Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, just for a second I would like to go over the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio where he says that the Republican administration actually promotes the outsourcing of jobs, reducing jobs here in the United States. It almost makes it sound like the Bush administration does not care about Americans. Keep in mind, for every 100 jobs we export, we create one or two very rich Americans; and, on balance, that may be thought to be a good thing by the Bush administration. We also have a huge half trillion dollar trade deficit. theft of documents from judiciary committee But I want to remind my colleagues of a day back in 1972 when we had a positive trade surplus and when the Watergate headquarters of the Democratic Party was burglarized. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy went to jail for that burglary because Republicans here in Washington believed that the rule of law was more important than Republican success. Today, a similar crime has been committed. At the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, a computer server that was jointly used by Democrats and Republicans was burglarized, and thousands of the Democrats' documents were stolen, far more than Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy ever thought to steal. A shared computer server is not an unusual thing on Capitol Hill. My Democratic colleagues need to be reminded that every e-mail we send, every e-mail we receive goes through a shared computer server, under the control ultimately of the Speaker of this House and his staff. But we Democrats here in the House do not believe that the Speaker and his staff are criminals. We believe they are honorable men and women, and so we send e-mail today just as we do every other day. What is happening in the other body, Mr. Speaker? A small cabal has decided to burglarize documents. That is the same as what happened back in 1972, but what is more interesting is that the predominant power in the Republican party, the predominant power here in Washington, wants to protect this act of robbery. Sure, one staffer has been fired. Now that staffer is free to obtain lucrative employment and cash gifts without having to report it. Another staffer has left, and that staffer boasts about being in control of stolen documents, stolen property. Instead of going to jail for being in possession of stolen property, he trumpets how he is going to use this property for the support of the Republican position. The rule of law should matter. We are told, though, that the rule of law is being upheld because a couple of staffers lost their jobs. Since when is it the criminal law in this country that if one steals something the only sanction is they have to go get employment elsewhere? We are told that this crime is not a crime because it was a shared computer server. That is a little dangerous for Democrats in the House, where every e-mail is going through a shared server under Republican control. It is also a complete repudiation of American criminal law. If two partners share a safe deposit box or a safe, that does not mean that one can use the combination to steal all the cash and valuables that the other has put in it. It is very clear. Sharing a box does not mean one gets to steal the other person's or other entity's property. Except that is what it seems to mean in the Republican lexicon. Burglary and robbery are reasons for people to be indicted and sent to jail. That is what happened to G. Gordon Liddy, that is what happened to Howard Hunt, and we will see whether the Republicans in control of this House and the other body, and in control of Washington and all of its agencies, will make sure that there is a criminal investigation of this theft. Stealing from a safe is wrong, even if one has been trusted with the combination. If this does not happen, then we in the House will have to look at the additional governmental expense involved in having a separate Democratic e-mail server. Because how can we trust a Republican Party that seems to have gone from a party that puts the rule of law first to one that glorifies burglary and defends criminals? I look forward to the indictment of those who committed robbery.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest the process that brings H.R. 1, the Medicare reform and prescription drug legislation, before the House today. These procedures could only be described as undemocratic and unfair. Republican Leaders were in the room for weeks as this bill was drafted, and were able to brief their members on its contents. Democratic Members could not begin to analyze the bill's provisions until yesterday. We were given almost no time to review the conference report for this momentous legislation. We have waived the rules of the House to allow for this hasty, almost immediate consideration of a bill more than 1,000 pages long, so that not even the members of this body, to say nothing of the public, can fully grasp what is included. There is no way that we, with a fairly full day of debate in this body, could have read the bill in the short time provided. And it is not enough that we merely read the bill. One must understand its implications. This alone demands that we vote ``no'' now, to give ourselves more time to fully deliberate and debate this legislation. Mr. Speaker, again, I rise to express my strong opposition to the process by which we are today voting to overhaul one of the most important institutions in our country. American seniors deserve better, and we owe them more of our time; we owe them full deliberation, debate and our full consideration of this legislation.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the largest general aviation airport in this country, Van Nuys airport, and the million people who live in its environs. This bill is designed to selectively privatize air traffic control. That is unsafe, and it is inherently going to be political. The chairman of the committee said, ``my hotel room is on the top floor of the Sheraton, and airplanes take off right towards that room.'' That is why Alaska was not going to be included in earlier drafts of this bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) announced to the Aviation Daily that he was going to selectively include and exclude airports based upon which political support he needed for the bill. But at least the prior drafts of this bill represented an open, corrupt, political process for deciding which constituents must live with unsafe conditions, that the chairman of the committee would not subject himself to. This bill [in its final form] provides us with opaque, political decision-making, with the White House doing everything [which air traffic control towers to privatize] behind closed doors. Vote against the rule, and against the bill.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we all want to vote to support the troops. This bill, however, contains provisions for $18 billion as gifts, and none as loans, to Iraq. We ought to have a separate vote on that provision. But what they have done is link the two provisions in this rule, so that you cannot oppose the way they have structured the aid to Iraq without, in the view of some, ``voting against the troops.'' But that diabolical connection was insufficient, so they added one more; and while homes are burning by the hundreds in California, they decide to load into this bill additional money for FEMA: $500 million for FEMA at a time when FEMA needs the money. It is outrageous to try to take a bad policy towards aid to Iraq and use it as a pass on our natural concern for the thousands who have lost their homes in California. This is a martial law rule. So as the gentleman has pointed out, we do not get a chance to read the bill and understand it before we vote on it. Forty-seven Republicans voted for my amendment (on October 16), along with all Democrats, to say that we have to have competitive bidding on all the oil contracts in Iraq. As far as I know, that has been stripped out of this bill so we will not have competitive bidding. The 47 Republicans, who along with Democrats, realized we could not trust this administration with no-bid contracts will not be able to have that provision in the bill--or maybe they will because we are still looking--because it is martial law, which means do not read the bill, just vote on it. Finally and most importantly, we just had a donors conference. The vast majority of donors gave the vast majority of their aid in the form of loans. We will not put in a single penny as loans. Why do the American taxpayers not get paid back? Because these other people need to be paid back; $116 billion of Saddam Hussein's debts are all on Iraq's balance sheet. They should be renounced, but instead they will be paid, and we will not.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, today H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act, was brought to this floor on the suspension calendar. The suspension calendar should be used to pass bills which are not controversial. Given the issues involved with this legislation, the leadership should not have brought this bill to the floor as a ``suspension.'' This is but the most recent example of abuse of the suspension calendar during the 108th Congress.

Mr. SHERMAN

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

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The supplemental proposal before us today provides $2.1 billion for oil infrastructure improvements and reconstruction in Iraq. The public and the world are a bit skeptical as to how that money will be spent. The answer to that skepticism is in government contract law which provides for procedures for competitive bidding. However, there are on many occasions exceptions to the competitive bidding rules that have been employed by this administration. The purpose of this amendment is to say that, with regard to the oil work, there will be no further exceptions at least for the money being spent under this bill. This amendment does not affect our military procurement or our troops. It does not affect any emergency acquisitions of food or medicine or other humanitarian assistance. It deals only with the lucrative construction projects for the Iraqi oil system. And as to those projects, we should say no sole-source contracts. Last night we debated a part of this issue. Congress demanded notification whenever there was sole-source contracting, and that is important as far as it goes. But with regard to these highly sensitive oil contracts, we need to go further and say no sole-sourcing at all. It is not just a matter of notification. There is no exigency, no national security justification for secrecy and sole-source contracting when we are talking about building oil wells in Iraq. I am particularly concerned with the one company, Halliburton. This administration seems unable to contain its affection for this one corporation. Before the war, Halliburton won $1.4 billion for Iraq on a no-bid basis--before the hostilities even began and at a time when the administration was saying that hostilities were our last resort. The Halliburton Company greatly overcharged the American Government for its work in Kosovo. Recently, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) brought to the attention of this House the fact that Halliburton was charging a $1.70 a gallon for gasoline in Iraq at a time and a place where others were selling it for only 70 cents. American taxpayers are being ripped off for over half the price. This amendment will make sure that the building of the Iraqi oil infrastructure is done legitimately, that American taxpayers and the entire world know that fair processes are being pursued. Given the incredible justification for skepticism as to how oil contracts have been let by this administration, it is appropriate for us to impose ``regular order'' in dealing with these oil contracts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me use this 1 minute to address another issue, and that is to commend the United States Senate for adopting an amendment yesterday similar to one debated here on this floor. That amendment says that half the money being used to rebuild Iraq will be in the form of loans. That is an important decision by the United States Senate. The Senate version of that amendment was, I think, crafted in a more sophisticated manner than we were able to offer here on this floor given the House rules. I think that amendment might have passed this House, and in any case I urge our conferees to recede to the Senate on the issue of a $9 billion loan, $9 billion gift to rebuild Iraq. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the last speaker. America's greatest days are yet to come. But not if we make a bunch of stupid decisions here in Washington. The great debate today will be whether the $18 billion going to build Iraq is going as loans or as gifts. But first we will take up H.R. 198, which I know leadership plans to pass by unanimous consent. Well, I will reserve the right to object. H.R. 198 is being brought up at this time as is a bizarre and inadequate fig leaf designed to say, well, it is okay if we give away $18 billion of the taxpayers' money, as long as on the same day we make a request that Germany and France renounce the debts that are owed to them by Saddam Hussein. If we need a Marshall Plan for Iraq, remember, the first step in the Marshall Plan was that Hitler's debts were renounced. Promissory notes signed by Hitler were never paid. And we can make an $18 billion loan to Iraq if it renounces its Saddam debt.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I am going to yield to my colleague from Texas, but let me point out one use of this $18 billion. Two billion dollars of it is going to go to build new oil wells and oil facilities in Iraq. This will be the first time in history that we invest $2 billion in oil drilling, hit oil and get nothing. Why do we need these $2 billion of additional oil wells and oil facilities? So that Iraq can produce more oil, so they can sell that oil, so it can give the money to Saudi Arabia. What a great deal for the American taxpayer.

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection, noting that another gentleman from California may also wish to object.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. This is a good bill if it came up at any other time, but today, it serves a unique purpose, and that is, to deal with the great debate that is the big issue that will come up today as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) pointed out. That issue is whether the $18 billion, not to rebuild Iraq but to build Iraq as it has never been built before, whether that money will go in the form of a loan or some other collateralized instrument, perhaps an advance payment on the purchase of oil, or whether, instead, it will go as a gift. What are we told? We are told that we cannot make it a loan because the Iraqi balance sheet is already in such terrible shape. I would first point out that the American balance sheet is not in great shape either, and we will be adding $500 billion to the debt side of that just this year. But why is the Iraqi balance sheet in bad shape? It is in bad shape because Saddam borrowed $100 billion, and the people who hold the promissory notes signed by Saddam want to be paid, and for reasons I cannot figure out, the administration feels it is a critical national priority that those who lent money to Saddam get repaid. Promissory notes were signed by Adolf Hitler; they were not repaid. Promissory notes were signed by the Imperial Government of Japan; they were not repaid. Why is it that this administration believes that we cannot burden Iraq with $18 billion in debt because we must preserve their ability to pay the $100 billion of debt that Saddam Hussein borrowed? Follow the money. Because in 2008 and 2010 and 2012, Iraq, a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world, will be exporting more oil than it needs, the revenue to finance its ongoing operations. It will be able to pay debt service. It has collateral. That is why these folks lent Saddam $100 billion. It will have that money. Where will that money go? If none of it comes to us, the first claimant for $25 billion is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are not content with the revenue from their own oil. They want $25 billion to be paid by the new Iraq because they have a loan made to the old Iraq. Who is second? Kuwait is in for only $17 billion, except they claim that they are also owed reparations for the invasion. Okay. That is interesting. The new Iraq should pay for the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam. So we are told by the Kuwaitis that not only, not only did we have to spend our treasure and our blood to liberate them, not only do they have more oil than one can imagine per capita, but that they should have a high claim on Iraqi oil and that the American taxpayer should be at the back of the line. I would say that we must do more today than give $18 billion to Iraq and then have this resolution saying, oh, please, pretty please, these other creditors should forgive their debts. First of all, the resolution identifies as the main creditors France and Germany and Russia when, in fact, the major creditors of Saddam are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Second, they do not have to forgive the loan. What incentive do they have? It is not like we are saying forgive your loan and this will happen or we will make our efforts contingent upon yours, but rather, today, we are going to be asked to give $18 billion to Iraq to eliminate any possibility of adding an incentive for others to forgive their debt to enshrine the debt signed by Saddam while denigrating the American taxpayer. We will be talking about more of this in the rest of today, but no one should believe that the passage of H. Res. 198, a mere plea to the wrong people that they forgive debt that they have no intention of forgiving so that we can give away American taxpayer dollars, that we do not have to give away, this is the smallest fig leaf for the biggest problem.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Iraq resolution last October. I support our troops. This amendment is the key vote of the evening. If everyone who spoke for the Pence amendment, everyone who spoke in their district about how we should be making loans to Iraq (rather than gifts), if they have the courage to actually vote for this amendment, it will pass. We are told that somehow this amendment makes us seem to be cheap, ungrateful, unwilling. I say that we have paid in blood and treasure for the freedom of the Iraqi people, and, if this bill passes, we will be spending another $76 billion toward that end. If we need to prove to the world that we are the good guys, another $9 billion is not going to do it. Look at this bill if we pass this amendment: $87 billion to help the Iraqi people; $9 billion of it is loans. Looked at another way, $18 billion for reconstruction; half loans, half gift. The money will still be spent. Every school in Iraq that would have been rebuilt, will be rebuilt just as quickly. The only question will be whether there will be a promissory note in the U.S. Treasury so that we get repaid next decade. Two plans for the Iraqi balance sheet: One is to leave them indebted $100 billion and more to these creditors, chiefly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and another $100 billion to Kuwait for reparations, a $200 billion debt load. But some say, oh, we cannot inflict them with another $9 billion in debt to the United States. Plan two, have them renounce the $200 billion allegedly owed for Saddam's sins and start anew, and then they can pay us $9 billion, and maybe the Europeans will loan them another $1 billion. West Germany never paid Hitler's debts. It is time to wipe the Iraqi balance sheet clean.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Indiana for this amendment. It may be ruled out of order, but then the real debate will start on the Obey-Lantos amendment which will achieve the same effect. I echo the words of my colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that that is the key debate for us, to say at least half loan, half gift. As a matter of fact, it is a $9 billion loan on an $87 billion bill. Only 10 percent of the money would be a loan, half of the $18 billion that is going to rebuild Iraq. Secondly, let us remember that Iraqi school children will help our troops, whether there is a promissory note in the American Treasury or not. The schools will be open either way.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this House should reject the rule on the supplemental unless it allows us to do three things. First, we should be able to vote on an interesting issue. We are told we are providing $87 billion for our troops. Wrong. We are forcing our grandchildren to provide $87 billion for the troops. The House should be allowed to vote on whether we add revenue raisers to this bill, so that we can pay for what we are doing. Second, we should be allowed to vote on whether to prevent any waiver of the contracting rules, so that we can assure our constituents that all the money is not going to Halliburton in sole-source contracts. And, finally, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) pointed out, we should be allowed to vote on whether this money is going as loans or gifts--the money, that $18.6 billion that is going not to rebuild, but actually to build Iraq. Why is it that we are told that Iraq cannot borrow the money? Because they already have $100 billion in debt. So the question is does Saddam Hussein's debt need to be repaid by American taxpayers.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we all support the troops. We all want to see Iraq built, or at least restored. There is only one issue that is in doubt: whether the $18 billion goes to Iraq as a loan or as a gift. Now, we will have two chances to vote on that issue, at least two. First, the rule will come before this House. A vote for the rule is a vote to say that we will never get an explicit vote on whether this should be a loan or a gift. If you are in favor of an $18 billion gift out of the hides of the American taxpayer, you have to vote for the rule. If you vote against the rule, that opens it up to having a protected amendment, like one that I and others are proposing, to convert the $18 billion from a loan to a gift. The second opportunity will be on the Rohrabacher amendment, and there will be other amendments, when we can strike the $18 billion. People should understand that does not mean that we do not build Iraq. Instead, that means the administration has to come forward with a loan package. So what is at issue in those votes, the only major issue that is going to be close on this floor, is whether the $18 billion is a loan or a gift. Now, what happens if we make it a loan? I have a plan. Step one, renounce the $100 billion that Saddam Hussein borrowed. Step two, loan $18 billion to Iraq. Result: Iraq has $18 billion of debt. The other approach, is to not renounce the $100 billion except that portion, that tiny portion, which is voluntarily forgiven. So then they will owe $60 or $70 or $80 billion, none of it to us. Then in 2008, in 2010, and 2012, the vast majority of Saddam's debt will be repaid. Who gets the money? Twenty-five billion dollars to Saudi Arabia. Seventeen billion dollars to Kuwait. Seventeen to $30 billion to the other gulf states. That is right. If you go with the plan that is in this bill now, over $75 billion to rich oil states.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. That is a wonderful idea, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman mind having the Lee- Sherman amendment given 40 minutes?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for arranging an extra 5 minutes to debate this important amendment. It is our intention to offer it, and then withdraw it at the end of this discussion, in the hopes that these issues can be dealt with effectively in conference. By withdrawing the amendment at the end of this discussion, we will save the House at least 30 minutes as compared to a recorded vote, thus giving my colleague a six-time return on his investment. This is a good and necessary bill. We have an amazing credit system in this country where a bank on the east coast will compete for the opportunity to lend money to somebody on the west coast who they have never met; even when none of the banks' employees knows anyone who knows the borrower. Imagine that compared to where we were in this country 100 years ago, when it took a personal relationship with a banker to get a loan. This is an amazing system, and it can exist only with national credit reporting that borrowers and lenders can rely upon and only with a national system that regulates that national credit reporting. But in our effort to have national standards, which our friends on the other side of the aisle have explained the importance of, we should not reach the lowest common denominator. Instead, we need to look at what the States have done to protect their consumers and try to have a national standard that is at least as high, or at least addresses each of the different consumer protection issues. So, this bill needs to be compared to California law to see whether it achieves that, or whether it might achieve it at the end of the conference. There are two sets of consumer protections in California law. The first is known as the pre-SB1, pre-Speier's bill protections. In this area, we from California had been told that none of the California pre- SB1 protections would be preempted. But in fact, they were. However, the violence done by that preemption is perhaps not as great as some of my colleagues have pointed out because in many of the cases where California law was preempted, it was replaced by a national standard that was just as good for consumers, even if slightly different in form. For example, there is the California requirement that consumer reporting agencies must disclose the names and addresses of all sources of information in the consumer report. That California law is preempted but replaced with an even stronger Federal law that not only requires that, but, (I thank the chairman for accepting my amendment in committee), also requires that the phone numbers, as well as the addresses, of those who provide that consumer information be provided in the consumer report. So it is important that in conference, we take a look at all the pre- SB1 California provisions, make sure that whatever protections a Federal law preempts, are replaced by equally strong consumer protections. In a few areas that is not the case, and I am confident that in conference, with the advocacy of our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and with the chairman of the committee, we will achieve that. The second set of California Consuming Protections were given to us by SB1, the Speier's bill, which was passed while this Congress was in recess last month. There are several provisions of that bill that are not preempted by Federal law and that will do an outstanding job of protecting Californians, and I commend them to our committee and to the State legislatures around the country. One of those (SBI) provisions, however, would be preempted. That is what is called the opt-out provision dealing with affiliate information sharing. We are talking about a situation where a person goes to a bank, provides the bank with their financial information, are the bank shares it with their affiliated insurance company or their affiliated stock brokerage company? Good business practice, as well as California law, allows a consumer to instruct their financial institution not to share their information with an affiliated company. I think that is smart business. I commend Jackie Speier of California for writing it into California law. As we go to conference, hopefully this issue will be addressed. One way to address it is the way Bank of America already addresses it voluntarily, and this would be a compromise. That is to say, that a consumer should be able to opt-out for purposes of marketing. The consumer would be able to say, Bank, do not have your insurance company call me. If we were able to get that, yes, California consumers might lose a tiny bit, but 280 million Americans would gain substantially. I look forward to a conference that will assure consumers around this country, and those of California, with enhaused protections.

Mr. SHERMAN. Reserving the right to object, the gentleman's unanimous consent applies to this one amendment?

Mr. SHERMAN. Number 15.