Floor Statements

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our commonsense amendment to allow the States to conduct drug screening on applicants for welfare. If adopted, this amendment would join a list of good government reforms contained in the FARRM Bill that save taxpayer money and ensure integrity and accountability within our nutrition system.

From preventing lottery winners from receiving food stamps to closing loopholes and preventing illegal immigrants from receiving benefits, I commend the chairman and ranking member on the work done to reform the food stamps program in the FARRM Bill.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment simply allows the States to conduct drug testing to ensure addicts and criminals are not taking food out of the mouths of hungry children. This debate is not about hungry children. We all agree that we need to take care of the least among us, those who need this type of assistance. We all agree that we don't want children to go hungry. What this amendment is about is making sure that addicts and criminals are not taking what is not theirs, taking food from the mouths of these children, taking food from those who are in need.

So I ask my colleagues to just consider this as a simple measure, a commonsense measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

At this point, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join my colleagues, Representatives Hudson and Yoho, to again offer a commonsense amendment that will further assist in diminishing the abuse in the SNAP program.

This is a no-nonsense amendment. If you have enough money to buy drugs, you do not need taxpayer money to buy food. This amendment protects the taxpayer from directly subsidizing the purchase of drugs. Without this amendment, drug users will continue to use their money to buy drugs and your money to buy food.

This amendment gives States the ability to implement a drug screening program in the way that works best for them, but it needs to be part of the SNAP benefit qualification application. There are already 29 States that have proposals to do this, and eight States have already passed this type of legislation for this type of screening.

Letting drug users abuse the SNAP program diverts funds from those who truly need it. That's what we're about here. Of course, this is what taxpayers, when you talk to regular folks, this is the kind of thing they complain about around the kitchen table, like, ``Why are my tax dollars going towards this?'' If I had a dime for every time I've heard this.

People want this sort of thing to happen for those that are abusing this program. Taxpayers deserve better; the folks that really need the benefits of food stamps deserve better.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, I ask my colleagues to consider this as a commonsense measure that does nothing to take food away from those who need it, but it makes sure the integrity of this program is upheld. We don't make any presumptions about folks on the program, but we think that States need this tool so that they can make sure that folks who are on the program are the folks that need to be on that program.

I thank the gentlelady, my colleague, from Connecticut for endorsing this farm bill this year because we do eliminate direct payments. As she alluded, I agree, that is a practice that we should end, and so I appreciate her endorsement of that piece of it.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will conclude by just saying I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure that does nothing but allow the States to have the tool to use drug testing should they see fit when administering this program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the city of Thomasville, North Carolina, for being named a 2013 ``All-America City.''

Thomasville, built on a foundation of furniture manufacturing and textiles, was hit hard over the last 25 years by job losses and plant closings. Instead of folding during trying economic times, the city took the challenge head-on and rallied together, as a community, to rebuild and bounce back.

The leadership of the entire community, including Mayor Joe Bennett and Chamber of Commerce President Doug Croft, were instrumental in advancing new projects that made Thomasville stand out as an All- America City.

Initiatives such as Envision 2020, a 20-year development plan for the city; Children At Play, a program to redevelop the city's parks to reduce crime; and Project Divine Interruption, which helps homeless students in the city, are just a few examples of the city's resolve to succeed.

Through the fortitude of its citizens, Thomasville stands as a shining example of what can happen when an entire community collaborates for the betterment of its citizens.

I'm proud to represent Thomasville, North Carolina, and I congratulate them on truly practicing the values that make America great.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the farm bill--a product of several years of hard work and patience from Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and their staffs at the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Chairman, I would like to call attention to the patience of our farming community across this Nation, the economic engine of rural America, and especially to the farming families in the Eighth District of North Carolina, which I call home. When I go home every weekend and travel across my district, I hear one resounding thing, and that is get a 5-year farm bill done to provide us the certainty we need.

Madam Chairman, this bill is not perfect. In my opinion, it does not contain enough cuts or reforms, but our alternative is the status quo. I would like to see more cuts and will offer and support amendments to do just that. Ultimately, I will support this bill because not supporting it, again, means the status quo. Not supporting this bill means not getting over $40 billion in mandatory cuts when we had the chance. Not supporting this bill means not having a 5-year bill to provide certainty that our farmers need.

From the important provisions found in the commodities title to ensuring the critical safety net of crop insurance remains intact to making responsible cuts and reforms to bloated programs, saving the taxpayers' money, this bill is a bill we need to support.

This a bill that provides the tools our farmers need to keep them producing food and fiber for our country and the world.

Like I said, this bill is not perfect and I look forward to the debate we will have in the coming days, and considering the amendments my colleagues and I will offer to make this the best bill we can for the Agriculture Community and the American taxpayer.

On behalf of the farmers and agribusiness community of North Carolina, I am eager to get this bill finished and providing long awaited certainty and reforms.

Mr. Chairman, I rise amongst a broad bipartisan coalition to oppose this misguided amendment offered by my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, facts are a stubborn thing. The National Guard has reiterated time and time again the immense value of their recruiting and retention programs in professional motor sports. The facts of this program show a successful return on investment for the taxpayers.

To demonstrate the success of this program, I would like to cite three crystal clear numbers which support strong opposition to this amendment:

First, 90 percent. In the June 4 letter to House Appropriations, the National Guard Association of the United States and their counterpart, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, stated that a recent independent study found that 90 percent of the Army National Guard soldiers who enlisted or reenlisted were exposed to the Guard from recruiting or retention materials featuring NASCAR drivers and their cars. That's a real return on your investment, a return on the invest of the American people;

Second, 85 percent. Of those who enlisted or reenlisted during that time period, 85 percent agree that professional sports are beneficial to attracting and retaining good soldiers. That's, again, a good return on your investment;

And the last number is 400,000. Since embarking on a more robust use of professional sport sponsorships in fiscal year 2007, the Army National Guard has added more than 400,000 new soldiers. That, Mr. Chairman, is a return on your investment.

Mr. Chairman, these facts come from sound research and independent study which the National Guard has shared with us, and I will enter into the Record my remarks here today.

I submit these facts to my colleagues and encourage them to consider the tremendous return on investment we would be stealing from our Nation's military and hardworking taxpayers if this amendment were to pass. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

National Guard Association of the United States, Enlisted

Association of the National Guard of the United States,

June 4, 2013.

Hon. Bill Young,

Chairman, House Appropriations Committee, Defense

Subcommittee, Washington, DC.

Hon. Pete Visclosky,

Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee, Defense

Subcommittee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman and Ranking Member of the House

Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense: As you may be aware,

there have been proposals in Congress to restrict the

Department of Defense's ability to utilize sports

sponsorships as part of recruitment and retention campaigns.

We would urge you to oppose any effort to restrict DoD

leadership's ability to utilize creative and innovative

tactics to ensure that the National Guard is able to promote

their career opportunities.

Recruiting for the all-volunteer force isn't what it used

to be. Only one in every four young people today is even

eligible to join. Today, you have to know how smart, fit

young people think, where they live and play, and go to them.

Innovative techniques such as sports sponsorships help the

National Guard do just that.

The enhanced use of sponsorships was a direct response to

specific recruiting challenges faced during the height of the

wars in

Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, when traditional and

more expensive recruiting efforts were failing to attract

enough quality applicants. It was during this time period

that recruiting goals were reached, partly, by lowering

minimum entrance requirements and accepting enlistees who

lacked high school diplomas, had low scores on the military's

aptitude test, or received waivers for criminal and medical

problems. However, since embarking on a more robust use of

professional sports sponsorships in fiscal year 2007, the

Army National Guard has added more than 400,000 new soldiers.

A recent study has found that 90 percent of Army National

Guard soldiers who enlisted or re-enlisted since 2007 were

exposed to the Guard through recruiting or retention

materials featuring NASCAR cars and/or drivers. Of those who

enlisted or re-enlisted during that time period, 85 percent

agree that professional sports are beneficial to attracting

and retaining good soldiers. The survey also found that

racing fans are an especially receptive group for National

Guard recruiting. NASCAR enthusiasts aged 18-34, the National

Guard's target age demographic, are twice as likely to

consider a military career than non-fans.

For the National Guard, marketing through sports is a

direct appeal to our target audience and their influencers,

providing the opportunity to reach individuals who are like-

minded. Any limitations or bans on this may look good on the

surface in a tight fiscal environment, but, in reality, it

would provide no savings and hinder the National Guard's

effort to reach the most qualified potential recruits.

Sponsorships provide the Guard a national platform to build

relationships, promote our image and aid in recruiting

efforts. The recruiting and retention dollars spent through

sports sponsorships increase the National Guard's prestige

and visibility, as well as help generate recruiting leads at

events.

But these sport sponsorships go beyond a race or match.

They extend into the community, creating partnerships to

develop a national effort to address issues affecting

military personnel and their spouses, including providing

education assistance, combating unemployment, fostering

technology sharing and innovation, and sharing the story of

the National Guard.

Pro sports sponsorships are not just a matter of money.

They are an effective and important marketing platform for

awareness and development to target future potential

recruits, while also working to improve the lives of our

Guardsmen and women.

I ask that you please support the National Guard's

continued efforts to partner with professional sports

programs and create lasting community partnerships that

positively impact our National Guard.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter.

Gus Hargett,

Major General, USA, (Ret.), President, NGAUS.

John Helbert,

CSM, ARNG, President, EANGUS.

New Research: Sports Sponsorships Valuable to Military Recruitment

New research paints a clear picture of the value

sponsorships and marketing around professional sports provide

the U.S. military and its efforts to recruit and retain

soldiers. Conducted by respected independent firm Alan Newman

Research, the empirical study was deployed through a joint

initiative by the Enlisted Association of the National Guard

of the United States (EANGUS) and the National Guard

Association of the United States (NGAUS). The effort surveyed

thousands of Americans, including general population, sports

fans and, for the first time, more than 1,300 currently

serving and retired National Guard soldiers and airmen.

NASCAR Drives Recruiting

The Army National Guard has added more than 400,000 new

soldiers since fiscal year 2007 when the Department of

Defense embarked on a more robust use of professional sports

sponsorships for recruiting purposes. During this time, the

National Guard has leveraged NASCAR as a key platform to

promote its career opportunities, reporting a three-to-one

return on the current sponsorship program while routinely

meeting and exceeding recruiting targets. Most recently, the

Army National Guard exceeded fiscal-year-to-date 2013

accession goal by more than 1,000 recruits (or 104 percent).

Ninety percent of Army National Guard soldiers who enlisted

or re-enlisted from 2007-2013 said they have been exposed to

the Guard through recruiting or retention materials that

incorporated NASCAR. Of those who enlisted or re-enlisted

since 2007, 85 percent agree that professional sports are

beneficial to the National Guard's overall efforts to attract

and retain soldiers. More than six of ten of all National

Guard respondents have seen NASCAR leveraged at a recruiting

center or event.

Fans Advocate for Military Careers

Research confirms the NASCAR audience is tailor-made for

programs promoting career opportunities in the U.S. military.

Young fans (age 18-34) of NASCAR are twice as likely as non-

fans in the same age group to consider the military as a

career option. In addition, NASCAR fans are more passionate

advocates for military careers. They are 20 percent more

likely than non-fans to be ``very likely'' to support a

friend or family members choice to pursue military service.

The Power of Patriotism

National Guard members consider NASCAR, which hosts

swearing-in ceremonies for hundreds of new recruits each

year, the most patriotic of all major professional sports. In

a powerful statement for recruiting and retention programs

that utilize NASCAR, a nearly unanimous 92 percent of

National Guard respondents say they are more likely to engage

with an organization that they perceive as pathetic over

competitors.

Americans Support Military Recruitment

Americans clearly support the ability of the U.S. military

to recruit where it sees fit. An overwhelming 83 percent

believe military branches should be able to promote career

opportunities where the branches feel a receptive audience

will be found. Just 12 percent of Americans do net feel that

fans of professional sports represent a reasonable target

audience for recruiting programs.

Opportunities Across Pro Sports

Nearly all members of the National Guard are avid fans of

at least one major professional sport, notably the National

Football League, Major League Baseball and NASCAR. Guard

soldiers are similarly interested in pro sports in their home

areas--such as minor league baseball and hockey, arena

football and local short-track racing--indicating

opportunities for recruiting and retention programs at the

grassroots level in hundreds of communities around the

country. A majority of Americans--64 percent--are more likely

to engage with organizations that, like the National Guard,

are affiliated with a favorite sport, team or athlete.

Conclusion: Sponsorships Work for the Military

For the same reasons they are a preferred venue for

corporate advertising, NASCAR and other professional sports

are a prime place for recruitment advertising due to wide and

devoted fan bases and demographics ideal for messaging

regarding military careers. For the National Guard,

participation in NASCAR allows the opportunity to leverage

the largest American spectator sport with a massive and loyal

fan base of 75 million. Sports marketing is a widely accepted

and important piece of the marketing mix for the most

successful brands and organizations in the world, and it

should remain so for the U.S. military.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, which requires the CFTC and the SEC to cooperate on a single rule for how U.S. derivatives regulations are applied overseas.

This bill and several others we will consider today are critically important to the work we have begun in the House Agriculture Committee to reform Dodd-Frank and make this bill less onerous for our farmers and bankers.

As Commissioner Jill Sommers noted, it appears as though the CFTC was ``guided by what could only be called the 'Intergalactic Commerce Clause''' as they prepared their cross-border guidance when it was released last summer.

How foreign institutions comply with Dodd-Frank is of enormous consequence. The CFTC has taken the position that virtually everyone everywhere is a U.S. person and subject to its jurisdiction. Without question, this expansive claim of jurisdiction is going to raise the cost for farmers and end users in my home State of North Carolina to hedge their risk and diminish global competitiveness of our domestic financial firms, which employ many people back home in North Carolina.

The CFTC is risking all this to an end that no one seems to fully understand. Their actions are making financial regulatory reform more burdensome and more complicated, while serving only to alienate the CFTC and U.S. markets from the rest of the world.

The Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act would force the CFTC to cooperate with the SEC on a single standard for cross-border application of swaps regulations. In addition, the bill is narrowly tailored to guarantee that the top nine foreign swaps markets will be recognized by the CFTC and SEC as having comparable rules so foreign firms would be governed by the laws of their home countries.

This bill does not allow unchecked swaps markets to spring up in Caribbean island nations or the four corners of Southeast Asia, as some on the other side of the aisle have alluded. Instead, it directs the CFTC to do what it should have done in the first place: to cooperate with its fellow regulators both down the street and around the world.

I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Committee on Education and the Workforce heard testimony from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Despite a mountain of facts to the contrary, she told the committee that the concerns employers have with the health care law are mere speculation. I don't know who the Secretary is talking to in Washington, but the reality for employers out in the real world is there is no speculation when it comes to the job-crushing effects of ObamaCare.

Where I live in North Carolina, ObamaCare is destroying jobs and forces full-time workers to accept part-time hours, and that's just the start. I recently hosted a field hearing in my district where I heard from a business owner who, prior to ObamaCare, was able to offer some of the best medical, dental, and vision care in the area at a cost of only 20 percent to his employees. Sadly, this same company is now subject to higher premiums, higher Medicare taxes, higher investment taxes, and greater administrative burdens. All of this will divert resources from new training, new equipment, and better wages.

Mr. Speaker, what I see are the facts and not speculation. That's why I'm adamant that we need to repeal this terrible law.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support our amendment which strengthens the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, or FFDO. Our amendment increases funding for the FFDO

by $12.5 million, bringing the total authorized for the program to $25 million, with the Congressional Budget Office reporting no budgetary impact.

Since its creation in 2003, this program has provided training to pilots who are willing to step up and volunteer to protect their fellow citizens by defending the airliners that millions of Americans fly on every year. As part of TSA's risk-based approach to aviation security, which I've strongly advocated for on the Homeland Security Committee, the FFDO program plays an integral role in providing an additional layer of security against a hijacking or terrorist attack.

Since its inception, the FFDOs have protected thousands of flights each day and over 100,000 flights a month, at a fraction of the cost to taxpayers compared to the Federal Air Marshal Service. As the first line of deterrence and the last line of defense, it only makes sense that we should continue to provide adequate funding to the FFDO program. While zeroed out in the President's budget, we believe the FFDO program provides a cost-effective solution in protecting passengers aboard our airliners.

I applaud Chairman Rogers, Subcommittee Chairman Carter, and the Appropriations Committee for finding ways to prioritize spending so this program did not meet its demise. With that said, $12.5 million represents more than a 50 percent cut from last year's amount. At this level of funding, the FFDO program would be unable to recertify all the pilots currently in the program, maintain its current management structure, or train any additional officers.

We have offered a responsible and fully offset amendment that moves $12.5 million to the FFDO program to ensure that we are using our resources wisely and in a manner that directly benefits America's safety. The House unanimously agreed to a similar amendment offered in the FY 2013 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, and I hope my colleagues will join me this year in providing the support that such a valuable program deserves.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, as chair of the House Transportation Security Subcommittee, I want to raise my concern about a delay in finalizing a rule to improve the security of FAA-approved domestic and foreign repair stations. This rulemaking, mandated by Congress in 2003 and again in 2007, has languished for almost 10 years.

By way of background, TSA signed off on the rule late last year, and DHS completed consideration early this year. The Office of Management and Budget is currently reviewing the rule. I hope that OMB will complete this rulemaking by June 14, 2013, which is the end of the 90- day clock for their consideration.

At this time, I yield to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Carter).

I thank my colleague.

At this time I would like to yield to my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

I thank the gentleman.

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

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Mica

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to bring attention to an issue of critical importance regarding our national security. Our cyber and information warfare doctrines do not pay enough attention to the likelihood that adversaries seeking to cripple United States critical infrastructure could quickly turn to an EMP, electromagnetic pulse, attack.

This Nation's electrical grid is incredibly vulnerable and could be crippled by such an attack. The resulting blackout and EMP damage would quickly move beyond the electric grid. Other systems could collapse, leading to a failure of other critical infrastructures, such as communications, transportation, banking and finance, as well as the transportation of food and water. As I have traveled around my district, I have heard from several constituents and experts that see this threat as ever-present.

While technology has made society more efficient, it has also made us more vulnerable by permeating nearly every aspect of our culture that sustains modern civilization and the lives of millions.

The assessment that the U.S. is vulnerable to an EMP attack is based on the work of the Congressional EMP Commission that analyzed this threat for nearly a decade from 2001 to 2008. The Congressional Strategic Posture Commission and several other U.S. Government studies arrived at similar conclusions and collectively represent a scientific and strategic consensus that nuclear EMP attacks upon the United States are a very real threat.

I applaud Chairman Rogers and the Appropriations Committee for finding ways to prioritize spending so that the National Protection and Programs Directorate, along with similar programs, are able to continue their necessary work. I hope they will continue to engage with academic institutions and private organizations to find better, more cost- effective solutions to protecting this Nation's critical infrastructure and our way of life.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 164, I was unavoidably detained off of the House floor at a doctor's appointment. Therefore, I was unable to cast my vote on H.R. 1412, the Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Also on rollcall No. 165, I was unable to cast my vote on H.R. 1344, the Helping Heroes Fly Act.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

And on rollcall No. 166, I was unable to cast my vote on H.R. 3234, the bill to grant the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the First Special Service Force, in recognition of its superior service during World War II, as amended.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Now, I don't have much in common with the leadership in the Senate, but today I stand in agreement with Senator Max Baucus, who characterized the implementation of ObamaCare as a ``train wreck.''

Disasters occur when the government oversteps its bounds. We've seen it with ObamaCare, as it is the most egregious example. We've also seen this week what happens when Federal agencies target people for their political beliefs, and we've seen the same kind of overreach with violations of the First Amendment rights of reporters and journalists and in the failure to answer questions about the origins of the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Legislatively, ObamaCare is the most egregious example of government overreach we have ever seen, and a disaster, ladies and gentlemen, is ensuing. Hardworking Americans are losing their jobs, families are paying more in taxes, and seniors are losing much-needed Medicare coverage--and this bill hasn't even been fully implemented yet.

Health care has always been and should always be a relationship between a patient and a doctor of one's choice, not a government mandate to be managed by faceless bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. The Federal Government has no authority to be the manager of the physical well-being of every American. I support its full repeal.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for this administration, the term ``sequestration'' has become synonymous with ``fear.''

I've been extremely disappointed that the FAA chose to close the contract control towers at 149 airports across this country, including my home town of Concord, North Carolina. This airport is the third busiest airport in North Carolina. It was named by the Government Accounting Office as an Airport of National Significance because it is a reliever airport for Charlotte-Douglas, which is the sixth busiest airport in the world.

The decision to close these towers at a savings of $50 million is hard to understand when you consider the fact that the FAA requested $15.1 billion for fiscal year 2013 and through sequester it's actually receiving $15.9 billion--an actual increase over the amount of money the FAA said they needed to operate. So I can only conclude that their goal here is to try to make sequester cuts as painful as possible for the American people.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

I will just conclude by saying I support this bill because it ends the political games by giving the Secretary the flexibility that he needs to keep these contract towers open. So I would encourage the Secretary to do that for the safety and for the economy of our local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Town of Proctorville, North Carolina, as it celebrated its centennial on Friday March 8th. While Congress was not in session on its centennial, I want to take this opportunity to pay homage to this small town in rural North Carolina today.

Proctorville's history dates back to 1859. The fifty acres the town was founded on was originally owned by Calvin Graham. Mr. Graham gave the land the town was to be settled on to a slave by the name of Dennis Graham.

On July 20th, 1899, Augustus Mellier purchased a portion of the original fifty acres for the construction of the Carolina and Northern railroad. Mellier developed the land surrounding the tracks into four blocks for development. This was the beginning of the new town of Proctorville, named after Edward Knox Proctor Jr., a Lumberton lawyer and promoter of the Carolina and Northern Railroad.

Mr. Proctor purchased the town from Mellier and planned to develop it into an ideal town, but his plans were cut short due to illness. He contracted typhoid fever and died prematurely in December of 1907.

This setback was overcome and the town charter was written by E.J. Britt of Lumberton, North Carolina and incorporated by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1913. At the time, George B. McLeod, brother-in-law of Edward K. Proctor, was serving in the Assembly and was a proponent of incorporation.

Proctorville always produced the major regional crops of North Carolina: tobacco, cotton, and corn. Expectation in production grew as the railroad expanded through the state and the town eventually became a major trading hub for farmers and even outlasted the railroad.

Proctorville has the honor of being the smallest town in the United States to have its own public library. It was established by W.R. Surles and continues to be used to this day.

The Town's most recognized citizen is State Senator Michael Walters who has represented Proctorville and the surrounding community since 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Town of Proctorville as it celebrates its 100th anniversary.

Happy 100th, Proctorville!

[From the Fayetteville Observer,

Mar. 7, 2013]

(By Ali Rockett)

The tiny town in southeastern Robeson County is celebrating

a big birthday today.

But Mayor Allen Fowler said the real party begins on

Saturday with the town first-ever parade--or at least the

first in modern memory, Fowler said.

The parade starts at 11 a.m. on Main Street from Spruce

Street to the town's community center. Following the parade,

the town will hold a ceremony in Proctorville Baptist Church

with keynote speaker and Proctorville native N.C. Rep.

Michael Walters.

The .3-mile parade route nearly stretches the width of the

entire town, which encompasses about 260 acres.

Proctorville was established in the early 1900s as the

crossroads of two major railroads--the Atlantic Coast

Railroad running north and south, and the Raleigh-Charleston

Railroad running east and west.

While the town's incorporation is only 100 years old, it

started much earlier than that, according to Fowler.

In 1866, a plantation owner Calvin Graham deeded 200 acres

to a slave, Dennis Graham, for $60. It had taken Dennis

Graham nearly 20 years to make the $60.

Then in the early 1900s, a railroad worker Augustus Miller

bought part of Graham's land as right-of-way for the

railroad. Miller named the area after Lumberton lawyer Edward

Knox Proctor Jr, who worked to get the railroad laid through

the county.

Proctor later bought the land from Miller, but died before

he could build up the town.

Proctorville was relatively dormant through 1940 when the

railroad tracks were taken up.

The town's claim to fame is its library.

In 2009, the W.R. Surles Memorial Library--rumored to have

once been named the world's smallest in the ``Guinness Book

of World Records''--was listed in the National Register of

Historic Places.

With about 2,800 books, the library's circulation is nearly

23 times that of the population it serves.

About 117 people call Proctorville home.

Fowler said it's a simple, quiet life in town.

``We're just a small, rural town,'' Fowler said. ``The

average age is probably sixty. What I enjoy the most about

it, we have very, very, very little crime.''

Walters said he remembers riding to church as a young boy,

but always had to behave.

``Everyone in town was your mother or dad because we all

knew each other,'' Walters said. ``If there has ever been a

Mayberry in North Carolina, it could be Proctorville.''

Mr. Speaker, I ran for Congress to improve the lives of North Carolinians by advancing initiatives that reinvigorate our economy and put people back to work. To achieve this goal, we must curb Washington's spending addiction and balance our budget.

For the sake of our country and the sake of our children and grandchildren, we must stop the reckless spending of our taxpayer dollars. It has weakened our liberty; it has diminished our prosperity; and it has mortgaged our future. I cannot, in good conscience, stand by and watch our Nation self-destruct because our leaders don't have the discipline to say enough is enough.

Just yesterday, the White House said that the President is not looking to balance the budget. This comes on the heels of 4 long years of Senate inaction to even merely present a budget.

Mr. Speaker, leadership on this issue is clearly long overdue. Fortunately, that leadership Americans thirst for can be found in the Chamber today as Chairman Paul Ryan presents a budget that balances in 10 years. I applaud his work and look forward to working against Washington's unbridled spending and for a path to economic prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, Bill Monday of Locust, North Carolina, dedicated his life to the service of his country. His military career and civic service make admirers of all those fortunate enough to have known him.

Bill Monday selflessly volunteered for service in June of 1940 and was sent to Ft. Bragg as part of the 4th Field Artillery Battalion in the United States Army Air Corps.

Bill's long and distinguished career in the Corps began with his enlistment and ended with his promotion to Captain after his skill and commitment to duty qualified him for Officer Candidate School. He went on to qualify and earn his wings as a Field Artillery Liaison Pilot.

During his military career, Bill was stationed throughout the South Pacific though the bulk of the action he saw was in the ferocious campaign for the Philippines in October of 1944. In this campaign Bill's intrepid flying ability allowed him to land on small dirt roads and school yards in order direct fire, provide reconnaissance, and drop supplies to cut off troops. All of this was done with nothing more than a thin layer of plywood to protect him from the rain of anti-aircraft and small arms fire.

It was here, flying up to ten miles behind enemy lines in an unarmed aircraft, that Bill earned a Silver Star in December of 1944. This was followed up by the Air Medal with Oak Leaf Clusters in June and September of 1945.

His Silver Star citation reads: ``Flying from short, hazardous fields, he was not able to take an observer with him, but was nonetheless able to make accurate and skilled adjustments of artillery fire. By his outstanding courage and willingness to meet military necessities beyond the call of his normal duties, Lieutenant Monday conducted himself in a manner worthy of the highest traditions of the military service.''

After the war ended, Bill returned to Fort Bragg. After being discharged in August of 1949 he settled in Locust, NC with his wife, Virginia, where he lived a long prosperous life.

Bill loved flying and said that even during wartime there was a peace to flying and that he never felt closer to God than when he was in the air alone. As he is laid to rest, let us hope that he finds that same peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call his extraordinary service and devotion to the United States to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues an opinion editorial that was written by Marion P. Hammer, of Tallahassee, Florida.

Marion has diligently served as a staunch advocate for Second Amendment Rights for nearly her entire life. She served as the first female President of the National Rifle Association (NRA) from 1995 through 1998, and remains on the NRA Board of Directors today.

The opinion editorial explains in very plain language, just like our Second Amendment, the glaring problems our nation's one hundred million gun owners, sportsmen and women, and law abiding citizens have with the misguided proposals we are hearing from the President and his Democratic colleagues.

``Universal Background Checks''--Absolutely Not

(By Marion P. Hammer)

Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to

his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on

his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime

best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do

a background check on your own Mom before you could give her

one of your guns for protection.

That's what ``universal background checks'' do. They turn

traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They

target you, law-abiding gun owners.

Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY

transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a

firearm between any and all individuals.

All background checks must be conducted through a federally

licensed dealer. Universal background checks have nothing to

do with gun shows--they are about you.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the

business of buying and selling firearms without having

federal firearm dealer's license.

It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to

sell a gun without doing a background check--that's all

dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows,

flea markets or anywhere else.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private

person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to

a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed

to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a

criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser

or drug abuser is a 10-year federal felony. That's now,

today, with no changes to the law.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on

a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a

firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of

Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun

purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background

check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when

criminals are caught in the act of lying on the form to

illegally purchase a firearm are they not prosecuted?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting

of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President

Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of

Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration

didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal

background check form.

In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said,

``And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of

prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the

time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form,

that checks a wrong box, that answers a question

inaccurately.''

If the Obama Administration currently doesn't have the time

or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check

forms, then why do they want more background checks, more

paperwork and more forms? It's backdoor gun registration.

Universal background check system legislation that we have

previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized

government registry of gun owners.

In addition to the absurdity of having to do background

checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like

to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a

shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give

your Mom a gun for protection?

Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms

dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can

get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated

program can be any amount they decide.

The Obama administration's gun ban agenda and universal

background check system are unconstitutional regulatory

schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which

mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun

buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and

gun owner licensing.

This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent

criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out

unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state

laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal

conduct, they are creating more criminals--they are targeting

you.

That's why NRA Members and the nation's 100 million

firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against

these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing

whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but

everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil

rights and our freedom.

Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle

Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of

Florida