Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today to urge the House to suspend the rules and adopt H.R. 1042, the Net Worth Amendment For Credit Unions Act. I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, for bringing this issue before the Committee on Financial Services in a timely manner. I would also like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and members of the committee who joined with Chairman Bachus and me in sponsoring this somewhat technical but important legislation. H.R. 1042 addresses a potential problem for a growing number of credit unions that arises under the Basel II negotiations on international capital accounting standards. In 1996, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, known as FASB, and the International Accounting Standards Board, initiated a joint project to develop a single uniform standard for assessing the value of the assets and liabilities acquired in business mergers and acquisitions. The effort resulted in the issuing of FASB statement 141 back in June of 2001. This statement required the use of the ``purchase method'' of accounting as the most appropriate standard for assuring that the assets of an acquired business will be uniformly measured at their fair market value at the time of acquisition. Thus, FASB abolished the then very popular ``pooling method'' of accounting, which had been widely used to measure the assets of surviving credit unions in credit union mergers. The pooling method had permitted the combining of the retained earnings of both the surviving and the merged credit unions to determine the net worth of the surviving credit union. Under the purchase method, which is now required under FASB 141, the retained earnings of the merged credit union must be listed as ``acquired equity,'' a concept that did not exist at the time the Federal Credit Union Act was last amended on this issue. Currently the Credit Union Act recognizes only retained earnings in calculating a credit union's net worth and its net worth ratio. Accounting procedures that fail to recognize that the retained earnings of the merged credit union would seriously reduce the postmerger net worth ratio of the surviving credit union. This could have the effect of discouraging a number of needed mergers between smaller or weaker credit unions with a healthy credit union, and it could result in determinations that the surviving credit union in the merger is technically undercapitalized, even when that surviving credit union has a large amount of capital. It is simply that some of that capital is listed as ``acquired capital,'' or ``acquired equity'' a term that did not previously exist in our law, and some of it is listed as ``retained earnings.'' H.R. 1042 provides a narrow technical fix for the problem of postmerger accounting of credit union net worth. It amends the current definition of net worth for purposes of the Federal Credit Union Act to allow both retained earnings of a credit union and ``any amounts that were previously retained earnings of any other credit union with which the credit union has combined'' to be included in calculating a credit union's net worth and its net worth ratio. Where the FASB 141 standard became effective for most business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001, FASB had agreed to defer the implementation for mergers and acquisitions among so-called mutual business enterprises, including credit unions, until the end of 2005. The National Credit Union Administration approved 330 mergers involving federally insured credit unions in 2004, many of which could have resulted in technically undercapitalized credit unions if FASB 141, imposing the purchase method, had been applicable. The Agency projects a similar number of mergers in 2006 that would be adversely affected unless we pass this legislation. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1042 is bipartisan legislation which addresses a potential problem for credit unions that needs to be resolved this year, because next year FASB 141 will be applicable to mutual businesses, including credit unions. It is supported by the National Credit Union Administration, the National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors, and also by both national credit union trade associations, the Credit Union National Association, CUNA, and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, NAFCU. I am aware of no opposition to this bill, and I urge the House to suspend the rules and adopt the Net Worth Amendment for Credit Unions Act. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this resolution because it is a little too radical for where I am now, but I am tempted to vote for it because of the failure of our current policies and the blindness of those who defend them. Those who defend our current policies acknowledge that free trade puts pressure on countries to race to the bottom on environmental and labor standards so they can be the low-cost, high-value producer. But the real disconnect is between the theory of free trade and on-the- ground business reality. Those who defend the WTO live in a world of theory in which business and consumers will buy American goods if they are good values, subject only to the written transparent regulations and tariff laws of their country. This theory is true in the United States where our businesses and consumers are happy to buy. We have lowered our tariffs, we have lowered our regulations and barriers, and there has been an explosion of imports to the United States. But the theory is false as to China and many other nations. In those countries, their written laws are almost irrelevant; and so we negotiate hard, we open our markets in return for a change of China's written laws, and then we are surprised when changing those laws does nothing to open their markets and the average person in China buys less than 3 cents, I believe it is, of goods and services from America every day. Why is this? Because their businesses are told orally, do not buy from America unless you get a co-production agreement, do not buy from America unless you get a disclosure of our technology and our manufacturing techniques. So when an airline in the United States goes to decide which airplane to buy, it does so on economic factors. When China buys, they demand that more and more production be shifted to China. No wonder we have this huge trade deficit and the dollar is certainly in peril.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Theodore Bikel, a Renaissance man who has made his mark as an accomplished musician, actor, author, lecturer, and activist. Throughout his life, Theodore has been committed to arts awareness, human rights, and Jewish activism, and his service to the Los Angeles community and the world has been truly remarkable. Theodore was born in 1924, in Vienna, Austria. At the age of 13, Theodore and his parents fled Austria to avoid Nazi persecution. They eventually settled in Palestine, where Theodore began to develop a deep respect for Jewish tradition and the performing arts. He soon began acting in the famous Habimah Theater. After a few years of training, Theodore left for London, where he performed in small theatre productions. He eventually caught the attention of Sir Laurence Olivier and was cast as Mitch in ``A Streetcar Named Desire.'' After his initial success, Theodore went on to star in Broadway productions of ``The Sound of Music'', ``The Lark'' and ``The King and I,'' but he is most famous for his portrayal of the character Tevye in ``The Fiddler on the Roof,'' a role he has played more than 2,000 times. Theodore later branched into film, and in 1959 he was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award for his role as the Southern Sheriff in ``The Defiant Ones.'' In 1965, Theodore made his concert debut at the Carnegie Recital Hall, and in 1988 he won an Emmy Award for his portrayal of Harris Newmark, an early immigrant pioneer of the West Coast. In recognition of his inspirational work on stage, Theodore will be honored this spring with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Off stage, Theodore has used his talents to advance causes near to his heart. During the Civil Rights Movement, he helped produce the album ``Sing'' for Freedom: Civil Rights Movement Songs. He has also dedicated himself to human rights movements around the world, visiting and entertaining soldiers during the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and serving as a board member of Amnesty International. Back home, Theodore has been president of the Actors' Equity Association and a member of President Carter's National Council on the Arts. Throughout his life, Theodore has also made serving the Jewish community a priority. Most notably, he has been involved in the Soviet Jewry movement and has served as senior vice president in the American Jewish Congress. In the Los Angeles Jewish community, Theodore has collaborated with Rabbi David Baron and cofounded Temple Shalom for the Arts in Los Angeles. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Theodore Bikel, an influential leader, a visionary artist, and a talented individual whose spirit and activism have inspired our generation and will undoubtedly touch generations to come.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address just one aspect of the funding resolution. I have come to this floor before with my concerns that mass mailings have been sent by a particular committee. We as Members of the House have constituents that we need to keep in touch with, but a committee has as its constituents only the members of that committee. A committee does not answer to the whole people of the United States; it answers to this House and to its Members. This funding resolution makes it clear that the mass mailings of any committee cannot exceed over $5,000 in postage in any year. Basically, that means no effort to reach out to an entire community, an entire congressional district, with an ideological message. For that reason, I want to commend the ranking member and the Chair for putting to rest that issue, at least for as long as this funding resolution is operative. I would also point out that it is my understanding that this funding resolution calls for any mass mailings sent by a committee to go to the Franking Commission. I want to thank the leader of our party for appointing me to that commission, where I will serve with our ranking member (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and others. So I am confident that the mailings of committees will be limited to committee business, will not be so massive as to try to affect the views of an entire congressional district, and will follow the rules of the House as to manner and content. So I once again commend the chairman and commend the ranking member.

Mr. SHERMAN

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

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) summarized well the reasons for voting for this bill. If I had more forbearance, I would simply sit down, but I have a really nicely written speech here and will use a few minutes, hopefully abbreviating it, since so many of its points have already been covered. Mr. Speaker, I will put into the Record at this point a letter in support of this bill from the National Association of Federal Credit Unions. National Association of Federal Credit Unions, Arlington, VA, April 26, 2005. Hon. Mike Oxley, Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Barney Frank, Ranking Member, House Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank: On behalf of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), the only national trade association that exclusively represents the interests of our nation's federal credit unions, I want to reiterate our support for the Expanded Access to Financial Services Act of 2005 (H.R. 749) and urge the House to bring up and pass this key legislation. NAFCU fully supports the merits of this bill, since abuses are rampant in communities where immigrants rely on money transfer companies to send remittances to family members and others in their country of origin. Unfortunately, money transfer companies oftentimes charge exorbitant fees on those sending remittances, while imposing poor exchange rates. For example, a $1000 money transfer to Mexico via IRnet would cost $10, while the same transaction via Western Union would cost between $30 and $50 depending on the Western Union location. Also, the credit union providing the transfer may be successful in converting an un-banked potential member into a member. In reality, and in far too many cases, the costs associated with sending such remittances is essentially nothing more than another form of predatory lending. Many people do not know that credit unions can provide a lower cost and better alternative to these predatory practices. As such, NAFCU is pleased that a number of our member credit unions currently offer remittance services to their members. Last year, in testimony before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Services and Consumer Credit during a hearing on the issue of regulatory relief for credit unions on July 20, 2004, NAFCU Board Secretary and Xerox FCU President & CEO Bill Cheney testified: ``. . . NAFCU supports efforts to allow federal credit unions to offer check-cashing and money-transfer services to anyone within the credit union's field of membership. We believe this new authority, which would be discretionary and not mandatory, will allow credit unions to help combat abuses by non-traditional financial institutions that prey on our nation's immigrants and others who live and work in underserved communities.'' That statement remains true today. The credit union industry continues to work on the front line to combat financial illiteracy and to teach consumers about sound financial practices. NAFCU believes that H.R. 749 is a good step forward in creating an alternative to those who have no choices in traditional financial services. Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to share our support for H.R. 749. We hope that the House is able to bring up and take action on this legislation in a timely manner. If you or your staff have any questions regarding remittances abuses and how credit unions can be used to help address these problems, please do not hesitate to call on me or NAFCU's Director of Legislative Affairs, Brad Thaler. Sincerely, Fred R. Becker, Jr., President and CEO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 749 would allow credit unions to provide lifeline services; that is to say international remittances, wire transfers, and check-cashing services to nonmembers who are within the credit union's field of membership. Now, a credit union is restricted and serves a restricted number of people. Some credit unions are based on employment, and so you may have a credit union that serves the textile workers of Los Angeles. You might have another credit union geographically based that serves the northeast San Fernando Valley. This bill only allows a credit union to serve those who are within its field of membership, who are eligible to become members of a credit union. And it makes good sense to allow those who fit within the field of membership, but are not yet members of the credit union, to get these lifeline services. These lifeline services are often priced very high, whether it be check-cashing on the one hand, or international remittances on the other. And to instead provide additional competition so that credit unions can bring the price of these services down would be very helpful to those at the very bottom of our economic ladder. As the gentleman from Delaware points out, it also brings people who do not have a relationship with a financial institution into a financial institution. It gives them a chance to move from nonmembers who are making use of the check cashing and remittance services, to members who have a checking account, and then gradually a savings account, a credit history, and a real piece of the American financial pie, if you will; a chance to participate with all of the services that the financial institutions of this country provide. Now, consumers who are sending remittances now, sometimes they are paying as much as 15 percent of the amount that they plan to send. So if you are sending $300 back to your parents in Mexico, you may spend $45, and this bill will provide additional competition in the international remittance area, where many credit unions providing services to those who are already members often provide these services for only $14 or less per transaction. By bringing people into credit unions, credit unions can do what they do best, and that is serve those who are within their field of membership and begin the process of providing financial education, combating predatory lending, and bringing people into the financial system. Today, more than 200 credit unions already provide to their members wire transfer services to almost 650 points of service in 40 countries. So the credit unions are well positioned to provide these wire transfer and international remittance services. In 2003, the Credit Union National Association adopted a group of principles designed to guide their members when providing these international remittance services. They basically say that credit unions should disclose the cost of the transaction in their advertising and brochures and in dealings with the customer, that the credit unions will provide current exchange rate information before conducting the transaction; that they will tell the customer the exact amount of foreign currency to be received by the recipient; and they will tell the sender when the funds will be available to the recipient. These kinds of high principles are important for those in the international remittance business, and to have credit unions more involved in that business and subject to those principles is an important step forward. As the gentleman from Delaware pointed out, the size of the international remittance business is quite large. In fact, it is estimated at least at $10 billion annually. It is expected to double by the end of this decade, and there are some estimates that place it well above $10 billion annually now. I should also mention that nearly half of the Latinos in this country do not have an account with a mainstream financial institution, and that is why it is so important in dealing with that immigrant community, as well as other immigrant communities from elsewhere in the world, that we provide this opportunity for credit unions to provide international remittance services. I should also take a moment to recognize the work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) who has been the leader in dealing with all of the various aspects of the remittance, international remittance issues, and to recognize my friend, the gentleman from the Inland Empire (Mr. Baca) who provided a clarifying and perfecting amendment to this legislation. I believe that this legislation will help credit unions provide services to those who need them, will drive down the price of those services, and will introduce people to our financial institutions. I urge an aye vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the only one to come to this floor to oppose this bill. I will try to yield back at least a few minutes to the gentleman and hopefully they will be available should my comments result in comments of others that need rebuttal. I support science. It is important to America. It is important to my district. But as we look at what we can accomplish, we also have to examine what we should try to accomplish. While we expand the tools of the human race, we must also look at the pitfalls. This is an issue that I have been talking about for a long time. I first brought it to the floor 5 years ago and that is best illustrated by the fact that roughly 50,000 years ago was the last time that a new level of intelligence came to this planet. It was our ancestors, who said hello to Neanderthal, the only other intelligence on the planet that we were aware of at the time. It did not work out so well for the Neanderthal. Today we are as a species looking at two exciting new technologies, each which is likely to create an entity, a life form, with a higher level of intelligence than human beings; and, in fact, a higher level by a differential that exceeds whatever differential there was between human beings and Neanderthals. One of these technologies is genetic engineering. And if this was a genetic engineering bill, I would not get to speak on it as long because there would be more members to speak against it, worried about the societal implications. But genetic engineering raises questions that should also be raised by computer engineering, because the kind of high-technology, high-performance computer which is the subject of the bill is an important step towards the development of an artificial life form that will exceed human intelligence. We had hearings 2 years ago in the Committee on Science where the consensus of experts and I did not invite any of these experts, senior committee members did, (chiefly the chairman) they testified that we are roughly 25 years away from a computer that exceeds human intelligence. Now, I do not know whether it is 25 years or whether it is a bit longer or a bit less, but should we go headlong into developing the next intelligent species on this planet without even including, in the slightest, in our legislation something to say ``let us examine whether this is something we want to do, and whether we want to have any controls.'' The truth is, Mr. Speaker, we do not know whether we are creating Data from ``Star Trek, The Next Generation,'' or whether we are creating Hal from ``2001: A Space Odyssey.'' We know that the future will look like science fiction. We just do not know which science fiction book or movie. Last year when the Committee on Science considered this same bill as H.R. 4218, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and I reached an agreement on an amendment that would provide for looking at the societal implications of future advances in information technology. That amendment was included in the bill that passed this House. Specifically, it directed the National Science Foundation to support research into the implications of computers, both hardware and software, that were capable of mimicking human ability to learn to reason and to make decisions. Likewise, the nanotechnology bill which passed both houses, and is now law, provided for even more extensive review into the societal implications, including explicitly the implications of developing levels of intelligence that exceeds those of human beings. But H.R. 28 strips out the provisions that were included in prior legislation. This draft says we will do nothing to look at the societal, the ethical, the environmental implications of what we are doing, and we will rush headlong into trying to do it without the slightest thought of whether we should do it. My amendment in committee was defeated 17-19 on what was unfortunately, and inexplicably a party-line vote. My amendment put forward just a few weeks ago was identical to the compromise language the chairman and I reached in the 108th Congress. Now, the importance of understanding how artificial intelligence will be achieved through information technology, how it will impact society--that importance has not decreased since last year. The amendment should be included before this bill leaves this House. Now, I know there are those who say it is okay to create a computer that exceeds human intelligence and that is self-aware because it will not have hands and will not be able to act except through human beings. Trust me, there are those amongst us who would sell hands to the devil for a good stock tip. If you create Pandora's box, it will be opened. Now, H.R. 28 deals with the creation of high-performance computers; and as I said and want to say again, the testimony before our committee was that we are 25 years, and this is not one crackpot, this was a consensus; the range was 20 to 30 years between now and when we develop a computer that exceeds human intelligence. And it is not just me. The DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, has on its Web page the statement that its mission, supported by this bill, is to develop a computer which will ``learn from its experience, be aware of itself, and be able to reflect on its own behavior.'' So part of our government is engaged in trying to create maybe Hal, maybe Data, while here in the Congress we pretend that it is impossible, that it is not an issue worthy of reflection. DARPA is going to create a reflective computer, but we do not have a reflective Congress. Now, I understand that H.R. 28 is an important bill to set goals and priorities in high-performance computer research development with a number of different agencies, including DARPA and its subsidiary agencies. What I do not understand is why there is such resistance to studying the implications of this research. We cannot and should not plunge ahead without a provision to study these implications. Join me in rejecting this bill on suspension. A bill with this level of implications should not be considered under a suspension of the rules. Send this bill back to the Committee on Science. Have the Committee on Science create a balanced program. Overwhelmingly, this bill should deal with supporting the technology, marching forward, achieving all of the goals that the preceding speakers have indicated. But then let us also put in the bill just a little language to say that we ought to look at the implications: Whether it is likely that this technology will create an entity more intelligent than human beings? Whether that entity is likely to be self-aware? How we could either cause or prevent such self-awareness? What are the societal and ethical implications of having a slave entity reflective, intelligent, and commanded to do what we instruct, without so much as the minimum wage? So let us pass this bill next month, after the Committee on Science can provide some balance to it.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his additional generosity. I wish to respond to the comments of the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record the section of DARPA's mission statement that I referred to previously where DARPA itself indicates that its mission, using the funds provided by this Congress, is to create a computer that is self-aware and able to reflect on its own behavior. Mr. Speaker, we have thrown around terms as to what is close and what is not. It just comes down to whether 25 years, 30 years, is something close enough for us to be concerned about, or should we be concerned about only the immediate future? I would point out that we are not going to have self-aware computers for at least 10, maybe 15 or 20 congressional elections. And so if that is how we measure time, self-aware computers are a long way away. But when we approve construction projects and roads, we do not build bridges that are going to collapse in 25 or 30 years, and we assume that human beings will be the only intelligent species using those bridges. If we are concerned when we build infrastructure for things 20, 30, 50, 100 years down the road, then we should be even more concerned with this bill. And we should not pass this bill in this form and say, well, we will worry about these issues when they come up in some subsequent decade. In addition, it is put forward that we will just have the scientists and the research community figure out how to deal with these issues. That is perhaps the problem, because if we provide the support exclusively to the hardware and software scientists and nothing to those who will consider the societal implications, the ethical implications, the philosophical implications--then no one will be looking at those issues, then we will not have done our job to provide a balanced, scientific research bill. That is why I am voting ``no.'' The material I referred to previously is as follows: DARPA Strategic Plan: Section 3.7: Cognitive Computing (Released February 2005) Many elements of the information technology revolution that have vastly improved the effectiveness of the U.S. forces and transformed American society (e.g., time-sharing, personal computers, and the Internet) were given their impetus by J.C.R. Licklider, a visionary scientist at DARPA some 40 years ago. Licklider's vision was of people and computers working symbiotically. He envisioned computers seamlessly adapting to people as partners that would handle routine information processing tasks, thus freeing the people to focus on what they do best--think analytically and creatively--and greatly extend their cognitive powers. As we move to an increasingly network-centric military, the vision of intelligent, cooperative computing systems responsible for their own maintenance is more relevant than ever. Despite the enormous progress in information technology over the years, information technology still falls well short of Licklider's vision. While computing systems are critical to U.S. national defense, they remain exceedingly complex, expensive to create, insecure, frequently incompatible, and prone to failure. And, they still require the user to adapt to them, rather than the other way around. Computers have grown ever faster, but they remain fundamentally unintelligent and difficult to use. Something dramatically different is needed. In response, DARPA is revisiting Licklider's vision as its inspiration for the strategic thrust, ``Cognitive Computing.'' Cognitive computers can be thought of as systems that know what they're doing. Cognidtive computing systems ``reason'' about their environments (including other systems), their goals, and their own capabilities. They will ``learn'' both from experience and by being taught. They will be capable of natural interactions with users, and will be able to ``explain'' their reasoning in natural terms. They will be robust in the face of surprises and avoid the brittleness and fragility of expert systems. The benefits from this cognitive computing thrust will be profound. The increasing complexity of military systems means that the level of expertise needed to maintain them is also increasing--as are the staffing requirements for virtually every military function that uses computing and communications technology. By creating systems that know what they are doing, and that can configure, maintain, and adapt themselves, we will be able to drastically reduce the staff needed for operations centers, forward command posts, and even in support of small dismounted units and special operations teams. Cognitive computing technology will also help us to deal with the increasing tempo of operations and the complexity of plans, such as Air Tasking Orders and joint hostage rescue operations plans, by allowing computers to tap into the accumulated knowledge of past experience on behalf of their human partners. Along these lines, DARPA's Personalized Assistant that Learns (PAL) program will create intelligent personalized assistants for many tasks, such as a commander's assistant, an intelligence analyst's assistant, or a decision-maker's executive assistant. These assistants will interact with their human partners by accepting direct, naturally expressed guidance to learn their partner's preferences and procedures. Then, they will be able to anticipate the human's needs and prepare materials to be ready just in time for them. These new and unprecedented artificial helpers should reduce military staffing needs in many key places and will help ensure decisions are made in a timely fashion and with the best possible preparation. To meet these challenges and seize these opportunities, DARPA has structured its work in cognitive computing to catalyze innovative work in single cognitive systems. collaborative teams of cognitive systems, and collective cognition from large numbers of small non-cognitive elements. Each area will demonstrate the power of merging reasoning, learning, perception, and communication technologies. These areas will be supported and complemented by broad-based technology efforts in the hardware, software, and integration techniques needed. The strategic thrust of cognitive computing is a template shaping DARPA's core technology foundation work in information technology.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill shows the courage to boldly go where none have gone before, to levels of public debt and levels of trade deficits that no nation has ever tried, higher than any have dared. We have a dollar that is dependent upon our fiscal markets, a trade deficit that grows every year; and the result of this bill and its twin cousins and related Siamese twins, the other parts of the Republican tax and spend or borrow and spend policy, will be a declining dollar and a declining economy or a dollar that crashes and an economy that crashes. And this courage is all summoned up on behalf of the one quarter of 1 percent of American families it is designed to help. We require the men and women in uniform to risk the ultimate sacrifice; and from our richest families, we say zero sacrifice under the estate tax. Shame.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for yielding me this time and perhaps for mentioning what I see as the only good part of this bill. You see, I am a CPA and tax lawyer by training, and this bill is the full employment act for both my CPA friends and my tax lawyer friends. Republican after Republican has come to that microphone and talked about the electrical tax, the sales tax, the telephone tax, the payroll tax, the income tax, the marriage tax, the cable tax and the fuel tax. And what is their solution? To eliminate a tax that applies to only \1/4\ of 1 percent of America's families. Yes, that is right. They want to keep the electrical tax, the sales tax, telephone tax, payroll tax, the income tax, marriage tax, cable tax and the fuel tax. They want to vote for a bill that takes $290 billion out of the Treasury in its first 4 plus years and about $70 billion a year thereafter and make it impossible for the Federal Government to ever give any relief for those other taxes. It is a bill to shaft 99 and \3/ 4\ percent of all American families. But that does not stop there. Republican after Republican has come up here and boasted how the passage of this bill will slash charitable giving. So it is not just a loss to the Federal Treasury, it is a loss to our hospitals and a loss to our universities, who are strangely silent on this bill because they are afraid of angering \1/4\ of 1 percent of the families in the United States who happen to be a huge chunk of their donors. Let us look at the substitute. It is more fiscally responsible, costs about \1/4\ as much, but it provides more tax relief for middle-class families. Let us look at this from the standpoint of a widow, a surviving spouse. Under current law and under the Pomeroy substitute, no estate tax, no capital gains tax and little or no compliance work. Under their bill, more compliance work and sharp restrictions on the step up in basis. So this bill is an attack on working families, an attack on the middle class, and an attack on widows. They have lost their spouse, and now you want them to lose their step up in basis as well. These are people who pay zero estate tax and get zero benefit from this bill. They have lost a spouse, and that is the folks you go after. $290 billion in the first 4 plus years. It is part of an overall Republican tax package. I am on the International Relations Committee. We are waging a war on terrorism. We turn to our men and women in uniform and say, stand ready to make the ultimate sacrifice; and we turn to the richest families in America and say, you should make a zero sacrifice. Now these Republican tax policies have caused the President of the United States to call into question our intent and ability to pay U.S. government bonds. It calls into question our ability to pay our bonds. Now, the President will not warn the Chinese investors. He wants them to buy the bonds, but he has warned every Social Security recipient that we may dishonor the U.S. Government bonds held by the Social Security trustees. This bill is part of an overall plan that keeps in effect the electrical tax, the sales tax, the telephone tax, the income tax, the payroll tax, the marriage tax, the cable tax, and the fuel tax. And it is part of an overall plan that, well, I ought to write a commercial because there is a lot of public policy commercials out there, and I ought to write them for them. Allowing corporations to avoid American taxes just by renting a hotel room in the Bahamas, $8 billion. Allowing millionaires to pay virtually nothing on dividend income, $80 billion. Eliminating the estate tax even on the richest estates, $290 billion. Telling our soldiers in the field that it is the billionaire families who are the ones who have sacrificed too much for America, priceless. And the Republi-card, accepted everywhere. The very wealthy want their taxes released. And do not forget the Deficit Express Card, now with a new $12 trillion credit limit.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dorit and Shawn Evenhaim for their dedicated efforts to improve the quality of life in our community. Throughout their lives Dorit and Shawn have contributed countless hours of community service by supporting various organizations and effectively leading several groups. Their ongoing service to the San Fernando Valley is truly immeasurable. Dorit and Shawn's strong desire to serve the community dates back to their native Israel. They both grew up in Southern Israel in working class neighborhoods. Although they came from modest backgrounds, the principles and obligations of the Tzedakah were instilled at an early age. This is the Jewish ideal of aiding those who are less fortunate. This common bond that Dorit and Shawn shared growing up together eventually flourished into a romance as they served their military responsibilities in Israel. Shortly following their military service they ventured to the United States with hopes of new opportunities. Shawn quickly immersed himself in his brother's painting business. Although he had only been in the United States for a short time, by 1992 Shawn became president of a large in-fill development company in the San Fernando Valley. Soon after, Dorit encouraged Shawn to open his own development firm called California Homes in 1994. California Homes has become one of the largest in-fill home builders in the Los Angeles basin. One of the most important construction projects that Dorit and Shawn have undertaken was the creation of a new home for the Kadima Hebrew Academy in the San Fernando Valley. A member of Kadima's Board of Directors, Dorit was instrumental in convincing Shawn to take on this project. Dorit and Shawn quickly began searching for new investors who had the resources and desire to establish a new campus. Not finding the support needed, Dorit and Shawn took the search into their own hands. Shawn became aware of a private land auction in West Hills. Shawn, despite going up against several real estate investors, was the successful bidder, securing the facility and the surrounding land. Dorit and Shawn's efforts not only encompassed the purchase and acquisition of land. They were also deeply involved in all aspects of the project, using their contacts to acquire all necessary permits to expedite the process. As a result of Dorit and Shawn's efforts, San Fernando Valley residents can now take part in a unique educational experience at the newly developed campus. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Dorit and Shawn Evenhaim, amazing individuals who have dedicated their lives to the betterment of the San Fernando Valley.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for language in H.R. 3 which would permit states to exempt certain hybrid vehicles from high occupancy vehicle regulations. The legislation provides that alternative fuel vehicles as well as vehicles that achieve a highway fuel economy rating of 45 miles per gallon or greater may be exempted from HOV requirements through September 29, 2009. I would like to insert into the record a memo prepared at my request by the Congressional Research Service which analyzes the HOV provisions of H.R. 3 with respect to the treatment of hybrid vehicles. It is important to note that based on my conversations with the authors of this legislation as well as this memo, the language of H.R. 3 would permit states the flexibility regulate when and where hybrid vehicles would be exempt from HOV regulations within the state. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important that the States have the flexibility to regulate the hybrid use of HOV lanes within their state--both in terms of where hybrids will be permitted in HOV lanes and when they may be permitted. The language in H.R. 3 seems to achieve this purpose. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, March 9, 2005. Hon. Brad Sherman. Hybrid Vehicle Access to HOV Lanes Under H.R. 3 As you requested, this memorandum provides an analysis of the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) provisions in the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (H.R. 3), as reported in the House. Specifically, you asked about the treatment of hybrid vehicles in H.R. 3. Section 1208 of the bill adds a new Section 168 to Title 23 of the United States Code. Section 18(b)(4) would allow--but not require--states to exempt ``low emission and energy efficient vehicles'' from HOV requirements through September 29, 2009. The bill does not specifically address hybrid vehicles: instead, the bill provides that alternative fuel vehicles as well as vehicles that achieve a highway fuel economy rating of 45 miles per gallon or greater may be exempted. Eligible vehicles must also meet the new Tier 2 light vehicle emissions standards, and must be certified by the Environmental Protection Agency. It should be noted that a state must actively establish a program to exempt vehicles--the exemption is not automatic. Further, you asked whether states would have the authority to exempt vehicles from specific HOV lanes at specific times, or whether the state would be required to exempt vehicles from all HOV lanes. The section on vehicle exemptions states that ``the State agency may allow vehicles certified as low emission and energy-efficient vehicles . . . to use the HOV facility . . .'' In this and several other subsections, the bill refers to an ``HOV facility'' in the singular. The Federal Highway Administration treats every separate section of highway as a separate ``HOV facility.'' For example, in Virginia the HOV lanes outside of the Capital Beltway in Interstate 66, the lanes inside of the beltway on I-66, and the lanes on I-95/I-395 are all treated as separate facilities. The restrictions on time and minimum occupancy differ for all three facilities. Because of these distinctions, it appears that states could choose to exempt vehicles from one facility (i.e. highway) and not another. What is less clear is whether states could designate specific lanes (within a facility) and times. The bill requires states to ``establishes procedures for enforcing the restrictions on the use of the facility by such vehicles.'' This would seem to grant the state latitude in determining when and where low emission and energy efficient vehicles could be exempted from the HOV restrictions. However, allowing compliant vehicles exemptions at some times but not others--or in some lanes but not others--would add a level of complexity to the enforcement of HOV restrictions. It therefore seems an open question whether states would choose to exempt compliant vehicles from restrictions on all state HOV facilities, or on specific facilities without specifying which lanes could be used or at what time. It should be noted that H.R. 3, as introduced, would have required states to charge tolls for all vehicles exempted from the HOV restrictions. The version as reported allows such tolls, but does not require them. It should also be noted that states would be required to limit or discontinue the exemptions, if they were found to decrease traffic flow along the HOV lanes. Sincerely, Brad Yacobucci, Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Sciences and Industry Division.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember my colleague and friend, Bob Matsui. Both California and America have lost a respected leader and more importantly, a good man who was committed to his constituents, his family and his nation. Bob was a dedicated public servant who worked tirelessly on the behalf of his constituents. He always fought for America's children, to create economic justice, and to protect Social Security. His work, accomplishments, and life are an inspiration to all Americans. I have been honored to serve with and know Bob. Even in a partisan. and closely divided Congress, Bob always brought civility and intellect to policy debates. He was an example for all who seek to advance the best public policy. I know that his colleagues and his constituents will not soon forget Bob--his untimely passing leaves an emptiness in everyone who knew and loved him. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join with me in sending our sincerest condolences to his family. I hope that his wife, Doris, and his family can find peace in this difficult time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, Congressman John Conyers, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, in introducing the Conyers-Sherman Presidential Eligibility Constitutional Amendment. This Amendment will allow any foreign-born person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years or longer to qualify to run for President of the United States. Once enacted and ratified, this amendment will allow millions of well qualified Americans to aspire to our nation's highest office. This bill is not about the election prospects of any one man or woman. It is about the dreams of all Americans. Every year I visit high schools in the San Fernando Valley. I tell those students that America is a great country, a land of opportunity. I want to tell them that it is also a country where any child can grow up to be President of the United States. Unfortunately, for many high school students in my district, the fact that they were born in another country is a complete and unequivocal bar to the Presidency. All American children regardless of where they are born should have all the rights and responsibilities of native born Americans. All American children should be able to aspire to rise as far as their talent, energy and ability allow them, including our nation's highest office. There is no good reason to exclude Americans who will grow up to attend our colleges and universities, who will protect America in our armed forces, or who will work hard and pay their taxes, from our nation's highest office. When this Constitutional Amendment is passed and ratified each of them will have that opportunity. The exact reasons for including the natural born citizen language in the Constitution are lost to history. The meticulous record of the Constitutional Convention, kept by James Madison, hardly gives it a mention. Regardless of that lost reasoning, America is now a nation of immigrants. We are a nation that should encourage those who come here to aspire to their highest goals and loftiest dreams. Mr. Speaker, the Constitutional Amendment Mr. Conyers and I introduce today will make some of those dreams a possible reality for the first time in our history.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, first, on the choice issue, I want to commend those other speakers who have stood here and pointed out how this bill will lead to the death of women who are suffering from partial miscarriages and will lead to the partial death of our federalist system as we deny States the right to protect women in their own hospitals. Three process issues. Frist, we never debated VA-HUD on this floor. Offering amendments to appropriations bills is about the most significant thing rank-and-file Members get to do on this floor, and it illustrates the total irrelevancy of the rank-and-file of both sides when we take that important function away and nobody seems to care. It is all about leadership. And as to VA-HUD, we were not even given the right to pass amendments that could be stripped out in conference. Second, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) pointed out, we were not given a chance to read this bill. Why are we not given 3 days to read it and then we can vote on it? Why? Because we want all of Thanksgiving week off; not just 2 days, the whole week. Hey, we are going to get 2 months off because we do not want to do our work. We do not want to read that boring bill. We are going to go home without reading it, but we want to rubber stamp it first. Finally, and both parties deserve criticism over decades on this one, fiscal management. There is no corporation or major institution in this country that does not decide on its annual budget a month or two before the fiscal year begins. Do my colleagues think General Motors waits until February to figure out its budget? We should have done this bill in August.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we need to raise the debt limit this week. I vote against S. 2986 not for the purpose of causing the United States to default, but rather for the purpose of forcing a serious debate on fiscal policy. I am confident that if this motion were to be defeated, Congress would in effect go into emergency session to deal with the fiscal issues that are before us.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Father Spencer T. Kezios for his leadership and service to the community. The San Fernando Valley, and indeed the entire world community, is truly fortunate to benefit from his unyielding dedication to promoting education, religious tolerance, and peace. Father Kezios has consistently demonstrated selfless devotion to his countrymen and his faith for over forty years at the Parish of Saint Nicholas in Northridge, California. In his years of service, Father Kezios has been at the forefront of many community service organizations and efforts. Under Father Kezios's guidance, the Parish of Saint Nicholas has grown from a mission parish to a community institution offering spiritual and community-based services for over 1,200 families. Father Kezios founded the Saint Nicholas Parochial School in 1977, and over time oversaw the expansion of the school which now boasts an enrollment of almost 400 students. He was also one of the three original incorporators of the Guadalupe Home for Boys and he established the first two Greek Orthodox senior citizens housing developments in the Archdiocese. He was also assigned as Chaplain for the Los Angeles Police Department. Father Kezios had the foresight to bring several liturgical services to the English speaking community. In 1994, he translated the complete Orthros services from Greek into contemporary English and made it available for wide publication. He continues to provide liturgical translation of these texts for English speaking congregations through the Narthex Press. Some of Father Kezios's greatest achievements were attained by educating and influencing local and international communities on issues of global importance, such as religious and cultural tolerance. Archbishop Iakovos tapped Father Kezios to assist with the efforts of the Greek Orthodox Church in Albania shortly after the fall of communism in that country. Here in the United States, and at the direction of Archbishop Iakovos, Father Kezios also produced a series of five educational films, including ``A Boy Named Panatiotis,'' which exposed the American public to the hardship and suffering of the people of Cyprus after the Turkish invasion. He also produced and directed a Cyprian cultural program of music and dance that toured the United States, donating all net proceeds from these performances to refugees from Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Father Spencer T. Kezios for dedicating his life to spreading knowledge and compassion. He is an example to us all.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Richard Grossman for his devoted efforts to improving the lives of burn victims in the San Fernando Valley and the Nation. Dr. Grossman is an ally to firefighters, children, and those who have sustained burn injuries. He brings hope, comfort, and life into situations where they might otherwise seem nonexistent. Dr. Grossman is board certified in both general surgery and plastic surgery. He holds membership in numerous societies, including the American Burn Association, the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the California Medical Association, the San Fernando Valley Surgical Society, and the International Society for Burn Victims. He has been president of the Los Angeles Society of Plastic Surgeons. He has been also associated with a number of other organizations including the Foundation for Burn Research, the Los Angeles Society of Plastic Surgeons, the National Coalition of Burn Center Hospitals, the American College of Hyperbaric Medicine, and the Alisa Ann Ruch Foundation. In addition, he serves as Director of the Grossman Burn Center, Director of the Grossman Burn Unit, and Director of Research-Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy. His past involvement with the California Health Care Commission and a Judicial Nomination Evaluation Commission to the State Bar Association demonstrates Dr. Grossman's commitment to civic duty. In 1994, he was named Honorary Fire Chief for the City of Los Angeles, and was inducted into the California Department of Firefighters' Hall of Fame. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Grossman is a compassionate and sympathetic man, which is evident through his work with San Fernando Valley firefighters. His expert care of burn-injured firefighters is indispensable. He is actively involved in developing training programs for the care of burn injuries. Please join me in recognizing Dr. Richard Grossman, a distinguished physician who has made it possible for many burn victims to triumph over their injuries. His dedication and expertise provide comfort and life to many.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I voted against the Carter amendment and the Green amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. I certainly understand why my colleagues introduced these amendments. Their intention was to make us safer. However, the amendments are not drafted well enough and their operation relies on particularly vague underlying statutory definitions and agency decisions. In addition, the purpose of each amendment can be achieved under present law in virtually every case. In particular, these amendments rely upon the definition of terrorist act and terrorist organization. One would have to have overwhelming faith, perhaps even blind faith, in current and future administrations to believe that these amendments will be immune from misuse. I have seen the State Department place or remove organizations on the terrorist list, influenced, at least in substantial part, by diplomatic, political, and even trade considerations. The Carter amendment essentially attempts to create a felony murder rule for terrorist offenses. If a defendant is part of a conspiracy to commit a felony, and someone dies in commission of that felony, the harshest penalties are applied, even if the conspiracy did not envision anybody dying. I support felony murder rules, particularly those applied to violent terrorist conspiracies. Unfortunately, this amendment, in the hands of unwise or politically motivated prosecutors, could be used to seek the death penalty for those involved in a Sierra Club protest at federal facilities, if there was some tragic and perhaps unforeseeable action. I am confident that the Judiciary Committee will work on these matters in the weeks and months ahead and design legislation to bring us the safety-enhancing objectives of the foregoing amendments, without raising the same concerns.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, now Bremer has told us what went wrong in Iraq and why. He said we did not have enough troops and, specifically, we did not have enough troops in the days immediately following the fall of Saddam. This led to violence and looting immediately after that fall and created the sense of lawlessness which is killing our troops today. The question is, why did we not have enough troops? We had a plan worked out by our superb military not only to bring 200,000 troops from the south, but to bring 60,000 from the north, the Fourth Infantry Division, et cetera. When the Turkish parliament refused to let those 60,000 troops through Turkey, the President could have gone to the U.N. and got the U.N. resolution the Turkish parliament required. He could have delayed the invasion until those troops could be positioned in the south. He did neither. He was too impatient, too foolhardy with the lives of the Americans. He threw away the plan, threw away the northern half of the plan and moved on with the southern half of the plan. Mr. Speaker, no wonder so many of us who voted to empower the President are so disappointed in how he used that power.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, this is bad procedure to adopt bad tax policy. I want to get parochial and address my fellow southern Californians. This bill shafts southern California. Take a look at Roll Call. ``Studios Take a Hit in the Tax Bill.'' The article explains how America's number-one exporter, how the underpinning of our southern California economy, gets shafted in this bill. It quotes Mr. Foley by saying, ``I am sure it is not entirely based on the fact that the motion picture industry hired Dan Glickman.'' Well, it is substantially based on that. The article goes on to say that the bill neglects our number-one exporter, even though it is supposed to be an export-promotion bill, because of the hiring of Glickman. It quotes a lobbyist as saying, ``No Republican will fight for the movie industry.'' My fellow southern Californians, prove them wrong. Vote against the martial law rule, vote against the rule and vote against the bill. This is not just a shafting of southern California; it is the entry of corruption into the congressional process. It is a corrupt shafting of southern California.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues, please do not listen to this speech unless they are from California. As Californians, we, of course, care that this bill will hurt America because it encourages the export of jobs and increases the federal deficit. But we care perhaps even more that it is the most anti- California tax bill in history. If one is from Texas and they pay sales tax, they can deduct that under this bill. But if they are from California, they pay a higher rate of sales tax, and under this bill, they get no deduction. The bill contains some loophole plugs for corporations doing funny things overseas, but then it provides exemptions for four specific corporations, four Houston-based corporations. Our kids are dying from tobacco. This bill contains $10 billion for tobacco farmers, and of course, not one penny of that is going to a Californian. But what we were supposed to get out of it is FDA regulation of tobacco to save some of our kids. Well, they stripped that out of the bill so the FDA will have no power to regulate tobacco, just $10 billion goes to the tobacco farmers. This is an export promotion bill, or so it claims. California is the number one export State. The entertainment industry, based in our State, is the number one export industry. Surely, there must be something in it for California. And indeed, there is: $1 billion and more of tax increases on America's number one export industry, the entertainment industry. Why is that? Are the authors anti-California? Perhaps more, they are anti-Democrat. The Motion Picture Association hired a Democrat, Dan Glickman. In doing so, they failed to abide by the pay-to-play corrupt rules of tax lobbying. So this is a corrupt anti-California tax bill. I invite my fellow Californians, 20 of them from the Republican side of the aisle, to come on down and vote for this bill and then go to the Republican club and root for the Cardinals against the Dodgers.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, during the presidential debate, both candidates agreed that nuclear weapons in the wrong hands were the greatest threat to America. President Bush described his policy by saying we have sanctioned Iran; we cannot sanction them anymore. What an incredible falsehood. This Congress last decade passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which prevents any oil company investing in Iranian oil infrastructure from doing business in the United States. Yet the President has refused to apply this law. He gave a wink, a nod and a consent to a consortium of Japanese oil companies, revealed in the financial press, which allowed them to go forward with $2 billion of investments in Iranian oil fields. The State Department wrote to me and said that we will continue to import nonenergy items from Iran. We will continue to do business with Iran because we want them to do business with us. Who is Iran doing business with? Halliburton, doing business with Iran through its foreign subsidiaries. So when the President says we have already sanctioned Iran, we cannot sanction them anymore, what he really means is, we are going to continue to do business with Iran and we want them to do business with Halliburton.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to David W. Fleming for his dedicated contributions to improving the economy, education, and health care for the residents of the San Fernando Valley. David Fleming, an attorney who has specialized in corporate law for over forty years, provides leadership which is instrumental to many organizations committed to improving the economic development of the San Fernando Valley. Vital centers of economic activity benefit from David Fleming's hard work. He is the Chairman of the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley, an influential business and industry collective formed after the Northridge earthquake, which brings investors to the San Fernando Valley in order to grow and sustain the economic base and improve the quality of life for all Valley residents. He is also a director of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, an organization of 1,350 businesses, which helps small businesses grow and works for the prosperity for the Los Angeles region. Most recently, David Fleming completed a two year term as chairman of the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, the largest economic development organization in America. David Fleming has worked to improve the region's infrastructure and to promote commercial development having served as the appointed Vice- chairman of the California Transportation Commission for three years, during which time he chaired the Public Transit Committee. Even the entertainment industry benefits from his expertise. He serves on the Board of the Technology Council of the Motion Picture and Television Industry. David Fleming is an advocate for the future of San Fernando Valley children and the health of all Valley residents. He is a founding member and trustee of the Children's Planning Council of Los Angeles County, a unique collaboration of public and private sector leaders working hard to improve the integration, coordination, and accessibility of health and human services for children. He also serves as Chairman of the Board of Valley Presbyterian Hospital, the largest acute care hospital in the central San Fernando Valley. The 290-bed facility offers leading-edge technology and medical expertise in maternal and child health, cardiac care, orthopedics, and critical care services. Many Valley children benefit from free immunizations, health screenings, and seniors are able to receive free flu shots each fall at the hospital. Local government also has benefited from David Fleming's knowledge and volunteerism. In 1997, he helped implement the city's charter reform movement. Two years later, the reform was overwhelmingly approved by voters, making it the first major city charter reform movement in 75 years. He also served on the City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission for two years from 2001 to 2002. David Fleming's strong work ethic has been acknowledged by many, including President George W. Bush. In 2003, President Bush appointed him to the prestigious James Madison Foundation in Washington D.C., where he serves as one of only two private citizens appointed to the foundation. Throughout his career, David Fleming dedicated over 60,000 hours in leadership roles for various non-profit organizations. Many organizations have recognized and honored David Fleming for his wide range of civic contributions including the American Jewish Committee, the Valley Bar Association, the Anti-Defamation League, the University of California at Los Angeles, the Interfaith Council, the California Junior Chamber of Commerce and the Jewish National Fund, as well as the City and County of Los Angeles, the California State Legislature and three California Governors. He was also the 1991 recipient of the Fernando Award, an exclusive honor awarded to individuals who have exemplified leadership, volunteerism and dedication. David Fleming is a philanthropist who gives not only his time, but along with his wife Jean, has contributed millions of dollars to many Southern California charities including key donations to Valley Presbyterian Hospital and the University of California at Los Angeles Law Library. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing David W. Fleming, an altruistic man who has devoted much of his life to improving the well- being of the citizens of the San Fernando Valley.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a bill by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). It is co-sponsored by the majority leader, a bill which the President has indicated he looks upon favorably. It is to abolish the income tax and impose a ``23 percent sales tax on all Americans.'' First, I headed the largest sales tax agency in the world for 6 years, and I am going to tell you, you cannot administer a 23 percent sales tax. That is why Europe uses a value added tax. Second, a 23 percent tax would not replace the revenue. It would leave our troops in the field without the supplies they need. Third, imagine a billionaire decides to travel to luxury resorts in France for an entire year. His property is protected by the American Army, his person is protected, he enjoys all the joys of being an American citizen and pays absolutely zero in tax. Now imagine a retired couple. They have paid tax on all the money they have made. They squirreled it away. They have invested in municipal bonds. This thing passes. The muni bonds drop in value. They are receiving this income, and they are paying 23 percent on their food, 23 percent on their health care, 23 percent on their pharmaceuticals. They can no longer afford food, so they are buying dog food, and they are paying 23 percent on that. This is an outrageous bill.