense cooperation generally;

It invests in proven and vital systems like the Iron Dome and short- range rocket defense systems;

It provides significant resources above the President's request for other Israeli cooperative missile defense programs like Arrow 2, Arrow 3, and the David's Sling weapons system;

It forces efficiencies and prioritization of critical nuclear modernization programs in the budget of the National Nuclear Security Administration; and

It implements several initiatives to improve security at the National Nuclear Security Administration and NSA, and streamlines the process to terminate DOE employees negligent in their duties at category 1 nuclear material sites like the Y-12 site.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the full committee chairman, Buck McKeon, for his leadership this year. Without him, this process would not have worked nearly as well. And I also want to thank my friend and colleague, the ranking member from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), who has been a great partner in this process.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the House's attention today to recognize the congregation of Eulaton Baptist Church, which will be celebrating their 125th anniversary on June 13th.

In 1888, in the community of Eulatonin, Alabama, 30 people gathered to worship in an old school house. Eulatonin, a community in Anniston, Alabama, was named after Mrs. Eula Ford. This church was founded as a Southern Missionary Baptist Church with an emphasis on missions.

One hundred twenty-five years later, this church and its congregation have grown immensely. However, they remain focused on missions and serving their community of Eulaton, in Anniston, Alabama.

On Sunday, August 4th, members, friends and the community will gather together at the church to remember, reflect and rejoice on the triumphs of Eulaton Baptist Church. Please join me in celebrating their rich history and wishing them great success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the House's attention today to recognize Reverend O.C. Stiggers, who is retiring at the age of 85.

Pastor Stiggers was born in Chambers County, Alabama to the late John and Historia Williams Stiggers. Pastor Stiggers graduated from the Lanett School System. Afterwards, he attended the Columbus, Georgia branch of American Baptist Theological Seminary of Nashville, Tennessee. He also attended Moody's Bible College. He received his Doctorate of Divinity and his Doctorate of Laws.

Pastor Stiggers has served as the Executive Chair of the Western Union Missionary Baptist Association, as a member of the Board of Trustees of Mt. Calvary Baptist Association and a Dean of the Bryant Theological Seminary School in Hamilton, Georgia. Pastor Stiggers is also a former member of the Board of Trustees at Selma University in Selma, Alabama, and he is a former president of the Parent/Teachers Association.

Currently, Pastor Stiggers is a member of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Lanett, Alabama. He also serves as Pastor of Ozias Ministry Baptist Church and Eastside Baptist Church.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join Reverend Stiggers' friends, family, and congregation in wishing him the best after his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask for the House's attention today to honor the late Reverend Nimrod Reynolds.

Reverend Nimrod Reynolds was born on April 30th, 1931, to the late Shelly and Bessie Reynolds of Chambers County, Alabama. In 1957, he married the late Luenell (Todd) Reynolds. Together they had two children, Tammye Quinnell and Andre' deKoven.

In 1949, Nimrod graduated from Chambers County High School and in 1954 he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from Clark College in Atlanta, Georgia. Three years later, Nimrod received his Masters Degree from the International Theological Seminary. He continued his education, and in 1993, received his Doctorate of Ministry from Wesleyan Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C.

In fall of 1958, he became pastor of First Baptist Church in Union Springs, Alabama, and in 1960, he began preaching at 17th Street Missionary Baptist Church in Anniston, Alabama. After the bus bombing in Anniston, Reverend Reynolds founded the Calhoun County Improvement Association. His dedication to Civil Rights continued and in 1967 he and his two children integrated Tenth Street Elementary School.

In 1969, he was appointed to the national board of the SCLC. In 1976, Reverend Reynolds was elected as the first black president of the Anniston City Board of Education. In 2012, he was recognized by both the University of Alabama and the Alabama Black Achievers for his work in civil rights.

Please join me in celebrating Reverend Reynolds' achievements in the Third District of Alabama and in honoring his legacy of civic engagement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this past week, I was back in my district, like the other Members were, talking with folks about how Washington is affecting their families. One of the biggest concerns I heard was how ObamaCare could impact their lives.

It turns out the health care law seems to be anything but affordable and more of a problem than a solution. For example, since it was signed into law in 2010, the administration hasn't been completely transparent about the new health care exchanges. The exchanges are just over 6 months from implementation, and we still know very little about how they will operate.

There's also the impact the law could have on jobs. The CBO estimates ObamaCare will become a $1 trillion tax hike. These tax hikes could hurt small businesses across Alabama and across the country as employers cut hours to avoid covering employees' health care. In fact, according to a study by the Hudson Institute, over 54,000 jobs in Alabama related to the hospitality, restaurant, and leisure industries are at risk because of the health care law.

I voted against this bill because of these concerns and more, and I also voted to repeal it time and time again. It's looking like a train wreck of a law, and we need to stop it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a very special occasion today--the 50th wedding anniversary of Steve and Carolyn Wallace. This event will take place on May 4.

Clark Stephen Wallace was born on November 22, 1936, in Anniston, Alabama, and Hannah Caroline Allen was born on November 4, 1942, also in Anniston. They both lived on Mulberry Avenue in Anniston for six years before going on their first date in 1963. After persuasion from family and church members, Carolyn asked Steve to a Valentine's Day banquet at Glenaddie Baptist Church. Steve accepted, and they were married three months later on May 4, 1963, at the same church where they went on their first date.

Steve served six years in the United States Air Force and retired from the United States Post Office. Carolyn retired from the Calhoun County School System where she was Assistant Manager of the Saks Elementary School lunchroom.

Together, Steve and Carolyn have two children, Robert Clark Wallace and Rebecca Lucille Wallace Griffin. They have three grandchildren, Robert Brandon Wallace, Michael Stephen McLeroy and Zachary Hunter Wallace. They have one great-grandchild, Alanna Jade Wallace.

Steve and Carolyn are active members of Saks Baptist Church in Anniston, Alabama.

Please join me in congratulating this lovely couple on 50 years together. The celebration will take place on May 4 at a reception with their friends and family members.