Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address three aspects of the conflict in Libya. The first of these is I think the most important. Our efforts to bring freedom and democracy to Libya should not be the occasion to undermine democracy and the rule of law here in the United States. Now there is considerable constitutional argument about the powers of the President. There are those who say he cannot take any military action without first an action by Congress. But in 1802, President Jefferson sent American naval and marine forces, in the words of the song, to the shores of Tripoli, and the founding generation of this country thought that that was consistent with Presidential power. So those who think that the President has no power to ever engage, I think must look at our history, as well as the text of our Constitution. At the same time, there are those who say the President can do anything without congressional approval, and I think those folks go way too far. The answer is the War Powers Act, the law of the land, and we need to make sure that it is followed. Now that law not only requires various reports and consultation, it says that if hostilities are to continue for more than 60 days, that Congress must pass in both Houses a resolution authorizing such activity, and that if after 60 days Congress has not passed such resolution, then the President has 30 days to withdraw. This is the law of the land. And yet last week in both private session and in public hearings, high ranking members of the State Department declared by their vagueness that they might not follow the War Powers Act. That is why it is critical that we as a Nation demand that even those who are sworn to uphold the law, follow the law themselves, and that we in Congress add to any spending bill a provision that says no funds shall be spent for the purpose of violating section 5 of the War Powers Act which some also refer to as the War Powers Resolution. Second, who pays for all of this? The cost is far greater than the $500 million to $600 million being estimated by the Defense Department. I am a CPA. They are using the marginal cost approach, which is widely discredited. Any full costing will show what the American people fully understand, and that is that this is costing us billions of dollars every week. Now, we have seized $30 billion of Libyan assets, assets of Qadhafi that were invested here in the United States. Those assets should be used first before we use money collected from American taxpayers. Libya produces more oil per capita than any nation you can find on a map without a magnifying glass; more oil per capita, per person, than even Saudi Arabia. I realize Libya will need to be rebuilt, but its oil revenues will return and provide for that. And we should quietly insist that the Benghazi council pass a resolution authorizing the United States to use those seized Libyan assets to fund our military efforts. But there is something even more that we should insist on from those who are running eastern Libya, and that is that they use their best efforts, and I realize they are disorganized, to cut off their contact with and even seek to extradite those in their midst who have American blood on their hands. There is, for example, Mr. al-Hasadi who fought us in Afghanistan and Pakistan who brags that he dispatched soldiers to kill America's finest in Iraq, and who is now one of the rebel commanders. We should insist that such individuals be turned over to the United States, and if they can't find them, that they at least disassociate themselves. Now, the administration responds by saying that Qadhafi has American blood on his hands. And I am sure that Qadhafi has, after Pan Am 103, more American blood on his hands than do any collection of rebel leaders. But is this the standard by which we judge those that we ask our men and women to die for, to put themselves in harm's way for, to kill for? I do not think that it makes sense to say that the rebels should be aided as long as they have less American blood on their hands than does Mr. Qadhafi. The test of whether these rebels will be allies and friends of America, or the opposite, is whether they turn over or use their best efforts to turn over al-Hasadi to the United States.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I represent both airports in question. This is a principled amendment that deals with all airports that had curfews in effect in 1990. To say that Burbank should appeal, having spent $9 million on a dead- end rigged process, is not a sufficient answer. And to say that Van Nuys should then go spend $9 million on a process that's obviously rigged is not an answer. The answer is to adopt this amendment that doesn't cost the Federal Government a penny and simply allows the L.A. area to do what every stakeholder in the area wants to do. The harsh hand of the Federal Government should not prevent local control in this area.

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

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I speak today in solemn remembrance of a dark chapter in modern history. This past weekend marked the 23rd anniversary of the massacre of Armenian civilians in Azerbaijan. On the evening of February 27, 1988, a three-day rampage against Armenian civilians living in Sumgait, in Soviet Azerbaijan, began. Armenian civilians were maimed, raped, beaten, and burned alive at the hands of rioters. International media outlets reported that Armenians were ``hunted'' down and killed in their homes. The calls for help for those innocent Armenians were ignored by the local police, and the victims' fate was left to those who ruthlessly and senselessly ended their lives. The official figure from Soviet authorities, who had prohibited journalists from entering the area, was just over 30 people dead and over 200 injured. However, many believe that in fact hundreds were murdered. Sadly, Sumgait was not the end to the tragedies. Anti-Armenian pogroms followed in Kirovabad on November 21, 1988 and in Baku on January 13, 1990. During the Nagorno-Karabakh War of 1988 to 1994, Armenian civilian population centers were indiscriminately attacked. If we hope to stop future massacres, and conflicts, we need to acknowledge those horrific acts of the past, make sure they do not happen again, and make sure that we do not have renewed war between Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. That is why I would like to commemorate the victims of the Sumgait massacre.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, Congressman Frank and Congressman Holt offered amendments reducing funding for the Internal Revenue Service, and increasing funding for the SEC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, respectively. I do not support a reduction in the budget of the Internal Revenue Service, nor do I support the rather modest cut to the General Services Administration included in the Frank Amendment I believe that if the House adopts the Frank and Holt Amendments that the Senate will provide the funds to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau indicated in those amendments, and will also restore the funds to the IRS and the GSA. Accordingly, I did not vote for these amendments as if they were the last word that Congress would utter regarding the funding of the SEC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the IRS, and the GSA. Rather, I believe that in the Senate, and in the Conference committee, the support registered for the Frank and Holt Amendments will bolster the claim of those trying to provide adequate funding for the SEC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but will not undercut those of us seeking adequate funding for the IRS and GSA. My support for IRS funding does not mean that I do not think that there needs to be significant reform of the IRS, its operations, and in some hopefully rare cases, the manner in which it treats tax payers.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my practice to vote present on a legislative proposal when I agree with the purposes and sentiment behind the proposal, but I believe that the particular legislative proposal is not drafted in a way which will achieve its objective or in a way that is effective and practicable, or where I believe that the language will have unintended consequences. I voted present on the motion to recommit which came before the House today. I strongly believe that we should take all reasonable steps to encourage companies to provide employment in the U.S. and to discourage offshoring and outsourcing.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I was relieved yesterday when doctors said that they were confident that the assassin had not taken Gabby's life. And I am confident that that assassin did not take from our people the right to peaceably assemble and to tell their elected representatives their ideas and, yes, their grievances. I look forward to 2 years from now and 2 years after that and 2 years after that, to sitting here on this floor with Gabby and waiting until she is called upon to read the First Amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. We come together today as a Nation to mourn those who died in Arizona and to pray for the full recovery of those still lying in hospital beds in Tucson. Gabby Giffords has captured the love and admiration of this entire country as America has come to know her through news reports, just as we have come to know her over the last 4 years as the most delightful and engaging Member of this House, and as a woman who brought intelligence and determination to the service of this country. The last time I had a chance to spend time with Gabby was just 6 days ago. We were here on the House floor. As it happens, we sat next to each other as we waited our turn to be assigned a portion of the Constitution to be read. We had a chance to listen to each passage, to speak briefly about some of the salient provisions. And as they got down the line to where we were sitting, it became apparent that Gabby would be called upon to read the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that I would be called upon to read the considerably less august Third Amendment. For just a selfish instant, I wondered why luck couldn't have been just a little different. If we had been sitting just one seat over, then I could have stood here and talked about freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But providence had determined otherwise, had determined that Gabby Giffords should stand on this floor and have the honor of reading the First Amendment, an amendment that is best known for its earlier clauses but which ends with the words that enshrine the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The day after she read those words at this podium, she flew home to Arizona so she could stand in front of a Safeway, intending to meet people peaceably assembled, and listen to people petition for a redress of their grievances.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. The Third Amendment: ``No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Let me first correct the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, when he says that this bill would make the Social Security trust fund less solvent. Every penny that the Social Security trust fund doesn't receive from payroll taxes it gets from the general fund. But let me especially correct him when he says, oh, the other way to pay for this is by canceling the TARP bill. We canceled the TARP bill six months, seven months ago. He voted against the bill, but that bill passed, was enacted, and returned $225 billion to the Treasury. Having done that once, we can't make money by just doing it again. The Republican Senators held this country hostage, they held the middle class tax cuts hostage, they held the American economy hostage. President Obama agreed to pay the ransom. Now the question before this House is, do we block that ransom payment? The problem is that if we do not make the ransom payment this month, President Obama will be willing to pay just a little bit more next month. So today we will do what we have to do.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Republican Senators have held America hostage, held the American economy hostage, held hostage the middle class. And the President agreed to pay the ransom. Now that ransom can be paid this month with the consent not only of the President, but the Senators and this House. So we can stop the ransom from being paid until the end of the year. And at that point, the President will still be willing to pay the ransom, and the ransom will go up. If the ransom is going to be paid, let us pay it before it goes up. Knowing that the President had agreed to the major and expensive changes that the Republican Senators demanded, I sought to amend this bill only in a modest way, only to the extent that we could do the deal by the end of the year. And I put forward an amendment that would not increase the cost of the bill by a penny or reduce the tax cuts that the Republicans have been asking for by a penny. I asked only that instead of the payroll tax holiday that needlessly involves the Social Security trust fund and comingles general funds with the Social Security trust fund, that we send out checks as soon as possible so that the money the Republicans have already agreed should go to working families would get to them perhaps in time to pay this year's Christmas bills. Unfortunately, no effort was made at the highest levels to secure the support of even a couple of Republican Senators for that kind of minor tweaking. And so we stand today with only one choice: pay the ransom now, or pay more ransom later. This is not a place Democrats want to be. But, ultimately, it is better to pay the ransom today than to watch the President pay even more--and I think he'd be willing to pay a bit more--next month. Therefore, we are going to have to swallow hard. We are going to see an estate tax law so bad that for the richest families where someone died in 2010, the tax rate is going to be less than zero. The family will be able to choose zero, or choose huge reductions in future income taxes. And they will be well advised, and they will pick whatever costs the Treasury the most money, and we will collect less than zero from those families. We will see those with an income--not mere millionaires but people with $1 million in annual income--get tax relief that they won't spend and don't particularly need. The choice is to pay the ransom now, or to watch it go up next month.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I'll be voting ``yes'' on the amendment, and if it fails, as I expect it will, I'll be voting ``yes'' on the bill. I'll vote ``yes'' on the amendment, because we ought to have a fair estate tax in this country. But, instead, Republicans insist that we increase the deficit $28 billion over the next 2 years in order to provide the lowest tax rates in 80 years on the richest few dozen families in each of our States. We should care about the deficit. And to say that the tax rate included in the amendment is unfair is to say that every Republican voted for an unfair tax when they voted for the Bush tax law that was applicable to 2009. Furthermore, another problem with the estate tax in the bill is that it provides a rate of tax for those deaths that occur in 2010 that is less than zero because the richest families can choose between a zero tax rate or huge write-offs on their income tax, which might be even lower, and they'll get the best possible tax advice. Finally, under this bill you're going to have some people who realize that if the patriarch of the family dies this year, they save tens of millions of dollars over next year. I hope that no plugs are pulled. I am going to vote for the bill only because of one question, Compared to what? If we do not send this bill to the President's desk this year, he will certainly sign a worse bill next year. It is not clear that House Democrats were at the table in the December negotiations, but it is clear that House Republicans will be at the table for the negotiations in January on this bill. The President and Democrats in the Senate have already agreed to this deal and I fear that they would agree to something a little bit worse. So it is with great reluctance that I will vote for this bill, should the amendment fail.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I come here to address the House on economic issues facing us this month and next month. And I come here to talk about the good, the bad and the ugly. First, the good. The Federal Reserve Board is going to buy $600 billion worth of long- term bonds, quantitative easing. This will increase America's share of the American market for manufacturers' goods. That's why it has been condemned by China, Germany and Japan, because they know it means moving jobs from Germany, Japan and China to the United States. This is an effective tool that is reversible. We can expand the money supply now, and then the Federal Reserve Board can reverse its action when the economy improves. Therefore, it involves no increase in the money supply that is permanent and, of course, involves no increase in our national debt. The unemployment rate is over 9.6 percent. We need to act to bring down that unemployment rate. And the Fed is to be commended. This does not mean that its decision is risk free. Just, given all the risk that we're confronted with, this is a good move. And the fact that the countries that are running giant trade surpluses with it have condemned us gives it an additional advantage. Second, the bad. The tax proposals, and I focus here only on the tax proposals of the Simpson-Bowles proposal, they have offered three different versions of their tax proposal and I will address what they call the Wyden-Gregg approach. There are two other approaches, the zero plan, which is even worse than the one I'm going to describe, and a third option of basically doing nothing except inviting the Ways and Means Committee to earn their salary and to look at our tax law. Now, I was anxious to embrace this proposal because we need to see shared sacrifice. We all are looking for a way to pay down the debt, and I, for one, was willing to embrace a program of shared sacrifice and austerity. But Messrs. Bowles and Simpson have given sacrifice a bad name by using our desire for shared sacrifice to disguise a giant tax cut for large corporations. In the name of austerity and shared sacrifice we are told that the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans needs to be cut to 35%--roughly a 12% cut in their tax rate. And we are told that the corporate tax rate needs to be cut by a quarter. This in the name of increasing revenue. This in the name of austerity and shared sacrifice. No. This in the name of using the debt crisis as an opportunity to shift wealth and power and income from the middle class to corporate elites and the very wealthy. Now, it is true that they talk about reducing certain corporate tax expenditures, but only in vague terms, only to a small degree. It is basically a dramatic decline in corporate tax, in the revenue of the corporate income tax. Now, finally on to the ugly. We have been told by our Republican colleagues on so many occasions that the worst thing we could do is increase taxes in the middle of a recession; yet the Republican proposals, all of them, involve a dramatic increase for working families going into effect this next year, namely by allowing the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, the so-called Obama tax cuts, $800 for every working couple, $400 for every working single, expire at the end of this year. I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring our colleague Scott Murphy's bill to extend this $800/$400 tax credit. With all the talk of extending the Bush tax cuts, with all the talk for those who make more than a quarter million dollars a year, we should not forget that the Obama tax cuts expire at the end of this year, and for well more than half of all American families, the Obama tax cuts are more important than the Bush tax cuts. Now, why is nobody even talking about extending the Obama tax cuts? Because no one with an income of over $150,000 a year gets any of that benefit. So when we have a tax cut that is targeted at working families that is more important than the Bush tax cuts to over half of American families, we see this tax cut about to expire without any discussion from those who tell us that the worst possible thing would be to increase anyone's taxes in the middle of a recession. I do not want to hear about spending $700 billion over the next 10 years to provide tax relief to the top 1 percent. I do not want to hear that from those who are talking about increasing taxes on more than half of America's working families. It is time to extend the Obama tax cut. I look forward to working in a bipartisan way to provide tax relief to get this economy moving again and then to shift to fiscal austerity, but allowing the Obama tax cuts to expire and then cutting corporate income tax by one quarter is not the way to go.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I come here to address the House on economic issues facing us this month and next month. And I come here to talk about the good, the bad and the ugly. First, the good. The Federal Reserve Board is going to buy $600 billion worth of long- term bonds, quantitative easing. This will increase America's share of the American market for manufacturers' goods. That's why it has been condemned by China, Germany and Japan, because they know it means moving jobs from Germany, Japan and China to the United States. This is an effective tool that is reversible. We can expand the money supply now, and then the Federal Reserve Board can reverse its action when the economy improves. Therefore, it involves no increase in the money supply that is permanent and, of course, involves no increase in our national debt. The unemployment rate is over 9.6 percent. We need to act to bring down that unemployment rate. And the Fed is to be commended. This does not mean that its decision is risk free. Just, given all the risk that we're confronted with, this is a good move. And the fact that the countries that are running giant trade surpluses with it have condemned us gives it an additional advantage. Second, the bad. The tax proposals, and I focus here only on the tax proposals of the Simpson-Bowles proposal, they have offered three different versions of their tax proposal and I will address what they call the Wyden-Gregg approach. There are two other approaches, the zero plan, which is even worse than the one I'm going to describe, and a third option of basically doing nothing except inviting the Ways and Means Committee to earn their salary and to look at our tax law. Now, I was anxious to embrace this proposal because we need to see shared sacrifice. We all are looking for a way to pay down the debt, and I, for one, was willing to embrace a program of shared sacrifice and austerity. But Messrs. Bowles and Simpson have given sacrifice a bad name by using our desire for shared sacrifice to disguise a giant tax cut for large corporations. It needs to be cut by a quarter. This in the name of increasing revenue. This in the name of austerity and shared sacrifice. No. This in the name of using the debt crisis as an opportunity to shift wealth and power and income from the middle class to corporate elites and the very wealthy. Now, it is true that they talk about reducing certain corporate tax expenditures, but only in vague terms, only to a small degree. It is basically a dramatic decline in corporate tax, in the revenue of the corporate income tax. Now, finally on to the other. We have been told by our Republican colleagues on so many occasions that the worst thing we could do is increase taxes in the middle of a recession; yet the Republican proposals, all of them, involve a dramatic increase for working families going into effect this next year, namely by allowing the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, the so-called Obama tax cuts, $800 for every working couple, $400 for every working single, expire at the end of this year. I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring our colleague Scott Murphy's bill to extend this $800/$400 tax credit. With all the talk of extending the Bush tax cuts, with all the talk for those who make more than a quarter million dollars a year, we should not forget that the Obama tax cuts expire at the end of this year, and for well more than half of all American families, the Obama tax cuts are more important than the Bush tax cuts. Now, why is nobody even talking about extending the Obama tax cuts? Because no one with an income of over $150,000 a year gets any of that benefit. So when we have a tax cut that is targeted at working families that is more important than the Bush tax cuts to over half of American families, we see this tax cut about to expire without any discussion from those who tell us that the worst possible thing would be to increase anyone's taxes in the middle of a recession. I do not want to hear about spending $700 billion over the next 10 years to provide tax relief to the top 1 percent. I do not want to hear that from those who are talking about increasing taxes on more than half of America's working families. It is time to extend the Obama tax cut. I look forward to working in a bipartisan way to provide tax relief to get this economy moving again and then to shift to fiscal austerity, but allowing the Obama tax cuts to expire and then cutting corporate income tax by one quarter is not the way to go.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify that when I cosponsor a bill, it does not necessarily mean that I agree with every part of it. At a minimum, my cosponsorship indicates that I support moving the bill forward through the legislative process, including being marked up in committee, and if sent to the floor by the relevant committee(s), then subject to consideration and amendment on the floor.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today out of concern for the people of Pakistan who have been affected by the catastrophic flooding this monsoon season. As reports continue to emerge detailing ever- increasing numbers of displaced families and deaths, I want to express my deepest sympathy for the victims of this tragedy. Estimates indicate that over 20 million people are affected by the flooding and over 1,600 have died. In addition, almost 900,000 homes have been destroyed or damaged. According to the UN, millions of people went unaided in the days and weeks after the flooding began. We must also remember that even after the waters recede, the lack of shelter, food, and clean water may bring ongoing suffering. And as croplands and farming equipment are destroyed, the threat of future famine looms. The devastation these floods have wrought is widespread and affects people in multiple Pakistani provinces. In the Sindh province alone, estimates from August 10th indicate that 1.4 million people and 2,534 villages have been affected by the floods, and as of August 18th new flood warnings continue to be issued. Through communications with the Sindhi-American community over the past year, I have learned of the challenges that the Sindh and other provinces face. These floods have exacerbated the situation. We must ensure that our relief efforts reach all affected people and do not inadvertently neglect the individual regions. The U.S. has responded rapidly trying to provide relief assistance, and it is my hope that our efforts will continue to ensure that the death and disease tolls do not rise as winter approaches. Through September 14th, total U.S. government assistance reached over $300 million. Much of the assistance provided by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development has been distributed in partnership with several international agencies including the United Nations and the Red Cross. While the U.S. continues to play a leadership role in the global effort to assist the people of Pakistan in this difficult time, it is my sincere hope that our efforts reach all those affected by this tragedy. I raise this concern in light of troubling reports that followed the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir. Even one year after that devastating event, Oxfam reported that administrative bottlenecks and corruption had stymied progress toward reconstruction. We must ensure that such an occurrence is not repeated. Last year, Congress passed The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 which is now public law. Title III of this legislation was written to ensure that U.S. assistance reaches all the people of Pakistan fairly and equitably. I wish to reiterate the concerns that prompted this title and to urge the agencies spearheading our relief efforts to follow appropriate protocols for monitoring the assistance related to the recent floods.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I wish to speak today about an injustice that has been taking place in Cyprus for the last 36 years. In 1974, when hostilities broke out on the small island, Turkey began its military occupation of more than one-third of Cypriot land. Nearly ten years later, the Turks declared this land to be the ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus''. To this day, the only country to recognize this declaration is Turkey, which still illegally occupies the northern part of Cyprus. Currently there are about 36,000 Turkish troops occupying the North of Cyprus. They stand as a physical manifestation of the barrier Turkey is putting up against Cypriot reunification. Turkey has made other efforts to discourage reunification. According to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Turkey has deliberately and continuously modified the demographics of the island, and they have enacted a system of ``naturalization'' that encourages mainland Turks to move to Cyprus. This occupation is made all the more tragic by its needlessness. Thirteen million Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots have crossed into each others communities without incident. They seek to live together as neighbors in countries to which they have emigrated. There is no reason for these peoples to be divided. We have reason to be hopeful--Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders have been engaged in UN-sponsored negotiations since September 2008 to reunify the island. The United States has an important role to play in the reunification of Cyprus. We must ensure that we are doing all we can to make the island unified once more by working with the European Union, Turkey, and all citizens of Cyprus toward a peaceful and fair resolution of this decades-old conflict.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I should note that I sometimes submit amendments to committees so that they are available for discussion. I do not necessarily support any amendment drafted by myself and my staff unless I formally offer the amendment. Accordingly, no conclusion can be drawn from the process of simply providing the text of a possible amendment to the clerk of any committee.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, many of us are honoring Mr. Ron Gettelfinger whose second term as president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) is coming to a close. I would like to add my thanks to Mr. Gettelfinger for his service to this important American institution. Rising through the ranks from local UAW leadership to president, Mr. Gettelfinger has stood at the helm of the UAW during one of our nation's most tumultuous economic periods. Mr. Gettelfinger first joined the UAW as a chassis line repairman in Louisville, Kentucky, and, over his 44 years with the organization, he has seen many changes in the American automobile industry. Still now, as when it began, the United Auto Workers continues its nearly 80 year fight on behalf of this nation's workers. The UAW seeks to ensure that all of America's workers are rewarded for their contribution to our country's economy and continue to live their lives in dignity. I commend Mr. Gettelfinger for his contribution to the UAW's important work.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. At best, we have a fragile recovery from a massive recession caused by a precipitous decline in home prices. Now, I know the gentleman is well-intentioned, but nothing is more likely to cause a double dip in this recession than the second precipitous drop in home prices that would be caused by pulling FHA and, as the gentleman argues, Fannie and Freddie out of the home lending market. Right now, FHA is 30 percent of the home purchase finance market, about over half of that market for African Americans, 45 percent for Hispanics. Are we going to tell one-third of American home buyers, almost half or over half Hispanics and African Americans seeking to buy homes, that they are not going to be able to buy those homes? Because, if they can't get FHA financing, the private sector may be there, but at much higher rates. And there is no way that these individuals will be able to afford to buy those homes. With fewer buyers, you will see a precipitous decline in prices. That devastates communities further, devastates the American economy further. FHA is actuarially sound. It charges fees for the services and the guarantees that it provides. And to cut its role in the market by a third as part of an overall policy designed to take FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac out of the market ignores the fact that, in these troubled times, those three entities--FHA, Fannie, and Freddie--account for almost all of the home mortgages obtained by middle-class and working families. So we should defeat the gentleman's amendment. And I want to point out it is opposed by the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, and the Mortgage Bankers Association.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield myself the remainder of the time. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's definition of ``risk'' and his arithmetic are a bit faulty. To say that $1 billion of smaller loans carries less risk than $1 billion of larger loans is not something one can determine except by looking at the performance of those loans. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) pointed out, those larger loans perform better. The FHA, therefore, has less insurance risk and, actually, usually, makes a profit on those loans. So to say that loans in Los Angeles take away from loans in Ohio and expose the Federal Government to more risk than loans in Ohio is simply false.

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

Mr. SHERMAN. A quick inquiry: Do I have the right to close, or does the gentleman from Ohio have the right to close?

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.