Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I have checked with the Parliamentarian and he has informed me that it is in order to give a bipartisan speech, even today. So I have a speech that I think most Members, on both sides of the aisle, can agree with. Mostly. I have been here 17 years. I have been working every day for the toughest Iranian sanctions. This House has passed bill after bill. The Senate passed about half of them. And for over a decade, several administrations have basically refused to enforce the Iran sanctions that passed both Houses of Congress. Then about three years ago, this Administration started enforcing our sanctions laws. They unleashed the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorist Financing and Intelligence, (TFI) and its Office of Foreign Asset control, (OFAC). TFI and OFAC are doing a great job. Yes, something the Federal Government is doing is working. Iran's supreme leader was forced to allow one of his own insiders to run on a reform platform. And the Iranian people voted for the most reform they were allowed to vote for. It is clear that Iran wants out of these sanctions and is willing to surrender critical parts of its nuclear weapons program, but only if we are very tough in sanctions negotiations. Let us remember why there is nothing more essential than preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran's supreme leader, on his Web site today, says the Holocaust is a myth and wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Iranian troops are in Syria backing Assad. Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism. Now, imagine terrorism with impunity. There is nothing more essential than stopping Iran's nuclear program. In order to do that, we need more sanctions. Why? Because every day Iran develops ways to get around the existing sanctions program. That is why we need to do a bit more as they are undoing what we already have in place. But what is actually happening? TFI and OFAC are basically shut down, 90 percent furloughed. Seventy percent of our Intel Community's civilian employees are on furlough. So what needs to happen? First, restaff TFI and OFAC. These are essential government functions. Second, pass a clean CR because all aspects of our foreign policy, our national security operations, our intel operations are critical to keeping Americans safe from terrorism and stopping the Iranian nuclear program. And just as critical is our credibility worldwide. So it is time to drop demands that everyone knows the Senate and the White House will never accept, and pass a clean CR. Third, it is time for the executive branch to use the statutory authority we have already given them. For example, they have designated about two dozen Iranian banks, cutting them off from the international system. It is time for them to designate all Iranian banks. Fourth, the Senate needs to pass a bill that passed on this floor with 400 votes last July, The Nuclear Iran Prevention Act. Staff the agencies, pass a clean CR, designate all the Iranian banks, pass and implement The Nuclear Iran Prevention Act; and we may just see a world safe from the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this government, the government of the greatest Nation on Earth, will reopen only when the public decides that one party is being uncompromising and unreasonable. The continuing resolution that the Senate sent us sets the spending level, and it sets the level right there at the Republican Ryan budget level--$250 billion below the President's request, $72 billion below the Senate Democratic budget. When it comes to spending levels, we have compromised. It is manifestly unreasonable to shut down the government to achieve a legislative objective. Today, we are told that they will keep the government open for 45 or 60 days if only we allow them to dismantle ObamaCare. In December, they will say we will keep the government open a little longer if only we will strip-mine Yellowstone. What if Democrats took the same tactic? What if we said we are going to shut down government until we get immigration reform, campaign finance reform, or gun control? We are as dedicated to those issues as they are to their ceaseless quest to repeal ObamaCare. But we will not shut down the government, we will not destroy the economy, we will not take hostages, we will not hurt this country just to get our own way.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are told that if we want the government to stay open for just another 45 or 75 days, we should torpedo the Affordable Care Act. Then what happens in November or December? Are we told that to keep the government open any further we have to strip-mine Yellowstone, we have to abolish Medicare? The fact is it is wrong to take hostages. It is wrong to say that the government will shut down if that is the only way that you can achieve your legislative objectives. What would the country think of us if we said we are going to shut down the government unless we get gay rights, gun control, cap-and- trade, immigration reform? Or what would the country think of us if we said gay rights, but only for 1 year; keep the government open for 1 year, get gay rights for 1 year. Taking hostages is wrong. Holding hostage the greatest country in the world is wrong.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, soon the government of the world's greatest country will shut down, and it will reopen only when the public decides that one party is uncompromising and unreasonable. A CR sets our spending level. This CR sets the spending level right there at the Republican Ryan budget level: $250 billion below the President's request and $72 billion below Senate Democrats. When it comes to spending levels, we have compromised. It is manifestly unreasonable to say you're going to shut down the government to achieve a legislative objective. What if Democrats said, We're going to shut down the government if we don't get immigration reform, gay rights, or gun control? We are as passionately dedicated to those issues as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are to their ceaseless desire to repeal ObamaCare, but we will not shut down the government. We will not destroy the American economy to get our way. We will not take hostages. We will prevail when we persuade Republicans or elect Democrats. We will not hurt this country to get our objectives.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday September 9, 2013, I missed rollcall No. 448. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' I was at the classified briefing on Syria in which Members of Congress were briefed by Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, and National Security Advisor Rice.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in February, I joined with our ranking member and our chairman and others in introducing this legislation, which passed our committee unanimously. Congress needs to act now because, while we go on summer break, new, faster centrifuges will be spinning 24-7-365. We are seeing Iran, as we've seen in hearings before our committee, evade the current sanctions. So, if we're going to keep the sanctions in force, we need this legislation to plug the loopholes that they are exploiting. Two facts remain unchanged by the Iranian elections: first, their program to create nuclear weapons continues; and second, the supreme leader, not the newly elected President, is making the decisions. Our committee adopted many amendments unanimously, including four of mine, and two I'd like to mention: one provides sanctions for those who sell uranium mining equipment to Iran, and another imposes sanctions on those who sell them dissident-suppressing technology. Those who oppose this bill need to come to the floor and say why Iran needs uranium mining equipment and dissident-suppressing technology. Let's pass this bill.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the Amash/Conyers amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act because it is the only means available to the House at this time to seek to prevent the Executive Branch from having sole custody of over a trillion records regarding the phone calls of ordinary Americans. I hope the Administration will soon put forward a proposal that would maintain our national security, while including greater privacy protections. We need more than a promise by the Executive Branch that it will hold records but not look at them except for ``relevant'' purposes. Possession is 9/ 10 of the law. Even a credible promise of the Administration may be less credible in future administrations. We cannot necessarily trust unknown future administrations to maintain the privacy commitments of this Administration.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 308, I was at the White House for a discussion on U.S. economy. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary career of my friend Richard Michalski. Rich is retiring after over 40 years of service with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). I had the pleasure of first meeting Rich when I was elected to Congress nearly 20 years ago. I have always appreciated his honesty, straightforward approach, and wise counsel. Rich was first initiated into IAM Local Lodge 1916 and worked as a welder at General Electric in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1968. He held several positions in his local lodge, including steward, chairman of the bargaining committee, and president. Rich has always been involved at the grass roots level, volunteering many hours promoting the rights and representation of all workers. Rich became the Director of the Legislative and Political Action Department at IAM in 1992. In this capacity, he was involved on a daily basis with legislation that affects working men and women. Rich joined the ranks of the IAM's Executive Board as the General Vice President in charge of IAM Headquarters in 2006. I want to thank Rich for his lifelong commitment to supporting labor rights, promoting fair trade and boosting U.S. exports. I congratulate Rich and wish him the best in his much deserved retirement.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 302 Capps Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary leadership and public service of Dennis P. Zine, Member of the Los Angeles City Council. For the last twelve years, Councilmember Zine has represented the interests of the San Fernando Valley on the Los Angeles City Council, expanding recreation opportunities for Valley residents, fighting against waste and abuse in public agencies and supporting law enforcement efforts to keep our streets safe. Councilman Zine has a well-earned reputation in the San Fernando Valley for his deep commitment to local community and non-profit groups as well as his lively presence at community events. Every year I look forward to sharing the stage with the Councilman at the appropriately titled ``Dennis P. Zine 4th of July Fireworks Extravaganza at Warner Center.'' Before his election to the City Council, Dennis served for 28 years on the front lines of the Los Angeles Police Department. During that time, Dennis rose to the rank of Sergeant, was honored as officer of the year by the California Highway Patrol and was elected three times to the Board of Directors of the Police Protective League. Always working to improve the quality of life for the residents of the San Fernando Valley, Councilman Zine formed P.O.S.S.E. (People Organizing a Safe, Secure Environment), a volunteer group in which hundreds of concerned citizens can work to rid their communities of graffiti, neglected properties, abandoned cars and other nuisances. Dennis is blessed with two sons, Chris and Eric. Like his father before him, Chris is a Sergeant with the LAPD while Eric is a champion race pilot and flight instructor. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my gratitude to Dennis Zine and thank him for his tenure of outstanding public service to the residents of the San Fernando Valley. Dennis Zine is an extraordinary leader whose service deserves to be recognized for all that he has done and will continue to do for our community.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Rabbi Zvi Dershowitz of Los Angeles, on the occasion of his 85th birthday. On this happy occasion, it is a privilege for me to honor Rabbi Dershowitz, who I came to know through his leadership in the Los Angeles Jewish community and whose life-long contributions have made their mark in so many areas--Jewish youth and adult education, the struggle to free Soviet Jewry, advocacy on behalf of Iranian Jewish immigrants fleeing Iran, and more. Through his years as teacher, camp director, rabbi, counselor, and human rights advocate, he has touched many thousands of lives. Perhaps it was his own experience as a refugee that influenced so much of the work Rabbi Dershowitz would later engage in on behalf of those fleeing oppression. When Zvi, whose Czech name was Hugo, was 10 years old, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Young Zvi's grandfather Sholem gathered the family and said, ``Hitler is different. You have to leave.'' The family left the country on the last day of 1938, thirty- three days before Hitler's forces marched into the industrial city of Brno, the city where he was born and enjoyed his childhood. On February 2nd, 1939, with his parents Aaron and Ruth and sister Lili, the family moved to Williamsburg, a neighborhood in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. There he grew up, learning English, studying, and playing kickball. Zvi spent his spare time working to support the nascent State of Israel. In 1949, he spent a year of leadership training, working and studying in Jerusalem. Zvi helped refugees from Yemen and elsewhere settle into the newly independent State of Israel. Inspired by his parents' love for Israel and Judaism, Zvi came back to Brooklyn and attended Mesivta Torah Vodaath and received his rabbinical ordination in 1953. Rabbi Dershowitz is married to Tova. He met his bride of nearly 60 years recruiting for staff for Camp Soleil in Ithaca, New York. Guitelle Tova Russekoff, originally from Scranton, Pennsylvania, was a student at Jewish Theological Seminary Teacher's Institute at the time they met. They married and settled in Morristown, New Jersey. Rabbi Dershowitz held several pulpits, at Congregation Beth Shalom in Kansas City and Temple of Aaron in St. Paul, Minnesota. During that period, Rabbi Dershowitz was recruited to become director of Herzl Camp in Wisconsin. One of his campers was Bobby Zimmerman, who later changed his name to Bob Dylan. Rabbi Dershowitz laughs when he recalls telling the teenage Bobby to ``stop banging on the piano.'' Years later, Dylan would become a guest at Rabbi and Tova Dershowitz's family Passover seder. At camp, Rabbi Dershowitz's philosophy was to focus on creating an atmosphere in which campers would feel the joy of Judaism. The number of campers at Herzl Camp doubled during his tenure. In 1961, he accepted an appointment from renowned educator Shlomo Bardin to direct the Brandeis-Bardin Institute in Simi Valley. Once in California, Rabbi Dershowitz pursued his love of Jewish education particularly with young people, at Camp Ramah in Ojai, where he served as director from 1963 to 1973. During that period, he was invited to build the adult education program at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, one of the most well known synagogues in the country. He eventually became Associate Rabbi at Sinai Temple, a post he held for some three decades and where he now serves as Rabbi Emeritus. Rabbi Dershowitz's tenure there witnessed much growth and vibrancy, but also leadership transitions. Throughout these challenging years for the synagogue, Rabbi Dershowitz was the glue that held the congregation together and he saw it through many achievements. Rabbi Dershowitz has contributed to Jewish communal life in diverse ways, including serving often neglected populations. For several years he led services, singing and discussions with Alzheimer patients at an old age home, bringing joy and meaning to a special population. To this this day, Rabbi Dershowitz conducts religious services at a home for the elderly while maintaining a hectic schedule, which includes teaching weekly classes at the University of Judaism, now American Jewish University. Rabbi Dershowitz and Tova have traveled to many places around the world. At each place, they would meet with the Jewish community, become enriched by their experiences and seek to do whatever they could to be helpful. One visit to the former Soviet Union was different from their other travels, however. It was on this trip that they were able to take in a large load of books that would help Jews in Russia learn Hebrew, something that at the time was not permitted. Rabbi Dershowitz's advocacy in support of Soviet Jews continued for many years thereafter. During his time at Sinai Temple, the synagogue witnessed an influx of Jews fleeing the Iranian Revolution. Many Jews had difficulty getting out of Iran but Rabbi Dershowitz worked with Congress and the Executive Branch and helped secure visas for countless Jews who today make up a significant and wonderful part of the synagogue. For the work he did to help them enter this country and for the work he continued to do to help integrate them into the Los Angeles community, he has become well-known and well-loved among the Persian Jewish community. Rabbi Dershowitz remains highly engaged with Sinai's membership, officiating at the lifecycle events of many of its members. While his professional work is rich and rewarding, his wife, children, grandchildren and great grandchild remain the top priority for Rabbi Dershowitz--and he and Tova consider them to be their greatest achievements. It is a privilege to pay tribute to Rabbi Dershowitz, who has been an inspiration to so many in his community and around the country.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary leadership and service of Rabbi Edward Feinstein. Rabbi Feinstein is the senior rabbi of Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, California and this year marks 20 years since he joined Valley Beth Shalom. He came to Valley Beth Shalom in 1993 at the invitation of the renowned Rabbi Harold Schulweis and succeeded him as the congregation's Senior Rabbi in 2005. I first met Rabbi Feinstein roughly twenty years ago when I joined Valley Beth Shalom. ``Rabbi Eddie'' has also presided over many of the most meaningful moments in my life, from our wedding to the baby naming ceremonies of each of our three girls. My wife Lisa joins me in saluting Rabbi Eddie on this occasion. She will never forget, nor allow me to forget the words he said to me under our Hoopa, ``Remember Brad, the House is not your home.'' One of the leading rabbinic voices of our generation, Rabbi Feinstein has brought recognition to Valley Beth Shalom through his involvement in the national arena. Rabbi Feinstein co-chaired the Strategic Planning Group that convened to re-envision the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Known nationally for his leadership, Rabbi Feinstein is ensuring the future of the Jewish community. He teaches a Homiletics class at the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies and is a Lecturer at the Graduate School of Jewish Education at American Jewish University. He is a member of the faculty at the highly prestigious national leadership program, Wexner Heritage Program, and is a Senior Rabbinic Fellow and faculty member at the internationally respected Shalom Hartman Institute. A masterful storyteller, he unites the ancient Jewish love of ideas with the warmth of Jewish humor. A survivor of two bouts of colon cancer, he speaks frequently to cancer support groups all over Southern California. Rabbi Feinstein was raised in the back of his parents' bakery in the west San Fernando Valley. He graduated with honors from the University of California, Santa Cruz; the University of Judaism; Columbia University Teachers College; and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, where he was ordained a rabbi in 1981. Rabbi Feinstein lives with his wife Rabbi Nina Bieber Feinstein in the San Fernando Valley. Nina was the second woman ordained by the Conservative Movement. The Feinstein's are blessed with three children, Yonah, Nessa and Raphael. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Rabbi Feinstein for his commitment to Tikkun Olam, making his community and our world a better place. The Rabbi is an extraordinary leader whose service deserves to be recognized for all that he has done and will continue to do for our community.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 64 I was at a meeting with the Vice President and others at the White House and was caught in traffic on the way back to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his tireless work on this. We passed this bill in this exact form in the 111th Congress, the 112th Congress, and I think the third time will be the charm. We passed it by voice vote once; we passed it again; and this time we're sending it to the Senate with 22 months left to go, so they have little excuse for not somehow dealing with the bill. And by that, I mean passing the bill. The bill is now narrowly tailored and is very straightforward. It simply revises disclosure requirements originally passed under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to eliminate a costly and duplicative requirement that all financial institutions mail their customers a copy of their privacy notice each year, even if there has been no change in the policy. Under the bill, the only documents that won't have to be mailed are identical to what has been mailed to the same person at some previous time. There may have been a time in our country, even a decade ago, where the natural thing was, Let's rummage around and try to find that privacy policy. Now everybody I know is going to go to the Web and look at it on the day they want to look at it rather than wait for the annual time in which it is mailed to them. Under the bill, the customer would receive a printed copy of the privacy policy when they become a customer of the financial institution and every time that policy changes. In addition, the privacy policy would be available on the institution's Web site for any customer to look at 24/7, 365. Mr. Speaker, this is a very minor component of disclosure policy, but every year banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions have to spend millions of dollars to print and send to the same people what they have printed and sent to those people a year before. At best, this is an enormous waste of time, money, and paper. At worst, it causes customers to think there is something new when they are just getting what they got a year ago. It distracts consumers from reading those notices where there has been a change of policy and focuses their attention on something that is duplicative. This bill makes a simple fix to this problem by requiring the financial institution to provide the privacy notice to their customers when they open the account and each time a change occurs that affects the policy or practice related to the privacy of the customer. Institutions are still required to post these notices on their Web sites and to provide a toll-free number that customers can call to request a copy of that policy at any time. The bill simply says you don't have to mail out the same policy document year after year after year. As a result, customers will know that when they get a privacy notice, it's something new and deserves their attention, or at least contains some new information. And banks and credit unions and other financial institutions that have been spending millions of dollars to mail out redundant policies can redirect those savings back to the customers. Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank Mr. Luetkemeyer, the Representative from Missouri, for his tireless leadership on this issue. This is a commonsense fix that both parties can agree on, and I hope that we can pass this bill by voice vote and go on to something else. I see no Democratic speakers; and on that basis, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Woodrow Wilson noted that Congress in committee is Congress at work. Congress ignoring the committee process is a Congress that doesn't work. This bill has not been the subject of hearing and, more importantly, a markup in the Foreign Affairs Committee. And in the dead of night, provisions to transfer two frigates to Turkey, a controversial provision, was added to this otherwise innocuous bill. There are arguments on both sides of the issue: Should we transfer the frigates to Turkey at no cost, a gift from the American taxpayer? Should we condition that transfer? Should we limit it to perhaps only one ship? I'd like to have hearings. I'd like Congress to work its will. Instead, a bill is brought to the floor on a day we were not scheduled to be in session for a last-minute discussion and a last-minute vote. In prior discussions in our committee dealing with providing frigates to Turkey, we've been told that Turkey lives in a dangerous neighborhood, that it shares a border with Iran. I would ask: Where on the Turkish-Iranian border will these frigates be deployed? The last time an oceangoing vessel has been seen in eastern Anatolia, it was Noah's Ark. Now these frigates will be deployed in the Mediterranean, and we've seen what the Turkish navy does in the Mediterranean. In 1974, there was the invasion of Cyprus. More recently, there are the actions taken against Israel and in support of Hamas. In June of 2010, after a Gaza flotilla attempted to aid the terrorist group Hamas with supplies, Turkey threatened to send armed naval escorts to back another aid convoy to Hamas. The Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan, called for Israel to be punished for interfering with the previous effort to aid Hamas with the flotilla. In September 2011, after a U.N. report on the Gaza flotilla was released, Turkey threatened to send an armed naval presence to the eastern Mediterranean to confront Israel, and Prime Minister Erdogan said that Israel should expect more naval presence from Turkey in the area, and I quote: ``Turkish warships will be tasked with protecting the Turkish boats'' bringing aid to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The gentleman from New York pointed out how the Turkish navy has interfered with both the Cypriot and Israeli efforts to exploit natural gas deposits on the seabed between those two countries. This is particularly outrageous when you realize that the Cypriot natural gas fields are off the shores of South Cyprus, an area where Turkey has not tried to assert its military presence. And they've gone further and even interfered with Israel exploiting its own natural gas fields off of its coast. This is the action of the Turkish navy in the Mediterranean. Is this something that we should be furthering by two free frigates? I don't know. We haven't had hearings. We haven't had a markup. We haven't had a discussion on what limitations, what conditions, and what quantity of ships should be transferred. I've come to this floor on over 100 occasions to vote on suspension bills renaming post offices. Most of those bills were subject to a markup in the appropriate committee. Shouldn't we give that same level of attention to the transfer of frigates to Turkey? Send this bill back to committee. Let us have a real discussion. Let us follow the rules, not suspend the rules, when we're dealing with a matter of this importance to our foreign policy in the eastern Mediterranean.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my thanks and best wishes to the members of the California Democratic delegation who will be departing at the end of this Congress. Starting with departing members toward the northern portion of the state, I can say that Congress is losing two of its most important and effective progressive champions, Lynn Woolsey and Pete Stark. Lynn has been a strong advocate for peaceful solutions to the world's problems, and her voice for peace and disarmament will be missed. She was one of the most vocal and consistent opponents of the war in Iraq, and fought to stop the surges in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been proud to work with her over the past several years to bring a responsible end to the wars. Lynn has also been a forceful advocate on education and children's issues. I know Lynn will stay involved in progressive causes, and I look forward to continuing to work with her in her new role as President of Americans for Democratic Action. But her compassionate efforts in Congress will be difficult to replace. The thing I will remember most about Pete Stark is that he was always a fighter for affordable healthcare. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we will soon see the day when every person in the country has health insurance. For many years I cosponsored a bill offered by Pete that would have at least provided a guarantee of healthcare for children in this country. It was outrageous that children were not provided guaranteed health insurance or covered by the government in this country, and Pete worked to end that outrage. Of course, Pete was instrumental in the passage of the Affordable Care Act as the chair of the Health Subcommittee, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for those efforts. Southern California is losing several members who will likewise be missed. Howard Berman and I ran against each other in 2012. Nothing that happened during that campaign has lessened my admiration for Howard as a public servant and legislator. In the 40 years since his first election to the State Assembly, he has provided California and the country with exemplary service. In fact, as a long serving member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and its former Chairman, this service extended to the world. Howard could have enjoyed the comfort and financial benefits of working in the private sector, but instead chose to serve the public. From local Valley projects such as preserving the Santa Monica Mountains, improving the Hansen Dam, and rebuilding Kaiser Permanente Hospital after the 1994 quake, we owe him a sincere debt of gratitude. He has been a longtime champion of farm workers, starting with his work with Cesar Chavez and the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which grants farmworkers the right to organize and bargain with their employers. Howard has been a consistent advocate for the entertainment industry, working to protect the jobs of so many residents of the San Fernando Valley. Under his direction as the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee since 2008, our foreign aid program has better protected American interests abroad and allowed for a more stable world. Through projects like the Iron Dome missile shield and enabling Israelis to apply for E-2 Visas, he has strengthened the U.S.-Israel relationship. Howard has also helped fight against global HIV/AIDS and alleviate suffering in the poorest countries. Howard has built a legacy of effective leadership. He will be missed in Congress. While Laura Richardson only served three terms in the House, she was an effective leader for her diverse district. She became a respected expert on intermodal transportation issues despite serving only a brief time in Washington. The Ports of LA and Long Beach, and those that work or do business there, will miss her efforts here to improve the transit of goods across the country. Very few members of this House better understand the importance of transit infrastructure, and the need to pay for it wisely, than Laura. I have greatly enjoyed serving with my friend, Joe Baca, on the Financial Services Committee and in Congress generally. Joe served his country, first in the Army and then in Congress. Joe served as Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus from 2007-2008. He fought hard for the rights of immigrants and the wider Latino community in the United States. And finally, I wish my friend Bob Filner success as he continues on his career in public service as the mayor of San Diego. The people of that great city have gained a strong leader--Congress has unfortunately lost one of its most important advocates for veterans. Bob began fighting for a better America as a young man--as one of the Freedom Riders to go to the American South to fight for civil rights, where he was arrested. During his tenure as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, funding for VA healthcare increased 60 percent and funding for VA home lending increased by 50 percent. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my friends for their decades of public service, and wish them only the best in whatever they do after Congress. They will all be missed.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for his work and leadership on this bill. I also want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Frank, for his support, and, of course, the gentlelady from West Virginia. If this bill becomes law, a written copy of the privacy policy will still go by postal mail to every customer when he or she becomes a customer of the financial institution. Another copy will go every time that policy is changed, and the policy will be available day and night on the Internet on the Web site of the financial institution. The privacy policy will be known to everyone who has an interest in reading it, whether $100 is paid as a bonus for reading it or not. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be brief. We passed substantially the same language unanimously by voice vote 2 years ago. This bill has been amended by unanimous consent so as to be virtually identical with what was passed 2 years ago. It now has the support of the ranking member. I urge an ``aye'' vote and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, hundreds of millions of hard-working people who are citizens of foreign nations want to become Americans. That is a testament to the greatness of our country. America can only accept a limited number of those who wish to move to our shores each year. Accordingly, we should provide visas in a manner that reflects they are a valuable asset to be allocated carefully. I do not believe the Diversity Visa Lottery is a good way to allocate the inherently limited number of immigrant visas. I believe that a rational, well-designed immigration system would not include the Diversity Visa Lottery. Given the political climate and legislative rules that we face, the passage of the bill before us on Friday, November 30, 2012, was not a step toward enacting a well-designed, rational immigration system. Nor was the Democratic Motion to Recommit likely to be the basis of a bipartisan reform bill. In any case, the bill will not be acted on by the Senate. Some of the visas we allocate should go to those who can provide the investment capital to create jobs within the United States. Some of the visas should go for family unification and for the humane treatment of refugees and persecuted persons. And some visas should go to those who have talents and skills that our economy needs. However, we need a better system than the one provided in this bill. I look forward to creating a rational immigration system in 2013.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume in support of H.R. 5817, the Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act. I want to thank Representative Luetkemeyer for his work in introducing this bill. I've enjoyed working with him on it. Madam Speaker, this is commonsense legislation that makes a minor change to our banking laws to revise a very costly and unnecessary requirement that financial institutions such as banks and credit unions and other depository institutions must send each of their customers a copy of their privacy policy every year, even when that policy hasn't changed from the prior year when they got the same exact privacy notification. For banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions of all sizes, this means spending a small fortune to reprint millions of complicated and long documents, then mailing them to every consumer, even when there's been no change in the policy. It is disadvantageous not only because of the time and cost in mailing these--and the trees that are no doubt consumed--but also because customers have no way to separate the wheat from the shaft. They're getting these notices every year from every financial institution with whom they have dealings without any indication as to whether there's been a change from the privacy policy that they received just a year ago. By sending out less, we attract attention to those situations where there's been a change in the privacy policy. Our bill makes a simple fix to this problem, requiring financial institutions to provide their customers with this additional notification only when there's been a change that affects the policy or practice as it relates to that consumer. As a result, consumers will know that the privacy notices that arrive in their mailbox actually require their attention. And banks, credit unions, other financial institutions that have been spending millions of dollars to mail out duplicative notices and redundant notifications each year can redirect those savings back to providing for the consumer, to their community, or to loans to help our economy grow. Madam Speaker, I want to thank, as I did at the beginning of my presentation, our colleague and chief sponsor of this bill, Representative Luetkemeyer of Missouri, and thank him for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank our long-time colleague, ranking member of our Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, for his work in getting us to this point where we can consider this bill on the floor today. I will, in short order, be asking for a recorded vote on this bill, not because it needs a recorded vote, but because I've been informed by my leadership that it's important to this House that we have time on the floor tomorrow to confer with each other on Members and that we have a sufficient number of recorded votes. So my colleagues should not interpret my request for a recorded vote as any statement that this bill is something we have to go on record on or that I would disagree with the outcome of any voice vote, but simply as an act of collegiality, showing that I think we ought to spend more time with each other on this floor tomorrow, and I know we will all enjoy that process. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for his presentation. I would be happy to cosponsor legislation to require an email notification once a year to every customer who's willing to provide their email address to the financial institution. There are some who would say, I don't want to give my email address to my financial institution. But to everybody who is willing to provide that email. I couldn't agree with you more. If this was done by email, it ought to be done at least annually. I look forward to joining with the Members who are here in this room and are interested in requiring an annual email notification. I don't know if the sponsor of the bill would be interested in that. But I will join the gentleman from Massachusetts in legislation on that. But let's act today to end the expensive and resource-consuming annual paper notification. And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. I'll take a minute to put into the Record the statements of Adam Levitin, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law School, in support of this bill. He came before our committee in May of 2012 and stated ``there are unquestionably financial regulations that do little other than add to regulatory burdens.'' He cited, in particular, the provision that this bill addresses, and said: ``I would also urge the elimination of the privacy disclosure requirement even if there is no substantive replacement for it.'' But then he added: ``And, at the very least, eliminate the requirement of an annual disclosure when there has been no change to the policy.'' I couldn't agree more with the professor.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no further speakers, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just add that there are many of us who are dedicated to privacy, but not every privacy requirement makes sense. Here's a case where people are notified on paper. Finally, I want to address the gentleman from Massachusetts' comment that maybe when you were notified on paper your financial institution only had two or three subsidiaries and 10 years later they have several more subsidiaries with whom they may share information. The fact is that isn't disclosed in another copy of the financial institution's privacy policies. It may, in fact, be that your financial institution is offering more products, sharing your information with more subsidiaries. But voting down this bill is not a solution to that issue. What is a solution is to have a policy where you have to send it in writing once, send it in writing when it changes, provide it on the Web. And I would join with others, I would hope, in introducing legislation requiring annual email distribution. With that, I have no speakers, I have no further comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. I rise again in support of this bill, and I yield to no Member in terms of my dedication to privacy. If this bill passes, you're going to get notification of what the privacy rules are when you start with the financial institution. You are going to get notified every time they make a change. And you are going to be notified any time of the night or day when you simply go onto the Web site and look at the required privacy notification. When Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed, not everybody had access to the Internet. I realize today not everybody does. But a much larger percentage of Americans are familiar with the Internet, have access to the Internet, and know that if they want to see the privacy notification, the privacy rules of their financial institution, it's there on the Internet in a way that most Americans are going to have easy access to. The idea that you are mailed a copy of something you've already been mailed a copy of, which hasn't changed, that does little or nothing to provide additional privacy, except that we can say, Oh, we're for privacy. If we want to protect the privacy of our constituents, we ought to do so in a meaningful way, not to simply say, The same thing you got a copy of a year ago today, which is available to you any time of the day or night, is something we're going to chop down some more trees and send you a copy of again. And that's the best idea we can come up with to protect your privacy. I think, instead, we ought to pass this bill, know that we've given everybody a copy of the privacy policy of the financial institution on paper, that they get another paper notice if there's any change, and there is a continuous notice on the Internet every day of the year, every night of the year. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.