Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, last year, the people of Taiwan went to the polls to select the individual who would serve as the Tenth President of the Republic of China. Mr. Chen Shui-bian, a member of an opposition party, won that hotly contested race, and for the first time in Chinese history, people in Taiwan had a peaceful transfer of power. Many scholars and government officials in the PRC suggested that if President Chen were elected, Southeast Asia would be thrown into economic and political turmoil. It did not occur. Instead, President Chen has avoided provoking the mainland. He has honored his pledge to seek a genuine dialogue with the Chinese mainland and his approach towards the PRC has won praise from neighbors in Asia and the United States. Mr. Speaker, In spite of all that President Chen and the people of Taiwan have done, Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations, and its twenty-three million people are not represented in that body and in many other international organizations. It is time for fair-minded leaders of the world to correct this injustice. Unfortunately, the General Assembly again failed to provide Taiwan with the membership in this body it so richly deserves this year. I call on my colleagues and the Bush Administration to urge membership for Taiwan when the issue comes before the General Assembly next year. The members of the United Nations should include all people and nations, especially those who stand as a true example of political freedom. Many of my colleagues may be concerned about Taiwan's status as officially a province of China. I would remind my colleagues that other divided nations--Germany and Vietnam, for instance--enjoyed full representation in the UN by both of their governments. We should afford the free-market democracy of Taiwan the same.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I am due on a TV broadcast that starts rather soon. I know this sounds rather late, but it is prime time back in my own California. I rise to address several aspects of the recent tragedy, the recent outrage. I want to associate myself with the statements of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) when he came to this floor and talked about how important it was that we treat everyone with dignity and with respect, and decried several incidents involving discrimination against those of the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu faiths. Let us, though, also applaud the 99.999 percent of Americans who in fact today are treating their fellow Americans with tolerance and respect. I had a large public meeting in my district in which one of the two leaders of our Islamic community commented that, yes, we should all treat everyone with respect and, yes, he was chagrined by some recent reports. But he only wondered how much worse it would be in any other country in the world for any other minority group. And, in fact, in our own country in the 1940s, we did not act with the same level of respect and tolerance that we are showing today. Let us remember that America is not anti-Muslim and not anti-Islam. In fact, the last three military engagements of the United States were for the purpose of defending Muslim people. We restored the independence of Kuwait. We then went on to save the Bosnian Muslims from genocide. And then we bombed a Christian country, Serbia, because of what Serbia tried to do to its Albanian Muslim minority. And now American and NATO troops are engaged in Macedonia for the purpose of achieving a just result for the Albanian Muslims who are a minority in that country. So let us not only condemn every act of intolerance, but let us applaud an overwhelming majority of Americans who are acting with tolerance even at a time when emotions run high. Let me comment on those who suggest that we modify our foreign policy in the Middle East in order to placate Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and other extremists. These calls do no honor to the greatest generation and its response to Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there were some who suggested that all we had to do was change our foreign policy in the Far East, allow Japan to conquer all of China, and then we could avoid conflict. Instead, the greatest generation made the greatest sacrifices to win the greatest victory. It would be a dishonor to that generation for us to act any differently now that we have suffered the greatest loss of American life on American soil since our Civil War, a loss of life two to three times what we suffered at Pearl Harbor. But not only is appeasement dishonorable, it is also, in this case, impossible. Because what motivated Osama bin Laden was a hatred for the fact that American troops are somehow ``defiling'' the soil of Arabia by being stationed there in defense of the Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes. Remember that if those soldiers were not there, Saddam Hussein would control not only Kuwait but also Saudi Arabia, also the Emirates, and he would control 70 percent of the world's oil reserves. But even a withdrawal of American soldiers from the Arabian peninsula would not be enough. It would just whet the appetite of Osama bin Laden, who will not rest until every Arab leader who is even moderately pro-American is displaced and killed, including the entire Saudi royal family. But even that would not placate bin Laden, who would demand not what Arafat is demanding with regard to Palestinian-Israeli relations but the total destruction of 5 million Israelis. But even that would only whet his appetite. Bin Laden will not rest until every girl in every part of the world is kicked out of school, until the concept of female illiteracy is enshrined worldwide. I do not think that appeasement of bin Laden is possible. But even if it were, if you can change American foreign policy in the Mideast by an act of great terror, then what about those who disagree with our policy in Colombia or Kosovo, Macedonia, Sumatra, Sri Lanka or Taiwan? If we establish the policy that terrorists can change our foreign policy, then every terrorist will try to control the only superpower by an act of super terror. We must stand by our friends in the Middle East and show that we cannot be controlled by terrorists.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do have an inquiry of the majority leader. I do join the gentleman in the fervent hope we can complete our business for the week by Tuesday night. In the event that it was necessary for us to convene on Wednesday morning, could we convene at 9 a.m., in the hopes that maybe we could wrap up our business on Wednesday morning and not continue into Wednesday afternoon?

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the majority leader for doing everything possible to accommodate us.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleague in echoing what several have said, and that is that we must respect all Americans of all ethnicities and all religions. No religion preaches mass murder, and those of the Islamic faith are as loyal as any other group of Americans and as determined that we make ourselves safe from this kind of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be dealing with a resolution which, in some ways, still seems a bit broad, especially when one reads the Supreme Court opinions that indicate that it is Congress, rather than the President, that was really given the obligation to form American foreign policy under the Constitution. Obviously, since World War II, that is not as it has been. But we in Congress need to do more than just provide $40 billion and a blank check and leave town. I know that when we come back, we will want to do an awful lot more, perhaps providing some direction to how the President uses the powers that we will confer upon him today or tomorrow. One thing, though, is that the resolution in one respect is not broad enough, because it gives the President the power to deal with the terrorist acts of September 11. I think the President should have equal power to deal with the horrendous bombings of our embassies in Daressalam and Nairobi and to deal with the murderous attack on our sailors on the USS Cole. One advantage of giving the President the power to deal with those incidents is we already know who is responsible: Osama bin Laden; whereas it may take weeks or months to establish who is culpable for this week's terrible crimes. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not a senior member of this House; I am a man of limited responsibility and far more limited wisdom. But I do have a few ideas as to how we should respond to what has happened to us. I sit on the Committee on Financial Services, and I know it has been suggested by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means that we somehow help our stock market by providing a lower capital gains tax. That would the panic-selling facilitation act. It would mean that those who want to sell in panic, get out of the stock market and weaken America, in doing so would pay less tax. Instead, what we need, Mr. Speaker, is to encourage Americans to bet on America. We will prevail, we will be strong, and those who bet on America on Monday will be rewarded. If it should be necessary to change our policy, and I do not think it is, in order to help the stock market, then we should allow more money to be invested in IRAs and 401(k)s on the assumption, or on the requirement that the additional funds be invested in the stock market. I do not think that will be necessary. The international stock markets have responded relatively well, and the smart money will be bet on America. Mr. Speaker, also on the Committee on Financial Services, I am concerned that the bank secrecy laws of our allies may interfere with our investigation of Osama bin Laden and other groups. Bin Laden has at least $100 million, maybe $200 million in assets, and these are not held in gold bars in Qandahar, Afghanistan. Financial institutions do business with Osama bin Laden and we need to hear right now from the Ambassador from Switzerland and the Ambassador of every country that has bank secrecy laws, that those laws will be waived to assist America in its hour of need. No country dare withhold information that we need and claim to be America's friend. We cannot do business as usual with those who do business with terrorists and then will not share the financial records with us. Mr. Speaker, we should also look at the Attorney General guidelines for investigating domestic organizations. I am told that the FBI, before they investigate an organization, must have evidence that that organization is actually plotting crimes. We should also, and this is a tough one, but we should at least consider a congressional mandate that the FBI also investigate those organizations that strongly advocate killing as many Americans as possible while disclaiming that they are actually involved in carrying out plots to do so; because if an organization is able to advocate killing as many Americans as possible and do so on American soil, they will be able to recruit individuals who will be able to plot to actually carry out those beliefs. Mr. Speaker, we should look at the proposals that have been made to have a locked cabin, in which the pilot sits, with bulletproofing. I know that there are some details to be worked out in that, particularly as to pilot safety, but a law that does not allow hijackers into the pilot cabin.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in certain foreign cities there were those who danced in the streets believing that the terrorists' ability to kill thousands of American civilians showed the terrorists' strength. America's strength is not our ability to kill civilians, but our great strength is that we do everything possible to avoid killing civilians. We must remember that our conflict is not with Islam and not with Muslims. The last three military campaigns of the United States were to protect Muslim people in Bosnia, in Kosovo and in Kuwait. For years we have urged our allies to join us in curtailing investments and aid to countries that support terrorism. Now we must insist that they join us in this effort. Those who claim to be America's friends can no longer do business as usual with countries that support terrorism, nor can we allow European bank secrecy laws to stand in our way of tracing the money that was spent on this horrendous action. We must wage a war against all of the well-organized, well-financed terrorist groups who have dedicated themselves to killing Americans. Chief among this group is the one headed by Osama bin Laden. He is probably responsible for the atrocities of September 11, and certainly responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and the attack on our embassies in East Africa. As long as the Taliban government in Afghanistan harbors Osama bin Laden, he will be working every day to top the evil of September 11. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to blame our intelligence agencies for what happened, but as long as we have allowed Osama bin Laden and others to sit there in safety, launching attack after attack against America, some of those attacks will be successful. We must demand that the Taliban government hand Osama bin Laden and his henchmen over to us now and stop harboring terrorists. If they refuse, then we must initiate hostilities. We will prevail by aligning ourselves with the Northern Alliance. Hostilities with the Taliban may involve American casualties, but failure to act will involve thousands and tens of thousands of American casualties.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we suffered the greatest loss of American life on American soil since our Civil War. I fear that we are reacting as if a few hundred Americans died at the hands of a small band of terrorists. I fear that we will just launch a dozen cruise missiles and call it a day like we did after our embassies were bombed in East Africa. Let us wake up! There are probably 10,000 or more dead Americans. That is four times the number that died at Pearl Harbor. I do not know whether Osama bin Laden is responsible, but I join the distinguished gentleman from California in demanding that Afghanistan extradite bin Laden to the United States because we do know that bin Laden killed Americans on the U.S.S. Cole and bombed our embassies in East Africa. But let me go further. If the Taliban government refuses, we should go to war. It is a war we can win, as we won the war in Kosovo, chiefly with air power and with the support of local allies. The Northern Alliance of Afghanistan shelled Kabul last night. That alliance may have suffered the death or the severe wounding of its leader, General Masoud at the hands of bin Laden's assassins just 2 days ago. However, the Northern Alliance is intact, and if the Afghan Government does not surrender bin Laden by the end of this week, then the Northern Alliance should be the best armed rebel army in the world by the end of this month. We can, with permission or with impunity, fly over the territory necessary in order to bomb the Taliban and resupply the Northern Alliance. A war against the Taliban government of Afghanistan will involve American casualties, but how many thousands of casualties will we suffer if we allow a foreign government to harbor and support well- organized, well-financed terrorist groups capable of mass murder. This will be a war against the Taliban, but it is not a war against Islam. I join the prior speaker in saying we must respect Americans of all faiths. September 11, 2001 is a day that will live in infamy. This may be the greatest loss of life on American soil since the Civil War. Today's loss of life may approach or exceed the loss of life at Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor some suggested appeasement, and withdrawal from Asia and the Pacific. Instead the greatest generation made the greatest sacrifices to win our greatest victory. America must mobilize for a war against terrorism, not only against the criminals responsible for today's horrific events, but all terrorism. This is not a war against Islam, or against Muslims. Our last three wars were waged to protect people who happen to be Muslim. We restored independence to the people of Kuwait and then engaged in two further wars in which we had no economic stake. In the mid-1990s, we protected the Bosnian Muslims from genocide. In 1999, we went to war against Serbia, a Christian country, to protect its Albanian Muslim minority from ethnic cleansing. Today we suffered greater casualties than in all three of those wars combined. There are some dancing in the streets of certain foreign cities who believe that the terrorists who killed thousands of American civilians have proven their strength by killing thousands of civilians. America has the power to kill civilians by the tens of thousands or the tens of millions. However America's great strength is that we do everything possible to avoid killing civilians, even those who dance today in delight. For years, we have begged our friends to curtail investment and aid to countries which support terrorism. Now in this war for decency and civilization we must have the full support of our allies. Those who claim to be friends of America can no longer do business as usual with countries which harbor terrorists. We appreciate the statements of sympathy from the Taliban government in Afghanistan, but this is clearly insufficient. The Taliban government must turn over Osama bin Laden and his associates to the United States. If the Afghan government gives us excuses instead of giving us bin Laden, we must take harsh action. This would include providing arms and perhaps air cover to the forces in Northern Afghanistan and the legitimate government of that country. These forces have fought the Taliban to a standstill without our help. With very substantial American help these forces will march into Kabul. We appreciate the statements of sympathy from chairman Arafat, but we must demand that he arrest terrorists in areas he controls. We should not wait until we have identified the particular criminals responsible for today's tragedy, nor should we limit our response to one particular terrorist organization. Osama bin Laden may or may not be responsible for today's crimes, but he is responsible for the attack on the USS Cole and for the second worst terrorist attack against America, the bombing of our embassies in east Africa. We must demand bin Laden be turned over to the United States to be tried for those crimes. Even if we totally destroy the organization responsible for today's crimes, other organizations will try to surpass today's evil. We must root out all terrorist organizations. We must take harsh action against any country that harbors or supports terrorists. We should seek U.N. approval for our action; but we must act even if the U.N. does not.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, our hearts are filled with sympathy for the victims of what looks like the greatest loss of life on American soil since our Civil War, I fear greater even than Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, there were a few timid souls who said that we should appease our attackers by changing our policy in the Far East and conclude a quick peace. Instead, the greatest generation waged the greatest war, made the greatest sacrifices, and won the greatest victory. Today, we cannot even talk about appeasing the murderers by abandoning our friends in the Middle East. We instead must wage a war against terrorism, all terrorist groups; and we must remember that our war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims. Our last three wars were to protect the Muslim people of Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. We must demand that Afghanistan send Osama bin Laden to the United States for trial for what he did at Yemen and what he did in East Africa; and if they do not, we should aid the Northern Alliance.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the energy bill is a bonanza for big oil. It lets them drill in environmentally sensitive lands, gives them $30 billion in tax cuts and another $7 billion of rollbacks and royalties. Listen to this. They tell us government should act like private business. Would a private businessperson let an oil company drill on his land without getting a royalty? That is what this bill does. It is a bonanza for big oil. But let us say we like giving the oil companies $37 billion. Should we not at least pay for it? The Committee on Rules has prohibited any amendments to make this bill pay for itself. As a result, all the bonanza for the oil companies comes right out of the Medicare trust fund. Wake up. We have a new economic situation, a new President and there is no surplus except the Medicare surplus. Finally, the Committee on Rules has decided not even to allow California and the Western states a chance on this floor to ask to change our clocks and use daylight saving time in more creative ways. There is nothing in the bill for conservation and everything for the oil companies.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to spend hours here listening to the exponents of States' rights come here with patronizing lectures taken out of economics 101 textbooks to tell California what we need. The fact is that electricity is a unique product. You cannot store it, there is no substitute for it, you cannot ship it, there are major barriers to entry. That is why most of the country for the last 75 years has regulated its price. This chart illustrates that we must regulate the price of electricity or there will be a decline in supply. When we deregulated, you see those yellow lines indicating the plants that were closed for maintenance. Roughly 10,000 extra hours, megawatt hours, closed for maintenance. What that really illustrates is that a few out-of-State companies were able to close their plants for maintenance, which means close their plants to maintain an outrageous price for every kilowatt. If you want more supply, you have to limit the gouging. Pass the Waxman amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for authoring this statute. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for standing so strong against efforts to weaken this bill, standing as strong as the Athenians at Marathon after attack after attack to try to water down, weaken, or shorten this important act. I want to associate myself with the comments of all previous speakers, because this bill is critical to American values and to our allies. But I want to point out that this is the most important thing we can do here in Congress to protect American national security, because in this century the greatest threats to our security are terrorism, and as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others pointed out, much of that originates in Tehran, and nuclear proliferation. Iran is the country hostile to the United States most likely to develop nuclear weapons. It is the combination of those two threats, nuclear terrorism, that poses the single greatest combined threat to the safety of Americans. What this bill does is it focuses on Iran's economy. Iran is not a small country with a huge amount of oil. It is not Abu Dhabi. It is a country with an increasingly large population and an economy that is not doing well. Iran will become a net importer of oil if it does not get western capital and western technology to expand and improve its oil fields. Largely as a result of our actions here today and the actions taken by this Congress 5 years ago, Iran has not been able to obtain that capital and technology, and the vast majority of requests for proposals and requests to contract with western oil companies have been denied. One can only imagine the nuclear weapons program that Iran could have financed if this bill had not been passed 5 years ago, and we must focus on extending it now for another 5 years. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act for the last 5 years has made it more difficult for the Iranian government to have the financial wherewithal to engage in an all-out program to develop nuclear weapons, and it must be continued. Now, we are told that there is this new rise of moderates in Iran. There may be differences in Iran on domestic issues and cultural issues, but the so-called moderates and so-called extremists are united in two things, support for international terrorism and a belief that Iran should develop nuclear weapons. No amount of discord in Tehran should distract us from our need to make sure that that government does not have the assets it could use to develop nuclear weapons and to continue its support of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, there are those who wonder whether our sanctions are successful. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) quoted the statement of the government of Iran saying that, in fact, we have deprived that government of money, that we have adversely affected its gross national product. More recently, the country of Sudan, subject to different sanctions, subject to the threat of sanctions here in this Congress, did not obtain investment from Canada's Tasman Oil Company because this Congress was merely considering sanctions, namely, delisting from the New York Stock Exchange of those who invest in Sudanese oil. So sanctions have been successful, both in dealing with Iran and in dealing with Sudan. As to Libya, yes, we have not achieved the change of policy we would like, but why did Libya turn its two murderers over to international justice, or the two accused of murder, one who was convicted? Only because of international sanctions spearheaded by the United States. Recently, there have been those who have asked us to extend this act for only 2 years. If we had done that, it would have been such a sign of weakness as to give courage and strength to the most aggressive elements in Tehran. I want to commend all of those who took a leadership role in making sure that this bill would be extended for 5 years. I look forward to an enormous affirmative vote tomorrow.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the comments made in this colloquy and say that to those two companies, in addition to all of the sanctions outlined in ILSA, we should come back, if necessary, in this Congress, and mandate that those who violate ILSA's strict provisions are denied all access to American capital markets and that their stocks and bonds will not be listed on NASDAQ or the New York Stock Exchange. We are studying those types of provisions in the Committee on Financial Services, and I am confident that we will have the votes to make sure that this access to American capital markets, which is increasingly important to Japanese and European companies, will not be available to those companies that invest significantly in the Iranian petroleum sector.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am anxious, we are all anxious, to begin campaign finance reform and to begin it by making our rules more fair. Unfortunately, we need to oppose the rule that is coming before this House this morning. It is a rule that tells the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) that they cannot present their bill to this House in the form that they want to present it. Instead, the manager's amendment is chopped up into 12 pieces. This is unprecedented. This is unfair. This is not reform. This is not the way this House should conduct its business. A vote on Shays- Meehan should be a vote on the bill that the authors would like us to vote on, not an old draft from 3 or 4 weeks ago. If we have a manager's amendment that comes before this House, it should be one amendment, not chopped up into 12 time-wasting pieces. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. SHERMAN

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

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H. Res. 160 and to keep these issues in mind as other issues involving the U.S.-China relationship come before this House.

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 160. I commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for introducing this important resolution and for his quite eloquent advocacy of it. We have so often heard the pleas of children hurt by governments, hurt by violations of human rights; and I think that it will often be quoted, ``Let the crayon be mightier than the sword.'' I say to the gentleman from New Jersey, that is a line that I think we should remember. Madam Speaker, this resolution calls on the government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release American scholars of Chinese ancestry, including both United States citizens and U.S. permanent residents, being held in detention. Unfortunately, the recent arrest of these scholars is only the latest example of the Chinese Government's willingness to invent false accusations against perfectly innocent people, especially those involved in the noble but dangerous effort to secure human rights for the people of China. To illustrate the cost in human terms of China's brutality, let us look at one case, one of the several cases that our colleague from New Jersey brought up, and that is the case of Dr. Gao Zhan. Gao Zhan is an academic who specializes in researching women's issues. She and her husband are permanent residents of the United States and their 5-year- old son, Andrew, is an American by birth. Gao and her family traveled to China to visit relatives. As they stood in line at the Beijing airport waiting for their flight back to the United States, they were seized by Chinese officials. Each family member was forced into a separate car waiting outside the terminal and taken away. Imagine the horror of a mother being suddenly separated from her child by nameless Chinese officials. Imagine the fear experienced by Gao's husband as he was blindfolded, driven for hours to an unknown location, and subsequently interrogated about his wife's research. Imagine being a 5-year-old boy torn away from your parents under such circumstances. Gao's son was taken to a state-run institution. He was held alone for 26 days, completely separated from his family. Let me repeat, a 5-year-old boy held alone for 26 days without his mother, without his father, or without even access to his grandparents, who happen to live in China. These actions violate international law and bilateral agreements between the United States and China, not to mention basic human decency in the way of treating people, particularly a 5-year-old child. Chinese authorities finally allowed Gao's husband to retrieve his son and return to the United States. Gao, however, has not fared so well. She is still imprisoned in China on false charges. The Chinese Government refuses to reveal the nature of the so-called evidence against Gao or to give her a chance to publicly defend herself with adequate defense counsel. We know about the cases of Gao Zhan and the other five scholars that are specifically mentioned in the resolution because they have connections to the United States. They are residents or citizens of the United States. But let us also remember that there are tens of thousands of Chinese citizens who have no connection with America but are dissidents struggling to lay the groundwork for a future democratic China. These thousands are locked away for years in Chinese jails. There is no embassy to ask about them, no newspapers to write about them, and they are relegated to a most uncertain and most inhumane fate. We must remember them. We must honor them and the democratic cause for which they fight. As a first step, it is absolutely imperative that the Bush administration make the release of these six Chinese Americans a top priority in our relationship with the People's Republic of China. We can win the release of these Chinese Americans if we bring this issue to the highest level. If President Bush personally asks President Jiang to release these and other imprisoned scholars, I am confident that Gao Zhan will see her husband and son again, and that Li Shaomin will soon come home to his wife and his daughter. It is important that we pass this resolution. It is also important that we keep these human rights abuses in mind when we decide what position to take as a country and as a Congress on the issue of whether the Olympics should be held in Beijing in 2008. It is perhaps unfortunate that the administration has announced that it is neutral with regard to that bid for the Olympics. But the Olympics stands for something. It stands, in part, for the humane treatment of all people. I think this Congress ought to take up and bring up on this floor the resolution urging that the Olympics not be held in Beijing while human rights abuses continue. In addition, it is important that we as Members of Congress keep these human rights issues in mind as we vote on annual, quote, ``normal trade relations,'' also known as most-favored-nation status when that issue comes to this floor. But for now, I urge all my colleagues to support H. Res. 160. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in 1999, California paid $7 billion for electrical generation. A year later, last year, we paid $32.5 billion for the same amount of electricity. Today, with conservation efforts, we will use no more electricity than we did 2 years ago, but we will pay 50, 60 or $70 billion for the same number of electrons. This is because so many turbines in California are, quote, closed for maintenance. If my colleagues will see this chart, they will see that roughly 10,000 megawatts, one-fifth of everything California needs, is shut down in excessive maintenance. Why? Because the independent energy wholesalers know that by closing some turbines for maintenance, they can drive the price of other kilowatts 10 times, 20 times, sometimes 50 times higher than the fair price. The answer is the Hunter-Eshoo bill, which will restore for at least a couple of years the regulation necessary to take the profit out of manipulation. We do not need charity. We need regulation.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise, not only as a member of the Committee on International Relations, but as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Just a few weeks ago, I had a chance to tour both NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange. These exchanges are not only the center of American capitalism and the American securities market, they will soon be the unchallenged center for a world capital market. They are critical to the large international oil companies, not just those based in the United States, but those based in Europe and Japan as well. In fact, I think we will soon have a seamless market in which one invests through the two great exchanges of the United States in companies based anywhere in the world. As others have said, it would simply be immoral if this great resource of the United States, our great securities markets, were to be used to raise capital, not just to do business from Sudan, but actually to support the Sudanese government. Because as others have pointed out, this is the source of money for this repressive regime. In fact, this is not just a repressive regime. This is the worst government in the world that benefits from substantial international investment. It is a country that practices a form of genocide and slavery, and that should not taint the American financial markets. I will be back on this floor tomorrow to try to do everything I can to strengthen the American financial markets by reducing the fees that are imposed on each securities transaction. But as we strengthen these markets financially, we must also make them stronger morally and ethically. We can do that today by making sure that those companies that invest in the Sudanese oil sector do not take advantage of these increasingly important financial markets. So I would hope that all of those who are concerned with the brutal mass murders and genocide in Sudan and all of those who are concerned with building the strongest possible financial markets in the United States would be here on this floor if a recorded vote is called to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who, in an earlier lifetime, was mayor of Cleveland and fought against overwhelming odds to maintain municipal ownership of the utility company there. In my City of Los Angeles, we also have municipal ownership of our utility system, and we do not have any of the problems that are hitting the rest of the State, and which hit San Diego so hard.

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, yes. What has happened is that because we do not regulate these wholesale costs, they have an incentive to withhold supply and drive the price up. Instead of making a megawatt for $30 and selling it for the regulated price of $50, they produce fewer megawatts, drive the price up to $500, and make a killing. What they will do when they shut down a turbine is say the turbine is closed for maintenance. The chart in front of you there illustrates how many megawatts were not produced on the average day in April, a couple months ago, because turbines were closed for maintenance. As you can see, over 15,000 megawatts were not produced on the average day. That is the yellow line. You might say, is that not typical? No. You look at the prior April; and you see that blue line, roughly 3,000. You say was April just an anomaly? You compare the yellow and the blue lines, and the pattern is clear, 8,000 to 12,000 to 13,000 megawatts not produced on the average day to drive up the price, not because the plants needed to be closed for maintenance, but in addition to the regular maintenance that was done just 12 months ago. I might point out, that is about one-fifth of the power we need in California. Closed for maintenance means closed to maintain an outrageous price for every kilowatt.

Mr. SHERMAN. I should point out that while I say Los Angeles has no problem, we are bound together with the rest of the State, just as the whole country is bound to California, an the economic problems facing the other cities in the State of California affect us. I should also point out for our colleagues, who might think well, if Los Angeles has no problem, a huge part of California has no problem, that the Los Angeles municipality is roughly 10 percent of the State of California. So much of, as the gentleman knows, the Los Angeles area lies outside the city limits and outside the protection of municipal power. What has happened to our State is that we are being bled dry. We paid $7 billion for the generation of electricity for our State in the year 1999. In the year 2000, we used the same amount of electricity but instead of paying $7 billion, we paid $32.5 billion. This year for the same amount of electricity, we are going to pay $60 billion to $70 billion. Now, this has fully hit home in San Diego because the utility there had a different deregulation deal than the one in the rest of Southern California, or Northern California. So San Diego has seen the doubling and tripling of some electric bills because the local electric utility was not required to use up its entire net worth in order to protect consumers from the gouging being done from those who have purchased these electric plants. In contrast, those in my district who live just outside the city limits were somewhat protected, protected for months. We saw disaster in San Diego, but we, just outside the city limits of Los Angeles, were safe because billions of dollars of Southern California Edison's net worth was used up, paying the gouging prices and selling to consumers at a regulated price. Of course, that could not go on forever because the gouging reached such a level that it bankrupted enormous utilities, threatens to wipe out the surplus of the State. The gouging reached levels that we never imagined as we thought that only San Diego consumers would be faced with this problem. The voraciousness of these companies reached an incredible level.

Mr. SHERMAN. No blackouts. Good service. No problems. Where we had regulation, as we had in our State for well over 50 years, no problem; where we have municipal ownership even today in the City of Los Angeles and other cities in California, no problem. As I understand it, no problem in Cleveland today.