Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I thought that the Lee-Sherman amendment was getting 40 minutes equally divided. I could be wrong on that. What was the agreement?

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote 475. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements and related implementing legislation were put before the House this week. These agreements are far less objectionable than other free trade agreements of major economic importance which the United States has enacted in the last decade. Viewed by themselves their disadvantages do not greatly exceed their advantages. These agreements are objectionable more for what is not in them than for what is in them. They will not in any event do much to decide our economic future. What is left is symbolism. I used this opportunity to hopefully reduce slightly what has been interpreted as round of applause for our current trade policy by the House of Representatives this week. Our current trade policy has produced the largest trade deficits in history. Our current accounts deficit for 2002 was $503 billion, our trade-in-goods deficit, about $485 billion. However you measure the deficit, it is now about 5 percent of GDP. At the beginning of the 1990s it was 1/5 of one percent of GDP. And our deficit has doubled in just about the last 3 years. How far into the future can this continue--5 years, ten years? Either we will recognize this crisis in the middle years of this decade and take radical action, or we face an economic debacle, perhaps by the end of this decade, or certainly during the next. The best reason to vote against these two trade agreements is that they represent a slight readjustment of two deck chairs as the Titanic approaches the iceberg. Whether the chairs will now be positioned in a slightly more auspicious manner during the few minutes before the iceberg is struck, or whether their adjustment puts the chairs in a slightly less auspicious position, is hardly the point. I voted ``no'' on these trade bills. Lets shake our trade policy- makers out of their stupor and work on trade and economic policies that will put us back on track, and put Americans back to work.

Mr. SHERMAN

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

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our hearts go out to the people of Iran who are fighting valiantly for freedom and democracy. The least we could do in this bill is to provide our support and put the United States on record in favor of minority rights, women's rights, democracy, and freedom for the people of Iran. I want to commend Senator Brownback, who authored the very words of this amendment and persuaded the Senate to adopt them and add them to their version of this bill. I want to commend the Senate for adopting these words on a voice vote. Let me just summarize the provisions of this amendment. It contains, first, findings which state: ``Iran is neither free nor democratic. Men and women are not treated equally. Women are deprived of legal and internationally recognized rights. Religious freedom is not respected under the laws of Iran. And undemocratic institutions, such as the Guardians Council, thwart the decisions of elected leaders.'' It goes on to cite the September 2003 report of the Department of State which identified Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the year 2002, and specifically sites the provisions of that report which indicate that Iran continues to provide funding and safe haven to such terrorist groups as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The second part of the amendment indicates it is the policy of the United States to support transparent, full democracy in Iran; that the United States supports the rights of the Iranian people to choose their system of government; and the United States condemns the brutal treatment and torture of Iranian civilians expressing political dissent. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we could adopt this amendment on voice vote, just as the Senate did, so as to eliminate a possible difference between the bodies as this bill goes to conference. I should also point out, Mr. Chairman, that I have a separate bill, H.R. 2466, that provides much more substantive support for democracy. It is called the Iran Democracy Support Act, and I would hope that on some other occasion we would be on this floor debating that bill, and I invite my colleagues to cosponsor it. But for now let me urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge support for this amendment today. I urge my colleagues to take a look at H.R. 2466, the Iran Democracy Support Act, for consideration on another day. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we all remember when this President came before our House and, in a burst of excessive honesty, told us perceptively that we faced an axis of evil: three nations posed a great threat to the United States. His phraseology deliberately harkened back to the 1940s when we also faced a tripartite axis of evil. But what if President Roosevelt had led us in an invasion of Italy, forced Mussolini into hiding, and pretty much left it at that--ignoring what was going on in Berlin and Tokyo? It is easier to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than it is to find a policy toward Iran here in Washington. So I went to the Committee on Rules with two amendments. One I identified as an important amendment with 18 co-sponsors, including the gentleman from New Jersey who just spoke, including our ranking member, including senior Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on International Relations. This amendment would deprive the tyrants in Tehran of money and would provide money for those fighting for democracy. Then I put forward a second amendment which I clearly identified as unimportant, something that could be ignored by the Committee on Rules if they chose, a mere resolution. What did the Committee on Rules do? They killed the important amendment. They killed a chance to really discuss our policy toward Iran. And then they took the sense of Congress amendment, stripped out a little part of it, and put it before this House. They did nothing to save the House's time. We are still going to debate one of my amendments dealing with our policy toward Iran--the unimportant amendment. But the important amendment will not come before this House. Today in Tehran terrorist acts are being planned. Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism according to our State Department. Today in Tehran they plan to complete nuclear weapons within a few years. I believe those nuclear weapons will be smuggled into American cities and either exploded or used to blackmail America. When that happens our constituents will ask, what did the People's House do to prevent the empowerment of tyranny in Tehran? The answer will be, the Committee on Rules would not let us do very much of anything, but they would let us vote on sending a good luck card to the students fighting for democracy in Tehran. Please vote against this rule and give us a chance to debate the most important foreign policy issue before us today, and that is Iran and its nuclear weapons.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2115, the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. This bipartisan legislation authorizes $58.9 billion over four years for the activities of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and continues provisions in current law that ensure that all aviation trust fund revenues are spent only on aviation programs. While I was pleased to join my colleagues in voting for passage of this important legislation, it is disappointing that the legislation does nothing to improve local control over flight curfews at airports. Noise generated by airports is a constant infringement on the quality of life for residents in surrounding communities. I believe that local authorities, working in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration, should be making the decisions with respect to flight curfews at locally controlled airports. I did not submit such an amendment to the Rules Committee because I was told the Committee would not make it in order. I hope that as this legislation proceeds to the Senate, we can work to strengthen the provisions of the legislation with respect to airport noise and to give more control to local authorities.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2143, the Internet Gambling Prevention Act of 2003, passed by the House on June 10, 2003. I am a strong believer of the simple principle: ``You should have to leave your house to lose your house.'' Thus, I believe we should prohibit Internet gambling except when the gambler is known to be physically present in a location the ``sovereign'' of which authorizes the particular gaming. This does take steps to prevent unlawful Internet gambling, especially gambling through websites based off- shore, outside of the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States. During consideration of H.R. 2143, I voted for the Sensenbrenner/ Conyers/Cannon amendment which would have removed language from the bill that would have excluded transactions with businesses licensed by a state from the definition of ``bet and wager.'' There are at least two problems with this provision which unfortunately (due to the non- adoption of the said amendment) remains in the bill. First, the provision does not assure that the gaming is legal at the location where the gambler is actually located. Second, the loophole does not provide parity for tribal governments running casinos. Because tribes that run casinos enter into compacts with the State to offer these facilities, they are not licensed by the state. Mr. Speaker, as H.R. 2143 moves to the Senate and ultimately to a conference committee, I am hopeful that we can remove this loophole from the legislation.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidable detained during rollcall votes 265, 266 and 267. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``No'' on rollcall vote 265 and 266 and ``yes'' on rollcall vote 267.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose a rule that does not allow the House to consider providing working families with the child care credit. The current situation imposes the injury of denying these working families $400 that they need and then adds the insult of telling these families that they are not taxpayers, so they do not deserve any tax relief. Of course, looking at their paycheck stubs, they see the taxes they are paying. Allowing corporations to avoid American taxes just by renting a hotel in the Bahamas, $8 billion; allowing millionaires to pay virtually nothing on their dividend income, $80 billion; eliminating the estate tax even on the largest estates, $138 billion; telling working families that they do not deserve relief and that they are not taxpayers, that is priceless. There are some things campaign contributions just will not buy. For everything else, there is RepubliCard, accepted at the finest country clubs in the Bahamas. Members will want to get the Deficit Express card, now that the Republican Congress has increased the credit limit to $12 trillion. The Deficit Express card? Do not leave the House without it.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the authors of this resolution because they recognize how important it is to protect our constitutional government, even from the possibility that perhaps hundreds of Members of this Congress might be killed by a terrorist act. We should, however, also take a look at the possibility that the death of one, two, or three individuals in line to serve as President could also undermine our constitutional government. We must protect both branches of government from unfortunate acts or terrorist aggression. That is why I strongly support this resolution and wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues a letter that I sent out last week urging them to become cosponsors of the Presidential Succession Act of 2003. The line of Presidential succession determines who becomes President if both the President and Vice President have died or are unable to fulfill their duties. That line should be as solid as the concrete barriers that protect our Capitol grounds. Unfortunately, that line is not. However, with a mere change in statute, not a constitutional amendment, Congress can ensure the certainty in the line of succession as well as the continuity of the Federal policies of the executive branch. Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution allows Congress to determine the line of succession to the Presidency following the Vice President. Congress last seriously addressed this issue when it passed the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. Unfortunately, the 1947 act is ambiguous and we cannot afford ambiguity as to the identity or the legitimacy of the President of the United States, particularly at a time of crisis. The 1947 act is further flawed because it allows the Presidency to be shifted from one political party to the other during a 4-year term. This means that if the Vice Presidency is vacant, our stock markets and our foreign enemies will wonder whether some unfortunate event will cause a radical shift of our policies. A terrorist might see an opportunity to radically shift our policies by killing just one individual. And a partially or temporarily impaired President would be highly unlikely to either take a leave of absence under the 25th amendment or to resign permanently if that action would vest control of the executive branch in the opposite political party. Current law provides that if the office of Vice President is vacant, the next in line is the Speaker of the House, followed by the President pro tempore of the Senate. In the recent season finale of the ``West Wing,'' the President was under extreme personal stress. There was no Vice President serving. That President invoked the 25th amendment and temporarily transferred control of the executive branch to the Speaker of the House who happened to be of the opposite political party. Would that happen in real life? I would hope so, because I would hope that a President under extreme stress would take a leave of absence as provided in the 25th amendment. But in real life, a President arguably suffering from temporary impairment would hang on to the Presidency with the same tenacity that my friend Strom Thurmond held on to his Senate seat when he knew that if he resigned from the Senate he would be replaced by the appointee of a Democratic Governor. Speaking of my friend Strom Thurmond, we should remember that just a few years ago, while Strom was in his late 90s, he was third in line to succeed to the Presidency. Does this make sense in an era of suicide assassins? In a document that I will append in the Record to my remarks here, I will point out that under some scenarios, we could have five individuals, each with a legitimate claim to be President. I will summarize it by simply saying that if we did not have a Speaker of the House, someone could claim to become President because they were serving as temporary Speaker under House rule I, clause 8, subprovision (3)(A). Someone who became Speaker of the House could then try to displace someone who had been temporary Speaker, and then we could have a President pro tem of the Senate all claiming. We could have even more scenarios. Some will say that Presidential succession has never gotten past a Vice President, but that happened because Gerald Ford was confirmed promptly, before Richard Nixon resigned. Furthermore, in April 1865, John Wilkes Booth headed a partially successful conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln and those who were first, second and third in line to succeed him. Are we sure that al Qaeda can do no worse? That is why I will put forward the Presidential Succession Act of 2003, which is similar to legislation I proposed in March 2001. Under it, the President would file a document with the Clerk of this House indicating whether third to succeed to the Presidency should be either the Speaker of the House or the minority leader and whether the fourth should be the Senate majority leader or the Senate minority leader. And, of course, these could be changed if control of the House or the Senate changed. More importantly, the bill would state that once someone becomes President, they serve for the rest of the 4-year term and cannot be pushed aside by someone who later becomes, say, Speaker of the House and is higher in the list. Once they begin to serve a Presidential term, they continue. Today we will act to ensure the continuity of Congress. Later this year we should act to ensure the continuity of the executive branch. Our friends and enemies around the world and the investment community should know that similar policies will continue throughout a 4-year term and that the Presidency cannot be shifted to another party by a tragic event. More importantly, it should be absolutely clear as to who is legitimate President of the United States. We need to act this year. [From the Roll Call, May 21, 2003] Act Now To Ensure Smooth Succession to Presidency (By Rep. Brad Sherman) In the post-Sept. 11, 2001, reality, we have seen military guards with M-16s patrol the Capitol and anti-aircraft artillery stationed around national monuments. It is no mystery that terrorists actively seek to interrupt our constitutional democracy. The line of presidential succession, which determines who becomes president if both the president and vice president have died or are otherwise unable to carry out their duties, should be as solid as the concrete barriers lining the Capitol grounds. It is not. However, with a change in statute--not a constitutional amendment--Congress can ensure certainty in the line of successors, as well as continuity of federal policies. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution allows Congress to determine the line of succession to the presidency following the vice president. Congress last visited this issue seriously when it passed the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. Unfortunately, the 1947 act us ambiguous and we cannot afford ambiguity as to the identity and legitimacy of the president, particularly at a time of crisis. The 1974 act is further flawed because it allows the presidency to be shifted to an opposing political party. This means if the vice presidency is vacant, our stock markets and foreign enemies will wonder whether an unfortunate event will result in a radical shift in policies; a terrorist might see an ``opportunity'' to radically shift our policies; and a partially or temporarily impaired president would think twice about taking a leave of absence under the 25th Amendment, or resigning, if either action would out the other party in control of all executive departments. Finally, third in the current line of successions is the President Pro Tem, a ceremonial position normally held by the longest-serving member of the Senate majority. Current law provides that if the office of the vice president is vacant, the next in line is the Speaker, followed by the President Pro Tem. The recent ``West Wing'' season final demonstrated how a president, under extreme duress could, at a time when there was no vice president, invoke the 25th Amendment and temporarily transfer control of the White House to a Speaker of the opposite political party. In real life, it is more likely that a president arguably suffering from temporary impairment would hang on to the presidency with the same tenacity that former Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) held on to his seat at a time when his resignation would have handed his seat to an appointee of a Democratic governor. Speaking of Thurmond, we should remember that just a few years ago, while in his late 90s, he was third in line for the presidency. Does this make sense in an era of suicide- assassins? Here is a hypothetical designed to illustrate all the ambiguities of the 1947 act. The office of vice president, Speaker and President Pro Tem are all vacant. The president has nominated Ms. Smith to the new vice president, and he awaits her confirmation hearings under the 25th Amendment. The House and the Senate have adjourned for the year, though Mr. Jones is serving as ``temporary House Speaker'' pursuant to House rule 1, clause 8 (3)(A). Now, imagine that the president dies. Does Mr. Jones, the temporary Speaker, become president? Probably not, but we're not sure. In all probability, the secretary of State becomes acting president. But assume the House then reconvenes and elects a Speaker. Does that new Speaker then push aside the secretary of State and become the new president? What if the Senate elects a new President Pro Tem before the House elects a new Speaker? And what if Ms. Smith makes it through her vice presidential confirmation hearings--does she push aside whoever is then serving as president? Under this scenario, and under the ambiguity of the 1947 act, all five of the following could claim the presidency: Ms. Smith, Mr. Jones, the President Pro Tem, the newly elected Speaker and the secretary of State. Other, less contrived scenarios could create three or four claimants to the presidency. Even two plausible claimants to the White House is one too many. Some will say that presidential succession has never gotten past a vice president, in part because Gerald Ford was confirmed promptly, before Richard Nixon resigned. But Sept. 11 shows that what is unlikely to occur naturally may well occur. In April 1865, John Wilkes Booth headed a partially successful conspiracy to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln and those who stood first, second and third in line to succeed him. Are we sure that al Qaeda can do no worse? Next month, I will introduce the Presidential Succession Act of 2003, which is similar to legislation I introduced in March 2001. Under this legislation, the president will file an official document with the Clerk of the House designating, after the vice president, the next person in line of succession as either the Speaker or the House Minority Leader. Similarly, the president would file instructions with the Secretary of the Senate, designating the third in line as either the Senate Majority Leader or Minority Leader. (These designations can be revised if the majority becomes the minority.) The bill will further ensure certainty in presidential succession by clearly providing that if someone succeeds to the presidency, that person shall continue to serve until the end of the presidential term. Our friends and enemies around the world, as well as the investment community, should know that similar policies will continue throughout a four-year term, and that the presidency will not be shifted to the other party by a tragic event. More importantly, the law should be absolutely clear so that whoever serves as president, particularly at a time of crisis, has unquestioned legitimacy. By acting now we can accomplish these ends. Or, we can just put this off until a problem arises.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this job-killer bill will lead to a continuation of the Bush recession. We are told we need to end the double taxation of corporate income, but one-third of corporate income earned by U.S. corporations is not even subject to corporate tax because of the loopholes in that tax. But, of course, their new provision applies to foreign corporations. Their income is not even taxed once. We are told this is going to encourage investment in new issues of corporate stock. But it is a temporary provision, so who is going to buy corporate stock, just to find the taxes go up on the dividends? But if it does encourage investment, it will encourage investment of American capital in foreign corporations issuing stock. Those foreign corporations are paying 12 cents an hour to their employees and stealing our jobs. We are told the low zero percent rate or 5 percent rate will apply to working families. But working families, if they own stock at all, own it in their 401(k) plans that are unaffected by this bill. In fact, when the dividend income is paid out, it is subject to a high rate of tax. The big beneficiaries of that zero percent rate will be rich kids with trust funds earning $10,000 or $20,000 of dividend income and paying zero percent tax. The corporate tax rate, once you move the corporation to the Bahamas, zero percent. Individual income taxes on dividends from the Bahamas corporation, 15 percent. Individual income tax when the stock is held by a trust for rich kids, zero percent. Knowing that working families are paying about 30 percent tax, FICA and income tax, on their wages--priceless. There are some things campaign contributions just can't buy. For everything else, there is RepubliCard. Accepted at the finest country clubs in the Bahamas. And you will want to get the Deficit Express Card, now that the Senate has increased the credit limit by another $981 billion. The Deficit Express Card: Do not leave the House without it. Mr. Speaker, this job-killer bill will lead to a continuation of the Bush recession. We are told we need to end the double taxation of corporate income, but one-third of corporate income earned by U.S. corporations is not even subject to corporate tax because of the loopholes in that tax. But, of course, their new provision applies to foreign corporations. Their income is not even taxed once. We are told this is going to encourage investment in newly issued corporate stock. But the dividend exclusion provision is a temporary provision, so who is going to buy corporate stock, just to find the taxes go up on the dividends? But if it does encourage investment, it will encourage investment of American capital in foreign corporations issuing stock. Those foreign corporations are paying 12 cents an hour to their employees and stealing American jobs. We are told the low zero percent rate or 5 percent rate on dividend income will apply to working families. But working families, if they own stock at all, own it in their 401(k) plans, and those plans are unaffected by this bill. In fact, even if we pass this bill, when the dividend income is paid out of a 401(k) it will be subject to a high rate of tax. The big beneficiaries of the 5 percent or zero percent rate on dividend, will be rich kids with trust funds earning $10,000 or $20,000 of dividend income and paying virtually no tax. The corporate tax rate, once you move the corporation to the Bahamas, zero percent. Individual income taxes on dividends from the Bahamas corporation, 15 percent. Individual income tax when the stock is held by a trust for rich kids, zero percent. Knowing that working families are paying about 30 percent tax, FICA and income tax, on their wages--Priceless. There are some things campaign contributions just can't buy. For everything else, there is Republicard. Accepted at the finest country clubs in the Bahamas. And you will want to get the Deficit Express Card, now that the Senate has increased the credit limit by another $981 billion. The Deficit Express Card: Do not leave the House without it.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Bush recession continues, and this job killer bill ensures that it will continue to continue. It imposes additional deficits on our budget and additional debt on the American people. It imposes higher interest rates on the American people. It will impose upon our teachers and our firefighters layoffs at a time when we need more jobs in the economy, because it virtually ensures that we will provide only very limited and inadequate aid to our States and cities that are falling on hard times right now. If we look at the details, we become aware that this bill, whatever the arguments that were made in favor of it, is nothing more than an effort to hand as much cash as possible to the Bush class. We are told that it is going to help investments, but when we look at the details, we discover otherwise. Three details: It is temporary, it provides aid to children with huge trust funds, and it provides equal encouragement to invest in foreign corporations as domestic corporations. At least that is what I am told orally about a bill that, in theory, has not been written yet but in fact is out in the press now. What about it being temporary? The idea was that we were not just going to give a windfall to people who had already invested in stocks but that we were going to encourage people to invest more. Well, wait a minute. Municipal bonds are a nice investment for tax-free income. But who would buy a municipal bond today if 5 years from now all the income was going to be subject to tax? Nobody is going to invest in stocks long term because of a short-term window in which the dividends are tax free. Sure, if they already own the stock, they will enjoy not paying taxes. Second, I am told that these same benefits are available to investments in foreign corporations. So if you invest in the Chinese people's low-wage corporation, you pay no American tax at the corporate level, of course, and no American tax at the domestic level, or a very low tax. Finally, if you transfer half a million bucks worth of Rolls Royce stock to your 14-year-old daughter, in a couple of years she will be eligible to receive the dividends on that stock virtually tax free and then go out and buy a Rolls Royce with the dividend income. This is the Rolls Royce Investment Act, or I like to call it the Rolls Royce for Buffy Act. The Bush recession continues, and this bill is carefully crafted to make sure it continues.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I came down here to talk about taxes, but first let me talk about Texas. All Americans must unite against terrorism, and we did that. We passed the PATRIOT Act. We provided resources for the Department of Homeland Security. But now we discover the war on terrorism is a war on Democrats. This will divide America, and that is good for the terrorists. How many Americans will lose their lives because we in this House cannot empower the Department of Homeland Security because that Department now seems bent on a coverup of its use of its great powers to pervert American democracy? Only a release of the tapes can reunite America behind the Department of Homeland Security. A failure to release those tapes breaks up American unity, impairs our security, and raises questions about what is there to cover up, questions like what did they know and when did they know it? Let us unite America behind the war against terrorism. Let us release the tapes. Now let us talk about taxes. The Bush recession continues. Republicans continue to use their political power to adopt job-killer policies, which means the Bush recession will continue to continue. The most obvious job-killer policy is the dividend exclusion provision included in the bill passed by the Senate. Now, every major tax provision has both positive and negative effects on our economy, and Republican after Republican has come down to this floor to talk about the rather modest economic benefits of excluding dividends from taxation. We Democrats have been distracted. We have been so incensed that this dividend exclusion provision gives almost all its benefits to the wealthiest that we forgot to point out it is also a job killer. Yes, this is a provision that provides 50 percent of its benefits to the richest 1 percent of Americans and provides 1 percent of its benefits to the 50 percent of Americans at the bottom and in the middle. It represents class warfare against working families. It seems to be inspired to allow the wealthiest in our country to buy this new automobile from Mercedes Benz, the Maybach. It is only $350,000, or roughly the benefit to those with an income of $1 million over a 3\1/ 2\-year period from this provision. So we got so distracted by how incensed we were that we forgot to mention it is a job-killer provision. Let me illustrate that. Let us say there was a proposal to drop $25 billion from helicopters. There would be a positive effect. Those who supported the programs from the other side of the aisle could come down here and say, hey, it is going to stimulate the economy, putting money in the hands of somebody. But it would be obvious that 25 or $50 billion dropped from helicopters would also hurt our economy, because it would drive up interest rates, drive up the deficit and deprive this House of the opportunity to help our States keep teachers and law enforcement officers employed. They are being laid off in so many States. So dropping money from a helicopter is ultimately a job-killer proposal. The dividend exclusion has a smaller positive economic benefit and a larger economic harm than dropping money from helicopters, because at least the people who would catch money from helicopters would spend the money in America on the necessities of life, whereas the dividend exclusion tends to go to those who would spend money chiefly on luxury imports like the Maybach from Mercedes Benz, only $350,000. The dividend exclusion was justified under the idea that we are going to put money in corporate treasuries because people were going to buy stock, so the first effect of this dividend exclusion is that more dividends are paid. That takes money out of treasuries and deprives corporations of the opportunity to buy plants and equipment. But at least it provided some reason, perhaps, for people to buy stock, to put money into corporate treasuries and they go out and buy plants and equipment. But now the Senate has changed it. Now the new provision provides a half exclusion for dividends paid in 2003, a full exclusion for dividends paid in 2004, 2005, and 2006, and back to full taxation in 2007. What does that mean? First, it means 8 months of an economic freeze. For 8 months, the corporations will not pay any dividends, they are going to be half taxable, when they can wait until January of next year. They cannot invest this cash because they are going to need it to pay the big dividend in January. They cannot distribute it because it is subject to half taxation. It is locked up, hurting our economy tremendously by freezing the very cash that we need to put into the economy. Then what happens after that? In 2004, 2005, 2006, huge dividends and no investment in the economy. But why would anybody buy stock because of a provision that is going to exempt dividends for a few years? Would Members buy a municipal bond that was tax-free for a few years and then was going to be subject to full tax? This means no new investment except in Germany, where they will need a new line to build more copies of the Maybach. That will be the only investment caused by this provision. The Bush recession continues, and job-killer policies like the dividend provision in the Senate bill ensure that the Bush recession will continue to continue.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I came down here to talk about taxes, but let me first talk about Texas. All Americans must unite in the war against terrorism and we did that. We passed the PATRIOT Act. We provided resources for the Department of Homeland Security. But now we discover that the war on terrorism is a war against Democrats. This will divide America, and that is good for the terrorists. How many Americans may lose their lives because we cannot empower the Department of Homeland Security because it uses that power to pervert American democracy? Only an honest release of the tapes, only an honest approach will save the Department of Homeland Security and save only the Americans that it can save. Now let us talk about taxes. The Bush recession continues. Republicans continue to use their political power to adopt job-killer policies which means the Bush recession will continue to continue. The most obvious job-killer policy is the dividend exclusion provision included in the Senate tax bill passed last week. Every major tax provision has both positive and negative effects on our economy, and Republican after Republican has come down here to talk about the rather modest economic benefits of excluding dividends from taxation. Democrats, though, have not used our time to respond and to point out the much larger offsetting negative effects of this provision. The reason for that is that we Democrats have been so incensed at a policy that provides 50 percent of the tax benefits to 1 percent of the population and gives 1 percent of the benefits to 50 percent of the population. We have been so incensed that the Republicans would launch a class war attack against working families. We have been so incensed that they would come up with a policy designed to allow the richest in America to buy the new $350,000 Mercedes Benz, the Maybach, and pass the cost on to the sons and daughters of working Americans as they build the deficit. We have been so incensed about that that we forgot to mention, oh, by the way, it is a job killer. Let us talk about that. We could of course drop currency from helicopters, $25 billion a year, $50 billion a year, and that would have some positive economic effects; but it would have a much larger negative economic effect because it would raise interest rates and it would deprive us of the opportunity to help States. They will have to discharge teachers, law enforcement officers, and others; and those folks will lose their jobs. So even helicopters dropping cash has some positive effect, but a larger offsetting effect. The offsetting and negative effect of this dividend exclusion is worse because at least the people who catch the money from the helicopter will probably go out and spend it on necessities of life, whereas the dividend exclusion is aimed at the folks most likely to buy foreign luxury imports, which does not provide jobs for Americans. The dividend exclusion was justified on the idea that it was going to build up corporate treasuries because people would invest in stock and then the corporations would go out and buy plants and equipment. This was proven to be a phony ruse because under pressure to bring down the price tag of the dividend exclusion, the White House has now written a version that obviously will not cause any additional corporate investment. What does that provision do? It provides half-tax exclusion for dividends paid in 2003; full exclusion for 2004, 2005, 2006, and then back to a full taxation of dividends starting in 2007 and future years. What will that mean? First, all the dividends corporations were going to pay out this month and in the next 8 months will not be paid; so we will have a slump in expenditures by those who receive dividends. Why? Because they can wait until January 1 of next year, pay the dividend, and have it be completely tax exempt. So we start with the decline even in the amount of dividends paid, but come 2004 we will see huge dividend payments. That money comes out of corporate treasuries. It reduces the amount that corporations have available for investment of plant and equipment; and if they have any money after 2004, they will pay it all out in 2005, 2006. No corporate investment; huge dividends. But it is argued that this dividend exclusion is going to encourage investment in stock. If it had been a permanent exclusion, maybe that was a possibility. A lot of people buy municipal bonds because they get tax-free income. But who would buy municipal bonds if their income was going to become fully taxable in just a few years? Who is going to buy corporate stock because they want dividend exclusion when the dividend exclusion is going to expire in just a few years? So there will be a huge outlay of corporate funds from corporate treasuries that will not be available to buy plant and equipment. But there will be no investment in corporations caused by this provision because nobody is going to buy a new issuance of stock if in just a few years we are going to be back to the old tax law. The Bush recession continues. Job-killer policies like that contained in the Senate bill will ensure that the Bush recession will continue to continue.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to five outstanding members of our law enforcement and firefighter communities. Bradley C. Thompson, Michael Jensen, Jim Pollock, Brian Brown, and Edward Lee Teter will be honored tonight at the Valley Community Legal Foundation of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association ``Law Day Dinner'' honoring ``Heroes in Law Enforcement.'' Each of these fine men have dedicated their lives to the service of the San Fernando Valley and leave a legacy of heroism for all to admire. Deputy Bradley C. Thompson of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department distinguished himself last December when he fearlessly rescued a driver from a burning vehicle. Deputy Thompson observed a passenger van engulfed in flames on December 10 and immediately responded. Bradley selflessly proceeded into the fire and ultimately freed the driver, undoubtedly saving his life. His heroism is truly admirable. Los Angeles Police Detective Michael Jensen has excelled at his job since joining the force in 1972. Michael ascended to the rank of Detective in North Hollywood. In that role, Officer Jensen has become a mentor for the division and has solved many critical cases. Michael continues to lead his fellow officers in the Valley and has proven to be an exceptional asset to our law enforcement community. City of San Fernando Police Detective Jim Pollock began solving narcotics cases in 1979. He has become a vital liaison between local law enforcement and federal police agencies such as the FBI, ATF, and DEA. Detective Pollock was nationally recognized in 1996 for his efforts to dismantle a large interstate drug trafficking organization. Jim is invaluable to our communities efforts to improve the lives of San Fernando Valley residents. California Highway Patrol officer Brian Brown began assignment in the West Valley in 1998. Over the past five years, Officer Brown has served the Ventura Freeway corridor with bravery. This past January, Brian happened upon a serious accident involving a burning car that had left the roadway. Officer Brown made several attempts to free the driver from the perilous wreck. For his efforts, Brian has been rightly nominated for the Medal of Valor. Los Angeles City Fire Fighter Edward Lee Teter has served Pacoima from Fire Station 98 since 1982. His engineering skills and leadership have been tremendous assets to the Fire Department and the East Valley. Ed has also volunteered his time and efforts to help rebuild an orphanage in Tijuana, Mexico. Mr. Teter mentors many firefighters in his station and was recently recognized as ``Officer of the Year'' for his unselfish service. Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending these fine individuals on their exemplary work for San Fernando Valley residents. Each of them has set a standard for leadership and dedication we can all aspire to. It is my privilege to join the San Fernando Valley Bar Association in recognizing our wealth of outstanding police and fire officers.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the Democratic 5 minutes after the Republican.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a job killer. It ensures the continuation of the Bush recession. Now, some will benefit from this. In fact, those who earn over $1 million a year will average more than $93,000. That is almost enough to be a Bush Pioneer, if you give $100,000 to the Bush campaign. What has happened here in this debate is that the minor economic benefits of this proposal have been talked about extensively, but the offsetting and much larger economic detriments have not been discussed as extensively. Because my colleagues on the Democratic side are so incensed at how unfair this bill is, we have not had enough time to talk about what a job killer it is. What does this bill do? Yes, it does put some wealthy individuals in a position where they can buy the new $350,000 Mercedes. It is an expensive car. It is a new car. It is the latest toy. And that is where a big chunk, along with similar consumption items, foreign consumption items, where a significant part of this tax bill's result is going. It is true that some of it will be invested by the wealthy. Some of it will stimulate domestic demand. So there is some positives of the $550 billion. It is hard to find $550 billion that does not have some positives. But what about the negative? 100 percent of the cost of this bill, and as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) explained, that is over $1 trillion, gets sucked out of our capital markets. What does this mean? It means that the over 2.5 million Americans who have already lost their job in the Bush recession will not find new jobs, because when small businesses in my district go to borrow money, the banker will say no, money is not available. We lent it instead to the U.S. Treasury, who has an excellent record of paying it back. How are small businesses supposed to get the capital they need to expand? They are not going to be able to get it from our capital markets, because $1 trillion is going to be sucked out to pay for this deficit. It is not typical for me to come to this floor and criticize one of my California colleagues and how they run their office, but I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), you must give your staff a raise, because they have come up with a more regressive tax proposal than the Bush administration. They have done more for the Pioneers. Look at this. This is amazingly regressive, with virtually nothing going to half of Americans, and $93,000 going to the very wealthy. How do they achieve that? Let us look at the next chart. They come up with an interesting approach. The tax provisions that help middle-class families cease to have any effect in 2007, whereas the provisions that are responsible for the millionaires getting $93,000 each each year continue for quite some time. In fact, this bill does not have a single provision that helps middle-class families that continues in effect past 2007. So, let us summarize this bill: Benefits in 2008 for future years that help middle-class families, zero. Benefits to 50 percent of all Americans from the dividend provisions in this bill, 1 percent. Benefits to the top 1 percent coming from the dividend provisions and capital gains provisions of this bill, over 50 percent. Having a staff that can put together a bill that is more regressive than the White House was able to put together, priceless. Yes, RepubliCard. Some things, campaign contributions just cannot buy. For everything else, there is RepubliCard. RepubliCard. The country club will accept nothing less. Also, finally, do not forget to apply for the Deficit Express Card, now with a $12 trillion credit limit, because we will indeed have a $12 trillion national debt with the budget adopted by the majority party. Deficit Express Card, don't leave the House without it.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in support of this amendment. I think getting all of the citizen input possible is called for. I know that it has been discussed that perhaps the citizen panels on telecommunications did not create sufficient community interest. I for one found Tauzin-Dingell to be boring. I am not sure that my constituents found telecommunications to be a reason to drive long distances to participate in citizen panels. I think the issues that nanotechnology brings before us are simply going to create more citizen involvement and that the citizen panels here will be quite important. Among the questions that this technology will raise, when I took the CPA test, they would not let me bring a calculator. A decade from now, chips will be implanted in people's brains. Can they take the CPA test? Do we have to disable the chip? I do not know. Today Shaquille O'Neil is the most dominating force on the basketball court, but what if parents decide that they want genes moved this way and that way so that their son or daughter could be even taller, even bigger? Will this person be eligible to participate in the NBA, and if so, will the Lakers get to draft that person? I do not know, but it strikes me as more interesting than much of telecommunications, and I know there are Members of this body very interested in telecommunications, and I praise them for that involvement. The entire issue of artificial intelligence and what happens when a computer first asks us for the minimum wage, I do not know how we are going to react; but I think that these are questions we are going to confront in the next few decades. They are questions that should involve all of society. They involve the very issue of what it means to be a human being. They will arouse a level of theological debate that we did not face in telecommunications; and for those reasons I think that even if panels were not successful on that issue, they will be quite interesting on it. Before we change what it is to be human, we ought to ask humans what they think about.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I will try to drag out my speech as long as necessary so that the chairman's speakers will have time to arrive on this floor. Mr. Chairman, small is big. Nanotechnology is very small, roughly the size of a molecule, and very small is going to be very big. Nanotechnology really encompasses virtually all of the cutting edge science that will pretty much determine our future this century, because it includes what is being done in genetic engineering, what is likely to be done in computer engineering, and it includes the molecular manufacturing dealing with a host of new products created molecule by molecule. Nanotechnology offers the possibility, I think the probability, of solving most of the problems that we wrestle with here on the floor such as energy and health care. But if it is able to do that, it will also create even more challenging problems. Nanotechnology will operate below the surface for quite some time until the basic technological and scientific challenges are met. But once we are able to manipulate matter at the molecular level, there will be an explosive impact on our society. The last such explosion was the development of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Einstein and others wrote to President Roosevelt in 1939, describing the possibility of nuclear fission, and in less than a decade we as a species had to deal with the realities of nuclear weapons not only in the hands of America but other countries as well. That is why it is so important that this bill includes not only scientific research, but also every possible effort to deal with the societal implications that arise from this technology. I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member, for the bipartisan approach and the very reasoned approach taken during the markup of this bill to make sure the bill includes mechanisms to examine the societal impacts. I bring just one of those impacts to your attention, and that is the creation of new levels of intelligence, whether that is done through what is sometimes referred to as wet nanotechnology, that is to say, genetic engineering; or whether it is done through what is sometimes called dry nanotechnology, computer engineering. Either of those two approaches may well create levels of intelligence that may be our protector, may be our competitor, or may simply regarded us as pets, or it may change our definition of what it is to be a human being. Before we confront questions of that type, it is important that this bill, as it does, provides mechanisms for us to get input from a wide range of society because while these issues will not confront us this decade, it will take us more than a decade to see how we can deal with them. I see that other speakers have arrived so my effort to stall has been successful, and I want to yield back my time just after I make one comment, and that is I understand that there are four amendments that will be offered today. I do not know if they will all be offered, but each of them is designed to enhance the bill further by having us take a look at the societal implications of nanotechnology, and I would hope that each such amendment would be perhaps accepted without a rollcall vote so that this bill can move over to the other body in the best possible form.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of this amendment. It is my understanding that the amendment does not limit the societal impact that is going to be evaluated, but simply specifies that among the things to be looked at are the toxicological and the environmental. I do not know whether the gentleman from Texas would want me to yield to him so that he could further explain whether his amendment would limit or perhaps just identify certain areas for such review.