Brad Sherman
Representative for California · Democratic · United States
“Madam Chair, President Obama signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding. We are now in the ninth year of that memorandum. Mr. Massie would have us repudiate that signature. That is as bad an idea as Donald Trump's repudiation of the JCPOA, the deal with Iran that limited its nuclear program.”
“We will not fund the AMRAAM system that is provided for in a memorandum of understanding signed by President Obama. This amendment is a political stunt.”
“That does not mean that we will not try to change Israeli policy, but this amendment goes as far as it possibly can to put us on the side not of those who would shoot down the missiles that are aimed at civilian neighborhoods in Israel but on those who are cheering those missiles.”
“Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I join in applauding the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber). I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, and I rise in support of his bill. I can't possibly do justice to the passion and the eloquence that the gentleman brought to this floor just a minute ago.”
“hockey team historically defeated the Soviet Union 4-3 at the Lake Placid Winter Games. Prior to their victory, the talented, yet untested U.S. team was deemed an underdog. Many of them were college players. They were, on average, 22 years old. They had played together only a few months. Leading up to the game, the U.S.”
“Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this legislation awards three Congressional Gold Medals to members of the 1980 U.S. Olympic men's hockey team, whose hard work and commitment inspired a country at the height of the Cold War.”
The complete record
Every one of 13 lines we hold for Brad Sherman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“That does not mean that we will not try to change Israeli policy, but this amendment goes as far as it possibly can to put us on the side not of those who would shoot down the missiles that are aimed at civilian neighborhoods in Israel but on those who are cheering those missiles. Then we are told that the amount of money involved is the focus. It says $3.3 billion, but that is about an 80th of the aid that we have provided Ukraine and that we should have provided Ukraine. This is not an attempt to divert a large portion of our money from Israel. This is an attack on the Israeli people.”
“We will not fund the AMRAAM system that is provided for in a memorandum of understanding signed by President Obama. This amendment is a political stunt. Republican leadership has brought it to the floor--not for the purpose of having it become law, but for the purpose of driving a wedge through the middle of the Democratic Party, for the purpose of facilitating Republican advertisements that will put our party on the side of those who are screaming death to America and death to Israel, and to put our party on the side of those who say that Israel has no right to exist. {time} 1350 If you care about not only our Middle East policy but you care about the Democratic Party's position, with the American people, then you must vote ``no'' on this amendment. Now that does not mean that there will not be future reductions in our aid to Israel.”
“Madam Chair, President Obama signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding. We are now in the ninth year of that memorandum. Mr. Massie would have us repudiate that signature. That is as bad an idea as Donald Trump's repudiation of the JCPOA, the deal with Iran that limited its nuclear program. We are told that this is about offensive weapons. This $3.3 billion provides the AMRAAM system that defends Israeli apartment buildings and houses from incoming missiles that have as one purpose: to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. How are we going to influence the people of Israel and the government of Israel? They need our influence. They need to change their policies. How are we going to influence them? As the missiles are coming in for the sole purpose of killing as many civilians as possible, we say we will not help shoot them down.”
“Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this legislation awards three Congressional Gold Medals to members of the 1980 U.S. Olympic men's hockey team, whose hard work and commitment inspired a country at the height of the Cold War. I hope that, in recognizing this victory, their legacy will continue to inspire us and to unify a country that faces significant divisions. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.”
“The events of the ``Miracle On Ice'' serve as a critical reminder of the importance of rising to meet the challenges of our time through steadfast commitment and grit. Madam Speaker, I applaud Mr. Stauber, who spoke with such passion and such knowledge, and the other sponsors of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.”
“hockey team historically defeated the Soviet Union 4-3 at the Lake Placid Winter Games. Prior to their victory, the talented, yet untested U.S. team was deemed an underdog. Many of them were college players. They were, on average, 22 years old. They had played together only a few months. Leading up to the game, the U.S. players took part in a 7-month training program designed to confront a Soviet team that many considered to be the best conditioned hockey team in the world. However, through steadfast commitment, grit, hope, and determination, the U.S. team emerged victorious and established a much-needed sense of national pride across this country. Even decades later, I hope that these themes can continue to inspire us to confront the difficult challenges that we face as a nation today.”
“Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I join in applauding the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber). I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, and I rise in support of his bill. I can't possibly do justice to the passion and the eloquence that the gentleman brought to this floor just a minute ago. Madam Speaker, we vote today to honor the young men who reinspired a country at the height of the Cold War. The legislation awards three Congressional Gold Medals, as the gentleman from Minnesota outlined. They are going to three different locations. This is the highest civilian award, and it makes that award to the members of the 1980 U.S. Olympic men's ice hockey team, whose victory marked a pivotal moment in American sports history. On February 13, 1980, the U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, do not vote to prohibit regulation of payment systems. Do not vote to prohibit limitations on overdraft protection. Do not vote to allow $6.1 billion to be transferred from constituents to the biggest banks in the country. Vote ``no,'' and then vote ``no'' again.”
“It requires disclosure of what these overdraft fees are going to be. It will save American consumers $6.1 billion every year. If we are concerned about inflation, why shouldn't we tell the banks that overdraft is not a profit center? They can recover their costs or maybe a little bit more, but they don't turn to the consumer and say: You were so dumb that you had an overdraft, so we are going to hit you with a wild fee. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crawford). The time of the gentleman has expired.”
“If an entity in the transactions business is going to hold $7 billion of consumers' money, shouldn't we at least make sure that the money is still there, and shouldn't we make sure that they don't engage in Botswana currency swaps and others with the highest risk transactions they can find to perhaps make a lot of money or lose all of the consumers' money. Heads, I win. Tails, the consumers lose. Mr. Speaker, I will take 1 minute or 2 to talk about the other regulation because, after Members vote against the first of these resolutions, you are going to feel so good that you are going to want to vote against the second one. This is the one that limits overdraft fees to $5 for the big banks, the 175 biggest banks, or they can charge what their actual cost is if it is more than $5.”
“On the one hand, we have to create a new currency for drug dealers, and, on the other hand, the current system using the U.S. dollar shouldn't even be regulated because it is perfect. Why do we need to regulate here? First, to prevent excessive fees; second, to prevent deception; but, third--and this is obvious--to prevent the loss of consumer money. Venmo is holding $7 billion of consumers' money. If you have a tiny bank that is one-tenth or one-hundredth the size of Venmo, you have to make sure that you have reserves. You can't take the money to the horse races. Yet, Venmo can do anything with the money. If they lose the $7 billion, you as a consumer are out of luck, and Trump can say: It wasn't my fault because Congress prohibited us from having prudential regulations.”
“That is because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want zero consumer protection and the Trump administration to have an excuse. The excuse is: Congress passed the CRA. We are prohibited from writing a regulation in that area. The Republican administration could rewrite these rules. Congress could overwrite these rules. Instead, we are erasing the rules and prohibiting other rules from being there. Mr. Speaker, I spent this morning being told that we need to have cryptocurrency because it is going to be this great payment system and, for some reason, the payment systems that use U.S. dollars aren't good. Now I am here on the floor being told that Venmo and its competitors are so wonderful that there should be absolutely no regulation.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are here to deal with two regulations, the first dealing with payment systems, and the second dealing with overdraft protection. In both cases, I came here for the entertainment value to watch Republican after Republican tell us how much the majority doesn't trust the Trump administration. It is as if Trump doesn't control the CFPB. Mr. Speaker, the regulation we are considering now is just a regulation that says that this is an area we are going to look at. Republicans are afraid the Trump administration will look at it. It doesn't do anything except begin a process. Mr. Speaker, as to both of these CRAs, the effect is not only to erase what was done under the Biden administration but prohibit the new administration from adopting any consumer protection.”