Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on International Relations, and a member of the Committee on Science, and as a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, and, in fact, the ranking member of International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee, I am well aware of the conflict of two goals of the Federal Government. One of those is to meet our obligations to the international space station. The other is to use every device possible to try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and to try to prevent Russia from assisting in that process.

For me, these goals are not of equal weight. The supreme goal and objective and obligation of the Federal Government is to protect our people. Iranian nuclear weapons could be smuggled into our cities, and I would say that we should adopt no legislation and leave on the books current law that puts one objective, and that is limiting Iranian nuclear weapons, as the sole objective that is embodied in our statutes.

But, in fact, some balance is going to be struck, and it is not going to be the overwhelming balance that I would strike, a balance in favor of doing everything possible to limit Iranian nuclear weapons development and giving far less weight to meeting our international space station obligations.

I want to take this opportunity to commend the ranking member and the chairman of the Committee on International Relations and of the Committee on Science and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for doing a very good job of trying to narrowly tailor this legislation, to try to balance those two goals in not the way I would, but in a way that I have to concede is reasonable. And for that reason I will not ask for a recorded vote on this bill. I recognize that if this bill does not pass in this form, it is as likely to get worse as it is to get better because, in fact, my colleagues have labored very effectively and have taken some input from me to create a bill which is tailored to the twin objectives.

Now, I would hope the day would come when the President of the United States could certify to this Nation that Russia is doing everything possible to help us prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and in any case was not helping Iran to develop those terrible weapons. But until that day comes, present law says that we cannot contract with agencies of the Russian Government space program no matter what for various space-related activities.

As I understand this bill in its final revised form, and I see most of the principal authors of the amendment to it here on the floor, and I know the rest will correct the record tomorrow if I misstate anything, but I would yield to anyone here to correct me if I am wrong, the bill in its present form creates a very limited exception to present law. It allows NASA to contract with Russian Government space agencies only when those agencies are the only available seller of goods and services necessary to meet our obligations to the international space station.

There are two important aspects of that understanding. One is the language that I said, the only available seller of essential goods and services. That is to say this bill does not authorize us to turn a blind eye to Russian space agency cooperation with the nuclear plans of Tehran just because the Russian space agency is the cheapest or the most convenient or a few days faster. It allows us to ignore those important Iran nonproliferation goals only when it is absolutely necessary and only when necessary to meet our own obligations to the space station, not obligations of other countries.

To reiterate, not only is this bill limited to situations where it is necessary, not merely convenient, for us to contract with the Russian space agency, but it is also a requirement that we are meeting our obligations to the international space station, not a circumstance when we are paying the Russians to meet their own obligations or the obligations of some other country.

So I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And to put it in context, I think this bill does a good job of striking what is the best balance we are likely to see in this legislative process between our goals.

Mr. Speaker, Simon Wiesenthal refused to forget the horror he endured and witnessed in five Nazi death camps during the Holocaust. He would not let the world forget what the Jewish people and so many others suffered at the hands of Hitler's Third Reich. He dedicated his life to bringing Nazis to justice, educating the world about the Holocaust, and fighting to help ensure that the intolerance that brought it about would not be repeated. The spirit Wiesenthal brought to these lifelong pursuits will not end with his death.

Along with millions of other Jews, Wiesenthal was imprisoned by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Unwilling to accept this fate, Wiesenthal daringly escaped in 1943, only to be recaptured in 1944. Wiesenthal was sent back to a concentration camp, and as the German Eastern front collapsed Wiesenthal was marched with other prisoners across Europe. The trek left him near death when finally liberated by the advancing American army.

The moment his health returned, Wiesenthal sprang into action. He began to build a legal case against the Nazis, first for the American military's war crimes trials and then through an independent effort based in Vienna.

Wiesenthal relentlessly searched for Adolf Eichmann, the infamous Nazi who headed Hitler's Gestapo, and other Nazis who had evaded trial by the allies. Wiesenthal's work led to the capture of Eichmann and other infamous Nazis years after the world had given up on bringing them to justice. Although the Holocaust was fading into the world's memory, Wiesenthal continued to fight its battles every day with his time, determination, and spirit.

In Los Angeles, Simon Wiesenthal's memory lives on at the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The international organization works to preserve the memory of the Holocaust and to fight anti-Semitism and intolerance.

I had the honor of working with the Wiesenthal Center earlier this year in asking the British Government to keep a known terrorist supporter, Yussuf Al-Qaradawi, out of Great Britain. Al-Qaradawi has given religious justification and encouragement for terrorist attacks against Americans and Israelis. These efforts against intolerant religious extremism in the 21st century are a clear extension of Wiesenthal's lifelong mission.

Simon Wiesenthal's spirit, unbridled in life, will carry on in his memory through the Wiesenthal Center, its work, and the efforts of so many others fighting intolerance and preserving the memory of the Holocaust.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join my Armenian American constituents of California's 27th Congressional District in welcoming His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia to the State of California.

His Holiness Aram I was elected Catholicos on June 28, 1995. Four years earlier, His Holiness had been selected to serve as the Moderator for the World Council of Churches (WCC). This prominent ecumenical organization is composed of more than 340 churches from around the world and represents over 400 million Christians. His Holiness is the first Orthodox Christian and the youngest person to be elevated to the post of Moderator of the WCC.

Aram I was ordained a priest in 1968 and obtained the title of Vartabed (Doctor of the Armenian Church) in 1970. In 1979 he was elected Primate of the Armenian Orthodox community in Lebanon. The next year he received his Episcopal ordination. His tenure as Primate of the Armenian community in Lebanon coincided with the Lebanese Civil War. During this time and after, His Holiness reorganized parishes and schools, restructured and reactivated church-related institutions, and renewed community leadership.

As a strong supporter of inter-religious relations, dialogue and cooperation, Aram I has played a significant part in promoting common values, mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence among religions. He has worked tirelessly as Primate to foster tolerance and build mutual confidence between Christian and Muslim communities.

His Holiness is also active as a scholar and has written several books in which he frequently admonishes the vital importance of dialogue and collaboration among the living faiths of the world.

We can expect a message of peace and unity when His Holiness addresses the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on October 14th, 2005. His Holiness will also present the main address at a symposium to be held at the University of Southern California that will focus on how Christians respond to violence. I am honored that the Catholicos will be visiting the 27th District on October 7th to preside over church services to be held at Holy Martyrs Armenian Apostolic Church in Encino, California.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the His Holiness Aram I, a man who has been a strong voice for mutual understanding among religions, cultures and civilizations; a true spiritual leader committed to peace, justice, and human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues in expressing my sincere condolences to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. My heart goes out to those who are suffering, especially those who are still seeking information on the fate of missing loved ones. The devastation of Hurricane Katrina will continue to be felt for years to come.

Therefore, I support this all important supplemental appropriation bill to ensure our Nation can and will provide the necessary relief services to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. In the aftermath of this horrible tragedy, as in past tragedies, we have seen the true generosity and compassion of the American people. I continue to be amazed at the outpouring of support from people all over the country working together to offer assistance to those in need.

Hundreds of fire fighters and search and rescue crews from my home state of California have gone to New Orleans and the Gulf coast devastated by the hurricane. I am proud to say that this includes the 70 strong Los Angeles urban rescue team from Fire Station No. 88 in Sherman Oaks in my Congressional District.

In both my District and Washington, DC offices, I have received hundreds of calls from my constituents calling to express their concern for those in need and seeking to identify ways to provide them with assistance. For many of my constituents, this tragedy brought back their memories of surviving natural disasters, like the 6.8 earthquake that struck Northridge at 4:30 am on January 17, 1994. Like Katrina, this earthquake caused monumental damage to communities, including road structures, and was one of the costliest natural disasters in our nation's history.

Following the earthquake, the Northridge community experienced similar outpouring of support from Americans. However, we also experienced a much greater and more effective response from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA began 15 minutes after the earthquake. This is particularly significant because unlike Katrina, the Northridge earthquake was not predicted to occur in 2004. In addition, the FEMA Headquarters Emergency Support team was activated 90 minutes after the earthquake. FEMA coordinated the response of the 27 Federal agencies involved in the Northridge earthquake allowing for services to be provided quickly. An Earthquake Service Center with representatives from all disaster agencies was opened almost immediately. FEMA also expedited the loan process for victims and disseminated important information to Los Angeles County residents.

In short, we saw results. Victims received relief in a timely manner. We saw an efficient Federal agency carrying out its mission. Reason would dictate that 11 years after this disaster, our response to natural disasters would be even more rapid and effective, and not slower and inefficient.

Sadly, this has not been the case. Almost exactly four years after the September 11th terrorist attacks, our Nation continues to struggle with properly aiding its citizens when disaster strikes.

And, unfortunately, we have seen firsthand the results of this struggle. We have all seen the images on television and heard the grim reports. People who have already lost their homes, who were separated from their families did not have access to basic necessities--food, water, and medical supplies. Many of these families, who needed their government the most, were forced to live in despicable, unhealthy and dangerous conditions. Women have been raped, babies have had to go without diapers, and people were forced to live in filth surrounded by human waste and corpses.

This is absolutely unacceptable, and I join with my colleagues in demanding a complete explanation of and accountability for what went wrong. We must also ensure that this ineffectual initial response never happens again.

Congress has a vital role in overseeing agencies and providing adequate funding. We need to reinstitute disaster mitigation programs like ``Project Impact'' that were in place during the Northridge earthquake. In addition to providing assistance after a disaster we need to take steps to prevent disasters. This includes responding to the funding requests of the Army Corps of Engineers and local communities who have predicted disasters, like the one we are now experiencing. In our capacity as legislators, we must ensure that FEMA has the leadership, tools and resources to effectively respond to a crisis without being burdened by untold levels of bureaucracy and lack of a clear mission.

This is an agency that needs to be directed by an experienced professional. What we have seen is just the opposite. I therefore call for the resignation of FEMA director Michael Brown. I am encouraged that former FEMA director James Lee Witt is providing his knowledge and experience to the state of Louisiana and it is my sincere hope that Mr. Witt will be reappointed to his position as Chief of FEMA and restore that agency to the strength it had during the Northridge earthquake.

But, that is not enough. We must also help individuals facing financial vulnerabilities from natural disasters as well as foster an environment that allows the private sector to properly aid those in need. To that end, I have worked with my colleague from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite, on legislation that would require the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure there was sufficient insurance capacity available for private homeowners to cover catastrophic natural disasters. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Homeowners' Insurance Availability Act of 2005 (H.R. 846).

In 2002, along with several of my colleagues, I asked GAO to study efforts to securitize natural catastrophe and terrorism risk. We received that report in April 2003, but have not held hearings in the Financial Services Committee on the issue since then. I am hopeful that we can enact this needed insurance legislation so that Americans living in areas subject to cyclonic, seismic, volcanic and other catastrophic activity can rest assured that the industry insuring them against losses will be there when they need it the most.

This is just one suggestion for ways that we can move forward to protect our citizens and our financial industry. Once again, I thank my fellow citizens who have shown such wonderful compassion for those affected by Katrina. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward the goal of implementing a fully functional and effective government response that aids people in need and provides them with the tools to help get them back on their feet as quickly as possible. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for their leadership in bringing SAFETEA-LU to the floor. It is an important bill that will help ease congestion throughout the country.

In particular, I applaud their efforts regarding hybrid vehicles in High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. Allowing hybrids in HOV lanes will increase demand for the vehicles, improve air quality, and over time reduce our reliance on foreign oil sources.

Section 166 of SAFETEA-LU allows vehicles meeting certain fuel efficiency and emissions standards to use HOV lanes. The bill, specifically section 166(b)(5)(B)(i), is written to allow states to establish a program that addresses the selection of vehicles under the HOV provision. As long as states meet the minimum standards set out in the bill, they can adjust which vehicles will be authorized to use HOV lanes.

This intentional flexibility will allow California to implement a state law letting hybrid vehicles that get more than 45 miles per gallon in highway driving and meet California emission standards to ride in HOV lanes.

The bill also allows states to choose which HOV lanes will be eligible for use by these vehicles. I call on California to study the issue carefully, so that only HOV lanes that can handle the increase in traffic be eligible for hybrid vehicles.

Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach July 4, 2005, the 229th celebration of America's independence, I rise to commemorate and commend the Valley Cultural Center. The Center is celebrating 30 successful years of promoting arts awareness across the San Fernando Valley of California. By fostering creativity and culture, the Valley Cultural Center has inspired the type of artistic individuality and cultural understanding that has contributed to the excellence, camaraderie, and ingenuity of our Nation.

Since its was established in 1975, the Valley Cultural Center has stood at the forefront of arts and culture in the San Fernando Valley, assisting the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks in bringing arts awareness to the community. The Center reaches out and engages the community through its awards and programs, including its annual Concerts in the Park, and performances at the Madrid Theater.

The Valley Cultural Center's awards and programs encompass the unique cultural and artistic dynamics of the San Fernando Valley. It inspires our youth to pursue a future of arts appreciation and cultural awareness by granting annually $10,000 awards in performing and visual arts scholarships to outstanding students. The Valley Cultural Center also organizes arts, entertainment, and culinary celebrations throughout the year, including the Golden Horn Awards, and the Food, Wine and Micro-brew Festival.

Featuring rock, classical jazz, R&B, Latino pop, country, cowboy, Dixieland, and folk music, The Valley Cultural Center's Concerts in the Park series has established a tradition of family entertainment and a sense of community and culture for over 140,000 residents and visitors each summer. Free to the public, the Concerts in the Park are a central gathering point for residents to experience and share the diverse culture of the San Fernando Valley.

The Valley Cultural Center's annual July 4th Extravaganza is one of the best attended events in the Valley. It includes big-bands such as Don Sweeney and the SRO Band. Each year I take pleasure in joining thousands of Valley residents in the festivities that feature music, food, and fireworks as we celebrate America's independence. It is a wonderful opportunity for everyone in the Valley to honor our Nation and to celebrate with our families and friends.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating the 30th Anniversary of the Valley Cultural Center in the San Fernando Valley. The Center's contributions have been invaluable in bringing enjoyment, cultural understanding, and individualism to our community. I commend its leadership and service to the San Fernando Valley.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina has an excellent amendment that is already encompassed in the Lantos substitute. The vote of the day will be on the Lantos substitute amendment. That will determine what policy this House establishes.

Let me first address those who are supporters of the U.N., or only mildly skeptical, and urge them to vote for the Lantos substitute because it undoubtedly ameliorates the underlying legislation. That amendment makes this legislation less draconian and less harsh. If and when the Lantos amendment is passed and becomes part of the legislation, then Members can decide on final passage, whether to vote for an ameliorated bill. But please do not give up the opportunity to ameliorate this bill simply because you do not feel that the amelioration is fully sufficient.

Now, let me address those who are quite skeptical of the United Nations, who want to get tough in demanding reform. The question is what strategy do we use. Do we use the straitjacket strategy where we do not trust the administration, we think they are insufficiently dedicated to the cause of U.N. reform, and so we impose upon them a straitjacket, a formula that says even if 38 out of 39 reforms are adopted, if one of those 14 that is special is not adopted, 38 out of 39 is not enough? We force our negotiators to walk into the room wearing a straitjacket.

Or do we adopt the Lantos approach where we empower the administration, state our goals, provide the power to withhold a substantial part of our dues, and let them begin to negotiate? That question depends on whether Members think the Bush administration is tough enough, are they sufficiently dedicated to U.N. reform.

What has this administration done to show where it stands on being tough on

U.N. reform? The answer is two words: John Bolton. Whoever represents us at the U.N. will be representing a President and carrying out the policies of a President who, when asked who in the world could best represent us, selected John Bolton. It will either be John Bolton or someone selected by a man who wanted John Bolton.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today to urge the House to suspend the rules and adopt H.R. 1042, the Net Worth Amendment For Credit Unions Act. I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, for bringing this issue before the Committee on Financial Services in a timely manner. I would also like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and members of the committee who joined with Chairman Bachus and me in sponsoring this somewhat technical but important legislation.

H.R. 1042 addresses a potential problem for a growing number of credit unions that arises under the Basel II negotiations on international capital accounting standards. In 1996, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, known as FASB, and the International Accounting Standards Board, initiated a joint project to develop a single uniform standard for assessing the value of the assets and liabilities acquired in business mergers and acquisitions.

The effort resulted in the issuing of FASB statement 141 back in June of 2001. This statement required the use of the ``purchase method'' of accounting as the most appropriate standard for assuring that the assets of an acquired business will be uniformly measured at their fair market value at the time of acquisition.

Thus, FASB abolished the then very popular ``pooling method'' of accounting, which had been widely used to measure the assets of surviving credit unions in credit union mergers. The pooling method had permitted the combining of the retained earnings of both the surviving and the merged credit unions to determine the net worth of the surviving credit union. Under the purchase method, which is now required under FASB 141, the retained earnings of the merged credit union must be listed as ``acquired equity,'' a concept that did not exist at the time the Federal Credit Union Act was last amended on this issue.

Currently the Credit Union Act recognizes only retained earnings in calculating a credit union's net worth and its net worth ratio. Accounting procedures that fail to recognize that the retained earnings of the merged credit union would seriously reduce the postmerger net worth ratio of the surviving credit union. This could have the effect of discouraging a number of needed mergers between smaller or weaker credit unions with a healthy credit union, and it could result in determinations that the surviving credit union in the merger is technically undercapitalized, even when that surviving credit union has a large amount of capital. It is simply that some of that capital is listed as ``acquired capital,'' or ``acquired equity'' a term that did not previously exist in our law, and some of it is listed as ``retained earnings.''

H.R. 1042 provides a narrow technical fix for the problem of postmerger accounting of credit union net worth. It amends the current definition of net worth for purposes of the Federal Credit Union Act to allow both retained earnings of a credit union and ``any amounts that were previously retained earnings of any other credit union with which the credit union has combined'' to be included in calculating a credit union's net worth and its net worth ratio.

Where the FASB 141 standard became effective for most business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001, FASB had agreed to defer the implementation for mergers and acquisitions among so-called mutual business enterprises, including credit unions, until the end of 2005. The National Credit Union Administration approved 330 mergers involving federally insured credit unions in 2004, many of which could have resulted in technically undercapitalized credit unions if FASB 141, imposing the purchase method, had been applicable. The Agency projects a similar number of mergers in 2006 that would be adversely affected unless we pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1042 is bipartisan legislation which addresses a potential problem for credit unions that needs to be resolved this year, because next year FASB 141 will be applicable to mutual businesses, including credit unions. It is supported by the National Credit Union Administration, the National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors, and also by both national credit union trade associations, the Credit Union National Association, CUNA, and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, NAFCU.

I am aware of no opposition to this bill, and I urge the House to suspend the rules and adopt the Net Worth Amendment for Credit Unions Act.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this resolution because it is a little too radical for where I am now, but I am tempted to vote for it because of the failure of our current policies and the blindness of those who defend them.

Those who defend our current policies acknowledge that free trade puts pressure on countries to race to the bottom on environmental and labor standards so they can be the low-cost, high-value producer. But the real disconnect is between the theory of free trade and on-the- ground business reality.

Those who defend the WTO live in a world of theory in which business and consumers will buy American goods if they are good values, subject only to the written transparent regulations and tariff laws of their country. This theory is true in the United States where our businesses and consumers are happy to buy. We have lowered our tariffs, we have lowered our regulations and barriers, and there has been an explosion of imports to the United States.

But the theory is false as to China and many other nations. In those countries, their written laws are almost irrelevant; and so we negotiate hard, we open our markets in return for a change of China's written laws, and then we are surprised when changing those laws does nothing to open their markets and the average person in China buys less than 3 cents, I believe it is, of goods and services from America every day.

Why is this? Because their businesses are told orally, do not buy from America unless you get a co-production agreement, do not buy from America unless you get a disclosure of our technology and our manufacturing techniques. So when an airline in the United States goes to decide which airplane to buy, it does so on economic factors. When China buys, they demand that more and more production be shifted to China. No wonder we have this huge trade deficit and the dollar is certainly in peril.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Theodore Bikel, a Renaissance man who has made his mark as an accomplished musician, actor, author, lecturer, and activist. Throughout his life, Theodore has been committed to arts awareness, human rights, and Jewish activism, and his service to the Los Angeles community and the world has been truly remarkable.

Theodore was born in 1924, in Vienna, Austria. At the age of 13, Theodore and his parents fled Austria to avoid Nazi persecution. They eventually settled in Palestine, where Theodore began to develop a deep respect for Jewish tradition and the performing arts. He soon began acting in the famous Habimah Theater. After a few years of training, Theodore left for London, where he performed in small theatre productions. He eventually caught the attention of Sir Laurence Olivier and was cast as Mitch in ``A Streetcar Named Desire.''

After his initial success, Theodore went on to star in Broadway productions of ``The Sound of Music'', ``The Lark'' and ``The King and I,'' but he is most famous for his portrayal of the character Tevye in ``The Fiddler on the Roof,'' a role he has played more than 2,000 times. Theodore later branched into film, and in 1959 he was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award for his role as the Southern Sheriff in ``The Defiant Ones.''

In 1965, Theodore made his concert debut at the Carnegie Recital Hall, and in 1988 he won an Emmy Award for his portrayal of Harris Newmark, an early immigrant pioneer of the West Coast. In recognition of his inspirational work on stage, Theodore will be honored this spring with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Off stage, Theodore has used his talents to advance causes near to his heart. During the Civil Rights Movement, he helped produce the album ``Sing'' for Freedom: Civil Rights Movement Songs. He has also dedicated himself to human rights movements around the world, visiting and entertaining soldiers during the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and serving as a board member of Amnesty International. Back home, Theodore has been president of the Actors' Equity Association and a member of President Carter's National Council on the Arts.

Throughout his life, Theodore has also made serving the Jewish community a priority. Most notably, he has been involved in the Soviet Jewry movement and has served as senior vice president in the American Jewish Congress. In the Los Angeles Jewish community, Theodore has collaborated with Rabbi David Baron and cofounded Temple Shalom for the Arts in Los Angeles.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Theodore Bikel, an influential leader, a visionary artist, and a talented individual whose spirit and activism have inspired our generation and will undoubtedly touch generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address just one aspect of the funding resolution. I have come to this floor before with my concerns that mass mailings have been sent by a particular committee. We as Members of the House have constituents that we need to keep in touch with, but a committee has as its constituents only the members of that committee. A committee does not answer to the whole people of the United States; it answers to this House and to its Members.

This funding resolution makes it clear that the mass mailings of any committee cannot exceed over $5,000 in postage in any year. Basically, that means no effort to reach out to an entire community, an entire congressional district, with an ideological message.

For that reason, I want to commend the ranking member and the Chair for putting to rest that issue, at least for as long as this funding resolution is operative.

I would also point out that it is my understanding that this funding resolution calls for any mass mailings sent by a committee to go to the Franking Commission. I want to thank the leader of our party for appointing me to that commission, where I will serve with our ranking member (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and others.

So I am confident that the mailings of committees will be limited to committee business, will not be so massive as to try to affect the views of an entire congressional district, and will follow the rules of the House as to manner and content.

So I once again commend the chairman and commend the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the only one to come to this floor to oppose this bill. I will try to yield back at least a few minutes to the gentleman and hopefully they will be available should my comments result in comments of others that need rebuttal.

I support science. It is important to America. It is important to my district. But as we look at what we can accomplish, we also have to examine what we should try to accomplish. While we expand the tools of the human race, we must also look at the pitfalls.

This is an issue that I have been talking about for a long time. I first brought it to the floor 5 years ago and that is best illustrated by the fact that roughly 50,000 years ago was the last time that a new level of intelligence came to this planet. It was our ancestors, who said hello to Neanderthal, the only other intelligence on the planet that we were aware of at the time. It did not work out so well for the Neanderthal.

Today we are as a species looking at two exciting new technologies, each which is likely to create an entity, a life form, with a higher level of intelligence than human beings; and, in fact, a higher level by a differential that exceeds whatever differential there was between human beings and Neanderthals. One of these technologies is genetic engineering. And if this was a genetic engineering bill, I would not get to speak on it as long because there would be more members to speak against it, worried about the societal implications. But genetic engineering raises questions that should also be raised by computer engineering, because the kind of high-technology, high-performance computer which is the subject of the bill is an important step towards the development of an artificial life form that will exceed human intelligence.

We had hearings 2 years ago in the Committee on Science where the consensus of experts and I did not invite any of these experts, senior committee members did, (chiefly the chairman) they testified that we are roughly 25 years away from a computer that exceeds human intelligence.

Now, I do not know whether it is 25 years or whether it is a bit longer or a bit less, but should we go headlong into developing the next intelligent species on this planet without even including, in the slightest, in our legislation something to say ``let us examine whether this is something we want to do, and whether we want to have any controls.''

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, we do not know whether we are creating Data from ``Star Trek, The Next Generation,'' or whether we are creating Hal from ``2001: A Space Odyssey.'' We know that the future will look like science fiction. We just do not know which science fiction book or movie.

Last year when the Committee on Science considered this same bill as H.R. 4218, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and I reached an agreement on an amendment that would provide for looking at the societal implications of future advances in information technology. That amendment was included in the bill that passed this House. Specifically, it directed the National Science Foundation to support research into the implications of computers, both hardware and software, that were capable of mimicking human ability to learn to reason and to make decisions. Likewise, the nanotechnology bill which passed both houses, and is now law, provided for even more extensive review into the societal implications, including explicitly the implications of developing levels of intelligence that exceeds those of human beings. But H.R. 28 strips out the provisions that were included in prior legislation. This draft says we will do nothing to look at the societal, the ethical, the environmental implications of what we are doing, and we will rush headlong into trying to do it without the slightest thought of whether we should do it.

My amendment in committee was defeated 17-19 on what was unfortunately, and inexplicably a party-line vote. My amendment put forward just a few weeks ago was identical to the compromise language the chairman and I reached in the 108th Congress.

Now, the importance of understanding how artificial intelligence will be achieved through information technology, how it will impact society--that importance has not decreased since last year. The amendment should be included before this bill leaves this House.

Now, I know there are those who say it is okay to create a computer that exceeds human intelligence and that is self-aware because it will not have hands and will not be able to act except through human beings. Trust me, there are those amongst us who would sell hands to the devil for a good stock tip. If you create Pandora's box, it will be opened.

Now, H.R. 28 deals with the creation of high-performance computers; and as I said and want to say again, the testimony before our committee was that we are 25 years, and this is not one crackpot, this was a consensus; the range was 20 to 30 years between now and when we develop a computer that exceeds human intelligence. And it is not just me. The DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, has on its Web page the statement that its mission, supported by this bill, is to develop a computer which will ``learn from its experience, be aware of itself, and be able to reflect on its own behavior.''

So part of our government is engaged in trying to create maybe Hal, maybe Data, while here in the Congress we pretend that it is impossible, that it is not an issue worthy of reflection. DARPA is going to create a reflective computer, but we do not have a reflective Congress.

Now, I understand that H.R. 28 is an important bill to set goals and priorities in high-performance computer research development with a number of different agencies, including DARPA and its subsidiary agencies. What I do not understand is why there is such resistance to studying the implications of this research. We cannot and should not plunge ahead without a provision to study these implications.

Join me in rejecting this bill on suspension. A bill with this level of implications should not be considered under a suspension of the rules. Send this bill back to the Committee on Science. Have the Committee on Science create a balanced program. Overwhelmingly, this bill should deal with supporting the technology, marching forward, achieving all of the goals that the preceding speakers have indicated. But then let us also put in the bill just a little language to say that we ought to look at the implications: Whether it is likely that this technology will create an entity more intelligent than human beings? Whether that entity is likely to be self-aware? How we could either cause or prevent such self-awareness? What are the societal and ethical implications of having a slave entity reflective, intelligent, and commanded to do what we instruct, without so much as the minimum wage?

So let us pass this bill next month, after the Committee on Science can provide some balance to it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his additional generosity. I wish to respond to the comments of the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record the section of DARPA's mission statement that I referred to previously where DARPA itself indicates that its mission, using the funds provided by this Congress, is to create a computer that is self-aware and able to reflect on its own behavior.

Mr. Speaker, we have thrown around terms as to what is close and what is not. It just comes down to whether 25 years, 30 years, is something close enough for us to be concerned about, or should we be concerned about only the immediate future? I would point out

that we are not going to have self-aware computers for at least 10, maybe 15 or 20 congressional elections. And so if that is how we measure time, self-aware computers are a long way away. But when we approve construction projects and roads, we do not build bridges that are going to collapse in 25 or 30 years, and we assume that human beings will be the only intelligent species using those bridges.

If we are concerned when we build infrastructure for things 20, 30, 50, 100 years down the road, then we should be even more concerned with this bill. And we should not pass this bill in this form and say, well, we will worry about these issues when they come up in some subsequent decade.

In addition, it is put forward that we will just have the scientists and the research community figure out how to deal with these issues. That is perhaps the problem, because if we provide the support exclusively to the hardware and software scientists and nothing to those who will consider the societal implications, the ethical implications, the philosophical implications--then no one will be looking at those issues, then we will not have done our job to provide a balanced, scientific research bill. That is why I am voting ``no.''

The material I referred to previously is as follows:

DARPA Strategic Plan: Section 3.7: Cognitive Computing (Released

February 2005)

Many elements of the information technology revolution that

have vastly improved the effectiveness of the U.S. forces and

transformed American society (e.g., time-sharing, personal

computers, and the Internet) were given their impetus by

J.C.R. Licklider, a visionary scientist at DARPA some 40

years ago. Licklider's vision was of people and computers

working symbiotically. He envisioned computers seamlessly

adapting to people as partners that would handle routine

information processing tasks, thus freeing the people to

focus on what they do best--think analytically and

creatively--and greatly extend their cognitive powers. As we

move to an increasingly network-centric military, the vision

of intelligent, cooperative computing systems responsible for

their own maintenance is more relevant than ever.

Despite the enormous progress in information technology

over the years, information technology still falls well short

of Licklider's vision. While computing systems are critical

to U.S. national defense, they remain exceedingly complex,

expensive to create, insecure, frequently incompatible, and

prone to failure. And, they still require the user to adapt

to them, rather than the other way around. Computers have

grown ever faster, but they remain fundamentally

unintelligent and difficult to use. Something dramatically

different is needed.

In response, DARPA is revisiting Licklider's vision as its

inspiration for the strategic thrust, ``Cognitive

Computing.'' Cognitive computers can be thought of as systems

that know what they're doing. Cognidtive computing systems

``reason'' about their environments (including other

systems), their goals, and their own capabilities. They will

``learn'' both from experience and by being taught. They will

be capable of natural interactions with users, and will be

able to ``explain'' their reasoning in natural terms. They

will be robust in the face of surprises and avoid the

brittleness and fragility of expert systems.

The benefits from this cognitive computing thrust will be

profound. The increasing complexity of military systems means

that the level of expertise needed to maintain them is also

increasing--as are the staffing requirements for virtually

every military function that uses computing and

communications technology. By creating systems that know what

they are doing, and that can configure, maintain, and adapt

themselves, we will be able to drastically reduce the staff

needed for operations centers, forward command posts, and

even in support of small dismounted units and special

operations teams. Cognitive computing technology will also

help us to deal with the increasing tempo of operations and

the complexity of plans, such as Air Tasking Orders and joint

hostage rescue operations plans, by allowing computers to tap

into the accumulated knowledge of past experience on behalf

of their human partners.

Along these lines, DARPA's Personalized Assistant that

Learns (PAL) program will create intelligent personalized

assistants for many tasks, such as a commander's assistant,

an intelligence analyst's assistant, or a decision-maker's

executive assistant. These assistants will interact with

their human partners by accepting direct, naturally expressed

guidance to learn their partner's preferences and procedures.

Then, they will be able to anticipate the human's needs and

prepare materials to be ready just in time for them. These

new and unprecedented artificial helpers should reduce

military staffing needs in many key places and will help

ensure decisions are made in a timely fashion and with the

best possible preparation.

To meet these challenges and seize these opportunities,

DARPA has structured its work in cognitive computing to

catalyze innovative work in single cognitive systems.

collaborative teams of cognitive systems, and collective

cognition from large numbers of small non-cognitive elements.

Each area will demonstrate the power of merging reasoning,

learning, perception, and communication technologies. These

areas will be supported and complemented by broad-based

technology efforts in the hardware, software, and integration

techniques needed.

The strategic thrust of cognitive computing is a template

shaping DARPA's core technology foundation work in

information technology.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) summarized well the reasons for voting for this bill. If I had more forbearance, I would simply sit down, but I have a really nicely written speech here and will use a few minutes, hopefully abbreviating it, since so many of its points have already been covered.

Mr. Speaker, I will put into the Record at this point a letter in support of this bill from the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.

National Association

of Federal Credit Unions,

Arlington, VA, April 26, 2005.

Hon. Mike Oxley,

Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Financial Services, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank: On behalf of

the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU),

the only national trade association that exclusively

represents the interests of our nation's federal credit

unions, I want to reiterate our support for the Expanded

Access to Financial Services Act of 2005 (H.R. 749) and urge

the House to bring up and pass this key legislation.

NAFCU fully supports the merits of this bill, since abuses

are rampant in communities where immigrants rely on money

transfer companies to send remittances to family members and

others in their country of origin. Unfortunately, money

transfer companies oftentimes charge exorbitant fees on those

sending remittances, while imposing poor exchange rates. For

example, a $1000 money transfer to Mexico via IRnet would

cost $10, while the same transaction via Western Union would

cost between $30 and $50 depending on the Western Union

location. Also, the credit union providing the transfer may

be successful in converting an un-banked potential member

into a member. In reality, and in far too many cases, the

costs associated with sending such remittances is essentially

nothing more than another form of predatory lending. Many

people do not know that credit unions can provide a lower

cost and better alternative to these predatory practices. As

such, NAFCU is pleased that a number of our member credit

unions currently offer remittance services to their members.

Last year, in testimony before the House Financial Services

Subcommittee on Financial Services and Consumer Credit during

a hearing on the issue of regulatory relief for credit unions

on July 20, 2004, NAFCU Board Secretary and Xerox FCU

President & CEO Bill Cheney testified:

``. . . NAFCU supports efforts to allow federal credit

unions to offer check-cashing and money-transfer services to

anyone within the credit union's field of membership. We

believe this new authority, which would be discretionary and

not mandatory, will allow credit unions to help combat abuses

by non-traditional financial institutions that prey on our

nation's immigrants and others who live and work in

underserved communities.''

That statement remains true today. The credit union

industry continues to work on the front line to combat

financial illiteracy and to teach consumers about sound

financial practices. NAFCU believes that H.R. 749 is a good

step forward in creating an alternative to those who have no

choices in traditional financial services.

Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to share our

support for H.R. 749. We hope that the House is able to bring

up and take action on this legislation in a timely manner. If

you or your staff have any questions regarding remittances

abuses and how credit unions can be used to help address

these problems, please do not hesitate to call on me or

NAFCU's Director of Legislative Affairs, Brad Thaler.

Sincerely,

Fred R. Becker, Jr.,

President and CEO.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 749 would allow credit unions to provide lifeline services; that is to say international remittances, wire transfers, and check-cashing services to nonmembers who are within the credit union's field of membership. Now, a credit union is restricted and serves a restricted number of people. Some credit unions are based on employment, and so you may have a credit union that serves the textile workers of Los Angeles. You might have another credit union geographically based that serves the northeast San Fernando Valley. This bill only allows a credit union to serve those who are within its field of membership, who are eligible to become members of a credit union. And it makes good sense to allow those who fit within the field of membership, but are not yet members of the credit union, to get these lifeline services. These lifeline services are often priced very high, whether it be check-cashing on the one hand, or international remittances on the other. And to instead provide additional competition so that credit unions can bring the price of these services down would be very helpful to those at the very bottom of our economic ladder.

As the gentleman from Delaware points out, it also brings people who do not have a relationship with a financial institution into a financial institution. It gives them a chance to move from nonmembers who are making use of the check cashing and remittance services, to members who have a checking account, and then gradually a savings account, a credit history, and a real piece of the American financial pie, if you will; a chance to participate with all of the services that the financial institutions of this country provide.

Now, consumers who are sending remittances now, sometimes they are paying as much as 15 percent of the amount that they plan to send. So if you are sending $300 back to your parents in Mexico, you may spend $45, and this bill will provide additional competition in the international remittance area, where many credit unions providing services to those who are already members often provide these services for only $14 or less per transaction. By bringing people into credit unions, credit unions can do what they do best, and that is serve those who are within their field of membership and begin the process of providing financial education, combating predatory lending, and bringing people into the financial system.

Today, more than 200 credit unions already provide to their members wire transfer services to almost 650 points of service in 40 countries. So the credit unions are well positioned to provide these wire transfer and international remittance services.

In 2003, the Credit Union National Association adopted a group of principles designed to guide their members when providing these international remittance services. They basically say that credit unions should disclose the cost of the transaction in their advertising and brochures and in dealings with the customer, that the credit unions will provide current exchange rate information before conducting the transaction; that they will tell the customer the exact amount of foreign currency to be received by the recipient; and they will tell the sender when the funds will be available to the recipient. These kinds of high principles are important for those in the international remittance business, and to have credit unions more involved in that business and subject to those principles is an important step forward.

As the gentleman from Delaware pointed out, the size of the international remittance business is quite large. In fact, it is estimated at least at $10 billion annually. It is expected to double by the end of this decade, and there are some estimates that place it well above $10 billion annually now.

I should also mention that nearly half of the Latinos in this country do not have an account with a mainstream financial institution, and that is why it is so important in dealing with that immigrant community, as well as other immigrant communities from elsewhere in the world, that we provide this opportunity for credit unions to provide international remittance services.

I should also take a moment to recognize the work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) who has been the leader in dealing with all of the various aspects of the remittance, international remittance issues, and to recognize my friend, the gentleman from the Inland Empire (Mr. Baca) who provided a clarifying and perfecting amendment to this legislation. I believe that this legislation will help credit unions provide services to those

who need them, will drive down the price of those services, and will introduce people to our financial institutions. I urge an aye vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill shows the courage to boldly go where none have gone before, to levels of public debt and levels of trade deficits that no nation has ever tried, higher than any have dared.

We have a dollar that is dependent upon our fiscal markets, a trade deficit that grows every year; and the result of this bill and its twin cousins and related Siamese twins, the other parts of the Republican tax and spend or borrow and spend policy, will be a declining dollar and a declining economy or a dollar that crashes and an economy that crashes. And this courage is all summoned up on behalf of the one quarter of 1 percent of American families it is designed to help.

We require the men and women in uniform to risk the ultimate sacrifice; and from our richest families, we say zero sacrifice under the estate tax. Shame.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for yielding me this time and perhaps for mentioning what I see as the only good part of this bill. You see, I am a CPA and tax lawyer by training, and this bill is the full employment act for both my CPA friends and my tax lawyer friends.

Republican after Republican has come to that microphone and talked about the electrical tax, the sales tax, the telephone tax, the payroll tax, the income tax, the marriage tax, the cable tax and the fuel tax.

And what is their solution? To eliminate a tax that applies to only \1/4\ of 1 percent of America's families. Yes, that is right. They want to keep the electrical tax, the sales tax, telephone tax, payroll tax, the income tax, marriage tax, cable tax and the fuel tax.

They want to vote for a bill that takes $290 billion out of the Treasury in its first 4 plus years and about $70 billion a year thereafter and make it impossible for the Federal Government to ever give any relief for those other taxes. It is a bill to shaft 99 and \3/ 4\ percent of all American families.

But that does not stop there. Republican after Republican has come up here and boasted how the passage of this bill will slash charitable giving. So it is not just a loss to the Federal Treasury, it is a loss to our hospitals and a loss to our universities, who are strangely silent on this bill because they are afraid of angering \1/4\ of 1 percent of the families in the United States who happen to be a huge chunk of their donors.

Let us look at the substitute. It is more fiscally responsible, costs about \1/4\ as much, but it provides more tax relief for middle-class families.

Let us look at this from the standpoint of a widow, a surviving spouse. Under current law and under the Pomeroy substitute, no estate tax, no capital gains tax and little or no compliance work. Under their bill, more compliance work and sharp restrictions on the step up in basis.

So this bill is an attack on working families, an attack on the middle class, and an attack on widows. They have lost their spouse, and now you want them to lose their step up in basis as well. These are people who pay zero estate tax and get zero benefit from this bill. They have lost a spouse, and that is the folks you go after. $290 billion in the first 4 plus years. It is part of an overall Republican tax package.

I am on the International Relations Committee. We are waging a war on terrorism. We turn to our men and women in uniform and say, stand ready to make the ultimate sacrifice; and we turn to the richest families in America and say, you should make a zero sacrifice.

Now these Republican tax policies have caused the President of the United States to call into question our intent and ability to pay U.S. government bonds.

It calls into question our ability to pay our bonds.

Now, the President will not warn the Chinese investors. He wants them to buy the bonds, but he has warned every Social Security recipient that we may dishonor the U.S. Government bonds held by the Social Security trustees.

This bill is part of an overall plan that keeps in effect the electrical tax, the sales tax, the telephone tax, the income tax, the payroll tax, the marriage tax, the cable tax, and the fuel tax. And it is part of an overall plan that, well, I ought to write a commercial because there is a lot of public policy commercials out there, and I ought to write them for them.

Allowing corporations to avoid American taxes just by renting a hotel room in the Bahamas, $8 billion. Allowing millionaires to pay virtually nothing on dividend income, $80 billion. Eliminating the estate tax even on the richest estates, $290 billion. Telling our soldiers in the field that it is the billionaire families who are the ones who have sacrificed too much for America, priceless.

And the Republi-card, accepted everywhere. The very wealthy want their taxes released.

And do not forget the Deficit Express Card, now with a new $12 trillion credit limit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dorit and Shawn Evenhaim for their dedicated efforts to improve the quality of life in our community. Throughout their lives Dorit and Shawn have contributed countless hours of community service by supporting various organizations and effectively leading several groups. Their ongoing service to the San Fernando Valley is truly immeasurable.

Dorit and Shawn's strong desire to serve the community dates back to their native Israel. They both grew up in Southern Israel in working class neighborhoods. Although they came from modest backgrounds, the principles and obligations of the Tzedakah were instilled at an early age. This is the Jewish ideal of aiding those who are less fortunate. This common bond that Dorit and Shawn shared growing up together eventually flourished into a romance as they served their military responsibilities in Israel.

Shortly following their military service they ventured to the United States with hopes of new opportunities. Shawn quickly immersed himself in his brother's painting business. Although he had only been in the United States for a short time, by 1992 Shawn became president of a large in-fill development company in the San Fernando Valley. Soon after, Dorit encouraged Shawn to open his own development firm called California Homes in 1994. California Homes has become one of the largest in-fill home builders in the Los Angeles basin.

One of the most important construction projects that Dorit and Shawn have undertaken was the creation of a new home for the Kadima Hebrew Academy in the San Fernando Valley. A member of Kadima's Board of Directors, Dorit was instrumental in convincing Shawn to take on this project. Dorit and Shawn quickly began searching for new investors who had the resources and desire to establish a new campus. Not finding the support needed, Dorit and Shawn took the search into their own hands. Shawn became aware of a private land auction in West Hills. Shawn, despite going up against several real estate investors, was the successful bidder, securing the facility and the surrounding land.

Dorit and Shawn's efforts not only encompassed the purchase and acquisition of land. They were also deeply involved in all aspects

of the project, using their contacts to acquire all necessary permits to expedite the process. As a result of Dorit and Shawn's efforts, San Fernando Valley residents can now take part in a unique educational experience at the newly developed campus.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Dorit and Shawn Evenhaim, amazing individuals who have dedicated their lives to the betterment of the San Fernando Valley.