Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4989 is commonsense legislation that will improve the safety of U.S. personnel overseas. I want to commend the chair and the ranking member for bringing this through our committee, and commend Mr. Castro of Texas and Mr. McCaul of Texas for their hard work in creating this legislation. This bill will ensure that the State Department is addressing the risks associated with consumer devices that can be used, in some cases, to track the locations of those who own them. This bill passed with a unanimous, bipartisan voice vote in our committee. I commend it to my colleagues. I will support this measure. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the author of the bill.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4989, the Protecting Diplomats from Surveillance Through Consumer Devices Act. This bill, again, passed our committee by unanimous, bipartisan voice vote. I want to begin by thanking Mr. Castro, and also others, for introducing this legislation. I am pleased to be one of the cosponsors. This bill aims to ensure the Department of State has policies in place to prevent our adversaries from tracking the locations of our Foreign Service officers through their electronic devices. From fitness trackers, to smartwatches, to phones, most of us have at least one device that could be used to track us with the right technology that has GPS capacities. Many of us would literally be lost without these devices, but they could pose a security risk. This is especially true for our diplomats overseas whose locations and travels can reveal sensitive information sources. Location information is a potential gold mine to our adversaries. This commonsense measure would make sure that the Secretary of State has a policy in place on the safe use of consumer electronic devices by our diplomatic and consular facilities and personnel. It would require proper training for employees and contractors, and ensure that the policy is coordinated across all parts of our government that use our diplomatic and consular facilities. This bill would also improve congressional oversight of this policy. This bill will reduce the security risks associated with GPS devices and other consumer electronic device. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the third amendment that I thank the sponsors for agreeing to requires an annual report from the new DFC on its compliance with its own human rights, labor, environmental, and social policies. OPIC maintains robust environmental and social policies. This bill carries those policies forward so the new DFC will follow them and will now make an annual report so that Congress can see whether these policies are actually being implemented. The fourth such amendment states that, as to the four public nongovernmental members of the DFC board, that we take into account their experience in international environmental, developmental, and labor organizations. There are a number of other factors that go into selecting the public members of the board, but certainly experience in the environment and labor ought to be taken into consideration. The BUILD Act updates U.S. development finance and, I think, will complement our foreign assistance efforts. With this bill, we can keep the U.S. as a global leader in promoting economic prosperity around the world while, at the same time, encouraging American jobs. I support this measure and hope my colleagues will join me in doing so. Once again, this bill had a unanimous, bipartisan voice vote in our committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of this measure. Mr. Speaker, this bill passed our committee by unanimous, bipartisan voice vote. It is named for Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and author who spent decades leading the fight to bring Nazis to justice. First, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri, Ambassador Wagner, and the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from New York, Joe Crowley, for their work in bringing forward this very important bill that improves our capacity to prevent and respond to genocides and mass atrocities. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Millions of innocent civilians have died in mass atrocities and genocides. I would like to take just a second to remind everyone of a few of these tragedies: The first genocide of the 20th century, the Armenian genocide, which killed approximately 1.5 million people; The Holocaust, from 1933 to 1945, more than 9 million people were killed, including over 6 million Jews; Cambodia in 1975, which saw the slaying of 2 million people; Rwanda in 1990, which saw the deaths of 800,000 in just 100 days; and Sudan, Darfur, and the tragedy there. Tragedies and crises like this are not just in the past. Today, we are witnessing mass killings of innocent people in many places around the globe. In Burma, the military has inflicted horrific violence against the Rohingya people. Thousands have been killed. This is ethnic cleansing, and it appears on the verge of genocide. Now, 700,000 refugees have been pushed into Bangladesh, 80 percent of them are women and children. And as I mentioned, in Darfur, some 300,000 are dead, 3 million displaced. This measure gives us the tools to detect the warning signs of a mass atrocity or genocide so that we can respond quickly and improves interagency coordination. Overall, this measure will make our government better equipped to handle the growing threats of genocide and crimes against humanity. This is a good bill. The prevention of genocide and mass atrocity should be a core objective of our Nation's national security and foreign policy missions. The bill passed, as I said before, our committee by a unanimous bipartisan voice vote. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) an original cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the chair and the ranking member for a tour de force of bipartisanship: 32 bipartisan bills with near unanimous support in our committee, all put together in one outstanding package. I want to thank them both for including in this the BUILD Act, introduced by Mr. Loudermilk and me. This bill will help Habitat for Humanity and similar organizations. It says that when they provide a zero percent loan, they can use the old disclosure forms or the new disclosure forms, whichever is easiest for them and whichever they have the software to produce. This bill is supported by Habitat for Humanity International and the National Housing Conference. It passed our committee with a unanimous 53-0 recorded vote. I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for including this legislation in an excellent package, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4819, the DELTA Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for his initiative in putting forward this legislation to help protect one of Africa's most important ecosystems. I am pleased to cosponsor this measure. I also want to commend Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for their leadership on international conservation issues, particularly the fight against wildlife trafficking. The Okavango River Basin in Angola, Botswana, and Namibia supports an amazing array of wildlife, including the largest remaining concentration of elephants in Africa. It is also home to more than a million people. The DELTA Act requires the development of a strategy to encourage sustainable management of natural resources in the river basin, including the protection of wildlife. This strategy will require input from a wide range of stakeholders, including national governments, local communities, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. The goal is to support economic development for the residents of the region while preserving unique ecosystems and protecting wildlife. The DELTA Act has the support of key conservation organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bipartisan legislation, which passed our committee by unanimous voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, Robert Mueller is conducting a criminal investigation. Mr. Trump's attorney doesn't want him to testify. Rudy Giuliani has taken three outrageous positions: He has claimed that Mr. Trump doesn't have to testify if he doesn't think the prosecutor has a good basis for the investigation; that Mr. Trump doesn't have to testify if he doesn't think the prosecutor is being objective; and that Mr. Trump doesn't have to testify if the prosecutor doesn't already have sufficient evidence of a crime. On this poster is a picture of Mr. Al Capone. He was forced to testify before a grand jury. Mr. Capone didn't think that there was a basis for that investigation, and Mr. Capone didn't think that the prosecutor was objective. But he testified under oath, as did President Bill Clinton, because no one is above the law. No one is immune from a subpoena, not Mr. Al Capone, not Mr. Donald Trump.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would like to thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk) for working with me on this bill, titled the Building Up Independent Lives and Dreams, or BUILD Act. This has been a collaborative process, and I am pleased to serve as the chief Democratic sponsor. We have heard from a variety of chapters of Habitat for Humanity. They are having difficulty dealing with the new TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure form, chiefly because they don't have the software to deal with that form. The new form is a good form. The old forms were pretty good as well, but what is really good for the consumer in this case is that they are getting a zero percent loan. So what this bill says is that, if you are a bona fide nonprofit organization providing the new homeowner with a zero percent loan, you have the flexibility to either use the new form or to use the old forms. The new form is good. The old forms were pretty good, too. A zero percent loan is very good for the consumer. This bill is supported by Habitat for Humanity International and the National Housing Conference. It passed the Financial Services Committee 53-0, and I urge everyone to vote ``yes.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, I want to commend the subcommittee and the full committee for including in the base text a provision that says that no funds shall be used in contravention of the War Powers Act. This is a provision I originally proposed in 2011 as a floor vote. We lost at first, but it was adopted in 2011 and has been part of the base text ever since. The War Powers Act is the one restraint on a President who seeks to, on their own accord, send our troops into harm's way for permanent warfare. It says that troops cannot be deployed for more than 60 or 90 days without an Authorization for Use of Military Force, but every President since the Vietnam war has claimed that the War Powers Act was an unconstitutional, nonbinding provision on the President's power to send our troops. That is why I am pleased to report to the House that, when he testified before our committee, former Attorney General Mukasey said, But with this provision, the President has to abide by the War Powers Act.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5861 and I want to associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Royce of the Foreign Affairs Committee. This bill deals with two very related issues. One is investment in the United States when that could indeed undermine our national security. So this bill would reform the CFIUS process, the process by which we review taking control of a business enterprise in the United States that may have strategic implications. That part of the bill is the product of the Financial Services Committee. The second part of the bill reauthorizes and reforms our long-lapsed export control statute. I would like to commend Representatives Heck, Pittenger, and Barr for their work on the first part of this bill, and commend Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for their leadership on the reform and recodification of the Export Control Reform Act. This is a bill that deals with our national security as it may relate to business; first focusing on investments, then focusing on the sale of products abroad. I have served on the two committees of jurisdiction for over 20 years, and have been working on this issue for all of that time. First, as to the investment or CFIUS portion of the bill, I serve as ranking member of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee and know firsthand that Chinese companies are not always driven just by their own company profits. But instead, they are looking at a bigger picture, working with Beijing to advance China's global interests. And all too often, these interests undermine American national security. Foreign investment in the United States often benefits us. We should encourage and welcome foreign investments that create jobs for American workers. But when a firm absorbs innovative American technology and an innovative American company and then transfers the know-how and the jobs, often to China, we may have a problem. I am pleased to indicate that the CFIUS portion of this bill has three of my amendments, which are designed to recognize that national security is not just a matter of missiles and warships, but also maintaining our strategic technological edge. The first of my amendments requires that CFIUS focus on the national security risks of offshoring American jobs. Because when you hollow out the American workforce, when you create a circumstance where Americans no longer have those technical skills, then you undermine our ability to provide for our own national defense. The second deals with the risk of censorship that arises when foreign companies acquire our companies engaged in entertainment and information, and requires CFIUS to report to Congress on this issue of controlling our entertainment and information industries. We learned in the 2016 election that hostile foreign countries attempt to influence the American public, so we should study the potential for foreign ownership of media in the United States to influence our political discourse and ultimately our elections and government power. I would point out that if you control broadcasting, if you control movie screens, if you control mechanisms of distribution, you control what movies and TV shows will be made, and we should not put any hostile foreign power in a position to dictate that we never make another movie about Tibet. We never want to put ourselves in a position where China controls what we see on our screens, in our entertainment, in our newspapers. I would point out that China already has control over films being distributed in China. They unjustly limit that through a protectionist quota system and use that to try to force American studios to make movies that are consistent with the objectives of the Chinese Government. My third amendment focuses on the Made in China 2025 program by acknowledging that supposedly independent Chinese companies are, in fact, required to work with their own government. Simply put, if you are based in Shanghai, you are going to listen to Beijing, and when the CFIUS process provides heightened scrutiny for government-controlled investment, that should apply to any company in a managed economy that is, in effect, under government supervision and control. Mr. Speaker, I now move on to the export control portion of this bill, the portion that limits what technology we can sell abroad. This act has not been amended since 1990. It expired in 2001. It has been held together through a series of temporary executive orders. This bill provides for export controls that support U.S. foreign policy goals such as complementing economic sanctions, combating terrorism, and prohibiting the export of items that will be used in human rights violations. I offered, and I am pleased that the committee accepted, one of my amendments that would require the Department of Commerce to look at the significantly negative impacts of controlled exports on our defense industrial base. When we allow the tools, the dies, the materials for manufacturing to be exported, we, therefore, lose the workforce, lose the capacity, and lose the ability to provide for our own defense. Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this important legislation which modernizes CFIUS and our export control laws. Mr. Speaker, seeing no other speakers on our side from the Foreign Affairs Committee, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control that time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, for 22 years, I have served on the Foreign Affairs Committee and focused on North Korea. For two decades I have urged the toughest possible pressure not only on North Korea, but on China, North Korea's lifeline. Just last month I joined Chairman Yoho of the Asia Subcommittee, where I serve as ranking member, in sending a letter insisting that we have tougher enforcement of our sanctions on large Chinese banks and other entities that supplied the necessary services to Kim Jong-un. When the possibility of a summit was announced, the foreign policy community came forward with a unified message: No concessions until we get CVID, or the complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program. I found myself on the dovish edge of the foreign policy community. While I supported tougher sanctions, I believe that we should settle for a verifiable limit, a freeze and monitoring, a system where there is no cheating and where we can be sure that they are not selling their nuclear weapons to other even more dangerous parties. So I eagerly awaited Singapore. What we saw was a President that put into practice what he wrote about when he wrote his famous book, newly reissued and retitled, Trump: The Art of the Capitulation. What are the steps in capitulation? First, give the other side just about everything. Second, accept in return vague platitudes. Third, go on TV and announce that you have got the best deal ever. What did we get from North Korea? A temporary suspension of their most extreme barbarism. They agreed to release and did release three hostages. They said they will allow us to look for the bodies of our fallen heroes from the Korean War. They did not release the Japanese hostages, but they did release three American hostages. They implicitly agreed, though not explicitly, to an end of testing. But testing is hardly necessary once you have already proven your capacity. Russia has the capacity to destroy American cities, but they haven't tested a nuclear weapon since 1990. Why? They proved it long ago. Likewise, North Korea has proven the capacity of its nuclear weapons. They don't need further testing. They have missiles that can kill tens of thousands of Americans and millions of our allies in Tokyo, Seoul, and elsewhere in Asia. They have the capacity to smuggle their nuclear weapons near or into any of our West Coast cities. They have that capacity. They don't need further testing. So they have given very little, but they gave one more thing. They pronounced the word denuclearization. This is the epitome of a vague platitude. For when North Korea says denuclearization, they say will give up their nuclear weapons when the whole world gives up its nuclear weapons; when, in the words of the Good Book, swords are beaten into plowshares. So what have we given up? First, we gave them what the Kim dynasty has always wanted: that face-to-face equality with an American President. Second, we have relaxed our sanctions, in effect. No, the statutes haven't changed. But those big banks that Chairman Yoho and myself as ranking member once sanctioned, no way that is going to happen. Businesspeople in Moscow and Beijing know it is now time to move forward with business deals with North Korea. Also, he declared our military exercises to be provocative. What does that mean worldwide when an American President says: We better not train our troops; that is warlike? In the words, of Admiral Stavridis, who wrote in Time Magazine just a few days ago: ``These are operational military exercises in which ships, aircraft, and ground forces . . . practice executing defined war plans.'' To have our forces forward deployed without the benefit of that kind of practice would be negligent in the extreme and would lead to major combat losses in a real fight. Trump is saying these exercises are expensive. It is hardly expensive to train our troops. We have got a long way to go. We need to enforce the sanctions and make them tougher. We have to do this until we get a complete declaration of their nuclear materials, a verification, and a freeze.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the negotiations with North Korea. I do so in my role as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. I point out that, just a month ago, I joined with the chairman of that subcommittee, Mr. Yoho, in sending a letter to the President saying we now need tougher sanctions on North Korea. In particular, we need to make it clear to the large banks in China that they can no longer do business with North Korea. We had our foot on the neck of Kim Jong-un. We needed to press it down a little harder to get the concessions that we need. Instead, we have a lifting of the efforts. Instead of ratcheting our sanctions up, we are going to relax them. The word is out to businesses and banks in China: You can do a little bit more today and a little bit more after that. This is a giant victory for Kim Jong-un. The negotiations will go forward, but those negotiations will go forward with Kim Jong-un being able to breathe because we no longer have our foot on his neck. Four hours ago, the President tweeted: ``There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.'' He might as well have smiled with Kim Jong- un and said: ``Peace in our time.'' Now, I am not saying that what happened in Singapore is as fraught with danger for the world as was what happened in Munich in 1938, but what happened in Munich will illustrate for us that just because you have a summit with smiles does not mean you are leading toward peace. The President tweeted: ``There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.'' If you believe that, you probably believe that he has been faithful to all three of his wives. We hope that these negotiations lead to real peace. But so far, they have led only to a big win for the person President Trump calls ``Little Rocket Man.'' That is a big win for Little Rocket Man. You see, the President's most famous book has been reissued. It is now called ``The Art of the Capitulation.'' How do you exercise the art of the capitulation? You make enormous concessions to the other side. You settle for vague platitudes. Then you go on TV and say: This is the best deal ever. Let's look at the concessions. The President has referred to our military exercises as provocative and indicated that they will be scaled back or eliminated. He has given the green light to Chinese business and bankers to do business. He has given Kim Jong-un the prestige of a meeting with the President of the United States, not necessarily our most prestigious President, but a President of the United States nevertheless. What have we received in return? A vague statement about denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. But, as far as we know, North Korea doesn't intend to do that until the entire world is denuclearized. He also has released three American hostages and says he will help us, allow us, to find some of the bodies of our fallen heroes from the Korean war. Those are basic in human civilization. He releases hostages, and for that, we give major concessions. The one concession that we did not get is a halt for even a minute in the creation of fissile material at Yongbyon. There, North Korea, throughout the negotiations and while the President was tweeting, makes more enriched uranium, more plutonium, and is building more bombs. That didn't stop for a minute. So we are told that there has been at least a pause in their testing program. Keep in mind, Russia hasn't tested a nuclear weapon since 1990. Are we going to say that they don't have nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States and destroying our cities? The fact is, North Korea has proven its nuclear capacity, so they can go a while without testing. They are continuing to make more bombs that they have already tested and proven. We all hope that we reach a peaceful settlement. This has not been a good start.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Federal Insurance Office Reform Act of 2017 because it prevents covered agreements from imposing new prudential requirements without a separate act of Congress. I am worried about the availability and accessibility of nationwide data about insurance and want assurances that this will be addressed before the bill reaches the House floor.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I support the idea of rescissions. Some of the rescissions proposed by the Republicans are a good idea, but Republican leadership would not allow us to vote on the proposals separately. Therefore, I have no choice but to oppose the entire rescissions package. I hope to work with my colleagues to make fiscally responsible decisions moving forward.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, and Wednesday, June 6, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on Roll Call votes 231, 232, 233, 236, 237, 238 and 239. I would have voted nay on Roll Call votes 234 and 235.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the Day of Remembrance for Sri Lankan communities around the world. Remembrance Day is generally observed on May 18 or May 19, to remember and mark the sacrifices made by all those who died, irrespective of their ethnicity, in Sri Lanka's civil war. For many, who have family and loved ones in Sri Lanka, there is still not closure, because those they lost are not accounted for. The Sri Lankan government has acknowledged the receipt of at least 65,000 complaints of such disappearances. Independent assessments provided by the human rights community estimate that between 60,000 and 100,000 individuals have disappeared since 1980. The victims included human rights workers, those providing humanitarian assistance, journalists, critics of the government, community leaders, and many others. Abductions and enforced disappearances have been perpetrated by state and non-state actors. The Tamil people have been disproportionately impacted by these crimes, and their families deserve to know the truth. All of the families deserve closure. Despite some action, the Sri Lankan government has still made limited progress and more needs to be done.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I express my grave concerns about the human rights situation in the Sindh province of Pakistan, with special reference to enforced disappearances of persons at the hands of Pakistani security agencies. Many of the disappeared persons are from the Jeay Sindh Mahaz (JSM), Jeay Sindh Mutehada Mahaz (JSMM), and Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM). The disappeared persons also include teachers, intellectuals, writers, and publishers. Six of my House colleagues joined me in sending a letter to the State Department on this issue in August 2017. I also raised this issue on the floor of the House in October 2017, and this problem of enforced disappearances was discussed in a February 2018 hearing of the Asia Subcommittee at the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I strongly condemn an incident that occurred this past weekend, when Pakistan's security forces assaulted the families of disappeared and missing persons who were on a hunger-strike in protest of these disappearances. The family members of Sindhi victims of enforced disappearances (mainly their daughters and wives, as male members are being held by the security forces or have moved underground or remain silent as they fear the security agencies) and their friends have launched a peaceful nonviolent protest for their release. The daughters and wives of the disappeared persons were engaged in a 72-hour hunger strike in front of the Press Club at Karachi that began May 20. During this nonviolent protest, Pakistani security forces or their agents assaulted two daughters of the disappeared Hidyat Lohar (an elementary school headmaster who was taken away in April 2017 in front of school children) and two daughters of Khadim Arijo (a civil servant missing since April 2017). Security forces also reportedly detained about five of the nonviolent activists, though it seems they have been released. It is crucial that Pakistan immediately cease these and other related human rights violations in the Sindh province. Pakistani security personnel and others involved in the enforced disappearances should be held accountable. I urge the U.S. State Department and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as our ambassador in Pakistan, to take up this issue with the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan. Our ambassador to Pakistan must receive guarantees from the Pakistani government regarding the protection of human rights defenders and of those who advocate for Sindh's missing persons. It will be even more significant to set up a bipartisan fact finding mission to probe enforced disappearances and related killings in Sindh.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, having been briefed at every stage of the negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal, I was able to come to this floor just 2 hours after it was published and be the first to speak in opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. Today, I rise to urge the President not to renounce that deal. The question is this: Do we want to liberate the Iranian Government or sanction the Iranian Government? If we renounce the deal, then the Iranian Government is free to remove the inspectors, to begin a program of building an unlimited number of centrifuges, and can request the return of the fissile material, several bombs' worth of fissile material which, under the deal, they had transferred to Russia and which Putin might choose to return. If we renounce the deal, we do nothing to give ourselves additional rights because, under the deal, we are free to sanction Iran in full proportion to its nonnuclear evil. The Iranian Government is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria and tens of thousands of deaths in Yemen. That alone justifies every sanction every Member of this body can come up with. We can stay in the deal and sanction Iran.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored H. Res. 861, urging the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea. This does not mean that I would necessarily oppose an accord with North Korea that only partially achieves our objectives

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. We would catch up with Spain and Norway and Denmark and Japan and really have a tax system where you don't have to keep track of all the little pieces of paper that the IRS already has, and you wouldn't have to interpret them and figure out where to put them in the complicated software when the IRS already knows how to do that. I realize that TurboTax and H&R Block might lose some money, but this is a chance for taxpayers around the country to have an easy system. If you can't vote against the rule--and I wouldn't vote against the bill--cosponsor the Tax Filing Simplification Act.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will point out, like every committee, you can always send a letter to any committee I serve on or the Ways and Means Committee. But to take away from Members their right to come to the floor and offer an amendment and get a vote is to relegate us to the same position as all 320 million Americans, all of whom can send a letter to the Ways and Means Committee. I will also point out that the act I talked about, the Tax Filing Simplification Act, was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, has a number of cosponsors, and has never received a hearing or half a hearing or any discussion. So to say that the Ways and Means Committee will accept our letters and, therefore, we should have closed rules on tax bills, apply that to every other issue we have--every committee in this House will accept a letter from any other Member, let alone any constituent--means we really want closed rules on everything.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, vote against this rule for three reasons: First, it is a closed rule. You should always vote against a closed rule. But second, it is the embodiment of a pernicious tradition of always having closed rules on tax bills. That is outrageous. Why would we not apply that to everything that Congress deals with? We are told: Well, if we don't have a closed rule, we have to have an open rule; we don't want an open rule on a tax bill. You could have a structured rule. You could have germane amendments. What does a closed rule on every tax bill mean? It means that over 400 of us can never offer an amendment about taxation, and it also means that, if an amendment is hotly debated in the Ways and Means Committee and prevails or is defeated by one vote, then the entire House cannot chime in on that issue. The second reason to vote against this rule is to break this ironclad tradition of closed rules on tax bills. There is a third reason, and that is, my amendment to strike section 202 was not allowed. I am an old CPA. I headed the second largest tax agency in this country. I am very interested in easing the burden on taxpayers. This bill generally does that. But section 202 is designed-- doesn't actually do this, but it pushes in the direction of locking in the free file system. That is a contract that the IRS has with TurboTax and H&R Block that is supposed to allow everyone with an income of under $66,000 to file for free. But with TurboTax, you have to have an income under $33,000; with H&R Block, you have to be under 50. I, personally, resent that. The Free File Program isn't free even if you don't have to pay for the software because you have got to gather your 1099, your INT, your 1099-DIV, and your W-2, and you have to correctly interpret that and enter it into the system. There is a better system. It is called the pre-prepared tax system. It is being used in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Japan, Chile, and the United Kingdom, not to mention Norway and Finland. The IRS would send you the return. It is already filled out. They already have all the information from your 1099s and your W-2s. You could just hit ``yes'' or you could make changes there on the screen, or you could throw away the IRS' version, go get TurboTax, go to H&R Block, and fill out your own return the way you do it now. This provision, section 202, pushes the IRS against going to the pre- prepared return system, a better system, a system that was explored in 1998 by a Republican Congress, and the IRS was told to develop that system by 2008. The IRS never did. So there should be an amendment to strike section 202 and push the IRS toward a pre-prepared return system where you could literally be done with your tax return in 1 minute and not have to keep track of all these pieces of paper and try to interpret them. There is a solution because this bill will pass. This bill should pass. All the other provisions are pretty good. You can cosponsor the Tax Filing Simplification Act. By doing that, you would override section 202, tell the IRS that they have to go to a pre-prepared return system.