[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3302-H3306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WORLD BANK SHOULD NOT CONSIDER LOANS TO IRAN AT THIS TIME
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman)
is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the World Bank meets. We will not
have the huge demonstrations of a month ago. No one will be comparing
this meeting here in Washington, D.C., to the events in Seattle. But
they may play a more important role on whether the World Bank and its
sister organization, the IMF, continue to have the support, precarious
as it is, of the American people, and whether the World Bank continues
to exist and foster in its present form.
Mr. Speaker, I am among the strongest advocates in this House of our
foreign aid program, our involvement in the world, and, up until now,
our support for the World Bank and the IMF.
Mr. Speaker, just a year-and-a-half ago over $500,000 was spent in a
campaign designed exclusively to vilify me personally for supporting
the IMF and the World Bank. I continue to support those organizations,
yet I am not sure that that support can continue for long, because
while I am a proud supporter of world development and of our foreign
aid and of our efforts to try to have all of humanity live in dignity,
I do not know if I can continue to be a proud supporter of the World
Bank.
You see, the World Bank garners its support from the community here
in America that supports human rights and the dignity of men and women,
and yet it will make a decision tomorrow that will indicate whether it
deserves the support of those who are concerned with human rights.
For one case, in one nation, has garnered the imagination of the
world when it comes to human rights. I speak of the show trial being
conducted in the City of Shiraz, Iran, in which 13 Jews face the absurd
charge of being spies for the United States and Israel.
Mr. Speaker, let me first give you and the House some background. The
Jewish community in Iran is 2,500 years old. It arose out of the
Babylonian captivity after the destruction of the first Temple. It is
the oldest Jewish community anywhere in the world except Israel itself.
For 2,500 years Jews lived in peace and in loyalty to whichever
regime governed Persia, now Iran. In 1979 the Iranian revolution led to
the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and since then that
Islamic Republic has found it necessary, or at least has decided, to
oppress religious minorities. Their treatment of those who practice the
Baha'i faith is well-known and is deplorable. For those who have
practiced the Jewish faith, some 17 have been killed after trumped-up
charges over the last 20 years, roughly one per year. It seems this is
a regime that finds it necessary to keep this small Jewish community
under control through terror and fear. I say a small Jewish community,
because this community, which once numbered over 100,000, has now
dwindled to 25,000 as people who have fled their ancestral homelands,
homelands that trace their ancestors back for 2,500 years. They have
left under the oppression, but 25,000 remain.
But apparently the Islamic Republic of Iran is no longer satisfied
with killing one of its Jewish citizens roughly every year, and so
about a year-and-a-half ago it went out and arrested 13 and charged
them with espionage.
Now, why are these charges so absurd? Well, Mr. Speaker, we have
grown up here in the United States, a multi-ethnic country, where
people of all backgrounds and all religions are found in every part of
our government, including our national security agencies. From the CIA
to the Pentagon, our national security agencies look like America. So,
anyone of any ethnicity, could, if things turned out wrong, grow up to
be a spy.
We have British-American spies, we allegedly have Chinese-American
spies, there have been Jewish-American spies, and that is because
people of all ethnicities and religions are found in the agencies that
contain the most sensitive national security secrets.
Iran is a very different country. No one of the Jewish faith is
allowed near anything of national security significance. Now, I know
the CIA occasionally makes a mistake, but to think that the CIA would,
over a period of years, hire not one, but 13 individuals in Iran, each
a member of a tiny group prohibited by their religion from getting
anywhere near anything the CIA would want to know, it stretches all
credulity to believe that the CIA would do that and that the United
States could remain a superpower if that is how it pursued its national
security and intelligence efforts.
These charges are not only absurd, but the trials that began less
than a month ago are also absurd. They are modeled after the trials of
Joseph Stalin, trials devoid of public attendance, trials in which the
prosecutor is always the judge, trials in which there is virtually no
information, no evidence, except the hollow conclusionary and
detailless confessions of coward confessions. Nothing has been proven
at trial, except that the defendants are afraid.
The information that they would have had access to would have been
only information observable by anyone walking the streets of an Iranian
city, and, of course, diplomats of countries, both friendly to and
hostile to the Islamic Republic of Iran, walk those streets every day,
every month, observing the same things, and with diplomatic immunity
while they do so.
So this trial has captured the attention of those in the world who
care about human rights. Maybe it is because 13 people are so obviously
innocent. Maybe it is because the trials so closely resemble those of
the dark ages of Joseph Stalin. Maybe it is because the defendants are
a remnant of an historically significant and dwindling community.
But where does this leave the World Bank? The World Bank will
consider tomorrow a package of loans to the Islamic Republic, and we
are told that these loans will be used for humanitarian purposes. But
let us remember that money is fungible. The money the Islamic Republic
does not spend on building a sewer system in Tehran can be used to
develop weapons, to field an army or to increase the reach of its
forces of oppression and interrogation.
Not only that, but this nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars in
contracts will go only to those contractors and
[[Page H3303]]
organizations in Iran tied to the dominant faction of the Iranian
government, so not a penny will be spent that does not inure to those
who are politically connected to the same government conducting these
show trials in Shiraz.
Now, we are told that the World Bank must make its decisions
independent of politics, but one cannot ignore the results of a
decision to be made tomorrow in Washington, especially when that
decision does not have to be made tomorrow. It can and should be
deferred.
But beyond the human rights concerns, there is another issue that the
World Bank should focus on. It may grow out of the human rights
concerns, but it is a separate issue. No financial institution should
be allowed to make a loan that imperils the success of the institution
itself, and the World Bank, if it makes this loan, is sowing the seeds
of its own impairment. American participation in the World Bank is
critical to its survival, or at least to its success, and that
participation depends upon the consent and acquiescence of a restive
American public.
The support for that participation comes from those who care about
human rights, and to fund this loan this week is to turn to those in
America who care about human rights and declare that the World Bank is
on the other side; that the World Bank is happy to be an instrument, an
instrument, of oppression.
Now, there are those who will disagree with what the effect of this
World Bank loan will be in Iran, but they do not speak with any
expertise about what effect this loan will have on America and American
support for the World Bank. Those who understand how foreign policy is
made in a superpower, where the people are supreme, and most of them do
not care very often about foreign policy, those who are involved in
foreign policy and in the political process should warn the World Bank,
as I do tonight, that a loan of this type undermines and corrodes the
very thin pillars of support that the World Bank and the IMF have in
the American public.
{time} 1945
If you say no to those Americans who care about the 13 Jews in Iran,
if you say no to those Americans who care about human rights, then who
will stand up for the IMF and the World Bank when the voices of
isolationism and the voices of just spending less money on foreign
affairs, when those voices bellow that it is time for America to reduce
its commitment?
I am not saying that an approval of these loans will lead to street
demonstrations reminiscent of Seattle. It will not. I am not saying
that the State Department or the Treasury Department will talk about
cutting back its support or participation in the IMF and the World Bank
if these loans are approved tomorrow, for there will be no such
immediate effect. But those who study how foreign policy is made in a
democratic country, where the people are supreme but only a few of them
focus on these issues, will understand that over the next 3 years or 5
years or 8 years American support for the IMF and the World Bank are
subject to corrosion if this loan goes forward.
Certainly those who are voting at the World Bank tomorrow need to
give the World Bank staff a chance to analyze these issues in greater
depth, and certainly the loans themselves and the details of the loans
need to be reviewed in greater depth than has been done to date. When
the World Bank makes a loan, it tries to avoid obvious corruption,
knowing that that is not only a waste of its money but a waste of its
political capital.
These loans will be under a level of scrutiny beyond those that the
public has imposed on any other World Bank decision. Certainly these
loans need to be reviewed for efficiency and absence of corruption at a
higher level than the World Bank has ever analyzed loans, because here,
here, not only does the World Bank stand to see a portion of its
quarter billion dollars hijacked and diverted but it has a chance to
have each detail of these loans and their expenditures reviewed with
the greatest possible public attention, particularly in the United
States.
Certainly the board members, the shareholders at the World Bank,
would be well advised, let the staff have some time. Let us see whether
the details of these loans meet the higher standard than the World
Bank, for its own interest, needs to impose on loans that will receive
a greater level of public scrutiny than any other loans have ever
faced, and let the World Bank staff review whether that institution can
long endure and long survive as an organization with the active and
enthusiastic support of the people of the United States if it acts
precipitously. If the Bank votes tomorrow to ignore these concerns, it
takes an irrevocable action or an action that appears to be
irrevocable, that could eat away at the fabric of the Bank itself. If
instead the Bank votes to delay considering these or if these loans are
simply not on the agenda and no one puts them there, then the Bank can
consider these actions in light of the concerns I have brought to the
attention of this House and I hope to the attention of the Bank
shareholders as well.
Permanent Normal Trade with China
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
[[Page H3304]]
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.
{time} 2000
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
[[Page H3305]]
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.
{time} 2015
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
[[Page H3306]]
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.
____________________