[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 46 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      MORE ON THE MEXICAN BAILOUT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in terms of the bailout, the Mexican 
bailout, there was no vote in this body on the transfer of those funds. 
In fact, when the President of the United States turned to Congress and 
saw that there was no support in Congress for this $40 billion, 
potentially $40 billion expenditure, he proceeded in what I consider an 
antidemocratic fashion to scheme and to plot in what could be a legal 
way of taking billions of our dollars and sending it to Mexico and 
spending it on the purposes he intended, meaning the bailing out of 
Wall Street speculators and basically lining the pockets of a corrupt 
Mexican elite so that the system will not break down in Mexico.
  Well, perhaps it would be good if the current Mexican elite, which is 
corrupt, which has been antidemocratic, perhaps it would be good if 
that power structure did break down and that the people of Mexico at 
long last would be given a chance for true democracy and honest 
government, because the grip of their oppressor would have been broken.
  We have a chance to try to put an end to this. Already $3 billion has 
been spent. It is up to Congress now to do everything that we possibly 
can to stop the spending of that money, mainly because--OK, it is wrong 
but also it will not work. It is not going to save Mexico.
  Sending--you know, pouring money--it is the old adage, sending good 
money after bad is not a way to make things right. It will just make 
things worse. In Mexico, it will not work.
  What is needed down there is a change. It needs change, basic change, 
and by us subsidizing the status quo by spending billions of dollars, 
we will not see that change come.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman, perhaps like myself, has heard the 
arguments if we do not give this money to Mexico, there will be a 
financial catastrophe in Mexico and we hear that oftentimes here in the 
halls of Congress and we have heard the administration--in fact, 
recently Mr. Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and 
the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Rubin, used this. And frankly I think it 
is sort of a scare tactic because a recent Wall Street Journal properly 
debunks that whole idea that there would be a financial catastrophe.
  From early December through mid-February, stock markets in emerging 
countries that undertook significant pro-markets reforms, the ones you 
are talking about, and sound money reforms survived quite nicely during 
the so-called global crisis that the currency has just been through. 
Stock markets in Singapore, Chile, and the Czech Republic were 
essentially flat during that period. Emerging nations with partial or 
faltering reforms, including Brazil and Hungary, however, did indeed 
suffer mightily during the Mexican breakdown.
  So, in other words, private global investment capital is discerning 
and mobile. It knows where it is investing its money. It knows a good 
deal from a bad deal and it will not be intimidated by disaster 
scenarios conjured up by financial officials like Chairman Greenspan 
and Secretary Rubin.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, every time we try to cut the 
budget around here, every time we say, Let us not spend Federal money 
in this area, let us cut the deficit, we are always told, My goodness, 
there is going to be a catastrophe, people are going to starve, there 
are going to be babies in the street, it is going to be horrible.
  But you know what, most of these scare tactics that are being thrown 
out are just absolutely wrong and the people who are talking that way 
know they are wrong but they are using a tactic to get us to spend the 
taxpayer's dollar to line their own pockets. This is not contrary to 
what we have experienced here at home. But let us take a look at that.
  If we are going to spend money to stabilize the currencies, what 
about Russia? Isn't that also an important country? We could be 
spending hundreds of billions of dollars to stabilize their currency. 
After all, they have got nuclear weapons. What if chaos erupts in 
Russia?
  This is a formula for the United States to be spending hundreds of 
billions of dollars to protect other people's currencies, and do you 
know what that means? That means our currency will come under attack. 
That means our currency will come under attack. That means people will 
sense that our currency no longer is strong because we are spending 
money from a stabilization fund meant to protect our currency that now 
is protecting these foreign interests who basically are big money guys 
and rich elitists in other countries, and what happens?
  We have found that since the Mexican bailout and the defeat of the 
balanced budget amendment, that our own dollar is now under attack. 
This is unconscionable. It has already cost American people too much. 
It is a disgrace. We have got to act to stop this.


                          ____________________