[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.

                          ____________________