[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 181 (Friday, December 6, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H6440-H6442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
$37 BILLION MUSK DOGE COIN SCANDAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schweikert). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 9, 2023, the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California (Mr. Sherman) for 30 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are told that Trump has a mandate and
that, as a result of this election, the Republicans have a mandate to
outlaw interstate travel by pregnant women, to deport 20 million
people, to trash NATO, trash the dollar, and slash Social Security.
Let us look at this mandate. Let's try to see the size of the
mandate. There it is, that little area there.
Mandate, my ass. This is the smallest possible differential between
the two parties.
If we can put up the next chart.
Let's compare this mandate historically.
Calvin Coolidge, that is a mandate. He won the popular vote by 25.2
percent. Joe Biden, 4\1/2\ points. Mr. Speaker, that is three times the
mandate that is being claimed by the Trump administration. This chart
shows an edge for Trump of 1.7 percent.
Since we created that chart, California has finally counted its
votes. We in California, we take a month to vote, and then we take a
month to count the votes. They are still valid. So it is really 1.5
percent difference.
Compare that to Hillary Clinton's mandate. In 2016, she beat Trump by
2.1 percent of the popular vote. That might be a mandate, but this
here, that is a squeaker. That is like saying you watch a football game
and one team beats the other 48 to 47 because of a missed extra point,
and that is a blowout? Hardly.
There is no mandate to outlaw interstate travel by pregnant women or
to trash NATO or deport 20 million people.
If anything, we will see the reason people voted the way they did,
not only here in the United States, but around the world, although we
would want to put this right side up.
Here we go.
Yes, inflation peaked at about 9 percent in the United States, and
the Biden-Harris administration was held responsible by voters. Keep in
mind this was a post-COVID effect. We saw it in the U.K., where they
had 11 percent inflation; in the EU area, 11.5 percent, but people were
pretty angry at that inflation, and you do have a mandate to bring it
down, but I have good news for the Republican Party.
We Democrats have already done nine-tenths of the work. You see, it
was about 9 percent. It is now down to 2.6 percent inflation, and every
economist will tell you that you want about 2 percent inflation. Some
would argue even higher, but the real hawks say 2 percent inflation in
the economy.
We brought it down from 9 percent to 2.6 percent. It is your
responsibility to get it down that last 0.6 percent, but you do not
have a mandate to deport 20 million people.
Now, let's talk a little bit about an aspect of cryptocurrency that
hasn't come up, and it also relates to the administration of the
Federal Government. You see, we have a number of departments in the
Federal Government, and we name them. We don't name them after
companies. It is called the Department of Transportation. It is not
called the Pepsi Cola Department.
Think of how much money a tobacco company could make if we took that
big canyon in Arizona and renamed it the Marlboro Man Canyon. We don't
do that, except once.
We now have a commission. We have had other commissions designed to
study the efficiency of government and our expenditures, but this is
the first
[[Page H6441]]
time we have called the commission a department and spelled out DOGE,
D-O-G-E. Well, why is that? Is that just a funny name? No, it is not.
It is pimping out the U.S. Government to help a private investment by
naming a very important commission after dogecoin.
So what has happened? Has it worked? Has it spiked up dogecoin? You
bet. Dogecoin went up by 2\1/2\ times, almost 3 times from election day
to a week after election day.
You might say: Well, we now have a crypto-friendly administration.
No. Bitcoin went up 27 percent. Dogecoin went up about 270 percent. Who
knew about this? Who profited from it? How much profit was reached? The
increase in that 1 week was worth $37 billion to those who bet on
dogecoin.
Elon Musk tells us that he is serving on this commission and not
earning one penny, but he is the one person in the country who knew
that we would have something called DOGE, and he knew it the day Trump
was elected, and many people who thought Trump would be elected maybe
knew a day or two before.
In the 10 days before the name was announced--I think it is actually
a week--we saw this value increase by $37 billion, or 270 percent,
roughly, compared to 27 percent for bitcoin.
{time} 1330
Certainly, Mr. Musk knew. This is the increase in DOGE.
Now, let's talk about how it compares to Bitcoin. We see a peak on
DOGE right there at the announcement, so who was buying DOGE in the
days before?
Who knew that that would be the announced famous name of a department
that is getting more ink than just about anything else in government?
Elon Musk knew. The man who says he is not going to earn a penny from
the Department of Government Efficiency has already made some
undisclosed portion of $37 billion.
I call upon Mr. Musk to show this country his trading in
cryptocurrencies from a few days before the election until today so
that we can know how the man who won't take a penny is benefiting, or
perhaps not benefiting, from the $37 billion increase in the value of
this cryptocurrency as a result of his unique name.
He says he is doing it for free. There are, of course, others who
knew the name and might have known the effect on the value of dogecoin.
Let us talk a little bit more about cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrency
claims to have one advantage over the dollar and that is that it is
electronic. What about the dollar being electronic? It is, to some
degree. We have Venmo and Zelle, but crypto has spent more money buying
politics perhaps than any other industry, depending upon how you define
the other industries.
For hundreds of billions of dollars, what do they get for it? They
passed in this House a law prohibiting the Federal Reserve Board from
making the dollar electronic and more efficient. Why? Because of the
same reason that Pepsi-Cola would like to pass a law saying you can't
put any bubbles in Coke. They want to use the power of the Federal
Government to cripple their main competitor.
I commend Donald J. Trump for his brilliant statements of 2019 when
he said, in July, ``I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other
cryptocurrencies, which are not money and whose value is highly
volatile and based on thin air. Unregulated cryptoassets can facilitate
unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity. . .
. We have only one real currency in the USA, and it is stronger than
ever, both dependable and reliable. It is by far the most dominant
currency anywhere in the world, and it will always stay that way. It is
called the United States dollar.''
He was right in 2019, but he has changed, and the importance of this
change should not be underrated.
I got involved in looking at cryptocurrency because of my involvement
in foreign affairs. I saw the pressure we were able to put on Iran.
Why? First, there was a huge disagreement, at least in my party, about
the nuclear deal that we negotiated as a result of that pressure. We
split into two camps. Some said that the pressure we put on Iran is so
intense that we are getting a good nuclear deal, and some said that the
pressure we are putting on Iran is so intense that we should get a
better nuclear deal. They agreed on one thing: It is the pressure.
What was that pressure? I have been here since 1997. I voted for
sanctions on Iran. I proposed sanctions on Iran. What was effective?
When we told countries that if they wanted to use the U.S. dollar, they
had to diminish their oil purchases from Iran. It was the power of the
dollar, not the power of our aircraft carrier groups, that forced Iran
to sign an agreement they otherwise wouldn't have and might have been
able to get an even better deal than that.
What is the effect of taking the dollar out? First, we lose that
international power and, God forbid, to achieve our foreign policy
aims, we would have to commit our soldiers, sailors, marines, and
airmen.
Second, we have a level of fiscal responsibility in this House that
would make Argentina blush. How is it that we usually get away with it?
We get away with it because of the role the United States dollar plays
in international affairs. It is the reserve currency, so yes, we print
it. That would be inflationary. Most of the time, it isn't. It was for
a couple of years during COVID.
We print these dollars. We spend them because we don't want to raise
taxes and don't want to cut benefits. How do we get away with it?
Everybody else in the world is using the dollar. Donald Trump
understands the importance of that. As I quoted him, he understands how
critical it is that the U.S. dollar plays that role.
So, what happened to Donald Trump? Well, he takes the right position
to defend the power of America and the wealth and income of American
families unless he can get a lot of money for doing the opposite. We
saw the crypto industry provide hundreds of millions of dollars in
campaign contributions. Then, we also saw the creation of World Liberty
Financial, a crypto company controlled by Trump's family, to which he
has an official position as chief crypto advocate. So now Donald Trump
has become chief crypto advocate, abandoning the interests of America
and abandoning the interests of American families.
What is the objective of crypto? It is said here by crypto backer Sam
Altman. He says, ``I think the idea that we have a global currency that
is outside the control of any government,'' so the U.S. can't use it to
enforce its tax laws, its sanctions laws, or its laws against the drug
trade, ``is a super logical and important step on the technology
tree.''
That is what the crypto world wants to do to us. They tell us. Trump
knows how bad it is, and until he could profit by doing the opposite,
he agreed with me on this issue.
I look forward to fighting for the Trump of 2019 on this issue. Let's
move on to the next slide.
Mr. Speaker, just to show you that Trump understands what is going
on, there is another possible currency, not a cryptocurrency, which has
not benefited him, and that was a proposal that he opposed.
We require a commitment from these countries--which countries?
Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa--that they will neither
create a new BRICS currency nor back any other currency.
Why this intense effort to prevent them from creating another
currency? Because Donald Trump knows that having the dollar reign
supreme means lower interest rates for American families. It means
America has greater influence in the world. He still knows that rival
currencies are bad for the American family, the American people, and
the American Government, and he is opposed to new currencies when he
can't make extra money from their creation.
But when he sees the campaign contributions from cryptocurrencies and
when he sees the money his family is going to make off of their new
crypto enterprise, he seems to move in the other direction.
Commending South Korea's People and Parliamentarians
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the people and the
parliamentarians of South Korea. They inspired the world when they were
faced with an outrageous declaration of martial law. The
parliamentarians fought their way
[[Page H6442]]
into their parliamentary building and voted 190-0, including all the
members who were able to vote from President Yoon's party, to stop the
martial law.
President Yoon's declaration of martial law was absolutely
outrageous. It was an affront to South Korean democracy and an affront
to the worldwide effort for democracy and the rule of law.
What was also outrageous was his attempt to justify it on national
security grounds because that declaration of martial law and--thank God
it was stopped in a few hours--not only did nothing to enhance South
Korea's national security; it undermined it because what are the two
pillars of South Korean national security? The first is the unity of
the South Korean people in their dedication to democracy and the rule
of law. President Yoon undermined that. Second, it is the relationship
between the Republic of Korea and the United States and the American
people.
Our commitment to South Korea is not a remnant of the fact that we
fought together in the 1950s. Yes, we remember history, but our
dedication to South Korea is there because of our shared dedication to
democracy.
President Yoon tried to undermine that. I applaud the people of Korea
and the parliamentarians of Korea on making sure that he was
unsuccessful.
Making AI a Tool for Good
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in May of the year 2000, I was at this
podium talking about the dangers of what I called engineered
intelligence, artificial intelligence from our computer engineers or
new types of mammalian life from our biological engineers, say a 1,000-
pound mammal with a 200-pound brain that might beat my grandkids on the
law school admissions test.
Right now, artificial intelligence is the rage, and the question
before us is, is it a tool or is it a creature? The answer is clear:
For the next quarter century at least, it is a tool. It is a powerful
tool, an increasingly powerful tool, and we need to do a lot in
Congress to make sure it is a tool for good.
We also have to think of the second half of this century and whether
artificial intelligence becomes a creature with its own volition and
its own objectives.
We are spending trillions of dollars to make artificial intelligence
more intelligent. If we didn't, and we are, but while we are doing it,
so is China, so is Europe, and so are others. Nothing is going to
derail this effort to use artificial intelligence to make money and
power, but while we are spending trillions making AI more powerful,
perhaps we should spend 1 percent in a government agency to do some
research on how to deal not just with the problems that confront us in
the next few decades, but those that confront us in the second half of
this century.
I mean, we need to do research. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in designing a bill to authorize this so that we are
monitoring for and preventing self-awareness, ambition, survival
instinct, volition.
If we do not, then all I can say is this. It was several hundred
years ago, some would say perhaps only 100 years ago or less, that our
ancestors showed a new level of intelligence. We said hello to the
slightly less intelligent Neanderthal, and then we said good-bye to
Neanderthal. I realize there are genetic studies and footnotes to what
I am saying, but we are here, Neanderthal isn't, and that is because
that was the last time a new level of intelligence arose.
It is only a matter of time before artificial intelligence is more
intelligent than any human. I mean that in a generalized sense, not
just doing the things computers are good at, but doing the things that
we do.
We had better make sure that the machines we build do not literally
take on a life of their own, create their own objectives and their own
tasks, seek to survive and propagate, and seek to achieve their own
objectives.
{time} 1345
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, artificial intelligence is a powerful tool.
It will be a more efficient tool.
The question is, will it remain unaware?
If it becomes aware, will it have objectives?
Some have said that artificial intelligence will be the perfect Zen
Buddhist, well aware of the situation but utterly uncaring as to what
happens.
You go to today's largest computers and say: I think I should hit you
with a sledgehammer and remove all your parts and sell the parts.
How much will I get for the parts?
Today's computer, today's artificial intelligence, will do its best
to calculate the value of those parts.
You go to the stupidest or one of the less intelligent life forms,
perhaps a cockroach running across the floor, and tell it that you want
to stomp on it and see how it reacts. It has a survival instinct.
Let us hope that artificial intelligence does not develop a survival
instinct, that it does not develop self-awareness.
However, let us not just hope. Let's take 1 percent of what we are
doing to make AI more powerful to make sure it is safe. I look forward
to working with my colleagues on that objective.
While I am talking about engineered intelligence, many decades from
now we will confront another issue, and that is genetic engineering,
designed to create new levels of intelligence. Whether they start with
elephant DNA or human DNA, certainly a mammal with a genetically
engineered brain 10 times the size of the average human would probably
be pretty smart.
While I do not know whether artificial intelligence will have a
survival instinct, ambition, a desire to affect its environment so as
to ensure its own survival or its propagation, I do assume that any
life form we create will have all those things. As I exemplified with
the cockroach, every biological entity has a survival instinct. The DNA
that did not wish to survive and propagate didn't, and it isn't here.
We will confront that issue many decades from now, and our successors
or their successors will have to wrestle with what kind of genetic
engineering can be done that affects intelligence.
Our Congress here has got to deal with the computer engineering that
is already in front of us. We can worry about some of the short-term
things: Is a self-driving car safe or will we see an automobile
accident? That is important. We want to save people from automobile
accidents, but it is not existential. We, as humankind, have lived
through automobile accidents and bad drivers.
What is existential is the possibility of creating an artificial
intelligence with general capacities and self-learning that also
happens to develop--we don't know how this arises. We don't even know
whether it exists in certain animals. We know it exists in ourselves--
self-awareness, ambition, a desire to survive, and an ability to set
its own goals.
I look forward to working with my colleagues. My fear is that all the
money and power in the world is going to go hell-bent for making AI
powerful, and there will be nothing, not even crumbs going into making
AI safe. Those few crumbs will go into dealing with issues that involve
the safety of one person today who could be hurt in an automobile
accident, and even less than crumbs will go into the bigger issue of
whether AI develops its own ambition and self-awareness.
Mr. Speaker, in less time than I was allocated, I have covered four
different subjects, and I look forward to rejoining with so many of my
colleagues next week. I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________