Jim Cooper

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to salute Celebrate Nashville, a festival honoring the many great cultures in our city. Nashville is not just any city; it's the friendliest city in the south. We welcome visitors with gracious southern hospitality and country twang. But there is so much more to Nashville than meets the eye. What makes Nashville truly unique is the people who come from all over the world. One in six of our residents is foreign-born, and we could not be more proud of our multi-cultural heritage. In 1995, a group at Vanderbilt's Scarritt-Bennett designed the first Celebrate Nashville event so cultures could share their gifts with everyone. Thanks to great community partners, it has grown to be one of the city's biggest annual events, bringing together more than 40,000 citizens. From music and dance to food and crafts, Celebrate Nashville showcases everything that makes our city unique. It highlights the best of our past through displays of heritage with the promise of our future. And so, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to salute the Celebrate Nashville Cultural Festival for its commitment to our citizens and our community and for promoting all cultures in our city.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Amendment to H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing Resolution, that supports training and equipping the so-called Syrian Opposition. After attending briefings on the President's proposal, I do not believe that this Amendment has a reasonable chance of achieving his goals. Worse, it could embroil America in another endless war. I hate ISIL and the other terrorist organizations that are plaguing Syria, Iraq and eventually the U.S.; the question is whether this Amendment will ``degrade and destroy'' them, to use the President's words. I do not fault President Obama's intent; I doubt this particular Amendment will work. Most obviously, it expires in 90 days, according to the very terms of the CR. And even if, under authority granted outside of this Amendment, an air strike killed ISIL's leader, it would not stop ISIL. First, remember the budgetary context of this train-and-equip mission. Remember that military spending cuts called ``sequestration'' will last another seven years under current law. The readiness of our military is already threatened by these cuts. Necessary long-term investments in future weapons systems are being shortchanged. Until advocates of this train-and-equip mission are willing to fully fund the U.S. military and stop sequestration, they have no business adding extra responsibilities. America's credit-card hawks must not continue to hollow out our military while pursuing questionable foreign ventures. Second, the Syrian Opposition is not like the Peshmerga. It is a number of disorganized, unreliable and shifting groups that face three hostile armies at once within Syria itself: Assad's army, ISIL, and the Al-Nusra Front. Each of these hostile armies has demonstrated the ability to conduct advanced military operations. They are years ahead of any possible effective counter-attack by the Syrian Opposition, unless they start fighting each other or Assad's entire military defects. We are not even sure that the people we train would remain loyal. Although the Amendment talks about vetting Syrian Opposition forces, it acknowledges that there will be ``green-on-blue'' violence against us. The Amendment also anticipates that some of the weapons we supply to the Opposition will be given or sold to ISIL. Third, we are entering a series of civil wars. They are notoriously difficult to stop without years of bloodshed. The idea that U.S. Army training, guns, and bullets will facilitate a negotiated Syrian settlement is highly implausible. Another factor is the 1,400-year-old Sunni-Shia schism, giving our Muslim allies their own religious agendas. They make excuses for their failure to commit their own forces in their own backyards, even when their inaction floods their nations with refugees. Several of these nations have large militaries with advanced weaponry, which they refuse to use except for very limited, anonymous airstrikes. They want U.S. soldiers and airmen to do their dirty work. Fourth, ISIL was created by wealthy Sunnis in nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait who wanted an attack dog, a proxy army, to fight the Shia threat posed by Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah. They got more than they bargained for: a pit bull that might turn against its masters. Nevertheless, they are not muzzling ISIL, or even yanking its leash. How does ISIL continue to get its funding? Aside from rape, pillage, kidnapping, and taxing infidels, it is known for its slick corporate appeals, even an annual report on its atrocities. Have the Sunni nations punished ISIL's benefactors, refused to purchase ISIL's oil, or taken other measures to cut off its funding? No. In the case of Saudi Arabia, they offer us unused training bases for no more than 10,000 of the Syrian Opposition. That is far from enough. Fifth, how many times must the U.S. try to rebuild Muslim nations? We've tried for years, often just inflaming them. Syria will be the eighth Muslim nation we have tried to repair in the last three decades: Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. In most cases, we have not succeeded. The U.S. military is ill-suited for nation-building. As General Bob Scales pointed out in the Wall Street Journal recently, the Pentagon has trouble dealing with today's asymmetric wars. Sixth, ask yourself what your reaction will be if an American airman--God forbid--is captured and beheaded on live television. Will this Amendment, that so carefully denies authorizing military force, suddenly become the prelude to American ``boots on the ground'' as Gen. Martin Dempsey has already predicted? And who believes that our trainers and equippers--and special forces and intelligence officers-- are not already ``boots on the ground''? The language of the Amendment is surreal: it contains no ``authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances.'' Unless our military operates entirely outside of Syria or northern Iraq, they are in imminent danger. And if they are training in Saudi Arabia, they will be working in a nation that beheads more people for minor crimes than ISIL could dream of. Lastly, is there a better way to degrade and destroy ISIL? Americans, with our wonderful optimism that all problems have a quick solution, have a lot to learn about the nature of the enemies we face. Unfortunately for us, our enemies do not measure action by the clock, but by the calendar. They outwait or outlast us. They use social media against us, to dare America to fight or to recruit the West's disaffected youth with dreams of martyrdom. They will laugh that this Amendment lasts only 90 days, particularly when other sections of the CR extend much longer. America needs to understand the threats we face from radical jihadists and to fully fund effective strategies for dealing with them. Sadly, this Amendment does neither. Therefore, I oppose it.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, America lost a giant this week. John Seigenthaler, the longtime editor of the Nashville Tennesseean, was buried on Monday, but his life transcended Nashville, Tennessee, and became literally a part of American history. Born to humble beginnings in Nashville, Tennessee, he was first a star reporter, then a confidant of Bobby Kennedy, then a defender of the Freedom Riders, then the crusading editor of a Pulitzer Prize- winning Southern newspaper, then founding editor of USA Today, and then the founder of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. John Seigenthaler had the Irish gift for friendship and words. He epitomized the best of journalism, and he was always on the right side of history because he helped everyone, including politicians, listen to the better angels of their nature. Because of John Seigenthaler's leadership, Nashville is one of the most dynamic and welcoming cities in the world today. Over 4,000 people from Nashville and around the country attended his visitation. The Catholic Church was packed for his funeral. It was broadcast on local television. Mr. Speaker, a truly great American has died and will never be replaced.

Mr. COOPER

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

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment violates a bipartisan agreement that was reached in the House Armed Services Committee. I wish that the gentleman would focus on the fact that micromanaging our Nation's nuclear defenses is really not in the best interest of our country. I also urge the gentleman to realize that this is a highly technical issue. We have some 450 Minuteman-III missile silos. This would change the status of about 50 of those 450. These are probably the least survivable of all our nuclear weapons. They have been targeted by the Russians and probably others for decades. It is very important that we have an appropriate and flexible and survivable nuclear deterrent. As I mentioned, these land-based missiles are probably the least survivable. It is also important to recognize that, as I understand the way the amendment is drafted, this could even prevent testing and routine maintenance of these silos. I know that is not the gentleman's intent, but we need to make sure that we are not overreaching here and hamstringing our military and their nuclear defenses. It is no secret that the sponsors of this amendment happen to be from the States of North Carolina, Montana, and Wyoming, and also a gentleman from Colorado. That leads one to think that this might perhaps be a parochial amendment more than a nuclear defense amendment. I hope that is not the case, but it does lead one to think in that direction. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished ranking member of the committee.

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

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. As I mentioned, it is poorly drafted, and it probably prevents even the routine testing and maintenance of the silos, which could not possibly be an intention of the authors. It also micromanages the Defense Department. For them to renege on the deal that was made in committee--the bipartisan deal--in order to give you 7 more years of leeway is really a pretty remarkable thing. This sets a new level for parochialism and greed, unfortunately, in this body. I hope the Members will reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. 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. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. 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. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. 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.''

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. 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. COOPER

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

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

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

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

Mr. COOPER. 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).

Mr. COOPER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. 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.