Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to address the issues that we will be voting on tomorrow: trade adjustment assistance and the trade promotion authority, or fast track. I know that a number of my colleagues are within the sound of my voice, and I hope that if they share my views on these issues they will come down to the floor and invite me to yield them time. Until then, I am going to first focus on the trade adjustment assistance bill that will be before us tomorrow. There are so many reasons to vote against trade adjustment assistance in this form, even if it was a freestanding bill. First, it is inadequate. It has got roughly $450 million, and there is no assurance that that money will be available next year or the year after that. We know that the majority of this House is actually opposed to funding this program at all. They are doing it in an effort to pass fast track. Once fast track is passed, every effort will be made on this floor to cut this program to zero. Bait and switch, you have been warned. Second, this amount of money, who is supposed to be eligible? The proponents of fast track have said, well, we have expanded those who are eligible, not just those who lose their jobs because of the Trans- Pacific Partnership trade deal we are planning, not just those who lost their job because of NAFTA, but everybody who has lost their job because of globalization in any of its forms. Well, that is also a bait and switch. They are able to tell tens of millions of Americans you are going to be eligible for this program, but the program has only $450 million in it nationwide. So it is like you win because we give you a lottery ticket, and then we determine whether you will be one of the very small percentage of those who have lost their job due to globalization who benefit from the program. This program is inadequate. It also explicitly contains language excluding any public sector employee from a benefit. Imagine that great unfairness. If you are at a public university and somehow grading of tests is offshored, you can't benefit. But if you are at a private university, same job, same offshoring, whether it be a call center or any of the other services that can be offshored in today's modern age, you could possibly--you are probably not going to get anything--but you can, at least, apply for a benefit. The exclusion of the public sector may have made sense 40 or 50 years ago when only manufacturing jobs were subject to foreign competition. Today, anything that is done on the Internet, anything that is done on the phone, anything that is part of the information economy is a job that can be taken offshore. It is going to be very difficult for Members of this House to explain that they voted for a program that slapped in the face those who lose their jobs because it is a public sector job. The biggest problem with TAA is that it cuts Medicare two different ways. One way we are told is an acceptable way to cut Medicare, and the other we are told isn't going to really happen. It is actually two cuts to Medicare. The first that they say they have ironed out is the $700 million cut to Medicare that will, under the rule just passed in this House by a small majority, graft itself onto the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill if that bill unfortunately passes. So you will be in a position to explain why you voted for a bill, knowing full well that as soon as it passed, a $700 million cut to Medicare was grafted on it and that the President would have on his desk and intended to sign a bill that cut Medicare by $700 million. Now, you can present a complicated chart showing how you voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance but you didn't vote for the rule, and the cut for Medicare was supposed to be undone by the other bill that you voted for before you voted against it. And if you are able to make that explanation, more power to you. But if you are a Democrat, you will be in a particularly weak position to make that explanation, because the AFL-CIO issued a letter today that said a vote for Trade Adjustment Assistance in this form with this rule in this ``here you see it, now you don't; we will take it away, don't worry about it'' Medicare cut is a cut to Medicare. So you are going to be explaining why your opponent's attack on you is unfair when you are a Democrat and you say it is unfair, but the AFL- CIO says it is not only fair, it is absolutely true. A special problem for Democrats. Republicans will not have the difficulty in explaining why they disagree with the AFL-CIO. Then there is a Medicare cut that is supposed to become law. This is the dialysis cut, and here is the thinking: Medicare will be more efficient in dealing with dialysis. We pass a statute that allows them to make use of clinics instead of hospitals. So through new procedures and new technology, Medicare will save roughly $250 million. Okay. Does Medicare keep that savings? No. It is used to buy votes for fast track. Now, how is Medicare going to be sustained if every time new technology allows Medicare to save money, we take the savings and use it for something else, but every time new technology creates new medical costs, new things for Medicare to pay for, well, Medicare has to pay for them? If we establish a principle that every new technology that saves Medicare money is money to be spent on something else and every change in medical technology that increases Medicare's cost has to come out of Medicare, Medicare will be bankrupt and will go bankrupt more quickly as we change medicine. That cut is supposed to become law if you vote for TAA, but TAA is on this floor for only one reason. It is a way to put a bandaid on a giant decapitation of the American middle class, a tiny program designed to facilitate the passage of a trade bill which will govern 40 percent of the world's GDP. Don't be in enabler. Do not go back home and say you opposed fast track, but that you voted for the bill that will enable fast track. If you are against fast track, then you have got to vote ``no'' on TAA. Well, what about fast track? What about this new Asia deal that is being negotiated? In the past, the proponents of these trade deals have come forward and said that they were going to reduce our trade deficit and create more jobs than will be lost. For this deal, they don't even make that assertion. Their bait and switch is to say it will create some jobs in exports, but they are so arithmetically challenged, they don't then subtract out the jobs that will be lost to imports. The fact is that time and again the proponents of our current trade policy have wildly misestimated the job effect of each action. For example, on this floor, we were told that the trade agreement with South Korea would reduce our trade deficit. That deficit has skyrocketed. We were told that permanent most favored nation status for China would increase our trade deficit by only $1 billion. The proponents were off by 30,000 percent. Now, they don't even say that we are going to get more jobs than we will lose; they simply say the jobs we lose don't count because that involves subtraction. The fact is that this is bad for the American middle class, as has our policy over the years. Since NAFTA, we have hollowed out the middle class; we have hollowed out American manufacturing. Since NAFTA, we have had a stagnation of wages in this country. Now, as we begin to recover from the catastrophe of 2008, now, as there begins to be the possibility that employers are going to have to pay more in wages to compete for employees, we have a giant trade deal that guarantees that wages will decline or stagnate for another decade or longer. The economics are against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the fast track that is designed to carry it, so there is a shift. The argument now is, well, it may be bad for our economy, but it is a great anti- China alliance, great geopolitics, disguised as a bad trade deal. I have been on the Foreign Affairs Committee for 19 years. I am the ranking member on the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee. I am here to tell you this deal is not only bad economic policy; it is bad geopolitics as well. Let's look at how China benefits from this deal. First and foremost, we are told that this deal is going to set the terms of trade in Asia. Then you go to the basement, and you look at this deal, and, as reported in the press, there is a statement that there will not be anything in this trade deal about currency manipulation. China, if this deal goes forward, wins without even having to sign it. China gets a new approach to world trade, which is currency manipulation, go to it, it will be applauded, it will not be counted; but China gets something even more. Go deeper into the basement and look at the rule of origin provisions. Now, what are these rules of origin provisions? You would think that under this deal, goods made in Vietnam, goods made in Japan, goods made in the other countries that are part of the deal come into our country duty free, that this deal benefits goods made in Japan, Vietnam, et cetera, but only to the countries that sign the deal. Then you get down to the details, and you see that goods that are 50 or 60 percent made outside the countries that are parties to this deal, goods that are 50 or 60 percent made in China, are eligible to be fast- tracked into the United States with no tariffs and no limits, and goods where the manufacturer admits that it is 50 or 60 percent made in China may actually be 70 or 80 percent made in China. Goods that are chiefly Chinese-made get the benefit of this agreement, with China not even having to sign it. Our trade deficit will balloon not only from goods that are really made in Japan and really made in Vietnam--and those are the two countries added to the free trade regime by this agreement; we already have free trade agreements with the others that are part of these Trans-Pacific Partnership; those are the two main countries--not only goods made in those countries, but goods that are just kind of polished in Vietnam, finished in Japan, but made in China. We are told that this is part of some clever system to contain China when in reality, we established the international principle, the currency manipulation, the number one tactic of China to run up the largest trade deficit in history. We have the largest trade deficit; they have the largest trade surplus in history. That becomes the norm. Then second, goods chiefly made in China, finished in Japan, get duty free into the United States. But finally, think of what an insult it is to our men and women in uniform to be told that our allies in Asia are so disdainful of our help as they fight China over the islets that are in question, that we have to give away our jobs and enter into a bad trade deal just to have the honor of deploying our troops and our Navy to defend the islets claimed by Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. You would think that the willingness of America to put its blood and treasure on the line to defend not only our allies, but even Vietnam, would be enough, not that we would be told that in order to have that honor, we have to enter into this trade agreement. Finally--and, Mr. Speaker, I will end with this, there is the issue of admitting Vietnam into this deal. We are told that the purpose of this deal, the upside, is that we get free access to Vietnam's markets, free access to their markets. The only problem is Vietnam doesn't have freedom and it does not have markets. This deal is great for Nike. They can manufacture shoes in Vietnam and pay 30-40 cents an hour. They can then add a few jobs in Oregon as they hire the marketing skill necessary to push off the shelves the last remnant of American-made shoes. They can add some jobs in Oregon where they can find the tax lawyers to make sure that they don't pay any U.S. taxes on the enormous profit that you can get by making a shoe for 40 cents an hour and selling it for $140. A few jobs, which will lead to pushing off the shelves all the American-made shoes. That is what we get on the import side. The jobs we get are tax lawyers making sure that the importers don't pay any taxes. By the way, it has already been revealed that Nike will save several hundred million dollars in taxes on this, chiefly tariffs. What access do we get for our exporters? Well, right now, Vietnam does have some tariffs. The tariffs go to the government. The entity paying the tariff is whoever is doing the exporting. Those importers are all owned and controlled--or at least controlled--by the government. Right now, if Vietnam imports anything from the United States, the Vietnamese Government pays itself a tariff. If this deal goes forward, that tariff will be lower, so they will pay themselves less. Paying themselves money is an irrelevancy. We don't have access to the Vietnamese market just because Vietnamese Government-controlled or Vietnamese Government-owned enterprises will be paying a smaller tariff to the Vietnamese Government of which they are part to begin with. Tariffs are not the limit on what we export to Vietnam. Vietnam makes a political decision, a nationwide economic planning decision which products to import to the United States. They are importing what they choose to import; they are not importing what they choose not to import, and they are going to keep doing it. To assume that just because lowering tariffs means you sell more goods in the United States, means lowering tariffs, means you sell more goods in Vietnam, we are required to imagine that the Vietnamese economy, a communist economy, is just like ours. That is an absurd assumption. The Vietnamese centrally planned economy will or will not import from the United States whatever they choose to. Their published tariffs are an irrelevancy. Their promise to change those tariffs is a promise to change an irrelevancy. We are a nation of free markets. When we change our public tariffs, that opens up our markets to all the tennis shoes that can be made for 40 cents an hour. This is a terrible deal for the American people. It is part of a continued policy of what they call free trade. What America needs is fair trade. What America needs is to say that those who want access to the U.S. market must be willing to buy U.S. goods and services. What America needs is an understanding that we need results-oriented trade agreements. We are in the deepest hole ever. We are the largest debtor nation in the world. We have the largest trade deficit in the world. We would expect that the dollar will crash not this decade, but next decade. The first thing you do when you are in a hole that deep is to stop digging. The first step is to stop this fast track. Then the next step is to deploy our trade negotiators with the power to say--the issue isn't whether we are going to lower our tariffs; we are a sovereign nation; we can increase our tariffs--if you want access to the U.S. market, everything is on the table, and a fair, balanced trade result is the requirement, if you want access to the one thing that the entire world wants, and that is access to the U.S. market. I see no one seeking time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for putting forward this amendment. Bob Hope is a local neighborhood airport. Only through a technicality was it denied a curfew. All the commercial carriers already adhere to that curfew. We have a handful of nighttime flights that could easily go through one of the larger airports in the Los Angeles area. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good balance between the needs for commercial aviation on the one hand and the need to sleep on the other.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 257, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a family whose commitment to service and Jewish prayer, study and music at my own synagogue, Valley Beth Shalom, spans more than six decades. The Braun family's dedication to Valley Beth Shalom has enriched the lives of our congregation and strengthened our community. In 1960, Dick and Barbara Braun became members of Valley Beth Shalom. During the past fifty-five years, five generations of the Braun family have been involved in Valley Beth Shalom synagogue life. This includes, in addition to Dick and Barbara, Dick's mother Elisabeth, Dick and Barbara's four children and their spouses--Jon and Lynn, David and Sherri (of blessed memory) and Ellen, Robert and Sandra, Sarah and Shai, as well as their nine grandchildren and their spouses, and finally a great grandchild. The contributions of the Braun family to Valley Beth Shalom are legend. Dick has sung in the congregational choir and served as Hazzan Sheyni since 1968. He has served on the Valley Beth Shalom Board of Directors for more than 40 years and also served on the Executive Committee. Barbara is also a long time member of the synagogue choir, and was an involved member of the Sisterhood and a member of the first class of the Valley Beth Shalom Counseling Center where she served for over 20 years. Jon and his wife Lynn have also served on the Valley Beth Shalom Board of Directors, and Lynn has chaired the Annual Gala Event and served on the Executive Committee of the synagogue. David is a member of the Valley Beth Shalom Board, the Board of the Schulweis Institute and is a Vice-President-elect of the congregation. Nate, one of the grandchildren, is secretary of the synagogue's Board, and his wife, Effie, is a Board member. In addition to all of the family's leadership contributions to the synagogue, members of the Braun family have also been generous benefactors of Valley Beth Shalom in support of all of its enriching programs. The Braun family's contributions to the community reach farther than just our congregation: Dick is a general surgeon, who for many years was the chief of surgery at Kaiser Permanente in Panorama City. Barbara was an elementary school teacher. Among the four children and their spouses are four physicians, a mental health therapist, an attorney, a teacher and a rabbi. Dick is also the founder and chairman of the Jewish Music Commission of Los Angeles, which brings new Jewish music into the life of the community. Lynn visits my Washington, D.C. office every year to meet with me as an advocate for the American Academy of Ophthalmology. I am proud to be part of a synagogue that values these contributions by honoring the Braun family in their Family of the Year Celebration. They are living the legacy of our teacher and late rabbi, Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis. I thank the Braun family for their significant contributions towards bettering our synagogue and our community.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including my amendment in this en bloc. Section 3119 of the bill, as reported from the Armed Services Committee, seeks to deal with a significant issue that has come to light regarding some commercial nuclear transfers. The potential for some U.S. reactor technology to be diverted by recipient countries with naval programs is a serious concern that needs to be addressed. Section 3119 begins that process. My amendment is designed to improve it. There has been discussion in the press and in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the renewal of the China 123 agreement that China would divert U.S. nuclear technology to its naval program, particularly with regard to the propulsion of naval vessels. My amendment would streamline the process by which we would license technology under a 123 agreement. It would also provide that Congress should be notified whenever there is substantial evidence that the 123 agreement, a nuclear cooperation agreement, has been violated, as, perhaps, when nuclear technology is diverted for military purposes, including the propulsion of naval vessels. Most importantly, we know that China has not yet taken the steps it needs to take to prevent proliferation. My amendment adds a requirement that, when we are going to license the transfer of nuclear technology to Beijing, we can do that only if there is a certification that China is taking the steps necessary to prevent proliferation to Iran and other problem countries. I look forward to our using our nuclear cooperation with China on civilian matters to prod them into a nonproliferation policy that makes sense for the safety of the world. I thank the chairman and his staff for working closely with my staff in crafting this amendment, and I thank the ranking member and chair for including this in the en bloc.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for his clarification. If this deal is signed, I do not think that Congress will enact a Resolution of Disapproval over the President's veto--maybe not even vote for it on the floor. It is even less likely that Congress will enact a Resolution of Approval. So we will be in a situation where Congress will not have acted, and as the chairman points out, Congress would not have approved this agreement.

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I will yield to Chairman Royce for a colloquy, and I will ask him the following questions. As I read this bill, if Congress does not enact a Joint Resolution of Disapproval, that failure to enact a Resolution of Disapproval cannot be read as Congress approving an agreement. As I read the bill, if Congress does not enact a Resolution of Disapproval, the sole effect of that is to continue current statutes so that the President would retain his authority to provide sanctions relief. Do you agree?

Mr. SHERMAN. If the President signs an agreement, Iran will get certain benefits and certain funds will be made available to them. At the same time, Iran will ship its stockpiles out of the country--or a substantial portion of them--decommission some centrifuges, and thereby delay its effort to get a nuclear weapon. That means in 2017, and every year thereafter, future Congresses and future Presidents will have to determine what American policy is. We would be free to demand a renegotiation of the agreement, or to simply continue it in force. A President could reactivate sanctions, or continue to waive them. Congress could enact new sanctions, or repeal existing sanctions. All options will be on the table in the years to come. And the only thing I am certain of is that we will be on this floor debating Iran and its nuclear program for many years to come.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Armenian genocide, the first genocide of the 20th century. Now, I know a number of other Members were planning to join me--there has been some confusion as to the schedule--but I hope that Members interested in this issue would come to the floor and join me during the next 30 minutes. I would like to thank the gentleman from Long Beach, California, Mr. Alan Lowenthal, for being at the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, of which I am the ranking member, so that I can be here on the floor at this important time. Mr. Speaker, today, it is the afternoon of April 23 here in our Nation's Capital; but in Istanbul, it is night. It is about to be midnight, bringing in the 24th of April. As we are here, at this very hour, 100 years ago, agents of the Ottoman Government, the government ruling the Ottoman Empire, went out into the night to arrest the leadership of the Armenian community there in Istanbul, then the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Soon the rest of the plan went into effect. Having arrested and killed the leadership of the Armenian community, agents of the Ottoman Empire felt free to go into the ancient Armenian lands of Eastern Anatolia and begin a process of ethnic cleansing, to begin a process of mass murder, to begin a process of sending people into the desert to die or simply annihilating them on the spot, to begin a well-thought- out plan of genocide, the first genocide of the 20th century. Now, I am asked: Why is it so important that we remember this genocide? Well, first, genocide denial is the last step of the genocide itself. When I say genocide denial, you might think that, in recounting history of 100 years ago, that I was simply here to commemorate and to mourn. Unfortunately, the government of modern Turkey has begun and continued a multimillion dollar plan of threats, of lobbying, of secret money, all designed to deny the Armenian genocide. That genocide denial is the last stage of the genocide that began 100 years ago this hour. First, in a genocide, a people is destroyed, and then we see the destruction of the memory of their annihilation; but worse than genocide denial being the last step of a genocide, it is the first step of the next genocide. When Adolf Hitler was talking to his henchmen and they wondered whether they could get away with the total destruction of the Jewish people, he was able to turn to them, as he did, and said: Who remembers the annihilation of the Armenians? This genocide denial creates the expectation among other evil men that they can get away with genocide. Why do we here, in the United States, kowtow to Turkey's demand that we fail to recognize the Armenian genocide? Last week, the European Union overwhelming passed a recognition recognizing not only the murders and atrocities that took place in Eastern Anatolia, but also using, as was appropriate, the word ``genocide.'' A few days before, Pope Francis used the word ``genocide'' for the first time in the history of the Vatican to commemorate this 100th anniversary of massacres. Over 40 State legislatures in our own country and 20 foreign governments have recognized that the acts of the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians in the early 20th century constituted a genocide. It is time for this Congress to do what then-Senator Barack Obama did and acknowledge that what happened 100 years ago today, what began 100 years ago today, was, indeed, a genocide. I see that we are joined by the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I yield now to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I want to associate myself with his comments and particularly thank him for focusing our attention on the struggles of the people of Artsakh. Mr. Speaker, one should remember that, with the support of the Government of Turkey, the Government of Azerbaijan has threatened to shoot down civilian airplanes headed to the Stepanakert Airport. Those are the kinds of threats and intimidation that the people of Armenia and of Nagorno-Karabakh face today. I yield to the gentleman also from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) if he requests.

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I am here on the House floor where we, today, should be voting on a resolution to recognize the Armenian genocide. Several of us, I believe including the gentleman from California, introduced the Armenian Genocide Truth and Justice Resolution, but that resolution is not on the floor today because of the pressures, arguments, and an incredibly expensive lobbying campaign by the Turkish Government. It was 100 years ago today, as I pointed out in the beginning, that 650 writers, lawyers, poets, doctors, priests, and politicians were rounded up, deported, and murdered by the Ottoman Government. No one should give any credence to the argument that somehow these were a few individuals who were acting alone, that this was not a coordinated governmental campaign. There were 1 million to 1.5 million people who died, and it was because of a premeditated and carefully planned effort by the Ottoman Government. Now, we are told that Turkey is an ally of the United States and that, therefore, we dare not recognize the genocide here on the House floor. First, I believe that there is nothing that we could do that is more important for the people of Turkey than to recognize the genocide and to urge them to do so as well. How will Turkey be a great country in the future if it is so focused on lying about its past? What relationship would we have with the government in Berlin if it were engaged in a Holocaust denial? Who in the world would trust American leadership if the government here in Washington were lying or denying slavery? Every nation has a past. Every nation ought to honestly come to grips with that past. Then we are told that we cannot recognize the genocide because of threats from the Turkish Government. Never have I been more ashamed of this Congress than in its kowtowing to threats that turn out to be not only outrageous but illusory. Turkey threatened harsh retribution for those countries that recognized the genocide and then took only token steps against Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Argentina, and 10 other countries. Some 40 American State legislatures have recognized the Armenian genocide and have not lost a single dollar of exports to Turkey. The greatest attempt by the Turkish Government to muzzle a national legislature was their effort, roughly a decade ago, to prevent France from recognizing the genocide. They threatened an economic boycott. In the 6 years that followed France's courageous recognition of the genocide, exports from France to Turkey increased fourfold. The only thing worse than kowtowing to ridiculous and outrageous threats is kowtowing to ridiculous and outrageous threats that turn out to be illusory paper tigers. Finally, I have to comment on just how outrageous it is for Turkey to be threatening the United States, because look at what we have done for Turkey. In the years since World War II, we have saved them from communism and the Soviet Union. We disbursed over $23 billion in aid. We prevented the creation of a fully sovereign and independent Kurdish state. We helped build the pipeline that brings them oil today, and we have been the loudest voice in urging that Turkey be admitted to the European Union. After we have done all of that, they say it is not enough and that we have to be accomplices with them in denying and in hiding the first genocide of the 20th century. This is outrageous. It is time for this Congress to show that America is worthy of world leadership, not only because of our values of freedom and democracy, but because we have the courage to acknowledge the facts that actually occurred, and we are not tempted to gain some sort of illusory alliance advantage by denying the greatest crime that a nation can commit. I think, as we see the last persons who survived the genocide--or the nieces and nephews of those who died--come to the end of their days, that America should recognize this great genocide. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tenth anniversary of the death of Mr. Darren E. Russell, the son of my constituent, Ms. Maxine Russell. In 2005, at the time of Mr. Russell's untimely death, many young U.S. citizens were employed as language instructors in China, due to increased demand for English language skills in connection with the upcoming 2008 Beijing Olympics. Like many Americans, Darren sought out this opportunity to work in a different culture, and to improve ties between the United States and the people of China. Darren was loved by his students, who gave him a Chinese nickname that translates to ``White Rabbit.'' While he enjoyed teaching his students, his relationship with his employer was not good. He was reportedly required to work seven days a week, and was subjected to substandard working conditions by his employing school, the Decai English Language Institute. His employers seized and held his travel documents, including his passport. Further, his employing school had failed to obtain the proper work documentation for Mr. Russell, making him essentially an illegal alien in the eyes of Chinese authorities. When Mr. Russell expressed concern about his working conditions, he was removed from his employer-provided apartment and placed in virtual detention by his employers at the Cathay Hotel in Guangzhou. While there, Mr. Russell was robbed, and he therefore lacked the financial means to arrange for his departure. In a recorded message on his father's cell phone a few hours before his death, which was deemed a hit-and-run accident by local authorities, Mr. Russell expressed grave concern for his personal safety. He sought urgent assistance from his family and the U.S. Consulate in order to return to the United States. These circumstances raised suspicion that foul play was involved in his death. A subsequent autopsy was conducted by a board-certified pathologist in Los Angeles, California, in March of 2007. The pathologist concluded that Mr. Russell was murdered by blunt force trauma to the head; his injuries were found inconsistent with a motor vehicle accident by the pathologist. Darren's mother has spent the ten years since April 14, 2005 seeking justice for Darren and the truth about what happened that day. She continues to seek information about the circumstances leading up to his death, and the inability of U.S. officials to render effective assistance to Darren after his pleas for help. Darren is remembered by those who knew him as a caring and effective teacher, someone who tried to build bridges between the American and the Chinese people. I hope that both the U.S. and Chinese governments will assist his mother's efforts to determine what happened to her son ten years ago this week.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) for his tireless work on this bill. This bill has passed virtually unanimously this House in the 111th, 112th, and 113th Congresses. Now it has passed our committee 57-0. I want to commend Director Cordray of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for moving in the direction of this bill as far as they could, but now it is time to codify this important change. This will not only save money for the small- and medium-sized institutions and the entire financial services industry; it is going to get the consumer to focus on changes that are important. There is no better way to hide a tree than to put it in the forest, and there is no better way to trivialize and cause consumers to ignore important legally required notification than to deluge them with unnecessary, meaningless, and repetitive notifications. This bill will make our system more efficient. It is not only consistent, I believe, with what the regulators would like to do; it has passed, overwhelmingly, every time Members of the House have had a chance to deal with it. I commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 145, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I met with a constituent, Marat Khoudabakhshiev, whose family barely survived pogroms perpetrated 27 years ago today against the Armenian residents of then-Soviet Azerbaijan. He recounted how Azerbaijanis who had lived alongside Armenians for generations suddenly turned violent against them, causing Armenian families like his to flee their homes for safety. Over three days, February 26th to 28th, 1988, a pogrom was perpetrated against the Armenian residents of Sumgait in then-Soviet Azerbaijan. Armenians were attacked and killed in their apartments and on the streets. Although official figures reported 30 deaths, it is believed that hundreds were murdered and injured as a result of the pogrom. The violence against the Armenians in Sumgait was prompted by a vote, which took place one week prior by the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, to unify the region with Armenia--the beginning of the Karabakh movement. In the days immediately after this vote Azeri civilians and local officials in the city of Sumgait held rallies calling for ``death to Armenians''. On the night of February 27, 1988, Armenian residents in Sumgait were targeted and indiscriminately raped, mutilated and murdered. Calls for help from Armenians were ignored by local police and city officials. Journalists were shut out from the area. The violence raged on for three days before Soviet troops were able to put an end to the pogrom. Witnesses of the horrific massacres later testified that the attacks were planned, as civilians had gathered weapons and the exits of the cities were blocked in advance to prevent Armenians from escaping. The homes of Armenians were marked so that the Azeri mobs could easily target them. Unfortunately, the perpetrators of the pogrom succeeded in their ultimate goal--driving out Armenians. Fearing more violence, Armenian families fled Sumgait. Later that year, another anti-Armenian pogrom occurred in Kirovabad, Azerbaijan from November 21st to 27th, which also forced hundreds of Armenians to flee the region. In January of 1990 violent mobs targeted the Armenian community of Azerbaijan's capital, Baku. This year also marks the 100th anniversary of the commemoration of the first genocide of the 20th century, the Armenian Genocide. It is imperative that we honor the memory of Armenians killed in the pogroms of Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku, as well as the Armenian Genocide. If we hope to stop future massacres, we must acknowledge these horrific events and ensure they do not happen again. Recognizing the ethnic-cleansing of the Armenians from Azerbaijan is an important step. However, we need to do more--we need to demonstrate to Azerbaijan that the United States is committed to peace and to the protection of Artsakh from coercion. As the current government of Azerbaijan grows even more hostile towards Armenians, we must call for an end to all threats and acts of violence by Azerbaijan's government against the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh. Congress should strengthen Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act by removing the President's ability to waive U.S. law prohibiting aid to Azerbaijan because of its continuing blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. In 1992, Congress prohibited aid to Azerbaijan because of its continuing blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. However, in 2001, Congress approved a waiver to this provision, and administrations have used the waiver since then to provide aid to Baku. Azerbaijan should not be provided aid from the United States as long as they continue a policy of threats and blockades against Artsakh. I urge the Administration to remove all barriers to broad-based U.S.- Nagorno Karabakh governmental and civil society communication, travel and cooperation.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. The Financial Services bill contains quite a number of noncontroversial provisions that will improve Dodd-Frank, and we could improve our economy today and have a bill on the President's desk by the end of the month. But no, the majority has structured this to force Democrats to vote against nearly a dozen good provisions so that they can say, look at those Democrats; they won't help the economy. They are playing politics instead of legislating. It is morally wrong. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker----

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if you trample on democracy and discard regular order, you can run a remarkably efficient House of Representatives. This rule is an abomination of procedure, wrapped in another abomination of procedure, all wrapped up in a third abomination. It deals with three bills, but one of those bills contains 11 bills. Add it up. One rule, 14 bills. Let's look at the 11 Financial Services bills. Eleven bills, zero amendments allowed. Why? We are told that, well, all 11 of those bills have gone through the committee without controversy or gone to the floor without controversy. Not true. One of those bills extends until 2019 when banks have to comply with an important part of the Volcker rule. Has that extension to 2019 ever been voted on in committee? No. Has it ever been discussed on the floor? No. And when the Rules Committee was asked, can we have an amendment to deal with this new matter, which has never been subject to a markup or a discussion on this floor, the answer is ``no.'' Why is that? Because we need to improve Dodd-Frank.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry. Is there any method that allows me to object when a Member says something demonstrably false?

Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield for a point of truth?

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be circulating a letter for signature urging the administration not to prosecute General Petraeus. It will ask Eric Holder to use his prosecutorial discretion to close the file now. And if Attorney General Holder will not do so, to urge the President to immediately pardon General Petraeus. Keep in mind that General Petraeus has an incredible record of service to our Nation. The items he disclosed, if any, were to an Army Reserve Officer who had security clearance, and the disclosure has not gone any further. Given his record to our country, we should not be spending taxpayer dollars in this prosecution. But here is the delicious irony. While the prosecutors accuse General Petraeus of mistakenly disclosing confidential information--maybe they are right, maybe not--they themselves have clearly and intentionally violated law and disclosed confidential information, namely that they are making a recommendation to the Attorney General that he prosecute General Petraeus. So if the Justice Department has unlimited funds to investigate and prosecute, perhaps they should start with their own ranks and at least purge their ranks of those who violate their employment responsibilities and leak confidential information.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I voted against suspending the rules and adopting the ``Supporting America's Charities Act.'' I think there are strong arguments in favor of this legislation and arguments of roughly equal weight that we should not at this time make these tax incentives permanent when they are not paid for. As I have stated in the Congressional Record on many occasions, I believe that controversial matters should come up under regular order, allowing adequate debate time and preferably allowing for amendments from the floor. This legislation is controversial enough to warrant that attention. Under these circumstances I could not vote to suspend the rules. I might well vote for this legislation if it came to the floor of the House through regular order, particularly if members were allowed to offer amendments.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Soledad Canyon Settlement Act. This act is a testament to bipartisanship, fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship, local consensus building, and tireless tenacity for the public good. Bipartisanship: Here in this House, the bill is introduced, carried, and written by our colleague, Buck McKeon. In the Senate, the same language has been introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer and is supported by Senator Feinstein. You can't get any more bipartisan than that. Fiscal responsibility: CBO says this bill costs the government zero dollars and zero cents. You can't get a lower cost estimate on a bill than that. Environmental stewardship: this bill is supported by the Sierra Club, and this land will become the gateway to the new San Gabriel Mountains National Monument. Local consensus building: this bill has the support of local leaders and legislators, Governor Jerry Brown, CEMEX, the local lease owner, and virtually everyone involved in public life in Santa Clarita, which is Los Angeles County's third largest city. Tireless tenacity: Mr. Speaker, tireless tenacity for the public good is exemplified by our friend, Buck McKeon, 22 years in Congress and I believe 22 years focused on this problem, and now, on what may very well be his last legislative day, we have a chance to solve this problem in a way that I think exemplifies what we should be trying to do here in Congress. In addition to Buck's tireless tenacity, I want to commend the city leaders of Santa Clarita, many-time Mayor Laurene Weste, who I believe is now a city council member and has been mayor of that city so often; Bob Keller, now the mayor pro tem; Ken Striplin, the city manager; and hundreds and thousands of people in Santa Clarita and the immediate area. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is needed because it will stop the mining of 56 million tons of sand and gravel, which is now incompatible with a city that has grown to more than double its size when the project was originally planned, and now constitutes an area of well more than a quarter million people. This sand and gravel mining operation is incompatible with the new population of the area, and it is also incompatible with the roads and traffic which is busy not only at rush hour, but throughout the day. I want to commend the gentleman from Santa Clarita for his decades of work for his district, and all the people of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Soledad Canyon Settlement Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and would like to hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), so I will reserve the balance of my time.