Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following article from today's Financial Times entitled, ``China To overtake U.S. as top economic power this year''.

[From Financial Times, Apr. 30, 2014]

China To Overtake US as Top Economic Power This Year

(By Chris Giles)

The US is on the brink of losing its status as the world's

largest economy and is likely to slip behind China this year,

sooner than widely expected, to the world's leading

statistical agencies.

The US has been the global leader since overtaking the UK

in 1872. Most economists previously thought China would pull

ahead in 2019.

The data, compiled by the International Comparison

Programme hosted by the World Bank, and to be released today,

are the most authoritative estimates of what money can buy in

different countries and are used by most public and private

sector organisations, such as the International Monetary

Fund. This is the first time they have been updated since

2005.

After extensive research on the prices of goods and

services the ICP concluded that money goes further in poorer

countries than previously thought, prompting it to increase

the relative size of emerging market economies.

The estimates of the real cost of living, known as

purchasing power parity, or PPPs, are recognised as the best

way to compare the size of economies rather than using

volatile exchange rates, which rarely reflect the true cost

of goods and services: on this measure the IMF put US GDP in

2012 at $16.2tn, and China's at $8.2tn.

In 2005, the ICP thought that China's economy was less than

half the size of the US, accounting for only 43 per cent of

America's total. Using the new methodology--and reflecting

the fact that China's economy has grown much more quickly--

the research placed China's GDP at 87 per cent of the US in

2011.

For 2011, the report says: ``The US remained the world's

largest economy, but it was closely followed by China when

measured using PPPs''.

With the IMF expecting China's economy to have grown 24 per

cent between 2011 and 2014 while the US is expected to expand

only 7.6 per cent, China is likely to overtake the US this

year.

The figures revolutionise the picture of the world's

economic landscape, boosting the importance of large middle-

income countries. India becomes the third-largest economy

having previously been in 10th place. The size of its economy

almost doubled from 19 per cent of the US in 2005 to 37 per

cent in 2011.

Russia, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico make the top 12 in the

global table. In contrast, high costs and lower growth push

the UK and Japan further behind the US than in the 2005

tables while Germany improved its relative position a little

and Italy remained the same.

The findings will intensify arguments about control over

global international organisations such as the World Bank and

IMF, which are increasingly out of line with the balance of

global economic power.

When looking at the actual consumption per head, the report

found the new methodology together with faster growth in poor

countries have ``greatly reduced'' the gap between rich and

poor, ``suggesting that the world has become more equal''.

The world's rich countries still account for 50 per cent of

global GDP while containing only 17 per cent of the world's

population.

Having compared the cost of living in different countries,

the report also found that the four most expensive countries

to live in are: Switzerland, Norway, Bermuda and Australia,

with the cheapest Egypt, Pakistan, Myanmar and Ethiopia.

Mr. Speaker, the job of a Congressman is, simply put, to keep America number one. This Congress is failing at that job.

Today, the Financial Times reports that, for the first time since 1872, America will soon no longer have the largest economy in the world.

This is the headline: ``China To Overtake the U.S. As Top Economic Power This Year.''

We are losing our position to China, which is overtaking us some 3 years earlier than expected.

Even more importantly, last week, The New York Times reported that our middle class, which used to be the world's richest, no longer is.

This Congress simply must take responsibility for this. We must pass job-creating, pro-growth legislation. But this Congress has failed to do that.

This Congress has failed to take up and pass major infrastructure legislation, immigration reform, and tax reform.

We know how to solve many of these pro-growth problems, but this Congress is refusing to do so.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should not blame anyone else for this mess. We are the largest body of elected leaders in this country. All we need to do to solve these problems is look in the mirror.

Mr. Speaker, I unintentionally missed rollcall vote No. 66 and cast an incorrect vote for rollcall vote No. 67 on Wednesday, February 26, 2014. I would like to correct my error and ask that the record reflect the following: on H. Res. 487, rollcall vote No. 66, I should have voted ``no;'' on H.R. 1944, rollcall vote No. 67, I should have voted ``aye.''

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts. We are seatmates on the Government Reform Committee, and it is a pleasure to serve with you. It is also a pleasure to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks particularly to the new Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats because not everyone in this body is an expert on private equity or venture capital. This sounds like a complicated topic. It sounds technical, but it is really all about jobs.

There is nothing we are asked about more back home than about creating jobs. There is nothing we talk more about here than creating jobs. Passing this bill is a good way to do that.

It is easy to get wound up in the details, but the bottom line is this: private equity creates jobs. These are funds that have wealthy investors investing in them, and they lend their money, they invest in growth companies that create jobs.

My friend from New Jersey mentioned they have already helped create 7.5 million jobs in America, some 17,000 individual companies. These are the companies we try to recruit to our districts. These are the companies that we try to grow back home so that more of our good people back home can have good jobs.

The paperwork requirement that, unfortunately, and I think probably inadvertently, was put on them by the Dodd-Frank bill needs to be removed. SEC registration is not appropriate for these funds. It costs between three-quarters of a million dollars and $1 million a year for them just to do the paperwork. That is money taken away from job creation. That is money that is embalmed in red tape.

So this is a chance, and we do need to make sure there is a Senate companion to this bill once it passes the House. I am proud of my colleagues for being involved in a bipartisan job-creation effort because folks who really understand venture capital and private equity know this is a great way to help create more jobs in this country, by removing a little bit of the red tape that probably shouldn't have been there to begin with.

This bill passed the Financial Services Committee last session of Congress by voice vote. This shouldn't even be controversial. This year the vote was overwhelming, 38-18.

So I hope my colleagues, particularly among new Democrats and Blue Dogs, will understand this is a job-creation issue. This is a bipartisan job-creation opportunity.

H.R. 1105 should pass with overwhelming, bipartisan support. Let's get this through the Senate, and let's create more jobs in America.

I thank the chairman for yielding time, and I hope all my colleagues will vote for H.R. 1105.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the highest regard for the gentlelady from Wyoming. She is an outstanding Member of this body. She is doing a superb job of representing her constituents in Wyoming.

I haven't had the pleasure of really getting to know the other gentlemen, but it is no secret that these three, the sponsors of the amendment, each represent an ICBM missile silo field. And these are wonderful bases in our fine country, but these are also bases that we should not give a blank check to and allow to flourish in perpetuity.

The Cold War is over. Our men and women in uniform, led by our generals and admirals, are making some very important decisions about the best way to structure our triad, not to, in any way, give up on the triad, but to accommodate such things as, for example, the New START Treaty, which was overwhelmingly ratified by the other body just a few years ago.

There are lots of technical factors having to do with the silo fields and with the capability of Minuteman III missiles. There are lots of technical factors having to do with the other elements of our triad. But I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment despite the fine qualities of the sponsors of this amendment because what's good for a missile base in Wyoming is not necessarily good for American defense policy. And while I have the highest admiration for the gentlelady from Wyoming, we really need to put this in perspective.

This should be seriously considered by our colleagues; and I would urge them, at this point, to reject the amendment overwhelmingly.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Smith of Washington.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me close.

Again, I have the highest regard for the gentlelady from Wyoming, but this is an issue of national importance. We should not allow parochial concerns to dominate here. She is doing an extraordinary job of representing her constituents, particularly those of that base. But I would urge, particularly my colleague from North Dakota, to be aware that to the extent he preserves these ICBM missile fields, he may be hurting, unintentionally, his nuclear-capable bomber force. So watch out. If you're going to be parochial, let's go all the way and be thoroughly parochial and don't leave part out.

So this is a very important thing. We realize, as Members, we should put the national interests first. Let's listen to the Air Force, let's listen to STRATCOM, and let's not make pork-barrel decisions back home that may benefit us politically but are not in the national interest. We're all for a strong national defense, and I think there is overwhelming and bipartisan opposition to this amendment.

So I urge my colleagues to strongly and forcefully oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, it's a shame that President Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting nominated in today's Republican Party. If you look back at what President Reagan said, he called for the abolition of ``all nuclear weapons.'' Furthermore, he went on to say that these weapons are ``totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on Earth and civilization.''

Now, no one on this side of the aisle is calling for abolition, but we are calling for the United States of America to live up to its legitimate treaty commitments as passed by an overwhelming majority of the United States Senate. Now, I know there is very little love lost for the other body, but it was an overwhelming vote, and it was just 2 or 3 years ago.

The treaty is supposed to be implemented in 2018. Why the other side of the aisle is not more interested in reducing Russian nuclear weapons, I do not know, but this just simply allows us to live up to our legitimate and legal treaty commitments.

The other side is welcome to have suspicions of all sorts of things, but we should obey the treaties that we have ratified. So this calls for $70 million to do that.

We can always question offsets. I've worked very hard with the other side to try to find appropriate offsets. But the key is let's restore the $70 million that our own military wants so that we

can implement this treaty which could reduce nuclear risk in this world as President Reagan called for.

This is an opportunity. This is a necessity if we're going to live up to our legal obligations. I have the utmost respect for my friend from Alabama, the chairman of the subcommittee. This is a fixable problem. This is a needless political fight. In the full committee, as the gentleman knows, we try to work very closely with folks on the other side of the aisle. This is just $70 million to live up to our existing treaty commitments.

I would urge my colleagues of good faith on both sides of the aisle, we can do this. We must do this. Let's follow what President Reagan would have wanted and let's support this treaty commitment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, let me speak very briefly, and then I will yield the balance of my time to my friend from California.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, no one can know for sure what President Reagan would have done today. But read what Henry Kissinger is writing today, George Shultz--keepers, I think, of the Reagan legacy. They are working with Sam Nunn and others to do what we can to have enforceable, reliable treaties with the former Soviet Union, with Russia. And I would urge my colleagues to do what our own military is requesting, to give them the means to implement this treaty.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend and colleague from Washington State for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the work of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. I would particularly like to thank Chairman Rogers for his friendship and bipartisan leadership, as well as to thank all of the members of the subcommittee.

I support the many provisions in the bill that strengthen our national security.

The bill, for example, maintains a safe, secure and reliable nuclear arsenal while improving the effective oversight of the National Nuclear Security Administration's cost assessments, efforts and planning.

The bill supports nuclear nonproliferation efforts, including an increase of $23 million to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons.

The bill increases funding for regional missile defense assets to protect our deployed forces and allies, including important cooperation with Israel against short- and medium-range missile threats.

The bill authorizes defense environmental cleanup activities; and, finally, the bill supports investments in military and space assets.

However, I also should report that I do have reservations about several provisions in the bill that, in my opinion, undermine national security and waste taxpayer dollars.

For example, the bill blocks prudent nuclear weapons reductions, including New START reductions, which would strengthen strategic stability.

The bill increases funding for nuclear weapons by $220 million over the President's already generous budget request.

The bill accelerates the funding of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program spending by nearly $250 million, and it jumps to conclusions about east coast missile defense sites against the best military advice of our generals.

Finally, the bill changes NNSA health and safety oversight, undermining the independent oversight of defense nuclear sites related to worker and public protection as well as increasing the Secretary of Energy's authority to fire employees without due process.

I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to debating the merits of these and other provisions of the bill.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

This is a completely bipartisan measure, and I hope that we have an overwhelming vote in support of it.

The Freedom to Fish Act is a very responsible piece of legislation put forward in the Senate by my colleague, Senator Lamar Alexander.

In the hearing on the Senate side, Senator Feinstein pointed out to the Army Corps of Engineers' witness how reasonable Senator Alexander was trying to be, how reasonable this approach was. So I think we can say with some certainty that this is something that should be overwhelmingly supported by this House.

For my colleagues, the Cumberland River is perhaps unknown to you. It's a beautiful river. Every elected official that I'm aware of in our area, Democrat and Republican, supports this legislation.

Safety is an issue, but so is overreaching by our friends at the Corps. Occasionally they're a little bit tone deaf, especially if they get transferred in and out a little bit too quickly.

This is an amazing little way to fish here, below the dams. Some of you not realizing, you think fish is this big or this big. Some of these fish are 30 and 40 pounds.

This is a magnificent recreational resource that has been unfairly harmed by proposed Corps actions and by, really, an official who will be soon moving away from our area and living in another part of the country. He's a fine gentleman, but this is an opportunity for us to reclaim our local rights, our traditions, our freedom to fish.

I would urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to have a little common sense here. Support S. 982. It's a very reasonable approach to trying to solve this problem, solving this dispute with the Corps. Support S. 982.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes #144, #145, and #146 on Tuesday, May 14, 2013. I was attending a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three votes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to the rule, and I'm opposed to the Pay China First bill. It is my understanding that they've added something, I think it's called the Camp amendment, that would make sure that Members of Congress are not paid if the Nation, in fact, defaults. This borrows an idea that I introduced back in the summer of 2011, H.R. 2653. We had a number of bipartisan cosponsors.

I'm worried, though, that despite imitation being the sincerest form of flattery they've diluted this concept to make it unconstitutional. Due to the 27th Amendment, it is unconstitutional to adjust Member pay during a session. We had it drafted so that Members would be paid last, which would pretty much ensure that we would not be paid. Perhaps they've corrected the drafting on their side.

They've also done this to me once before this year. They took our no budget-no pay idea that the No Labels

group had sponsored, which has now become law, but they took out the heart of it. Right now, we should be having a House-Senate conference since both Houses have finally passed legislation. The Senate being the laggard, now after 4 years, they've finally passed a budget, but now we're refusing to conference the budget.

I am a believer in pay-for-performance. The American taxpayers are not getting their money's worth from today's Congress. They should be getting their money's worth, and I think these concepts about penalizing Congress when we fail to do our job are very powerful concepts; but they should be given full strength, not diluted and unconstitutional treatment in a quicky amendment such as is being offered here. The core idea of pay-for-performance I hope that more of my colleagues will look at because Congress does many things right, and we should be rewarded for that. We fail in many ways, and we should be penalized for that.

Today, sadly, the only people in America who are not able to pay Congress by performance are the taxpayers. Those special interests are paying us by performance all the time whether in PAC contributions or in post-retirement job opportunities. That is one reason this Congress is not performing to full capability. It is one reason we are not living up to our potential. So, as we look at this concept, at this Camp amendment, please let's do it right. Please, let's make sure that Congress is not paid for failure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders, a group of 80 Americans who claimed their place in history on April 18, 1942, when they carried out the first U.S. air raid on Japanese Home Islands during World War II. I am proud to share their story here today, and I am especially proud to represent one of the four living raiders, Nashvillian LTC Robert Hite.

Though not originally from the Volunteer State, LTC Robert Hite and his 79 fellow raiders epitomized the Volunteer spirit when they signed up for their death-defying mission. Their goals were to break the air of invincibility radiated by Japanese forces as they extended their reach across the Pacific Ocean and to give Americans the win they needed after the

dark months following the attack on Pearl Harbor. The United States needed something dramatic to turn the tide of the war. The Doolittle Raiders delivered.

They launched from an aircraft carrier, knowing they would not have enough fuel to return. They displayed uncommon valor and patriotism, and inspired Americans both abroad and at home. Their courageous flight proved that Japan was vulnerable to attack, changing the course of the war--and of history.

Please join me in honoring these extraordinary gentlemen and true American heroes.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to pay tribute to Charlie Daniels, a Tennessean who, through his dedication to supporting our military, has touched the lives of countless servicemembers, veterans and their families.

As an American entertainer, he needs no introduction. As an advocate for our military, he has no equal. Daniels unites his devotion to those serving our country with his passion for music by visiting our troops wherever they may be stationed around the world to perform concerts at military bases.

In recent years, he has teamed with Lipscomb University in Nashville to salute those who serve through his annual ``Scholarship for Heroes'' tour. This concert raises awareness and funds for Lipscomb University's Yellow Ribbon Enhancement Program, through which the university offers a tuition-free college education to post-9/11 veterans. His support has helped the school grow its veteran student attendance from 10 to 182 in just over three years.

Today, I join the citizens of my district in honoring Charlie Daniels for his tireless commitment to honoring those who serve and working to ensure that though freedom isn't free, an education for our veterans should be.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support No Budget, No Pay. The idea behind No Budget, No Pay came from a Nashvillian who approached me two years ago and said, ``I don't get paid if I don't do my job, and do it on time. Why should Congress be any different?'' I agreed, and I introduced No Budget, No Pay in 2011 during the last Congress with the help of the important non-partisan reform group No Labels. I reintroduced the bill, H.R. 310, last Friday, with 48 original cosponsors, 19 Democrats and 29 Republicans.

The purpose of No Budget, No Pay is to get Congress to do its essential budgeting work on time. This means pay-for-performance, a new concept here on Capitol Hill. Getting the job done on time is a fundamental American principle yet one that has been forgotten in

our nation's Capitol. Our No Budget, No Pay proposal aligns incentives of elected officials with those of our citizens back home so that we will start completing our work on time in order to get paid. The purpose of this bill is not punishment, but performance.

We are in an interesting parliamentary situation today because, after stonewalling by both political parties, the Republican Party has now, suddenly and without hearings, adopted a diluted version of No Budget, No Pay for immediate floor consideration. Thankfully, the Democratic Party has decided not to make this a partisan issue, freeing members to vote as their conscience tells them.

I am not defending Republican floor procedures, or the modifications they made to my bill. But the important point is that reform of Congress is long overdue, and this is the way to start, with a new type of reform that brings Congress back in line with the values and the work ethic of the American people. No work, no pay. No budget, no pay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to George Langstaff, a man whose dedication to mentoring economically disadvantaged students in Middle Tennessee has resulted in more than 340 students obtaining a post-high school education.

After a very successful career in the footwear industry, Mr. Langstaff recognized the need to help at-risk young adults obtain a college education. In 1995, he partnered with a Nashville nonprofit to found The Sponsors Scholarship Program. To date, the program that Mr. Langstaff established has raised more than $2.2 million dedicated to scholarships for financially disadvantaged young people.

For more than 15 years, The Sponsors Scholarship Program and its hundreds of volunteers have provided college counseling, mentoring and college scholarships to capable high school students in Middle Tennessee.

Today, I join the citizens of my district in honoring George Langstaff for his tireless commitment to ensuring that financially challenged young people from Middle Tennessee have the opportunity obtain a complete education.

We need more citizens like George Langstaff. His Volunteer spirit makes all Tennesseans proud, and a generation of young people successful.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to salute the Nashville International Airport, an ambassador for Music City.

On June 12, 1937, Nashville's airport officially opened as Berry Field in honor of Colonel Harry S. Berry, state administrator for the Works Progress Administration. It became a military base during World War II for the 4th Ferrying Command, and later returned to passenger service with rapid growth and high demand. In 1988, it was renamed the Nashville International Airport to reflect its new status as a hub for Tennessee air transportation.

Over the years, BNA has evolved into a state-of-the-art facility connecting the Nashville area with the rest of the world serving nearly 10 million passengers a year. As a leader in airport innovation, BNA was one of the first commercial airports to have a master plan and is now one of twelve airports in the FAA's Sustainable Master Plan Pilot Program.

BNA is not just an airport, it's an experience. It welcomes visitors with gracious southern hospitality and country twang. Its unique design offers a taste of Music City with live music, shops and restaurants showcasing our Tennessee flavor. It not only provides excellent service to its customers and employees, it is an important partner in our community.

And so, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to salute the Nashville International Airport for its 75 years of dedicated service to our citizens and our community, and for promoting higher standards in airport service. I am grateful for the contributions BNA provides not only to Nashville, but to travelers around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 249 today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''