Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was originally scheduled to address the House for only 5 minutes. The House, in its rules, in its wisdom, has instead given me a full hour. Whether that was a wise decision of this body remains to be seen, but it is an hour I plan to use to discuss some other issues, issues that I have not mapped out in detail and so I will apologize to the Speaker if my remarks are not as tightly phrased and as well organized as I would like them to be. I would now like to address the same subject addressed by the prior speaker, the vote we will deal with on granting permanent most favored nation status to China. Mr. Speaker, I am pro-engagement. I am against isolationism and I am against protectionism. I am against this agreement. This agreement has enough in the way of disadvantages in three different categories so that any one of those categories of disadvantage is reason enough to vote it down. If it was only for the adverse effect that this agreement will have on human rights in China, we should vote no. If it was only for the adverse impact that this agreement is going to have on American workers and on American exports and on the balance of trade of the United States, we should vote no. And if it was only for the adverse effect this agreement is going to have on our ability to deal with the national security issues that confront us when we deal with China, we should vote no. Let us first talk about human rights, or let me first talk about human rights. This deal has nothing in it to protect labor rights, environmental standards, but we are told that the dissidents in China are for this agreement. Well, most of the dissidents I have heard of are against it. The overwhelming majority of those who have done time in the Chinese gulag are against this agreement, and certainly the overwhelming majority of those who have done time in the Chinese prison system and are free to speak their minds are against this agreement. For many months, this country debated whether the father of Elian was free to speak his mind while he lived in Cuba, and so we insisted that he come here and announce, with his child and with his new wife, what their views were and what they wanted for their son. And yet, those who questioned the accuracy, the credibility of statements made by someone living under Fidel Castro seem to accept at face value the statements made by people in China today, people who have been subject to interrogation, some, a few, subject to imprisonment before, as if they could not be subject to that again. There are those in China who have had the courage to stand up in the past who may not want to risk their freedom over this particular agreement and who may, therefore, have made statements consistent with their own freedom, notwithstanding the fact that those same individuals have in the past had the courage to risk imprisonment where they felt the issue more strongly, or where they felt they were at a time in their lives when they were willing to take such a personal risk. So the dissidents are, for the most part, indecipherable. Some say one thing. Some say another. Some are here in the United States to speak their mind freely and some are subject to imprisonment tomorrow if they say the wrong thing today, but we are told that this agreement is not only supported by the dissidents, and sometimes the word ``dissident'' is confused with this second group that they refer to as the reformers. The reformers are not the dissidents. The reformers are the elements in power in China that we are told want open markets. They may want open markets. There are members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China that want open markets, but wanting open markets does not mean want human rights. Wanting open markets does not mean abandoning the monopoly on power enjoyed by the Communist Party of China. There may be different factions in the Central Committee of the Communist Party. There may be different factions in the ruling circles in Beijing, but there is one thing that unites them. So-called reformers, so-called hard-liners are united. They want to see the Communist Party maintain its monopoly on power forever. Reformers just want to do it with a different flavor. There is one group in China that is free to speak their minds. That is the members of the ruling elite, the members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, and they have spoken with a loud voice. They have said this deal helps us achieve our objectives. This deal is good for us. It is indeed good for the ruling classes in China. It is indeed in the interest of maintaining the monopoly power of the Communist Party, because make no mistake about two facts: First, the entire ruling elite is unified, dedicated that its most important objective is maintaining a monopoly on power for themselves. They would not enter into this agreement if it, dare I say it, was for all the tea in China if they thought it would shorten for one day the monopoly on power of the Communist Party of China. So first fact, the ruling elite believes this will lengthen its hold on power. Otherwise they would not be for it. Second, the ruling elite knows a lot more about holding on to power in China than all of the U.S. experts and all of those who have come to lobby us. There are those who say that China will unravel just like the Soviet Union. I hope that is true. Perhaps long-term it is true, but the Soviet Union did not unravel because of trade with the United States. There was very little trade with the United States. There was no WTO membership for the Soviet Union. It was not that every pair of tennis shoes, every toy and half your shirts came from the Soviet Union in 1985. So if we hold up the Soviet Union's unraveling as a model it does not compel us to accept this deal. If we believe that the Communist Party of China at the highest levels understands their own country, understands holding power in their own country, then we will understand that the agreement will help them do just that. Second, we need to focus on the human rights of Americans. Now I am told that our economy is doing spectacularly well. Well, it is doing well for many people. Unemployment is down, but many of those people who might have been unemployed just a few years ago today are the proud owners of $6 an hour jobs and $7 an hour jobs. These people should be working in the manufacturing sector in America at $20 and $30 an hour jobs. Export jobs to make machinery and aircraft, et cetera, those are very high-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector. But what kind of jobs has the Chinese Government provided? Through their limitation of our exports, they have provided us with a market smaller than Belgium. That is right. We sell less to China than we do to Belgium, and we do not sell very much to Belgium; $13 billion. Put another way, the trade deficit with China, $70 billion every year and rising, is six times the size of all of our exports. If our exports to China doubled, we would hardly know it. Has anyone come to this floor and said, if we could just increase by a bit our exports to Belgium, that there would be dancing in American streets and a revitalization of every American town? I do not think so. But it is unlikely that there will be even a small increase in American exports to China as a result of this deal. I know that many have come to this floor and said just the opposite, so let me explain why. We in the United States have lived our entire lives under the rule of law. If the government is going to affect anything in the economy, they had better write a law or a regulation and publish it, and in the absence of a law, in the absence of regulation, we have the right to do what we want as individuals and as companies. We have lived our lives where published law is very important. So we should be forgiven if, for a moment, we believe that the published law in China is of great significance; that if we could just change their published tariff rates, their published quotas, then everyone in China would be free to buy American goods. China is not a country that lives under the rule of law. China is a command and control economy. In China, you do not start your own airline just because you want to and then buy American planes just because you think they are the best deal. In fact, when we look at what we are likely to export to China, we see an incredible level of control of the Communist party of China without any need to have published rules. We sell airplanes. The party controls the airline. We sell telecommunications systems. The party controls all the buyers for those systems. We sell large factories. We are not going to do a large factory in China over the opposition of the ruling elite. We do not sell little toys on the street corner to individual consumers. We sell big things, big ticket items. How are we going to sell them? We are only going to sell the quantity that the people in Beijing decide they are willing to allow their country to buy. Two years ago we sold $14 billion worth of goods. Last year they cut us down to $13 billion. With this agreement, they can, without fear, cut us as low as they want, or at least maintain us where we are, while they increase their sales to the United States, or at least maintain them where they are so that we continue to run $70 billion trade deficits forever. How are they going to do that? Well, there may be no tariff on American airplanes to China, but the board of the airline might vote not to buy our planes. Can that be taken to WTO court? No. Any enterprise is free to buy or not buy. The fact that the government controls the enterprise does not change that, so we sell only what they decide they want to buy. When I say ``they,'' I mean the political elite. We want to do telecommunications systems, the same thing. But let us imagine that there is an independent business in China. The board of directors is not dominated by the government or the party. This business wants to import $1 billion worth of American goods. They are the best goods. They are going to get them at the best price. The published regulations say that the business is free to do so. The director of that business receives just one phone call, one phone call saying, Mr. Businessperson, we know you are planning to conclude a deal to buy $1 billion worth of American goods. But, you know, China has always wanted to restrict the quantity of American goods purchased. We have always run this huge trade surplus with America, and the Communist Party wants to continue that. So Mr. Businessperson, we know you will decide not to buy the American goods. We know you will make the right decision. We know you will help us punish the American people for what the Communist party would call their meddling, what we would call human rights advocacy. Mr. Businessperson, we know you will make the right decision because you are well educated. We would hate to think you need to be reeducated. There is not a single importer in China that is not subject to arrest on trumped up charges if that importer decides to buy American goods against the advice, oral advice, of the Communist party of China. American exports to China are not dependent upon changing the published rules. Those are only for our lawyers to read. Getting more exports to China depends upon changing the policy of the Communist party, a policy that has been discriminating against American goods for a long time, a policy which has caused them to run a $70 billion trade surplus with us and a significant trade deficit with the rest of the world as they deliberately decide to use the money that we pay them for the tennis shoes to buy goods from Europe and Japan and elsewhere. Why would they change? Are we going to stop talking about human rights on this floor? Are we going to stop our support for Taiwan? Are we going to ignore the rape of Tibet? I hope not. But that leads to another concern. We have seen an army, an army of businesspeople and lobbyists come to our offices asking us to give China what China wants in the expectation that these lobbyists will get from China what the lobbyists want. Well, I do not think our businesses are going to get what they want. I think China, having had a 10- and 20-year policy of discriminating against American goods, at least a 10-year policy, will continue that policy and will do it quite well through the mechanism I have described, and does not need published regulations and tariff rates to achieve the balance of payments that they decide to have. So if this army of lobbyists feels this year that they must do what China wants in order to have access to the Chinese markets, and they do not get that access, they will be back here next year or the year after saying, whoops, looks like American exports to China are still only $13 billion, but we hear through the grapevine that if only America would stop selling weapons to Taiwan, China will start buying our goods. If only America will stop caring about Tibet, China will start buying our goods. The same army of lobbyists asking us to do what China wants now will find that what China is asking for now is insufficient to garner them that favored status that causes the Chinese enterprises to buy their goods. They will be back asking us to do more. I shudder to think, will we be asked to ignore Chinese proliferation of nuclear technology to countries like North Korea and Iran? Will we be asked to cut off Taiwan and to lay that island, that democratic island, open to possible invasion, or at least blockade? I do not know, but I will say this, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) from the adjoining district has proposed that we add a provision to this MFN deal that says that China would get its permanent most-favored-nation status, but if they blockade Taiwan or if they invade Taiwan, they lose it. The pro-China forces have been unwilling to embrace that amendment, an amendment which might gather them the votes they need to pass this deal. I worry about a Chinese embassy or I worry about supporters of China unwilling to even say that we should deny China something if they actually invade or blockade Taiwan. We will have to see how this develops, but if my colleagues care about Taiwan, at least hold out for this: Deny their vote to those who want to permanently open our markets to China with little real access to theirs, withhold their vote until at least we get a provision that says that Taiwan, if invaded or blockaded, that those actions would lead to an end of most-favored-nation status, also called normal trade relations, with the United States. Now, Mr. Speaker, recently those who support this deal have come up with a couple of Band-Aids. One of those is called ``antisurge'' provisions. It sounds good. It sounds like at least if there was a sudden flood of Chinese goods from a particular sector, perhaps being sold at cost, dumped on our market, that we would have a special provision to deal with it. Read the provision. The proposal is simply that the United States, if it saw its workers losing their jobs, would not be free to stop the onslaught of Chinese goods. No. But we would be allowed, look at this tremendous grant of power to us, we would be allowed to appropriate money for education programs and retraining programs for our displaced workers. I never thought that we lacked the power to appropriate funds to provide help for American workers who are in trouble for one reason or another. I do not think we have to thank Beijing for having the power to do so. It would be nice if the importers would give us some of the money we would need for that, but that is not found in the antisurge provisions. Second, we are given a second Band-Aid. That second Band-Aid is, more reports about human rights in China, Helsinki Commission style reports. Come to my office, I will show the Members all the reports on human rights in China. They take up a lot of room. There are more organizations issuing more reports all the time. They will turn Members' stomachs as to their content. Since when is it a major concession to know that there will be reports issued in the future? We know there will be reports. The fact that they will be called Helsinki style, who cares? We could have Los Angeles style reports, Vienna style reports, Rome style reports. We could have semi-annual reports, we could have biannual reports. We have reports. We will get more reports. All it will do is demonstrate the abuses of human rights happening in China, as to which we have granted the Chinese government an absolute guarantee that they will not lose a penny no matter what they do. No matter what they do to the practicing Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims; no matter what they do to the people of Tibet, they will be hit only with a report. They will not lose access to a single sale of a single pair of tennis shoes in the United States. So, Mr. Speaker, I turn, as I have already foreshadowed it, to the third reason that we should oppose this deal. Not only does it ensure more power and more tenacity to the Communist party in China, not only does it limit our access, or does it fail to eliminate limits to our access to their market, but finally, it ties our hands when national security issues come up, because if China does something, whether it is providing nuclear weapons or their technology to Iran or blockading Taiwan, our choices will be only twofold. We can declare war, which I do not advise, or we can mail them a scathing report. Right now we have the most valuable tool. We do not have to just eliminate most-favored-nation status, we can condition it or we can reduce it. Under most-favored-nation status, for example, and I will just use these numbers for an example, not because they are accurate, a country without most-favored-nation status might face a $10 per pair tariff on tennis shoes. China, because it has most-favored-nation status this year, is entitled to bring those tennis shoes in for a $1 tariff. We in Congress could react to anything China does that threatens the national security of ourselves or our allies by raising that tariff from $1 to $2 or $3 or $4, or eliminating all most-favored-nation status and having it go to $10. We have the tools; 43 percent of all Chinese exports come to the United States, and if we can modulate that, if we can impair slightly, or more than slightly, their access to American markets, then we have an abundance of tools to deal with whatever China might do that is offensive to our national security interests. If, instead, we grant them Most Favored Nation status forever, we lose those tools, and our choices are either war or a scathing letter. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing on which I agree with the proponents of this agreement; it is better than the status quo. Today we have a $70 billion trade deficit with China, and this contract, this deal makes it permanent; not a real accomplishment. It is the most lopsided trading relationship in the history of life on earth, a trade deficit six times as large as our exports. If we were to just continue what we have been doing year after year, it would be just as bad. What we have to do instead is open new negotiations with China, negotiations based on results, not process and procedure, because China is a command and control economy where the procedures are all underground and immune from American inspection. We need an agreement with China that sets targets that says okay, now the trade deficit is $70 billion, next year we would like it to be $60 billion instead of $80 billion, and that we will modulate our tariffs up on Chinese goods, if necessary, to achieve that goal. We hope it is not necessary. I am not a protectionist. I am not an isolationist. I hope we do not have to raise our tariffs a single cent on a single pair of tennis shoes, instead China needs to start buying goods from the United States. If they knew that they would suffer some loss of access to the U.S. market, they would do it. The Chinese, when confronted by real tariffs or the real threat of tariffs, will find that our goods meet their needs, but if they are confronted by a deal that asks them to do nothing more than change the irrelevant regulations that they place on the top of the table and ignores the results of what happens underneath the table, then they will be laughing all the way to even larger trade surpluses with the United States. Mr. Speaker, let me now bring up, in the waning minutes of this brief presentation, a third topic, a topic that is very important. I have only a bit to say about it, because, frankly, it is a topic that has me stumped. Let me by way of introduction mention that this is a topic that, as far as I know, has never been addressed. It is a topic that my staff has said, Brad, maybe you do not want to bring that up, because you will be the only one talking about it, you will look weird. It is a topic I ought to bring up, because it is one of the seminal topics. And it is only one of several seminal topics that gets no attention; by seminal topics, I mean one of the topics that really goes to where we are going as a species and what are the dangers, not only to the prosperity of the people in my district and in the country, not only to the issues we fight about here everyday, but to where we are going as humankind. Now, there are a number of issues that rise to that level of significance that do receive significant attention: nuclear proliferation, environmental catastrophe, overpopulation; all of these threaten humankind's continued prosperous existence on this planet. There is a fourth issue that does, I think, rise to the level where it can be included, and it is an issue really without a name; I call it the issue of engineered intelligence. I am going to propose to this House, I hope some of my colleagues will join me, we will have dinner, we will have a drink or two, we will think this over, not maybe a drink or two, we will think over what form this bill should take, but I am planning to introduce a bill calling for the creation of a national commission on engineered intelligence. There are several different forces coming together or scientific technologies that come under the title of engineered intelligence: First, there is biological engineering which could give us either of two huge ethical dilemmas; one is the prospect that biological engineering will allow us to design some sort of animal, perhaps starting with human DNA and going down, perhaps starting with chimpanzees' DNA and going up, but some sort of animal that is significantly more intelligent than the domestic animals that help us do our work, sheepdogs or watchdogs or seeing eye dogs, considerably smarter than the canines that help us do work, but less intelligent, less self-aware than human beings, and one wonders whether this would be an engineered slave race or just an improvement in today's pooches, a better seeing eye dog, or a sparely self-aware cognitive entity engineered by man to serve man, arguably to be enslaved by man. Biological engineering can engineer intelligence at a level where some will argue that that entity deserves the protection of our Constitution, and others would argue that that entity is here to serve us in the same humane way that we turn to watchdogs and seeing eye dogs. Likewise, biological engineering can go beyond. I can see, not today, but we are within 20 years or 30 years or 50 years of when biological engineering cannot only do what I just covered, but could also engineer an intelligence well beyond that of the average person, perhaps well beyond that of any human that has ever lived, and we would have to wonder, do we want our scientists to create a new species that Darwin might think is superior to our own? I do not know. But it raises ethical issues that are going to take longer to resolve than it will take the science to get there and present those logical issues, those ethical issues to society. One example is that Einstein a few years before World War II, together with others, brought to the attention of Franklin Roosevelt the great power or potential power of nuclear science and the nuclear bomb, and we had only a few years to consider what that would mean. The science developed more quickly than the ethics, and we had to struggle as a species to figure out, and we are still struggling to figure out what the rules are with regard to the nuclear engineering. We need to begin thinking now of the ethics and the international agreements and the laws that are going to apply when science gets to where only science fiction is today. Mr. Speaker, it is not just is biological engineering capable of engineering intelligence; it is also mechanical engineering. One of my friends has said that perhaps the last decision that will be made by the human race is whether our successors are the products of biological engineering or mechanical Silicon Valley engineering; whether our replacements are carbon-based or silicon-based, because I do not know whether it will be biological engineering that engineers intelligence first, or whether intelligence rivaling our own or perhaps surpassing our own will first come from silicon chips; but the same ethical issues arise. One can imagine a thinking machine capable of spirituality. I believe there is a book that addresses that issue by that title. One can imagine a thinking machine smarter than any computer, almost self-aware, some would argue properly used by people, others would say properly embraced as the constitutional equal of human beings. Likewise, it is possible for us through silicon engineering, through computer engineering that some day we will invent machines considerably smarter than us who may or may not regard us as their appropriate peers or masters. I know this is science fiction, but would it not be wise to spend a few years, and a few, in the minds of a few people a lot smarter than I am trying to figure out what we would do if science begins to offer this as an alternative for human kind? I can only mention third, nanotechnology, the idea of engineering at the molecular level, at a level where perhaps it would be hard to decide whether what we had engineered was biological or mechanical, or maybe we will see a fusion of biological and mechanical or biological and electronic engineering where a combination of silicon chips and brain cells from human DNA or brain cells from dog DNA are fused together. I do not want to sound unusual, but the science of the future will be a little unusual. We in this Congress will not do the science, but we in this Congress should make sure that we focus the appropriate societal attention long in advance on the ethical dilemmas that will face us as engineered intelligence either approaches or surpasses our own. Mr. Speaker, although there would be one benefit of such marvelous engineered intelligence for, perhaps if we had an engineered intelligence massively smarter than myself, maybe we would know what the right course was for the World Bank to take or what the right course was for this Congress to take on the issues I addressed earlier in this speech.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me. I am pro trade, I am pro engagement. I am against isolation. I am against protectionism. And I oppose this trade deal. I would oppose this trade deal if it was only for the bad effects it is going to have on human rights in China. I would oppose this trade deal alone for the reasons that it is going to have a bad impact on the American economy. And it would be sufficient to vote against this deal just because of its bad impact on the strategic and political interests of the United States. Yet all three compel a vote against this deal. This deal leaves out a discussion of labor and environmental standards, but we are told that it is going to cause China and its system of communism and oppression to unravel. But for 10 years we have been giving China everything it wants in the way of trade and for 10 years they have not unraveled but, instead, have beaten down harder on the voices of dissent. The Soviet Union unraveled with far less trade than what China enjoys with the United States today. We are told that the dissidents in China want this deal, but are they free to speak their minds, or do they face additional incarceration in the Chinese gulag should they dare to say anything but what they are told? We do not know what the real dissidents in China think, but we do know what the Central Committee of the Communist Party thinks. Yes, it is divided between the so-called reformers and the so-called hard- liners. They are united on two things: First, they are absolutely dedicated to maintaining the Communist Party's monopoly on power. The reformers are not Democrats, if we are referring to the ``reformers'' in the Communist Party hierarchy. And they are united in wanting this deal because it empowers them, it solidifies their position, it emboldens them, and it delays for a long time the day in which their system will unravel and freedom will reign in China. China, I hope, will have freedom one day, but this deal will not make it closer. I think we should reject this deal because of American economic interests. This is not a struggle between the heart and the pocketbook. The pocketbook of America must say no. This is an issue of American human rights, the human right to be able to work in manufacturing and make $26 an hour instead of being shuffled off to a fast-food restaurant and told you are not an unemployment statistic and paid $6 an hour. We have the most lopsided trading arrangement with China in the history of life on this planet; $83 billion of their exports to us, 13 of our exports to them. Our exports to them are actually declining, a level of deficit that is six times the size of our exports. Now, I know we are told our economy is doing well, but the trade deficit is a cancer inside our economy, and the biggest and most important part of that is the growing trade deficit, the enormous trade deficit with China. This deal locks in that deficit. Their deficit should not exist. China is a developing country. It needs infrastructure. It needs the kind of factories and manufacturing control systems that we produce the best of. It needs machinery. It needs communication systems. Why are we not selling to China? It is not because of anything written in the documents and the laws of China. It is because the Chinese Communist Party has made a political decision; when in doubt, buy from those countries that are not criticizing you on Taiwan and on human rights. And so they run a trade deficit with the rest of the world, financing it with the huge trade surplus they run with us. We are told that this deal is going to change things because Chinese business people are going to buy from us. Almost anyone in China who would buy big American goods, almost all those enterprises are owned and controlled by the government. So if the government says that their enterprises are free to buy from us without quotas and tariffs, what does that mean if they make a political decision not to buy? The airline in China will buy as many Boeing planes as they politically decide is appropriate regardless of the published rates, tariffs and quotas. But what if there was a really politically independent businessperson in China who wanted to buy a huge amount of American goods and got a call from a commissar in the Communist Party saying, Mr. or Ms. Chun, or whatever the person's name happens to be, we know that you will think again. Yes, the American goods are great, they are high quality, they are just what you need. We have lowered the tariffs and we have lowered the quotas, and all the laws of China say you are free to buy. But Mr. or Ms. Businessperson, we know that you will decide that because the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) make speeches that we do not like, that you will choose to buy goods from somewhere else. We know you will make the right decision, businessperson, because we know you are well educated. We hate to think that you need reeducation. We are not going to sell any more to China than the Communist Party of China wants us to. And a change in the law in a country where the law is not followed, where the government exercises power through terror and through oral conversations cannot be held accountable in WTO court. Now, we are told a couple of the last-minute sweeteners to this deal are going to make it better. We are told that someone is going to propose an anti-surge provision. There is no anti-surge provision in the anti-surge provision. What it says in the ``anti-surge provision'' is, if there is a surge of Chinese exports, we are allowed to spend our money, should there be any left in the appropriations process, to reeducate our workers. This is the first time I have heard that we need permission from Beijing to provide assistance to Americans who are displaced by trade. Second, we are told there are going to be Helsinki style reports on China every year. Every 6 months. Many people have quoted the reports. We have reports coming out of our ears. We could have more reports. We could commission several additional reports. Paper is not going to bring down this government. But if it was, we are free to do that without granting these agreements. The status quo is unacceptable. But that is not a reason to embrace this deal, because this deal simply solidifies the status quo in place. What it does is that it causes our companies to invest their capital in China knowing that they can then export back to the United States and there is no risk that those exports will ever be stopped. This deal is not going to cause China to buy goods manufactured here. Now, we are told, well, it does not matter because they just make tennis shoes and toys in China. We could not make those here in the United States. Well, that is not true. Often we do. But, second, if we had $100 million in capital, instead of making a low-tech factory in China, that could be used to make a high-tech factory in the United States, where sufficient technology and capital could allow American workers to compete. But even if we believe that it is impossible not to have these goods produced abroad, let us produce them abroad in a country where freedom exists and where the workers and the people in that country are free to buy American goods should they want to do so. Let me finally shift to the idea of our strategic interests, because here is where this agreement really lets America down. It takes away any sanction we might have should China deal with Taiwan in an inappropriate way or should China provide nuclear weapons to North Korea, or the technology for them, or, likewise, Iran. It takes away all the tools from the United States. We cannot do anything, except to declare war, which seems unlikely; or make speeches, which seems ineffective. We cannot do anything that costs the Chinese a penny, or a million dollars, should they take action adverse to our security interests. While it takes away our tools, it gives them tools. Because that same hoard of lobbyists that have been in every one of our offices telling us to vote for this deal now, they will be back next year and the year after that, and they will pull us aside and say, stop talking about human rights in China. It is costing us business. It gives them tools. I would hope the gentleman from Michigan could be recognized for concluding remarks if he has them. I have concluded my remarks.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to address this House on the issue of the 13 Jews being held in the city of Shiraz in Iran and on trial on charges of espionage. Let me first provide a bit of background. The Jewish community of Iran has been there since the Babylonia captivity over 2,500 years ago. It is the oldest Jewish community anywhere in the world except for Israel itself. For 2,500 years, Jews have lived in peace and in loyalty to whichever regime has governed Persia, now Iran. In 1979, the Iranian revolution created the Islamic Republic. Since then, that Islamic Republic has found it necessary or appropriate for some reason to oppress its religious minorities. Its treatment of those of the Bahai faith is known to many of us and is deplorable. And as to those who practice the Jewish faith, some 17 have been killed in the last 21 years, roughly one a year, always after some sort of show trial, always absurd charges followed by execution. In February of 1979, the government of Iran, perhaps dissatisfied with the idea of only one trumped-up execution a year of the Jewish community, instead decided to arrest some 13 Jews on absurd charges. They were charged with spying for the United States and spying for Israel. Now, why can I brand these charges so absurd? Well, Madam Speaker, here in the United States we live in a multiethnic, multicultural society. People of all races, religions, and ethnicities are found in the National Security Administration, the CIA, the FBI, and other positions of importance to our national security. And so no matter what a person's ethnic background, every boy and girl in America could find themselves in a position where they could be tempted to become a spy. And in fact we have Anglo American spies in our history and Chinese American spies. Perhaps there have even been Jewish American spies. But Iran is a very different country. No one of the Jewish faith is allowed anywhere near anything of national security significance in Iran. And so to think that the CIA would reach out to this one small community and from there hire its spies is absolutely absurd. We could not be the world's only superpower if we hired as our spies those very few individuals in Iran absolutely precluded from getting the information that a spy might want. These charges are not only absurd, but at the beginning of this month the trials began. The trials are modeled after those of Joseph Stalin; show trials in which there is no evidence except confession, and the confessions so devoid of information that they are evidence not of guilt but of the fear of the defendant. No information is given as to what the espionage sought to discover, what information was passed, to whom it was passed, or how it was passed. No information at all comes out in this trial except the fear of the defendants. Their confessions are evidence perhaps of torture, but not of guilt. Not since the days of Joseph Stalin have we seen such trials. The question is what will the world do about it? The key is to have not only the American representative at the World Bank but the representatives of Germany and Japan stand up and say human rights does matter and to vote to delay any World Bank loan to this Islamic regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Until these 13 innocents are released, the World Bank should not hide behind profestations that somehow its loans are only being used for a particular purpose, because loans are money that is fungible and that money will go to construction companies in Iran selected by and authorized by the Iranian government. We must stand up for human rights. The World Bank is where this trial will be on trial.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Dr. David Richard Preston, an educator and management consultant who founded the Department of Organizational Behavior at Phillips Graduate Institute. In his capacity as Executive Director of this master's degree program, Dr. Preston teaches and guides the research of professional students who are learning how to make organizations more successful and humane. Albert Einstein once wrote, ``Try not to become a man of success, but rather a man of value.'' David Preston has spearheaded programs designed to promote personal, professional and organizational values for the past fifteen years. His efforts began as a high school student, when he developed and implemented events in which student leaders and public officials engaged in dialogue about policy, to the benefit of disabled students. Dr. Preston has maintained his ties to public education, through training teachers at UCLA and by volunteering in such programs as Students Run Los Angeles, in which he participated in the Los Angeles Marathon alongside students from Haddon Avenue Elementary School in Pacoima, California. Dr. Preston's teaching expertise has been recognized locally and nationally. Over the past seven years, his courses at UCLA have received praise from students and colleagues. He is sought after by professional associations and corporations for his expertise on topics such as team building, time management, leadership and motivation. Dr. Preston's first book, Time for Success, has helped many of his students and clients achieve their goals. Two years ago, Dr. Preston was asked to create an academic program that would help professionals deal with the human issues that create challenges in organizations. Phillips Graduate Institute invited Dr. Preston to write the curriculum, hire adjunct faculty, recruit students and create business alliances for what would eventually become the Department of Organizational Behavior. Today, the department serves approximately twenty students in each class. In addition to the basic skills needed in the business environment, each student takes courses such as Ethics, Conflict Resolution, and Organizational Change. Students are taught adult learning styles, how satisfaction is linked to performance, and how organizational values can lead to success beyond mere profit. Dr. Preston's students are as ethnically and professionally diverse as the organizations they serve. In a recent class, a workgroup included an entrepreneur, a financial planner, a human resources specialist, and the CEO of a hospital. The common thread that weaves students together is that they work with people and have the desire to create and maintain successful long-term working relationships. By teaching management strategies that emphasize values such as honesty, loyalty, and teamwork, Dr. Preston is giving these students the tools that can change the face of business. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Dr. David Richard Preston for his service both as Executive Director at Phillips Graduate Institute, and for his continual efforts to foster action on behalf of education in the business community. He is a role model for educators and business leaders who want to improve performance within their organizations, and together improve cooperation and corporate citizenship as a society.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to M. David Cohen, one of the most dedicated and committed individuals in our country for his humanitarian service throughout the world. Mr. Cohen's vision, expertise and active participation to serve those in need is legendary. David's father, Hyman Louis Cohen, emigrated to the United States from Russia in 1923, settled in Chelsea, Massachusetts, and graduated from Northeastern University School of Law in 1936. His mother, Jean Goldberg Cohen, was born in Boston; his parents married in 1941. They were among the most active in their community, setting the example David was to emulate. At the age of 12, when David's mother suffered a massive heart attack and stroke, he stepped into her role and became chairperson of the Everett Leukemia Fund Drive. He organized youth groups, schools, churches, synagogues and public and private sector employees to raise the most money ever raised by that city in any charity drive. David served in the United States Air Force as an Acting Jewish Chaplain in France, Spain, Morocco and Libya. He organized programs on and off base for the military and civilian population and served as a coordinator with the Joint Distribution Committee in Paris, resettling displaced persons from behind the Iron Curtain. He created a food service gathering and distribution program for the Little Sisters of the Poor which has continued successfully since 1962, and was a basis for what we now know as the ``meals on wheels'' programs. Upon being honorably discharged, he returned to Boston College to complete his studies. Serving on many boards of directors of charitable and community organizations, Mr. Cohen's 44 years of volunteer work include International Special Olympics, Adam Walsh Child Resource Centers (missing and exploited children), American Youth Soccer (ATSO), Lokrantz School (M.O.V.E.), Presidents' Summit on America's Future, Jewish Home for the Aging and Elizabeth Kubler-Ross Foundation. Current service includes the University of Judaism, King Solomon Education Foundation (tuition reduction), Healing Hands Project (reconstructive surgery), Club SODA (after school safe haven for middle and high school students), Shomrei Torah Synagogue, Blue Eagle Foundation (community sports and education facility), St. Joseph Center and General Colin Powell's America's Promise. In addition, David is very proud of his many years of imaginative pro-bono support of and active participation with the Stephen S. Wise Temple and its Schools, the largest Reform Jewish Temple in the United States. He created and now chairs the first Stephen S. Wise Temple Corporate Resources Division. David is frequently heard commenting, ``My greatest accomplishment is my daughter, Danielle Elizabeth, who at 13 has learned, embraced and implements every day the very best of what concerned citizenship is all about. I know that as my parents set the example for me, Danielle will lead her generation and those who follow to make a significant difference in our community, our country and the world. As she always says, `One can count' ''. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in paying tribute to Mr. M. David Cohen as he continues his extraordinary commitment to the community and our country. He has earned and deserves our recognition, praise and respect.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to two exceptional people, Dr. Lee and Kathy Berman, as they receive this year's Spirit of Life Award from Temple Bat Yahm. Their dedication and commitment to their temple and community serves as an example to us all. A practicing optometrist for the past 25 years, Lee Berman has a long history of distinguished service to the Jewish community and the greater community. His religious leadership positions include Vice President of Membership and Treasurer at Temple Israel in Long Beach. At Temple Bat Yahm, Lee has also held various Vice Presidential positions, including Membership, Facilities, and Long Range Planning. Currently, he is serving his second term as President of the Temple Bat Yahm Board of Trustees. He has also served on the Board of Directors for the Jewish National Fund. Lee's ongoing commitment to the Boy Scouts of America is evidenced by his service as a Cub Master and as an Assistant Scoutmaster for the past four years. Kathy Berman has also long been active in scouting, having served as a Cub Scout leader, Girl Scout leader, and Troop Organizer for the Greater Long Beach Girl Scout Council. Along with her husband, Kathy has dedicated herself to Temple Bat Yahm, where she served as Sisterhood Co-President for three years. She has also served as Scrip Chair, Gala Reservation Chair, Campership Chair, and as a singer in the Temple choir. Together, Dr. Lee and Kathy Berman worked diligently to create a new expanded campus and Torah learning center at Temple Bat Yahm. Their dedication to the realization of this goal has not gone unnoticed and, through their leadership, their dream will soon become a reality. In recognition of their invaluable service, Kathy and Lee will receive the distinguished Spirit of Life Award from Temple Bat Yahm at its annual Gala Dinner Dance, Vision 2000. This honor represents the exemplary dedication of Lee and Kathy to improve both Temple Bat Yahm and our community. Mr. Speaker, may we ask our distinguished colleagues to join me in extending our gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Lee and Kathy Berman for their dedicated service to our community.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to come to Washington and hear a sales tax is going to be the tax panacea and give us fairness and simplicity. Because before I came here, I spent 6 years running the largest sales tax agency in the country. Let me tell the Members, sales tax laws have the same kind of special interest provisions that we come across in the Internal Revenue Code. Sales tax laws can affect what we do and what our behavior is, and let me give one example. We would need a 60 percent sales tax rate in order to replace existing Federal taxes. There is much debate on the floor today as to whether that rate would apply to those purchases made over the Internet. Who is going to buy a sweater or a television set at the local mall if it is 60 percent cheaper online? So we may have a sales tax code designed to take the Federal government out of involvement in private decisions leading to closing every mall in America. That is a significant private effect. Finally, we are told that the sales tax, the national sales tax, would be fair. What is fair about a law that says that Steve Forbes can go make a $10 million profit, invest it all in a villa on the Italian Riviera, and not pay a single penny in American taxes? Mr. Speaker, this bill pretends to impose a deadline, but it is really just a show line, because in Washington whenever we do not want to do anything at all, we appoint a commission. The commission will come back in several years, tell us what we already know, that it would take a 60 percent sales tax rate to replace existing taxes, and then that commission's report would be thrown away and the existing code would be reenacted. Let us have real reform, Code section by Code section.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing as absurd as blowing something up if one does not know what they are going to have to replace it. Today, the Committee on Ways and Means is considering a national sales tax as if it is a panacea for complexity and unfairness. Mr. Speaker, for 6 years I headed the largest sales tax agency in this country, and I am here to testify that the sales tax offers an opportunity at every level for complexity, unfairness, special interest provisions. Everything that is hated about the Internal Revenue Code will be brought in to a sales Tax Code if the reasons for that complexity are not defeated, the reasons for that unfairness, and there is not real campaign finance reform. What does this closed rule do? It prevents us from bringing section 527 and its unfair rules that hide political activity, prevent disclosure of campaign finance to the American people. So we have a rule designed to facilitate, not reform, but a national sales tax system to be implemented by a Congress put there by secret contributions, secret political organizations. Mr. Speaker, we should instead be trying to reform our tax laws code section by code section. This rule and the underlying bill is much sound and fury that will signify nothing, because what does a politician do if they want to do nothing? Appoint a commission. Great. We appoint a commission. It comes through with a national sales tax bill at 59.5 percent. We, of course, do not adopt that; and this Congress will be put in a position, having wasted years, having deflected any effort at real income tax reform, and be in a position where it must either let the Government expire or readopt a flawed Tax Code.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, our economy is important, and we need sound policy, not soundbites. As the tax due date approaches, what we are getting is soundbites, and perhaps the worst is what is going on in the Committee on Ways and Means this week where they are considering a proposal to delegate rewriting the Tax Code to a commission, not to Members of Congress, who are supposed to report that code out on July 4, 2004, and then our Internal Revenue Code would, by the terms of this bill, expire by the end of 2004. This means our economy will be in total disarray. Who would invest in municipal bonds if they do not know if the advantages of investing in them will be swept away? Who will start an R&D tax project if the credit is going to be swept away or might be? And who would count on fiscal responsibility in a society that is going to give its Congress just a few months to rewrite the entire Tax Code after it hears from a commission? What we see instead is an elaborate ruse that prevents us from reforming the Tax Code one section at a time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I rise to remember the Armenian Genocide which took place over several years, but the remembrance day is to remember an event 85 years ago, so this is a particularly important anniversary of that genocide. We are asked why it is so important to come to this floor again and again to remember. We must remember so that it never happens again, and we must remember because there is an organized effort to hide and to disclaim this genocide; and we must overcome that effort, and we must never forget. Let us look at the historical record. The American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in 1919 was an eyewitness. In his memoirs, he said, ``When the Turkish authorities gave the order for these deportations they were merely giving the death warrant to an entire race. They understood this well and in their conversations with me made no particular attempt to conceal this fact.'' He went on to describe what he saw at the Euphrates River, and he said, as our eyes and ears in the Ottoman Empire, because that is the role an ambassador plays, in the year 1919, ``I have by no means told the most terrible details, for a complete narration of the sadistic orgies of which they, the Armenian men and women, are victims can never be printed in an American publication. Whatever crimes the most perverted instincts of the human mind can devise, whatever refinements of persecution and injustice the most debased imagination can conceive, became the daily misfortune of the Armenian people.'' As other speakers have pointed out, this was the first genocide of the 20th century, and it laid the foundation for the Holocaust to follow. We can never forget that 8 days before he invaded Poland, Adolf Hitler turned to his inner circle and said, ``Who today remembers the extermination of the Armenians?'' The impunity with which the Turkish government acted in annihilating the Armenian people emboldened Adolf Hitler and his inner circle to carry out the Holocaust of the Jewish people. Unfortunately, today there is an organized effort to expunge from the memory of the human race this genocide, and it focuses on our academic institutions. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud graduate of UCLA; and a few years ago UCLA was offered a million dollars to create a special chair that would be under the partial control of the Turkish government, a chair in history that would have been used to cover up and to disclaim and to deny the first genocide of the 20th century. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of UCLA for many things. I was there when Bill Walton led us to the NCAA championship, but I was never prouder of my alma mater than when UCLA said no to a million dollars; and it is important that every American academic institution say no to genocide denial. It is also important that the State Department go beyond shallow, hollow reminders and remembrances of this day and step forward and use the word genocide in describing the genocide of the Armenian people at the hands of the Turks. It is time for Turkey to acknowledge this genocide, because only in that way can they rise above it. The German government has been quite forthcoming in acknowledging the Holocaust, and in doing so it has at least been respected by the peoples of the world for its honesty. Turkey should follow that example rather than trying to buy chairs at American universities to deny history. Mr. Speaker, we must go beyond merely remembering the Armenian Genocide and also insist that the survivors of that genocide are treated justly, that the people of Armenia and Artsakh enjoy freedom and independence; and we must end the blockade of Armenia imposed by Turkey. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this genocide, we must say, and say loudly, never again and never forget.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the tax deadline, our thoughts go toward tax reform. We ought to have genuine tax reform, code section by code section, unraveling the loopholes and the special interest provisions. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I regret what the Committee on Ways and Means is doing right now as we sit here. They are considering replacing our existing tax law with a 30 percent sales tax on everything every American buys, from rent to services to goods. They disguise it as a 23 percent tax. They claim it is a 23 percent tax, and here is their logic. One buys something for 100 bucks, one pays a $30 tax. They say that is only 23 percent tax on the $130 total price. It is a 30 percent sales tax. But the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says that, in order to be revenue neutral and replace all Federal revenues, the tax would have to be 59.9 percent. All of this so that Steve Forbes can make tens of millions here, spend it on the Italian Riviera, and not pay a penny in American tax.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be joined here today by Patty Boyle, a teacher from Southern California, whose outstanding work is well known to the colleagues that she has had in teaching, to the parents, and the students that she has touched. As a result of Patty being here, I have decided to address the House on the importance of providing funds to modernize our schools and to provide additional classroom space. I think we are all aware of how important it is to modernize our schools, to provide Internet access to teachers and to students. Many of us have focused on how important it is to provide air conditioning for schools as we go into the spring and summer months. More and more schools have extra programs or full-year sessions. Certainly, air conditioning is necessary then. It may also be necessary in May and in September when schools have their regular sessions. Keep in mind, we here in Congress work in air-conditioned buildings. They tell tales of last century of what it was like to be a Member of Congress without air conditioning. Imagine what it is to try to teach 30 students without air conditioning. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have again and again talked about the importance of smaller class sizes, particularly in the first 3 years. Well, if we are going to have class sizes of 18 or 20 students in the first 3 years or throughout elementary school, we are going to need more classrooms. We are either going to need to reconfigure the space that we have now or build additional space for those classrooms that will be needed because we take the same number of students and put them into a larger number of classrooms so that they can have smaller class sizes. All too often, what this has meant for resource specialists, for special ed classrooms, is that, as there are more classrooms devoted to regular elementary school education, the special ed students find themselves relegated to closets, to faculty rooms, to whatever nook and cranny that was never designed to allow students to learn and teachers to teach. Both parties have recognized the importance of allocating Federal aid to schools and especially to provide school districts with the capacity to build additional classrooms and to modernize the classrooms that they do have. But while both parties have recognized the need and both parties have decided that that need should be met by changing our Tax Code, that is where the similarity ends. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has come up with a bizarre notion of how to use the Tax Code in order to encourage school construction. What they have said is it is okay for school districts to issue school bonds and then those districts will be encouraged to delay school construction, not for the 2 years that are allowed under the current tax law, but up to 4 years. Now school districts need flexibility into when they issue the bonds and when they actually do the construction, but this is the first case where that flexibility is designed as a method of providing money for the school districts. Well, how are they supposed to get money? Well, they are encouraged to arbitrage, to take the funds that they get by issuing school bonds and not build schools right away, but take the money to the markets, play the markets. Then they are allowed under the new Republican proposal to keep the profits. The sole contribution to school construction and modernization offered in this Republican tax plan is a free ticket to Las Vegas for every school board member in the country. I do not think that we should be encouraging schools to arbitrage invest, and we certainly should not view ourselves as having made some major contribution to education and school construction, because we have provided those free tickets to Las Vegas and told the school district that they are allowed to keep the profits that they make by playing the market. Instead, the Democratic tax proposal, one that I am proud to cosponsor, and it is not just a Democratic proposal now, I believe the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and many other Republicans have sponsored or cosponsored. This legislation would, instead, provide real money by allowing schools to have the Federal Government pay the interest on the bonds up to $25 billion in bonds. That is real money for schools to spend.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to address the House while our presiding officer is a fellow representative from the San Fernando Valley, the area that can best be described currently as the center of world culture. Throughout the ages, however, Greece has been the center of world culture; and that is why I am proud to join with so many members of the Hellenic Caucus in addressing the House with regard to the 179th anniversary of Greek independence. Mr. Speaker, 179 years ago, on March 25, 1821, the Greek people declared their independence, throwing off the yoke of over 400 years of Ottoman oppression. Greek patriot Regas Fereos issued the rallying cry of the struggle, shouting that it is better to be free for an hour than to have 40 years of imprisonment and enslavement. Greek freedom fighters looked to the American revolution and American democracy for inspiration, and adopted their own declaration of independence. At the same time, our Founding Fathers were guided by the democratic principles that first arose in Greece, and they took to heart the Hellenic ideals of ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy. This is a day for us to reflect on the vital alliance between Greece and the United States and to pay our debt to Hellenic ideals and to Hellenic culture. It is a day for Greek Americans to take pride in the independence of Greece and in the ancient culture of all Hellenians. Mr. Speaker, as we take note of Greece's great victory in its war of independence, we must also remember that there remain problems in the eastern Mediterranean, problems between Greece and the successor to its former colonial master, Turkey, the successor to the Ottoman empire. We must work to bring peace to the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean, and to do that we must deal with some of the remaining problems. A Greek-Turkish dialogue can go forward, and I and my colleagues, so many of us, have called upon Turkey to stop making invalid claims on Greek sovereign territory and take respect for international law regarding the Aegean. We have passed the Peace in Cyprus resolution, which calls upon a full withdrawal of Turkish troops from Greece. We must also recognize the importance of having Turkey adhere to human rights standards and to respect the ecumenical patriarchy of the orthodox churches in Istanbul, also known as Constantinople. So as we look at history, we must also look at the current situation in the Aegean. But returning, Mr. Speaker, to the historical ties between Greece and the United States, I should note that since its liberation, Greece has stood by America in each of our involvements in Europe; and America should continue to stand by Greece. Greece is one of only three nations outside of the British Empire that has been allied with the United States in every major international conflict of this century. One out of every nine Greeks lost his or her life fighting the Nazis in World War II. Through the Marshall Plan, Greeks were able to rebuild; and the Marshall Plan stands as a monument to the close relations between the United States and Greece. Grease remains a staunch NATO ally in a region of grave concern and, as I have noted, deserves American support. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with Greece and the Greek American community and the Hellenic Caucus in celebrating the 179th anniversary of Greek independence. I look forward to working with my colleagues in strengthening relations with this important ally.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we enjoy the fruits of fiscal responsibility and an expanding economy. This budget resolution, thrown together at 3 in the morning in the dark of night in a secret room, this budget resolution puts all that at risk. Why? To support huge tax cuts that threaten to bust budget and endanger Social Security and Medicare. The only good thing that can be said about this resolution is that it is slightly less fiscally irresponsible than the plan put forward by Governor George Bush, to which Senator McCain responded that it represented fiscal irresponsibility. What kind of tax cuts are we asked to risk Social Security and Medicare for? We saw earlier this month, when the Republican tax bill provided three-quarters of the benefits to 1 percent of the richest Americans. Mr. Speaker, in his earlier speech, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) invoked the sacred name of Regis Philbin. What game are we playing here? The Republicans are not playing the game who wants to be a millionaire or who wants to marry a multimillionaire. They have a new game, who wants to risk Social Security to give huge tax breaks to multi-multi-multimillionaires. Let us not play that game. Let us reject this rule and reject the Republican budget resolution and return to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are now enjoying and have enjoyed for several years the fruits of fiscal responsibility but that fiscal responsibility was put at risk yesterday in the Committee on the Budget, where that committee approved huge tax cuts that threaten to bust the budget and endanger Social Security and Medicare. Earlier this month, we found out what types of tax cuts we were endangering our prosperity to finance, because this House passed not an increase in the earned income tax credit, not an increase in the standard deduction, no tax relief for working Americans but, rather, a huge tax cut where three-quarters of the benefit went to the top 1 percent of wealthiest Americans. Mr. Speaker, the question in game show language seems to be, not who wants to be a millionaire or who wants to marry a multimillionaire but who wants to give huge tax cuts to multi-multimillionaires. It is time to return to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity, because I was not on the list to address the House today and did not expect to do so. My remarks may be intemperate because I come here in anger. I speak here not with any prepared text, but from a few roughly thrown together notes. I know those who prepare the Congressional Record like a prepared text to follow afterwards, but they will, unfortunately, have to rely upon our outstanding court reporter. Mr. Speaker, 20 minutes ago, I became aware of a horrifying news report, a report that filled me with anger at a proposed administration policy, a policy that may be taken by an administration that I have supported time and time again with my vote and with my voice. Today, news reports indicate that this Friday the State Department plans to announce an elimination on the ban on importing to the United States of Iranian caviar, carpets, and pistachios. We will be told that these three exports are insignificant to a Nation with so much oil. But Iran is able to export its oil on the world market and obtain the world price. Nothing America does influences that price or the total demand for Iranian oil. In contrast, Iran stands to benefit substantially if its three major non-energy exports are allowed into the United States. Nothing we do could have a greater impact in the area of importing goods from Iran than to allow carpets, pistachios, and caviar into our markets. Mr. Speaker, do we really need Iranian caviar? The Russian caviar somehow does not satisfy the palates of the most discriminating? I do not think so. I think the greater thirst, the greater craving than for Iranian caviar is the thirst, the craving in the State Department to make concessions of a tangible nature to Iran before we get more than the first wisp of improved Iranian behavior. Mr. Speaker, about a year ago, 13 Jews were arrested in Shiraz, Iran; and they were charged with espionage for the United States. Ten of those 13 remain in prison. All 13 go to trial next month. All of them face the death penalty. Why would America liberalize our export rules while these 13 face the death penalty for allegedly spying for us? Mr. Speaker, since the Iranian revolution, 17 members of the Jewish community have been executed at roughly the rate of one per year in a constant and bloody effort at community repression, and yet our State Department wants to let in the caviar, the carpets. Mr. Speaker, that caviar will not taste good. There is blood in the caviar; the carpets wrap human bodies. And we have got to stand firm for once. Mr. Speaker, the Vice President of the United States has said that Iran's treatment of the 13 Jews held in Shiraz would be a test for the Iranian government. But what test proctor is so wimpish as to award an A to the student before that student even turns in a paper? The test is still outstanding. Can Iran stop its repression of the oldest Jewish community outside of Israel? Can they let go of the desire of some of the hard-liners in Iran to oppress this small remaining community of 30,000 people? Mr. Speaker, we have to understand how stupid and outrageous these espionage charges are. Here in the United States we are a multiethnic society. Anyone can grow up to be a spy. We can have Jewish-American spies, Chinese-American spies, or English-American spies, because everyone participates in our society. In Iran, no Jew is allowed anywhere near anything of strategic significance, and America would not be the world's only superpower if we made a practice of hiring as our spies those in a small community prohibited from getting anywhere close to any of the information we might find significant. Mr. Speaker, these 13 are not held out of a genuine belief that they might be guilty of espionage, but rather as an effort to torture a community and perhaps execute 13 of its members. Mr. Speaker, there is blood in the caviar, bodies have been wrapped in the carpets, and it is time for America to say no until the 13 Jews of Shiraz are liberated and until the Iranian government takes other important actions as well.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this budget-busting, Social Security- risking tax bill would cause the sheriff of Nottingham to cringe in embarrassment because it is the most regressive tax bill in recent history. Three-quarters of the benefits go to the top 1 percent, a group of people with an average income of $900,000. Its estate tax provisions are even more regressive. We are denounced for class warfare rhetoric, but this bill is a sneak attack against working Americans. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of today's game shows, this bill does not ask who wants to be a millionaire, nor does it ask who wants to marry a multimillionaire. It asks who wants to give huge tax breaks to multi- multimillionaires. And I emphasize ``million heirs,'' because the breaks go chiefly not to those who are rich because of their efforts but those who become rich because of their clever selection of parents. Ninety-five percent of Americans get 13 bucks out of this bill. There are some pennies for average Americans. But the top 1 percent get $6,000 of tax relief, or as we say in L.A., dinner at Spagos. This bill is so obnoxious, so regressive, that it is being packaged in the rhetoric of talking about the average beauty shop owner. But to get the benefits, you need an estate of $4 million and more. That is a lot of beauty shops. And then they take this deceptively packaged tax bill and they feel they cannot conceal it enough, so they wrap it in an increase in the minimum wage. This bill provides over $100 billion of tax relief to the superrich, and it provides $11 billion of wage increases to those who make $5.15 an hour. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following documents from the Citizens for Tax Justice: House GOP Minimum Wage Plan Offers $11 in Upper-Income Tax Breaks for Every $1 in Wage Hikes for Low Earners The House GOP leadership's $123 billion tax-cut/minimum wage plan, to be voted on this week, would give upper-income taxpayers $11 in tax breaks over the next decade for every dollar in increased wages paid to low-wage workers. Unbalanced Acts, a joint analysis of the GOP proposal by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Economic Policy Institute, finds: Over the next decade, the proposed tax cuts will total $122.8 billion. Over the same period, wage increases stemming from the $1 boost in the minimum wage will total only $11.2 billion. This means that over ten years, for every dollar in higher wages for low-wage workers, $10.90 in upper-income tax breaks will be provided. Almost all the tax cuts (91.4%) would go to the best-off tenth of all taxpayers. In fact, the top one percent of all taxpayers, those making more than $319,000 a year, would get almost three-quarters of the tax reductions. Their average annual tax cut under the plan would be $6,128 each (in 1999 dollars). That compares to only a $4 average tax cut for the bottom 60 percent. While the tax bill's permanent tax cuts grow to $17.6 billion by 2010, the effect of the minimum wage proposals will be totally eroded by inflation after 2006. ``The minimum wage hike will allow low-wage workers to share in the gains of this economic recovery, while the proposed tax cuts will needlessly provide a second helping of the economic pie to the wealthiest taxpayers,'' said EPI Vice President Lawrence Mishel. ``It's ridiculous that a minimum wage bill supposedly designed to aid low-wage workers would actually give its biggest benefits to the highest-income people in the country.'' said Citizens for Tax Justice, director Robert S. McIntyre. EPI's minimum wage analysis compares the wage hikes under the GOP plan, which would boost the minimum wage by $1 over three years, to the wages that affected workers would earn if their wages merely keep up with inflation over the next decade. The GOP's three-year phase-in of the wage boost provides an $11.2 billion gain to these workers over ten years--$3.8 billion less than the Bonior-Kennedy proposal's two-year implementation plan, which would produce a total of $15 billion in higher wages. The distributional effects of the tax cuts were analyzed by CTJ using the Institution on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Model. The $123 billion estimated ten-year cost of the tax cuts is based on preliminary, March 1, 2000 estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation. (The tax cut plan would, among other things: cut estate taxes by $79 billion over ten years--representing almost two-thirds of the total proposed tax cuts; increase the write-off for business meals to 60% of cost from 50% under current law; provide added tax breaks for pensions and 401(k) plans; increase the limits on immediate write-offs of business capital investments; speed up the date when 100% of self-employed health insurance can be deducted; restore a loophole for installment sales that was repealed in 1999; expand enterprise zones; expand the tax credit for investors in low-income housing; expand the tax credit for investors in low-income housing; and augment tax breaks for private tax-exempt bonds.) A table detailing the distributional effects of the tax cuts follows:

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, success has many fathers; failure is an orphan. This bill is an outstanding bill and we are all fighting over paternity. It is a bill that will help our economy by bringing experienced workers into a labor shortage work environment. It is a bill that will help 800,000 seniors and it is a bill that will actually help Social Security by bringing additional Social Security revenue and income tax revenue into the Federal Government as additional seniors enter the workforce. As to the fight over paternity, it is a Democratic President who stood here in his State of the Union message and urged us to pass this bill and the Democratic alternative bill in 1998 which provided an increase in this limit which we are now going to repeal, and that alternative bill would have been signed into law. We voted for a bill that would have dealt with this issue in 1998 and would have become law.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Los Robles Bank headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California for its continued Superior Customer Service contributions and continued success as a financial institution during its 12 years of existence in the Conejo Valley. Since Los Robles Bank's inception on July 2, 1987, its marketing plan has always been to provide superior service to the small-to-medium sized businesses in the Conejo Valley and contiguous communities. Under the very capable leadership of its President and Chief Executive Officer, Robert B. Hamilton and Jerry H. Miller, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Los Robles Bank has grown to operate Branches in Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, and Camarillo. The Bank has grown to assets of over $153,000,000 as of June 30, 1999. Los Robles Bank was selected as the Outstanding Business of the Year for 1998 by the Thousand Oaks/Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce and for two consecutive years received the Readers' choice award as ``Best Bank in Conejo Valley'' based upon votes cast by Daily News' readers. Other Significant Corporate Citizenship includes roles in and contributions to Under One Roof, Rotary International, Optimist Clubs of Thousand Oaks, Pleasant Valley Lions Club, Thousand Oaks Police Department, Ventura County High Schools and College Scholarship Funds, Conejo Free Clinic, Year-Round Star Program and Youth employment and Training Programs, Junior charity League, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, Hospice, United Way, many Mansions, Mana, Conejo-Las Virgenes Future Foundation, Park Oaks Elementary School Reading Program, Conejo Valley Days, and Special Kids Day. In High School sports Los Robles Bank has continuously supported athletic programs at Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park, Westlake and Aldolfo Camarillo High Schools. The Bank is an active sponsor for California Lutheran Universities Academic program through membership in the Community Leaders Club and the Matthews Business Management Forum. Recently Credit Swisse Bank sent a top official to Los Robles Bank to learn about the Bank operations and approaches to banking in general. The Swisse Bank representative upon his departure stated that he was most impressed with Los Robles Bank's customer service and employee relations skills--something that is continually stressed by the Bank's Management. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in recognizing Los Robles Bank for its accomplishments and successes in both the Banking and Civic communities over the past 12 years.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to no one when it comes to dedication to eliminating the national debt. Robert Reich and no one else on the liberal side was in my district when that is the issue that led me here to the United States Congress. There is perhaps no part of our Tax Code that has been the subject of more confusion and misnomers than the so-called marriage penalty. When I began working as a CPA back in the Ice Age, there were fewer two-earner families, and we were told to urge clients to get married to reduce their taxes, to try to get married by December 31 to reduce their taxes for a particular year. Today, roughly half the couples get a marriage bonus. They pay lower taxes because they are married and would pay more if they were merely cohabiting. But half the couples are paying a marriage penalty, and that is why I have been intensely dedicated to eliminating that marriage penalty. However, the Republican proposal is so poorly drafted and so misleadingly titled. Over half the benefits go to couples that are not paying a marriage penalty, but are instead getting a marriage bonus, and three-quarters of the benefits go to the top one-quarter wealthiest families. This is as sneaky as a Valentine's suitor who has a little area on his finger where his ring has been removed. This is using the marriage penalty as an excuse to provide tax relief for upper-income families, half of whom are already enjoying a marriage bonus. This bill makes a mockery of those who have fought with us against the marriage penalty, and the process that brings this bill to the floor makes a mockery of fiscal responsibility when it comes to the floor before we have a budget resolution and before we have placed it in context. We need to defeat this bill.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in the New Democratic Coalition in addressing the House today on the importance of fiscal responsibility. There is huge pressure on us. Pressure to adopt the huge tax cuts proposed by George W. Bush, the governor of Texas; pressure to adopt hundreds of new government programs. With today's surplus, we can afford some responsible tax cuts and we can afford some additional efforts to deal with intractable social programs. But we should remember that the economic expansion that we are in now has already done more for the poor than 100 Great Society programs and has already done more for business than every tax gismo put into the 1981 tax bill that was designed to use the Tax Code and tax cuts to incentivize business expansion. Mr. Speaker, we need fiscal responsibility and to pay down the debt for our seniors to keep Social Security solvent; for our children, so that we do not leave them a mountain of debt. But even perhaps, more importantly, we need fiscal responsibility. We need to be paying down the national debt in order to continue this unprecedented economic expansion.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rabbi Gershon and Sharene Johnson in honor of their ``Silver Celebration'' at Temple Beth Haverim in Agoura Hills, California. This loving couple has spent 25 years as leaders in the Jewish community, both spiritually and educationally. Rabbi Gershon Johnson has served as Rabbi at Temple Beth Haverim since 1988. He is described by many as the temple's incomparable spiritual leader. His devotion and expertise as a Rabbi are evident in his presence as a chaplain for the Southern California Board of Rabbis. He has always been extremely interested in passing on his love for and knowledge of Judaism. The Elderhostel program at the Brandeis Bardin Institute has benefited from Rabbi Gershon's knowledge, and he is one of their most popular teachers. He also has been instrumental in introducing religion to beginners through his ``Introduction to Judaism'' class sponsored by the University of Judaism. Sharene Johnson is the wife of Rabbi Gershon, and has worked for the betterment of the Jewish community in many different ways. She has taught at several Jewish day schools throughout the United States, and has been involved in programming and consulting at Jewish resource centers as well. Her leadership has shone through as chairperson on the Principal's Council at the Bureau of Jewish Education. For the past 11 years, she has passed on her wealth of experience and knowledge as Director of Education at Temple Ner Marev in Encino, California. The Jewish community also enjoys her teaching through adult workshops and her conducting of a women's Torah Study class at Temple Beth Haverim. In addition to their devotion to the temple, they have become a model of excellent family life and values. Rabbi Gershon teaches the ``Making Marriage Work'' program at the University of Judaism. Sharene leads several family workshops each year, and has spent much of her time working with families and children. They have been happily married for 27 years and have raised 3 wonderful children--Gavi, Rachel, and Aliza. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in paying tribute to Rabbi Gershon and Sharene Johnson. They are both deserving of our utmost respect and praise.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise with the sense that I am standing in front of a moving train. Today's media has almost already brought China into the World Trade Organization, and already declared that we are going to get enormous benefits from that entry, and from a decision that they presume will be made on this floor to grant China permanent most-favored-nation status, which some call normal trade relation status. Let us review where we are now on our trading relationship with China. We have the most lopsided trading arrangement in the history of a Nation's life. We have a situation where we export roughly $14 billion and import close to $70 billion from China. China is shameless in maintaining and expanding that lopsided trading relationship. It maintains high tariffs on American goods, but what is worse than what China does officially in its published laws is what it does to restrict the access of American exports through hidden, through unofficial, through cozy relationships between the Communist party of China and those business enterprises that could be involved in importing American goods if they only chose to do so. We would think, then, that any change in this relationship would be a change for the better, since it is already the worst trading relationship I could identify. Yet, I have to question the idea of this House giving most-favored-nation status to China on a permanent basis. Madam Speaker, I cannot judge the deal in advance. It is yet to be presented to us formally, and just perhaps it will have some mechanisms in it that will allay my concerns. My chief concern is that what we would be doing in giving permanent most-favored-nation status to China is making permanent the current situation. That situation is one in which we are a country of laws, so any American businessperson can import goods from China, subject only to our published tariffs and restrictions and quotas. So many business people work here in the United States that they assume that if we could only change China's laws, that their business people would be free to bring in our goods. Nothing is all that clearcut. Imagine, if you will, some business enterprise in China seeking to import American goods receives a telephone call from a Communist party cadre telling them, don't buy American goods, buy them from France, buy them from Germany. The Communist party of China is angry at speeches made on the floor. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) took the floor again, you had better not buy American goods. An American businessman would simply laugh at some party official telling him or her what to buy and what to import, but a Communist Chinese citizen would ignore advice, oral advice, nonprovable advice, from the Communist Party of China only at their peril. China is not a country where the rule of law prevails. Accordingly, getting China to change its law accomplishes perhaps very little. We cannot assume that our trade deficit with China will go down. What we have now is an annual review of our trading relationship with China, so that if China were to move into Tibet and slaughter hundreds of thousands of people, we could react in a way that they would understand, by cutting off most-favored-nation status; that if China were to engage in massive nuclear proliferation, we could react. If China continues to widen its trade deficit and use unofficial means to exclude our exports, we could finally summon up the determination to react here on this Floor. If we give China most-favored-nation status on a permanent basis, then we will not be able to react in any meaningful way. Madam Speaker, I have come to this Floor three times, to vote in favor of giving China most-favored-nation status one more year, and a second year, and a third year, because I am not ready to use our most powerful weapon in the Chinese-U.S. trade relationship at this time. But it is a long way between saying we are not willing to use that weapon and that we want to engage in unilateral disarmament.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to pay tribute to La Agencia de Orci & Asociados, one of the most successful, independent, Hispanic owned and operated full-service advertising and public relations agencies in the United States. As they celebrate their 13th anniversary, we salute them for their vision and commitment to serve the needs of our entire community, with special attention to our Hispanic/Latino constituents. Through insightful creative, targeted media and integrated marketing programs, La Agencia has established deep and lasting mutually beneficial relationships between their clients and the Latino consumer. We honor today those individuals who exemplify leadership, professionalism, community service and dedication. La Agencia de Orci partners, Hector Orci and Norma Orci, founders and co-chairs, Roberto Orci, president and Marlene Garcia, executive vice president, are committed to dynamic leadership in their industry. La Agencia values and beliefs dictate that the most direct route to gaining Share of Market with the Hispanic consumer is to first capture Share of Heart.TM Our community and our country continue to benefit from award- winning La Agencia pro bono efforts on behalf of the Children's Bureau of Southern California, United Way, Los Angeles Unified School District, AIDS Project L. A., Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), Boy Scouts of America, and Census 1990 and 2000. With the September 23rd opening of their Chicago offices, La Agencia is now one of the largest full-service independent advertising agencies in the Midwest dedicated to the national Hispanic market. Also announced was the establishment of Orci Public Relations, extending services to non-advertising clients. Established in 1986, with headquarters in Los Angeles, annual billings exceeded 60 million dollars in 1998. Current valued clients include Allstate Insurance, American Honda, Bell Atlantic, Hormel Foods, Picosito.com, Shell Oil, Tropicana and Washington Mutual. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in paying tribute to La Agencia de Orci & Asociados, a ``family'' of 80 bilingual and bicultural staff who come together from 17 countries. La Agencia excels in the advertising business world and services as a leading role model in corporate citizenship. They have earned our recognition, praise and respect.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the vision and commitment of brothers Jesse and Edwardo Martinez, founders of Picosito.com, who have created a bilingual Internet website tailored to the U.S. Hispanic/Latino community. These first generation Mexican-American brothers established their parent company, VivaMedia Incorporated, in 1998 with the focus on educating, promoting and cultivating the online Hispanic/Latino community--regardless of income level or education. Picosito.com provides free access to engaging, dynamic and culturally driven content including free email, news, entertainment, health, business and communications resources tailored to the needs of the growing online Hispanic/Latino community. The stories featured on Picosito.com are exclusively written or selected because they address issues that affect the U.S. Hispanic/ Latino population. The company is dedicated to identifying stories that will inform, educate and inspire Hispanics to make a difference in their lives and their communities. Quizito, Person of the Day, and the Daily Fact are some of the unique features that allow users to test their knowledge and gain insightful information about their history, heritage and the vibrant culture of ``la gente bonita.'' Jesse and Edwardo Martinez are the first in their family to graduate from college, Jesse with a mechanical engineering degree from Texas A & M University and Edwardo with an electrical engineering degree from Stanford University. They credit their parents, Alfred and Socorro, who never graduated from high school, with instilling in them the courage, strength and determination to achieve academic success. Now they want to give back to their community and believe Picosito.com is the appropriate vehicle for this journey. Picosito.com's first step at bringing technology into the Hispanic community is being demonstrated by the ``Gift of Information'' program, which involves donating computers to organizations that need computers and offer training in the usage of computers and the Internet throughout Los Angeles, New York and Miami. Joining the entire Picosito.com team at the House of Blues in Los Angeles to help launch the ``Gift of Information'' program are Edward James Olmos and many personal and corporate friends from throughout the United States and around the world. Mr. Speaker, Please join me in honoring Jesse Martinez and Edwardo Martinez as they pursue their dream--which is now reality: providing the resources to empower Hispanics to make a difference in their own lives, in their communities and in our country. They have earned our praise and respect.