Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas for his speech and the gentleman from Nebraska who spoke earlier for his introduction of this resolution, along with my colleague, Anna Eshoo, from California. And, of course, I commend Chris Smith for a lifetime of work on human rights. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this bill will be going through the legislative process. It is important that we improve the Operation Choke Point provisions. I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from Missouri, and I hope that he will see fit to accept this amendment and to narrow it to a focus outside of terrorism policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, this is really two bills that have been put together. One deals with Operation Choke Point, and for reasons explained by the majority, it is important that we pass that part of the legislation. The other imposes restrictions on FIRREA, and for reasons eloquently expressed by the ranking member, I do not support that part of the bill. I, frankly, do not know how I am going to vote because of these portions of the bill, one is important to pass, and the other is a restriction that I cannot support. I will point out for all of us who want to deal with Operation Choke Point that it is unfortunate that these two bills have been put together into one because we know the President isn't going to sign this bill if it has got the FIRREA portion in it. So it is my hope that we put on the President's desk a bill that protects American businesses from Operation Choke Point, a bill that the President can sign. I want to use the time allotted here to try to improve the Operation Choke Point provisions because I hope they are ultimately signed into law. Now, why are those Operation Choke Point provisions important? As the majority has explained, various businesses that are currently unpopular with the bureaucracy are being targeted, and it is an extremely powerful tool to destroy a business and to cut off its access to financial institutions. Today they come for the gun stores and the tobacco dealers. And I don't have friends who are gun store owners and tobacco dealers, so some would say I should be quiet. But I do not know who the next President of the United States will be. And as I listen to the Record, I know that if they have the power, they will come after the Planned Parenthood clinics and the environmental organizations. Woe be to a Congress that yields extreme power to the executive branch in the expectation that the executive branch will use it in a way that they favor knowing that the tide turns and the other party could be in control of that branch. So it is important that we improve the Operation Choke Point provisions of this bill. Every speaker who talked about the Operation Choke Point provisions of this bill focused on mom and pop businesses, domestic businesses. Every bit of the discussion in committee focused on that, and that is why it is important that this bill not have an unintended consequence never discussed by anyone at committee; that is, that it would affect our anti-terrorism and national security efforts. So in the words of the Democratic Daily Whip from Whip Hoyer, the Sherman amendment clarifies that the underlying bill does not prevent banking regulators from requesting a financial institution terminate a relationship because the customer poses a national security threat, is engaged in terrorist financing, or is domiciled in Iran, North Korea, Syria, or another state sponsor of terrorism. I think it is a step forward to improve the Operation Choke Point portions of this bill. I think that, as further improved, those provisions should and, I believe, will become law. So I ask support for an amendment that makes it clear that a bill that was discussed only in the sense of domestic businesses, only in the sense of ma and pa and Main Street, does not have an effect that the author never included in our national security policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have tough economic conditions out in our country. We need more jobs. We need business to operate smoothly. How many jobs do we create by telling merger and acquisition brokers that they can get fees from the seller and get fees from the buyer and not tell either party that they are getting paid by both parties? That is not an essential element. That failure to disclose is not an essential element of rejuvenating the American economy. This bill is not identical to the Senate bill because this bill has six titles. The Senate bill has one title. Here is a chance for the House to show its superior wisdom to include language that neither the author of the bill nor the chairman of the committee argues against in substance to add language that says that, if you want to enjoy this exemption, you have to tell both parties that you are being paid by both parties if, indeed, you are being paid by both parties. So this additional disclosure requirement is good on the merits. It does nothing to delay the adoption of the additional legislation. I am confident that a rejuvenation of our economy does not require that we conceal from those who are buying and selling businesses the fact that their broker is getting paid by both sides. Let's provide for full disclosure. Let's revitalize the economy. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, there may be some acrimony on the floor from time to time, but I think we are mostly in agreement. The SEC, under some tutelage from the committee, in January of 2014 issued its no-action letter providing that, in certain circumstances, a small business merger or acquisitions broker would not have to register. They issued this in January of 2014. The gentleman from Michigan brought forward a good bill designed to codify that decision by the SEC, but he did not in his codification include six of the limitations that the SEC had in its no-action letter. Now he has brought forward and I think we just adopted an amendment to add to his bill the two most important limitations that the SEC had in its no-action letter. It excludes from the exemption those who have been bad actors in the past and barred from association with broker-dealers, and it excludes shell companies. As far as it goes, I think that is a good amendment. I am glad we adopted it. But if we are going to deal with this area with statute, we should take a look at the other exclusions from the exemption that the SEC included in its no-action letter. The amendment that is before us today is the same amendment I offered in committee. It does everything that the gentleman from Michigan's amendment does and takes the additional exclusions that the SEC had in its no-action letter. The most important of these is to require that, to be eligible, a broker would have to disclose to both parties and get consent from both parties if they are getting paid by both parties. So if you are getting a seller's commission and a buyer's commission, you would tell the buyer and the seller that that is the case. This amendment would add that as a requirement for the exemption. We would also have, as the SEC had in its no-action letter, an exclusion where there are passive buyers. So this is the amendment I offered in committee. It includes the amendment that we just adopted. It includes the other exclusions from the exemption that the SEC adopted. None of the SEC's exclusions from its exemption have been controversial. So I would like to go beyond the gentleman from Michigan's amendment and include all of those exclusions from the exemption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, there might be some advantage to having language identical to the Senate, if the bill was identical to a Senate bill. In this case, this title is being added to five other titles. In the committee, we dealt with it as six separate bills. Here on the floor, it is one bill. So there is no particular advantage to conforming to the Senate. If the Senate language does not exclude from the exemption those brokers that fail to disclose that they are representing both sides, then that proves the additional wisdom----

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I voted for every sanctions bill on Iran that has come to this floor--I helped draft many of them--and I am ready to help draft, work on, and vote for sanctions bills on Iran because Iran continues its behavior in the area of missiles, and terrorism, and keeps seizing American hostages. I am ready to work on and support legislation to impose sanctions on Iran even if it is opposed by the administration. After all, almost every sanctions bill passed by this Congress was opposed either by the George W. Bush administration or this administration. We need a good process to draft good legislation that will do what President Obama told us we would do, and that is use sanctions to deal with Iran's nonnuclear wrongdoing. But we need a good process that will get us good legislation. Unfortunately, this is a bill that is the product of a bad process, a flawed process, and the bill itself is flawed. Let's look at the process. Almost 100 cosponsors, but all of them from one party. No Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee was invited to help draft the legislation or even invited to cosponsor it. Now this bill comes to the floor under a closed rule, a rule that prevents us from offering amendments that will deal with the flaws in the bill. There are at least two such flaws. The first is that the bill deprives the President of the authority to delist 489 entities. It locks those entities onto the SDN list, but it leaves out 269 other entities, creating two classes of entities: one which must stay on the list under almost any circumstance I can think of, the other which the President can remove. And there is no particular reason for the 269 entities to be treated differently than the 489. All of them have been involved in supporting Iran's proliferation and terrorist efforts. Second, this bill creates too high a standard for the President to be able to remove an entity. He has to certify that it has never at any time in history engaged in even the most trivial transaction with a whole list of terrorist entities. We need a better drafting of that portion of the bill that deals with delisting entities, perhaps entities that have changed their behavior for well over a decade. I look forward to a bipartisan process and to, hopefully, an open rule. We see that reflected in the fact that I have introduced legislation, as just an example, that would impose additional sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and that is sponsored by the chairman of our committee and by the immediate past chairman of our committee. I know our committee can work in a bipartisan way to create better legislation than that which is before us, and we need additional sanctions on Iran drafted carefully because Iran has engaged in a missile test in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, because Iran's support for terrorism and Assad is responsible for the deaths of tens and tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands--of people in Syria and Yemen and because Iran used to hold four, but now holds five, American hostages. Fortunately, it does not hold our U.S. Navy sailors, but it holds five American civilians. It is consistent with American policy and with this administration's policy. They negotiated a nuclear deal. They kept it only on the nuclear issue not because America has conceded and has accepted and has given Iran carte blanche to engage in terrorism and hostage-taking, but because the President's policy was that we would deal with these issues separately. It is time for us to deal with these issues separately through well-drafted, bipartisan legislation. I am confident that, in the weeks to come, the administration will use its existing power to sanction additional entities as a result of Iran's illegal missile test, and I am confident that our committee will craft bipartisan legislation that will do what we know we need to do to deal with Iran's wrongdoing outside the nuclear area.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to further the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois who just spoke. There are those who think we can just go after ISIS. Keep in mind, the Shiite extremist alliance of Tehran, of Assad, of Hezbollah has killed far more Americans than ISIS has, starting with our marines in the 1980s, and including hundreds of our servicepeople in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have killed far more civilians than ISIS ever aspired to, over 200,000 in Syria alone. Finally, as long as Assad is in power in Syria, the Sunni community will be rising up in rebellion. Assad doesn't fight ISIS; but he did, in effect, by his policies, create ISIS. In addition, the extremist Shiites around Maliki in Baghdad did the same in Iraq by oppressing the Sunni community of Iraq and giving rise to this ISIS scourge. Let us remember, we have got to go after ISIS and the extremist Shiite cabal.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the portion of the rule that deals with the Iran terrorism bill. I have voted for every Iran sanctions bill to come to this floor. I helped draft many of them, and I am ready to draft, work on, and vote for Iran sanctions bills in the future even if they are opposed by the administration. Keep in mind, nearly every Iran sanctions bill, which has passed this House floor, became law, and gave us at least some leverage over Iran, was opposed by the then-George W. Bush administration and by this administration. We need a good process to draft good legislation that will do what President Obama promised we would do, and that is adopt new sanctions designed to change Iran's behavior with regard to its nonnuclear wrongdoing, its support for terrorism, its missile test in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, its human rights record, and its seizure of American hostages. Unfortunately, this is a flawed bill which is the product of a flawed process. Look at the process: 100 cosponsors, all from one party, with no Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee invited to help draft the bill or even invited to cosponsor it. Now this process is epitomized by a closed rule. The gentleman from Washington offers a new definition of an open rule. An open rule is a closed rule on a bill that has been considered by a committee. That is the new definition of ``open rule.'' I suggest we keep the old definition. This is a closed rule that prevents people from offering amendments that might have had a better chance of passing on the floor than they would have in committee. A Member should be free to offer amendments both on the floor and in committee if they are a member of the committee; but this is a closed rule, and this process of a closed rule prevents amendments to fix flaws in the bill. There are at least two. The first is that the bill deprives the President of the authority to delist some 489 entities. It locks them on to the SDN list, but it leaves out 269 other entities, creating two classes of wrongdoing companies and other entities that sponsor and facilitate terrorism for no apparent reason. An entity stays on the list until the President issues a certification, a certification that no President could ever certify. You have to certify that we know that from the beginning of time the entity has not had any dealing with any of dozens of different terrorist organizations. That is a certification designed to be impossible and designed to lock entities in. I look forward to a bipartisan process. For example, I have a bill that has been cosponsored by the current and immediate prior chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. There are other bills subject to a bipartisan process because we do need new sanctions on Iran to change its nonnuclear wrongdoing. Those sanctions are warranted because Iran has engaged in the missile test in violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution, because its support for terrorism is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Syria and Yemen, and because it used to hold four but now holds five American hostages, not to mention its other human rights records. It is consistent with administration policy that we have sanctions on Iran's nonnuclear behavior. The negotiations in Vienna, the negotiations on this deal, left out all of Iran's nonnuclear behavior, not because it was intended to give them carte blanche, not because we were accepting their support for terrorism, but because these were to be the subject of other sanctions and other efforts to force a change in Iran's behavior. Finally, the question is, well, do sanctions work? That is the one thing the opponents and proponents of the deal agreed on. The proponents of the deal said that the sanctions have brought us a very good deal. The opponents of the deal said that more sanctions will get us a better deal. So in a House that was divided on almost every aspect of Iran policy, the one thing we agreed on was that sanctions have the capacity to change Iran's behavior.

Mr. SHERMAN. So the President promised that we would not abandon our efforts with regard to Iran's terrorism and with regard to Iran's hostage taking, and that we would not abandon the four hostages they had then or the additional hostage that they have taken since the deal, and that we would not turn a blind eye to the fact that Iran is the single most important ally of the butcher Assad, who has killed over 200,000 of his own people, not to mention Iran's support for terrorism in Yemen. Mr. Speaker, we should not fail to do so simply because we have a deal that was exclusively, strictly, and explicitly limited to dealing with Iran's nuclear program. That said, the bill before this House today is a flawed bill that cannot be corrected because of a flawed process. We need a bipartisan process that crafts a policy toward Iran's nonnuclear wrongdoing that unites, if not all of this House, a large majority of this House.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr Chair, on rollcall No. 7, the Johnson of Georgia Amendment No. 2, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cummings

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are some 6 billion people in the world who aren't from one of the 38 favored countries and have to go through an in-person interview to visit the United States. It is not unfair for us to impose the same requirement on those Europeans who have visited ISIS-infested areas. This bill will do some good, but it is mostly evadable. Most ISIS foreign fighters go to Turkey. Their passport is stamped in Turkey, and then they walk into Syria. ISIS does not stamp their passport, and so they are free to say that they never went to Iraq or Syria. This bill will make sense only if it applies to those who visited Turkey. Even if they did get their passport stamped, say they flew to Baghdad, got it stamped by the Iraqi Government, all they have to do is go back to Europe and say, ``I want a new passport. My hair style has changed, I want a different picture.'' They get a new passport. Their old passport, holes are punched in it. It is returned to them, and so there is no record that they ever visited Iraq. Most of our European friends don't have a list of which of their citizens have visited Syria, Iraq, or Iran. If they did have such a list, they wouldn't share it with us because they have privacy laws. Now, they will cooperate with us on individual suspects, but not a list of tens of thousands of people who have visited Iraq, Syria, or Iran, and certainly not the millions who have visited Turkey. So they don't have a list. They won't share a list. Looking at a passport only tells you that somebody got a new passport. Seeing that it was stamped only in Turkey but not stamped in Syria just shows you that they walked into Syria and ISIS didn't stamp their passport. I look forward to passing this bill, and then getting serious on a bill that will accomplish its purposes.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we want to vote for a bill to reflect the angst of our constituents. If you read this bill, you can't vote for it. It forces our three security leaders--the Director of the FBI, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of Homeland Security--to personally review, vote on, and certify each and every individual refugee file. We admitted 187 Syrian refugees last month. If our security leaders just spend 2 hours on each file, it will consume all of their working hours. ISIS cannot simultaneously and permanently incapacitate our security leaders. This bill does. Now, some will say that our security leaders just won't look at any of the files, that this is an underhanded way for Congress to halt all refugees without taking responsibility, but our security leaders are human. They are going to look at the picture of Aylan Kurdi--that 3- year-old boy on the Turkish beach--and our security leaders will know that if they just invest a couple of hours in personally reviewing a file, they can save a human life. If they just spend another 2 hours, they can save another human life. Our security leaders will be full- time refugee evaluators. This bill is not a pause bill. This is a permanent bill which permanently incapacitates our security agencies. Read the bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome to Washington the deputy chief of staff to President Poroshenko of the Ukraine, General Andriy Taranov, who has joined us today in this hall in our gallery, and is accompanied by the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, Valeriy Chaly. Ambassador Chaly was with me in Los Angeles last weekend where he was there for the commemoration in remembrance of the catastrophic Holodomor disaster and atrocity of 1932-1933, in which Stalin killed millions of Ukrainians. But Stalin failed in his ultimate goal. An independent Ukraine today stands in resistance to aggregation from Moscow. I would also like to recognize in our gallery, a Ukrainian-American innovator, Igor Pasternak. His company, Aeros, is the first American firm to provide the Ukrainian Government with the military equipment necessary to defend its sovereignty. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and the administration to redouble their efforts to help Ukraine protect its sovereignty by providing Ukraine with the necessary assistance to protect her freedom. The United States stands with the people and government of Ukraine as they resist aggression once again now in the 21st century. If you free Ukraine and it maintains its territorial integrity, it is in America's interest. It is, therefore, imperative that Ukraine has a strong and secure border. That is why I am pleased to be joined by our guests here today and look forward to working with the Ukrainian Government to preserve Ukrainian freedom and am proud that it is a company from Los Angeles that is the first and, unfortunately, as of yet, the only company to provide the Ukrainian Government with the military equipment it needs.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Florida on this bill. I was pleased to join him in introducing this legislation. This is a commonsense bill. It has, I believe, total support. We voted on it in committee. It was supported unanimously. It has no objection from any of the regulators, such as the FDIC, or others. It is supported by most insurance commissioners all over the country, including Dave Jones, Insurance Commissioner in California. It is supported by the American Council of Life Insurers, Property Casualty Insurers, and the Big I. So this bill has industry and the regulators behind it, Democrats and Republicans. It is unanimous. What does the bill do? It deals with the circumstance where you have an insurance company that is a subsidiary of a financial services holding company, and it basically lays out the principle that the assets of the insurance company are there to pay insurance claims. The State regulator of the insurance company regulates that insurance subsidiary and makes sure that the assets are there to provide insurance reserves and to pay insurance claims. Those assets cannot be invaded to pay for bad bets made by affiliated companies. So, first, the bill says that State-regulated insurance company resources cannot be used as a source of strength for an affiliated financial firm that is being liquidated under title II of Dodd-Frank. Second, the financial regulator may not place a lien on the assets of the State-regulated insurance company under title II unless the State insurance commissioner consents. It is the State insurance commissioner's fundamental duty to protect the policyholders. Finally, the State insurance commissioner has the primary authority to determine whether to liquidate or rehabilitate insurance companies. The insurance commissioners did an excellent job during the meltdown of 2008 to make sure that policyholders were paid. This bill reaffirms that the State regulators have the ability to wall off insurance company assets to protect policyholders. The bill will make sure that those assets are not jeopardized by complex bets, risk-taking, or poor management of affiliated companies. In a nutshell, we want to make sure that those who have insurance feel secure. This bill will do that.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 308, the Keep the Promise Act is a close call on the merits. However, as I have stated in the Congressional Record before (for example on September 25, 2012), when a bill is controversial and a close call on the merits, we should not be considering it under suspension of the rules. Accordingly, I cannot vote to suspend the rules.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Chair, I support the Neugebauer amendment because it will force the Conference Committee to deal with the use of enterprise guarantee fees in the Highway Bill. I do not necessarily oppose the reduction of dividends paid by the Federal Reserve to the largest banks.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this Bank is important. That is why Ronald Reagan said on January 30, 1984, that the Export-Import Bank contributes in a significant way to our Nation's export sales. We should not adopt an unnecessary amendment, the effect of which would be to kill the Bank. Now, this amendment deals with accounting. As co-chair of the CPA Caucus, I understand the importance of solid accounting rules. As a CPA, we are the referees that make sure that accounting rules are followed. The amendment talks about fair value accounting, more properly described as fantasy value accounting. Don't confuse fair value accounting with anything that is used in private enterprise or anywhere else. It is not the same as generally accepted accounting principles. Stick with generally accepted accounting principles. Stick with the principles consistent with the CBO, and those principles show you that the Bank makes money for the Treasury, which is why it transfers half a billion to a billion dollars a year. Under fantasy value accounting, we don't look at whether the Bank is making money. We look at whether they would be making money if we lived in a fair world. So you would say, for example, in looking at the cost of funds and what it takes to borrow money, you could look at the accounting statements of Pizza Hut and say: Don't look at what they actually paid as interest costs, but what they would have paid in a fair world where they had the same interest rate as Jack's Pizzeria. Well, maybe we don't live in a fair world. But the fact is, generally accepted accounting principles are to determine whether a company or entity is making or losing money in the real world. Stick with generally accepted accounting principles. Stick with the CBO. Stick with the CPAs. Stick with GAAP. Say ``no'' to fantasy value accounting.

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, especially because I rise in favor of this amendment; not because it is perfect, but because it deals with a fundamental problem in the underlying legislation. How are we going to fund our highway system? Some would argue a tax on motorists; some would argue the general revenue of the United States. I don't know anyone who can really make the argument that we ought to have a tax on home buyers to fund highways; yet that is what the underlying bill does. It imposes a tax on everyone who gets a mortgage or refinances a mortgage and uses that for highways. I am confident that if we pass this amendment, the conference committee will take a look at how to finance this bill and will come up with a better way than the idea of imposing a tax on everyone. That basically means middle class homeowners who use Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in order to buy a home or refinance a home.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for the author and his intention here, but any amendment to the Ex-Im title means the Ex-Im title is open to the conference, which will kill the Ex-Im Bank. So we should not adopt an amendment that mostly restates existing law. We have, already, provisions which prevent the Bank from financing state sponsors of terrorism. First, the Bank's own charter, which I helped draft, prohibits them from extending loans or any assistance to any entity that violates U.S. sanctions. Second, as the gentleman points out, the Foreign Assistance Act prohibits any aid to state sponsors of terrorism but allows for a Presidential waiver, but that is a national security waiver, which is very limited. I commend the gentleman for his amendment because it has caused the Ex-Im Bank to issue, just an hour ago, a pledge not to seek any waiver under any circumstances that they can concurrently conceive of. But third, and most importantly, the last 10 appropriations bills have an absolute ban on the Ex-Im Bank helping state sponsors of terror, and there is no waiver allowed. Now, I would like the next omnibus bill, which already has this provision in it, to have the gentleman's language in it as well, and I look forward to working on that. November 4, 2015. Re: Letter Concerning Prohibitions Related to State Sponsors of Terrorism. Hon. Fred P. Hochberg, Chairman and President, Export Import Bank of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hochberg: Thank you for your letter outlining the position of the Bank in opposition to support for exports to countries designated state sponsors of terrorism. As we have discussed, there may be an effort to sell or lease civilian aircraft to Iran Air or other Iranian airlines, and that there may be efforts to secure export credit agency support for such sales or leases. I am therefore grateful for your acknowledgement that there is no scenario that you currently foresee where a Presidential Waiver would be sought to provide loans for export of any items to these countries or any person from those countries. I understand, of course, that unforeseen and even bizarre circumstances may arise in international affairs; but given the current state of our relations with these countries, I am pleased to hear that you cannot anticipate any scenario where we would provide Ex-Im Bank assistance to state sponsors of terrorism. Sincerely, Brad Sherman, Member of Congress.