[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 59 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4883-S4890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment. I am 
going to take about 15 seconds.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for just a moment, please?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. We are in a situation where we really have the D'Amato 
amendment as the pending business.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Can I ask to set that aside?
  Mr. HATFIELD. For how long?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. For about 60 seconds.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
temporarily the D'Amato amendment in order for the Senator from Iowa to 
offer a 60-second amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I have no objection. You are 
not going to offer your amendment at this point but just to make a 
statement?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. It has been accepted, and I want to offer it.
  Mr. HATFIELD. It is noncontroversial.
  Mr. DODD. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                 Amendment No. 430 to Amendment No. 420

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by the Secretary of Agriculture 
     to delineate new agricultural wetlands, except under certain 
                             circumstances)

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dorgan and myself, 
I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for himself and Mr. 
     Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 430.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DELINEATE NEW 
                   AGRICULTURAL WETLANDS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act and ending on December 31, 1995, none of the funds made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to delineate wetlands for the 
     purpose of certification under section 1222(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822(a)).
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to land if 
     the owner or operator of the land requests a determination as 
     to whether the land is considered a wetland under subtitle C 
     of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 
     et seq.) or any other provision of law.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment prohibits the Secretary of 
Agriculture from expending funds to continue the wetland certification 
and delineation process on agricultural land, unless requested by the 
landowner.
  It is my understanding that the amendment has been cleared by both 
the Agriculture Committee and the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and will be accepted by the managers of the bill.
  My amendment safeguards the property rights of our Nation's farmers 
by prohibiting the Secretary of Agriculture from expending funds to 
delineate new wetlands on agriculture land until the end of the year. 
This rescission will allow Congress the opportunity to reform wetlands 
policy through new legislation. It will also allow the public to have 
input into the process. Thus far, the landowners have been shut out of 
the process.
  As you know, no less than four Federal agencies claim jurisdiction 
over the regulation of wetlands. Just think of how impossible it must 
be for the family farmer to understand what four different Federal 
agencies want him to do in regard to wetlands on his private property.
  Last year, these agencies entered into a memorandum of agreement. 
Although the MOA was intended to streamline the regulatory process and 
clarify the role of each agency, it has increased the level of 
confusion and frustration among those farmers affected by it.
  The delineation of wetlands on agricultural land has been a confusing 
proposition for some time. On the other hand, the consequences of the 
delineations are very clear. A farmer who alters a wetland without 
authorization from the Federal Government faces potential civil 
penalties, criminal action, and loss of farm programs benefits. Because 
the stakes are so high, we must ensure that the delineation process is 
accurate and reasonable. And we must ensure that the voice of the 
farmer is allowed to be heard when the process is put into place.
  As I speak, new wetland delineations are being conducted in the State 
of Iowa pursuant to the MOA. It will soon cover every other State 
affected by agricultural wetlands. So farmers in all States will soon 
be deprived of the right to farm their land or improve their property 
because a Federal bureaucrat decides that such activity interferes with 
a protected wetland.
  This process is being done in a laboratory, by people unknown to the 
farmers, who take soil surveys and aerial photography and try to find 
evidence of wetlands, in order to get more farmers under their 
regulatory umbrella. This process disturbs me greatly.
  The old Soil Conservation Service worked alongside farmers for the 
past 60 or 70 years. There was a close relationship between the farmer 
and SCS officials. They shared a common goal of promoting conservation 
of the land. That sort of cooperation has resulted in more benefit to 
the environment than any other USDA program. But I am afraid that this 
cooperative spirit has been lost.
  The current process has shut out the farmer. The bureaucrats are 
making decisions without consultation with farmers. We have gone 
through this process before--with the passage of the swampbuster and 
sodbuster provisions of the 1985
 farm bill. For the most part, farmers did not complain about the 
process then--because there was an open effort on the part of the 
bureaucracy to work with the farmers, to educate them on the process 
and to solicit the farmers' input. But that is not the case this time 
around.

  Mr. President, I want to make it very clear that I am not opposed to 
protecting valuable wetlands. My vote for the antisodbuster and 
antiswampbuster provisions in the 1985 farm bill is proof of that. And 
I am making no attempt 
[[Page S4884]] to roll back the provisions of that bill. However, I am 
opposed to changing the rules every few years so that farmers can never 
be certain if their conduct is allowed under the current regulatory 
scheme. I am also opposed to the promulgation of an MOA that will 
significantly affect the ability of private property owners to improve 
their land, without the benefit of input from the people affected by 
the agreement.
  My amendment will allow for this input through congressional hearings 
on wetlands policy. At the very least, Congress should ensure that the 
concerns of private property owners are heard before they are deprived 
of the use of their land.
  The amendment will also stop the bureaucracy from acting based on the 
flawed memorandum of agreement. I believe that this Congress is 
committed to reforming Federal wetlands policy. This policy should be 
based on sound science, recognize the constitutionally protected rights 
of private property and, above all, institute a large dose of common 
sense into the program. This amendment stops the Government from 
finding new wetlands on farm land until this reform can be put in 
place.
  Mr. President, in closing I want to make sure that my colleagues 
understand the scope and the intent of this amendment. The amendment 
will in no way affect the regulation of wetlands currently listed on 
the wetlands inventory. Furthermore, it will not interfere with a 
landowner's ability to obtain a section 404 permit or a swampbuster 
determination.
  What the amendment does, simply stated, is this: The amendment 
prohibits the Natural Resource Conservation Service from conducting its 
certification process and adding new wetlands to the inventory until 
1996.
  Opponents may argue that it was the agricultural interests that 
wanted the NRCS to be the lead agency in determining wetlands on 
agricultural lands. This is accurate, however, the agricultural 
community believes that the MOA is a flawed document and they 
overwhelmingly support this amendment. In fact when I introduced this 
moratorium as a free-standing bill, 14 farm groups from across the 
political spectrum signed a letter to President Clinton supporting the 
bill. These groups range from the conservative-leaning American Farm 
Bureau Federation to the bipartisan Association of State Departments of 
Agriculture to the more-liberal National Farmers Union. I would also 
note that the bill is cosponsored by 18 other Senators from both sides 
of the aisle. All of us involved in agriculture want to relieve the 
regulatory burden placed on farmers by Federal wetlands policy. This 
amendment will allow Congress some time to do just that. I urge my 
colleagues to accept this amendment.
  (At the request of Mr. Grassley, the following statement was printed 
in the Record.)
 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have cosponsored this amendment 
with the Senator from Iowa and ask this body's approval. I will be 
unable to come to the floor today because I must be in North Dakota to 
testify before the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
  We sought this amendment so the Federal agencies who implement the 
Swampbuster law will avoid creating unnecessary confusion for farmers 
who are subject to the regulations and rules on management of wetlands.
  In the 1990 farm bill, we made some improvements on wetland 
regulations, including provisions that assign the Department of 
Agriculture as lead agency for implementing swampbuster regulations on 
farmland. To fulfill the intent of the 1990 farm bill, the Federal 
agencies have proposed some changes in rules and operating procedures 
for mapping, or delineating, wetlands on farmland. Those new procedures 
are expected to be implemented this year.
  Our amendment will hold up implementation of those new procedures and 
mapping conventions until Congress reviews the swampbuster law as part 
of the farm bill this year. Congress may, in fact, change its approach 
to the small, temporary wetlands, called type I wetlands, and many of 
us in Congress want to see some changes in that area. It only makes 
sense to avoid implementation of changes in wetlands rules this year if 
more are to be made in the farm bill.
  In consideration of farmers who must try to understand and conform to 
Federal wetlands requirements, we simply must not change the rules 
every year.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as I understand this amendment, it 
prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from conducting new wetland 
delineations or certifications on agricultural lands, except at the 
request of a landowner or operator, for the purposes of carrying out 
wetland conservation programs under title XII of the 1985 Food Security 
Act. The amendment does not apply to the wetlands regulatory program 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the Grassley 
amendment in no way restricts the Secretary of Agriculture, through the 
National Resources Conservation Service, from delineating wetlands on 
agricultural lands for the purposes of carrying out section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from Iowa for clarifying that point. 
It follows then that the January 1994 memorandum of agreement among the 
Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Department of the Interior, and the Department of the Army concerning 
the delineation of wetlands for purposes of section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act and subtitle B of the Food Security Act is not suspended by 
this amendment. And, in accordance with that memorandum of agreement, 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service will make wetland 
delineations on agricultural lands for the purposes of determining 
section 404 jurisdiction.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is correct. My amendment does not suspend the 
general terms and procedures of the interagency memorandum of agreement 
on wetland delineations with the exception of the terms of that 
agreement relating to new delineations and new certifications of 
wetlands on agricultural lands under section 1222(a) of the Food 
Security Act of 1985.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I understand that a copy of that amendment is 
available.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. Senator Dorgan cleared it on the Democratic side, 
and I have cleared it on our side.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I understand. The Senator is correct. But there is a 
Senator who has asked to see a copy of it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am sorry if it has not been cleared.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Leahy 
wishes to see the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We cleared it with him.
  Mr. BYRD. That is the word I am receiving.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
Grassley amendment temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, what was the request?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I was asking unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside 
the Grassley amendment until the Senator can read it and others can 
read it who are interested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment will be set aside.


                 Amendment No. 427 to Amendment No. 420

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on amendment No. 427 
offered by the Senator from New York.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand my colleague from Arizona wants 
some time on this amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, back on my amendment, we have now been 
able to clear it with the necessary Members who had some doubt, 
although I was correct in my first statement that it had been cleared. 
But there was some question about which version. We have that all 
settled now.
  [[Page S4885]] Mr. President, I ask that we take final action on my 
amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. It has now been 
completely cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 430) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the D'Amato 
amendment be laid aside temporarily.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I inquire 
of my friend from North Carolina?
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator, I think maybe we 
ought to do something around here except sit around in quorum call with 
the threat of being here all night. I have two or three amendments I 
would like to offer. So I would go ahead with my amendment if the 
Senator from Connecticut and others on his side will permit me to do 
so.
  Mr. DODD. May I say, Mr. President, to my good friend from North 
Carolina, I think an effort is being made here to see if we cannot come 
up with some resolution of the issue. I respect immensely the desire to 
move along. The Senator from North Carolina is aware this has only 
occurred because an amendment was offered. Certainly I am anxious to 
see us move along at this point.
  With all due respect to my colleague, at this juncture I think we are 
fairly close to striking an agreement. I am going to object.
  Mr. HELMS. Before the Senator objects, I was going to say if, as, and 
when an agreement is reached, the Helms amendment could be laid aside.
  Mr. DODD. I think at this point here I just would like to see if--we 
are fairly close, I say to my colleague. I have several colleagues over 
here who have been holding up for the last hour, sitting here at my 
request not to go forward until we get a resolution. The Senator from 
California, the Senator from Nebraska--there is one other one, I 
think--had amendments pending. The Senator from Arizona. They agreed. 
With all due respect, in fairness to them, I object to going forward.
  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator would yield, let me suggest we do 
something, just not sit here----
  Mr. DODD. We are right now, Senator.
  Mr. HELMS. Under the quorum call rule, rolling on like Tennyson's 
brook.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate my colleague's concerns. But I did not create 
the situation we are in. I am just responding to the situation we are 
put in. I understand and I am sympathetic to his concerns. But with all 
due respect to my friend from North Carolina--and he is that--I 
respectfully object.
  Mr. HELMS. As the saying goes, you probably will not love me in the 
morning.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me say that I am desirous of 
attempting to accommodate my colleagues, particularly the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee and my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee, and those who are interested.
  Mr. KERREY. Is the Senate in quorum call?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes, the quorum call was called off. The quorum call was 
called off. The Senator yielded the floor and I am making a statement. 
I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no quorum call.
  The Senator from New York has the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO. In an attempt, Mr. President, to move the process, I 
have attempted to work out an agreement with my colleagues who share a 
concern as it relates to the inadequacy of time to debate this very 
important legislative proposal.
  I must say to you, I have no disagreement with providing ample time. 
Yet, if we were to have more extensive debate--and we have had 3 hours 
plus--I recognize that would impede us from going forward on this 
important legislative initiative.
  Therefore, it is in that spirit, that spirit with my colleagues, that 
I have indicated I am willing to withdraw this amendment at this time, 
to offer it as a freestanding resolution, to bring it up Monday at noon 
or anytime thereafter, to have extensive debate, to divide the time 
equally, and to have a time certain to vote--for a reasonable time, to 
put in 5 hours equally divided. But by no means am I suggesting that it 
should be limited to 5 hours if 6 hours is necessary or 7 hours or 8 or 
10 hours or 12 hours or 24 hours. But at some point in time I want to 
be assured, because of the importance of this, that we have a vote, 
that my colleagues truly have an opportunity to vote.
  Indeed, this may not carry. I have no illusions. I think probably it 
will be defeated. I have a sense that there are lots of my colleagues 
who would just as soon stay out of this situation. They will let the 
President do it, and if Mexico deteriorates, we did not do anything. 
That is what is taking place.
  I think it is a question of our constitutional responsibility. We are 
talking about making billions--by the way, I did not have sufficient 
time to respond as it relates to the appropriateness of this measure. 
We are talking about rescissions of $14 billion. Here is $20 billion 
going to Mexico; $5 billion has already gone down. Another $5-billion-
plus will go down in the next 2 or 3 weeks, or 4 weeks.
  If you want to talk about aid, I want to give aid to the communities 
that need it. Orange County, I would rather give them a loan guarantee 
with this money. How about the District of Columbia? Let us help them. 
In my State, we have a $4 billion deficit we inherited. Let us help 
them out. Then, after that--that only accounts for $4 billion, $2 
billion, $6 billion, $7 billion--then let us give the other $13 billion 
to deficit reduction, if you want to help. Talk about relevance.
  I mean, if the Senators come and say they are concerned about the 
children, if you are concerned about the children, here is the 
opportunity to give them that money instead of shipping it away. I 
think it is very relevant why we are cutting back programs over here in 
this country. We are supposed to say no; we should not have the 
responsibility for voting on an appropriations which is an 
appropriation as it relates to bailing out another country--
unprecedented.
  By the way, this fund has never been used for any countries that some 
of my colleagues--Israel has never been a beneficiary of this. The 
United Kingdom has never been a beneficiary of this. Only one country 
has ever gone up to $1 billion: Mexico. They paid that back in 12 
months.
  When I hear people telling me, ``Oh, my god. It will be the end of 
the world if we do not have this authority,'' unprecedented 
circumvention of the constitutional responsibilities of this Congress. 
Let me tell you, if you do not want to vote on it, but you will have to 
vote on it, do we say that this is the way to do business? By the way, 
I respect people who say, ``Alfonse, we have to do something to help 
Mexico.'' Let us do it the right way. If it means we have to get a 
majority of our colleagues to vote to appropriate, then let us do it in 
that manner.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief 
question?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. I have been saying all along that this transaction with 
Mexico has serious faults and may well not be in our interest. When 
this was originally brought to us on that day, for example, when the 
Secretary of the Treasury and Alan Greenspan and others addressed 
Senators downstairs, right then I began to develop some serious 
concerns as to whether or not I would ever support it. Indeed, the 
leadership decided at that time to not bring it before the Congress.
  [[Page S4886]] But the question I have for the Senator is, Do we have 
a base of fact that would provide an ability for the Senate to better 
understand how this happens, who is responsible, who profited, who 
suffered losses, so that we can make an informed decision on the 
Senator's proposed legislation?
  I frankly am inclined to support the Senator from New York. But I 
would want to do so only after the most careful analysis of positive 
facts on this issue. The Senator was to have had hearings in the 
committee. I just wondered what the status of the hearings were, and 
what is the body of fact that we have before this Senate today that we 
did not have at the time this was originally brought up?
  Mr. D'AMATO. We finally have a plan that has been put forth as it 
relates to the utilization of these dollars. We know that Eurobonds, we 
know that tesobonos have been facilitated as a result of repurchasing 
them by the Government. We know that the loan programs, the Mexican 
Government has received and been the beneficiary of these dollars. And 
we also recognize that the economy, notwithstanding the claims that it 
has moved forward--as a matter of fact, the stock market yesterday in 
Mexico dropped 1.2 percent--we understand marginal movements up and 
down.
  But the fact is that some of the so-called petroleum reserves that 
are going to be used as collateral--there is a very real question about 
whether or not during the lifetime of these loans, there will be 
sufficient collateral or revenues available.
  We have learned that there is great civil unrest as it relates to the 
people of Mexico, and that they are angered at the United States for 
imposing these conditions in terms of raising interest rates, raising 
tax rates; a 50-percent consumer tax increase, from 10 to 15 percent. 
So we are aware of that.
  We are also aware that we have not received the kind of information 
that foreign investment is returning, which is the cornerstone of this 
so-called economic recovery, if it is to take place. We have also 
learned that it is very doubtful that in the months ahead, they are 
going to be able to deal with short-term as well as long-term repayment 
schedules. We are talking about $170-billion-plus which the Mexican 
Government owes; $70 billion short term.
  I say to my friend and colleague, $50 billion worth of guarantees 
does not stop or is not sufficient as it relates to the repayment of 
$70 billion worth of short-term Mexican debt this year. That we have 
learned.
  We have also learned, unfortunately, in the tabloids, of the 
incredible unrest and, yes, the incredible instability of the 
institutions to be able to perform and to carry out any kind of 
meaningful transformation. We know, for example, that the oil monopoly, 
PEMA, cannot and will not be producing at a rate today that it is in 
the future. That does not portend good things. We know that capital 
will not be made available because the Mexican people, and indeed the 
Mexican Government, understands that you cannot look to the free 
enterprise system as it relates to the oil monopoly which does have 
vast value.
  So the premise upon which these agreements were made--by the way, we 
do know that billions of dollars' worth of investments that were made 
have been paid. They have been paid by U.S. taxpayer dollars redeeming 
speculative investments.
  Mr. WARNER. The question is, To whom was it paid? The fundamental 
question I have is, Will the Senate, in the course of the deliberation 
of the proposal of the Senator from New York, have a better 
understanding as to how this crisis happened, and who is benefiting 
from this cash-flow that has been described by the Senator such that we 
can act in an informed way on the proposal by the Senator from New 
York?
  Mr. D'AMATO. No. Unfortunately, we will not learn for at least a year 
who the holders of these bearer bonds were, and only then maybe as it 
relates to those citizens of the United States. Obviously, we have no 
way to know. And this is one of the things that we brought up before 
this agreement was implemented. Who are the holders of these Eurobonds? 
Who are the holders of the tesobonos? We were told that we could not 
get that information.
  Now, it seems to me that if we are going to make American dollars 
available we had a right, that our Treasury people had a right to say 
we want to see who they are and we want to negotiate with them. We want 
to see if we cannot restructure the repayment so that instead of paying 
it all plus 20 percent, we would restructure on the basis of maybe 60 
cents on a dollar, 70 cents on a dollar, or maybe pay it over a period 
of time.
  Now, that would have been--and that, by the way, was suggested by 
Bill Seidman, former head of RTC, the former head of the FDIC, who said 
it makes sense to restructure. Do not just shovel out American money 
dollar for dollar.
  And my friend from Virginia touched exactly on it. To date, when we 
have asked for the records, when we have asked how this money has been 
used, we are told, ``We don't know.'' As it relates to who received it; 
they were bearer bonds, ``We don't know.'' They knew the Congress 
wanted this information.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, when the Senator asked, to whom did he 
place these questions? Was it the administration? And were they not 
forthcoming?
  Mr. D'AMATO. It was the administration. It has been as high as the 
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary and others in the Treasury 
Department. And it is because we were told that they just went along on 
the basis that it cannot be done, you cannot ascertain who the people 
are.
  Well, let me tell you something. That is nonsense. They never made 
that a priority. So you can say well, why are you complaining now? We 
complained before they started the repurchase of these agreements, we 
complained about it while they were doing it, and we are complaining 
about it now. And now $5 billion have been expended. How much more 
before we say we do question the adequacy of the manner in which these 
dollars were being used?
  I do not question for one moment the good intentions, indeed, of 
congressional leadership, Republicans, Democrats. This Senator said 
certainly we have a special obligation as it relates to Mexico and its 
stability. But, my gosh, we have an obligation to be realistic and to 
see that these funds are being used appropriately, that we are getting 
the most for our money.
  How does repaying a Eurobond or how does the repurchasing of a 
tesobono from someone from Germany or Japan or from the United States 
dollar for dollar plus 20-percent interest in some cases, 25 percent 
interest in other cases, how does that benefit the Mexican worker, the 
Mexican economy? Do we really think that as a result of our purchasing 
these agreements people are now going to rush to Mexico and put money 
back in there? I think you have to be rather naive to think so.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to know whether or not it has 
been the American taxpayer who is responsible for the very funds that 
the Senator refers to as now being the principal cash flow? Am I not 
correct?
  Mr. D'AMATO. We are. We are the principal casualty as it relates to 
the cash flow. And let me assure the Senator where we were initially 
told in briefings which the Senator attended that there would be no 
risk, that we would not have to put up any money, now we are hearing, 
well, certainly there is some risk, and now we are hearing, yes, there 
is $5 billion.
  I remember when the head of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, 
said--and I respect him tremendously--if you have to start a drawdown 
on these funds the program is not working. Well, we have drawn down $5 
billion, in addition to the money from the IMF.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly. Let me complete this.
  In addition to the money that has come from the World Bank, and I 
believe that we will be getting ready, from what I understand, to draw 
down on billions more from the United States.
  Now, this is an unprecedented use of the fund, and, yes, Senator Dole 
and Speaker Gingrich have indicated that they wanted to help and they 
were supportive. Let me remind my colleagues in fairness to Senator 
Dole--
  [[Page S4887]] Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to withdraw from the 
colloquy. My questions have been answered. It would seem to me, in a 
sense of fairness, indeed, the Senate would want to know what would be 
the views of Mr. Greenspan, perhaps the Secretary of Treasury, and 
others specifically addressing the Senator's proposal. Will those 
responses be available or have they been solicited?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Well, they have been solicited. Indeed, the Secretary of 
the Treasury is adamantly opposed to this legislation. But let me say I 
am adamantly distressed, deeply distressed at the manner in which 
taxpayers' funds have been used to date. The lack of accountability--
and I am not suggesting bad faith, but just as the process has evolved, 
the lack of accountability, and the accountability that we do have, 
leaves me very, very distressed.
  I would like to know how it is that we can justify, when we are here 
making these cuts, that we are going to send more money down while the 
Mexican Government keeps printing pesos, they keep printing them and we 
think that we are going to help the economy and we are going to help 
the Mexican people by just shoveling money out in a manner that lacks 
business prudence.
  I will tell you, you can have all the highfalutin people in the world 
to say this is important, this is good; they are not signing the notes. 
They are not making this their own business deal. They would never 
enter into a situation like this. There is no real collateral. There is 
no lien against that oil. As one of my colleagues said, you would have 
to send in the 82d Airborne if you wanted to try to exercise that. We 
know that is ridiculous.
  So while it sounds good and while it may be well-intentioned--and I 
do not question the motivation for a minute--two things strike me.
  No. 1, it has not been carried out in a businesslike, prudent manner. 
No. 2, we have the constitutional obligation that we cannot and should 
not delegate to the administration as it relates to the expenditure of 
these sums.
  The legalistics that have been turned around to give us this so-
called jurisdiction and the opinions that came from the Assistant 
Attorney General of the Justice Department and the counsel of the 
Treasury are mind-boggling: You would really have to say that this is 
not a foreign aid package. Of course, it is a foreign aid package; you 
would really have to say that this loan is so collateralized that there 
is no chance that it will fail. Nobody can tell you that, even the 
administration. They say, ``Well, we don't think it will.'' And that 
itself flies in the face of the underlying legal opinion that says you 
can do this.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will withdraw. I will undertake myself 
to solicit the views of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve.
  Mr. D'AMATO. They have been supportive of this, as I have indicated 
to you, in terms of this program, in terms of calling it essential, and 
I disagree respectfully.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  Mr. President, I associate myself with many of the concerns of the 
Senator from New York, and I will address this, as will others, in a 
very responsible way when it is brought up. But I think it is important 
that we do solicit the current views, the current thinking of the 
chairman of the Federal Reserve and I will undertake to do so.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Let me conclude, and I know my colleague has been 
patient--he wants to ask a question or make a statement--and I am going 
to sit down or be available to answer his question.
  Let me conclude by saying this. I am very willing to withdraw this 
amendment, if we can agree to a time certain so that we can have a full 
debate. And if we want more than 5 hours or 10 hours or 15 or 20 hours 
or 24 hours, I have no problem with that. But I think it is fair and I 
think it is our responsibility to the American people that we have a 
time certain for a vote, otherwise I can assure my colleagues that 
there will be a piece of legislation that will be moving through the 
administration will want. If I am placed in the position that this is 
the only way that I can get a vote, that the American people who are my 
constituents from Rochester and Syracuse and Buffalo and Long Island, 
the people who I represent, the people who say they are opposed to 
this, there will be another time.
  Now, I am willing to set up a time. I am willing to withdraw, because 
it is fact of life. We have to get this important business through. Let 
us set it aside for Monday. Let us set it aside for Tuesday. Let us 
pick out an appropriate length of time and come to a vote. I have no 
illusions. My colleagues who are concerned do not want to be blamed for 
the collapse. I understand that. And I say Mexico has collapsed 
already. You will have an opportunity to vote for or against my bill. I 
will do that. There are a number of Senators who have said it is 
inappropriate to bring it up here. Fine. I will be willing--and I leave 
this to my colleagues on the other side--to work out a time when we can 
bring it up and have a vote, and I will not say anything more on that. 
I thank my colleagues for giving me the courtesy of this response.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from New York.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Arizona yield to me for just 30 
seconds?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. The Senator from New York asserted only a few moments 
ago in the debate that the Mexicans have been printing money throughout 
this period. That, in fact, is not the case. They have upheld a tight 
money policy.
  Through March 15, the nominal money supply has shrunk by 13 percent 
since the beginning of the year and the real money supply has shrunk by 
23 percent.
  Now, we may differ over the policy, but at least let us get the right 
facts out before us. To stand here and assert that they have been 
following a very loose policy in printing money does not square with 
what the reality is. The reality is that the money supply, since the 
beginning of the year until the 15th of March, in Mexico has shrunk--
shrunk--by 13 percent.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the Senator 
from New York for his commitment on this issue and his willingness to 
agree to a vote. I do not have any role in those negotiations.
  But I am deeply concerned about this amendment, its impact on 
American foreign policy and, very frankly, this amendment in its 
relation to the Constitution of the United States and the inherent 
powers of the Chief Executive.
  I have always supported the foreign policy prerogatives of the 
President of the United States. Frankly, I think that is what this 
debate should be about.
  I would refer my colleagues back to the language of the amendment, 
which says:

       Except as authorized by an act of Congress, the Secretary 
     may not take any action under this subsection with respect to 
     a single foreign government, including agencies or other 
     entities of that government, or with respect to the current 
     of a single foreign currency that would result in 
     expenditures and obligations, including contingent 
     obligations, aggregating more than $5 billion with respect to 
     that foreign country during any 12-month period.

  What we are saying, Mr. President, is that the authority of the 
President of the United States is substantially circumscribed by this 
amendment.
  I point out that the President's action was not taken without 
consultation with the leaders of Congress. I think that the President 
of the United States, very appropriately, consulted with the leaders of 
Congress. In fact, on January 31, 1995, there was a statement issued by 
President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority 
Leader Dole, and Minority Leader Daschle. I will not quote from the 
whole statement, Mr. President, but I think it is important to remember 
that this was what our elected leaders here in Congress said on that 
day.

       We agree that, in order to ensure orderly exchange 
     arrangements in a stable system of exchange rates, the United 
     States should immediately use the Exchange Stabilization Fund 
     to provide appropriate financial assistance for Mexico.

  And they go on in the final paragraph to say:

       [[Page S4888]] This is an important undertaking, and we 
     believe that the risks of inaction vastly exceed any risks 
     associated with this action. We fully support this effort, 
     and we will work to ensure that its purposes are met.

  Mr. President, it is my view that that is the way the relationship 
between the executive and legislative branches should function on 
issues such as these.
  I think it is also important to remember a little background before 
this agreement was reached on January 31. The reality is that for a 
period of approximately 3 weeks, if I remember correctly, before this 
agreement was reached, there was no agreement, there was no agreement 
between the Congress of the United States and the executive branch.
  The leaders of the Congress came out of a meeting at the White House 
and said we must act, we must act together, we must act on a package. 
That was their view at the time.
  Now, there were many of us, including Senators who are on this floor 
right now, that had deep concern about what fundamental changes Mexico 
would make in the way that they conduct their financial affairs. And 
there were deep concerns as to whether the fundamental reforms in their 
monetary system were being taken. But there was no doubt about the 
urgency of this problem in the minds of the majority of Congress. 
Meeting after meeting was held to find a solution.
  Now, with all due respect to all of my colleagues who participated in 
this effort, many of our colleagues wanted to condition loan guarantees 
on Mexican relations with Cuba, on labor rights, on domestic reforms, 
on environmental cleanup, on demands that Mexico essentially militarize 
our borders. It became almost a vehicle for every pet cause or every 
pet peeve that any Member of Congress had about our relationship with 
Mexico.
  We have had many differences with Mexico at least during this 
century. We have certainly had a rocky relationship, certainly from 
their view point; some of them feel very strongly that the State in 
which I reside should be part of their country.
  But the fact is that there was an inability on the part of the 
Congress of the United States and the executive branch to agree. But, 
more importantly than that, there was an inability for Congress to 
agree amongst themselves. Congress could not agree on a package with 
which to attempt to agree with the executive branch.
  Finally, either rightly or wrongly, history will show, history will 
show whether it was a correct action on the part of the President of 
the United States or not, with the agreement of the leaders of 
Congress, to take the following action which called for an immediate 
use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund to provide appropriate financial 
assistance for Mexico.
  Mr. President, I have deep and sincere concerns about the Mexican 
economy. It is declining. We started a slide to 7 pesos to the dollar, 
instead of 3.5 pesos to the dollar.
  The economy in my State is devastated along the border. Literally, 
towns are shutting down; not just businesses, but towns are shutting 
down. There is no tourism up from Mexico. The normal shopper that comes 
up from Mexico is not there. The Safeway in Nogales has shut down. It 
had been in operation through all of the downturns and all of the 
problems we have had in the past 30 years in our relations with Mexico. 
And it is going to be many, many years before that economy is restored.
  I do not know what is going to happen in the Mexican economy, Mr. 
President. I do not know if this $20 billion is going to disappear like 
that. I do not know. And the experts are divided dramatically on this 
issue as to what the viability of the Mexican economy is.
  But that is not the question here, Mr. President. The question here 
is, are we going to circumscribe the authority of the President of the 
United States, especially in light of the fact that the Congress was 
unable to come to agreement, the President and the Congress were unable 
to make an agreement?
  And so the President, with the total endorsement of the leaders of 
Congress, made a decision. Now, I say again, history will show whether 
that decision was right or wrong. Obviously, it will be related to the 
success or failure of the Mexican economy, which I cannot predict.
  But I know this. If this legislation is passed, I know this right 
now, if this legislation is passed, first, there is a serious 
constitutional problem that I have already described, in my view. And 
it would send a signal, in my view, that if the leaders of the Congress 
and the President of the United States make an agreement, then at some 
later date the Congress can come back, and say, ``Sorry, we didn't like 
that agreement. We're going to have to take the following action.'' I 
am not sure that is a very good precedent to set.
  But, also, Mr. President, I think we should look at the immediate 
effect of passage of this amendment on the Mexican economy that all of 
us, no matter where we stand on this issue, want to save. We want the 
Mexican economy to survive. And I repeat for probably the fifth time, I 
do not know whether it will or not.
  But I know what this amendment would do. It would doom the Mexican 
economy to failure. Because I do not believe that any degree of 
confidence would be maintained in the Mexican economy, Mexican market, 
and the Mexican currency if this amendment were passed, because we know 
full well what the effect would be if a review of each $5 billion in 
this $20 billion were passed.
  Now, Mr. President, I would also like to point out--and I do not like 
to embarrass anyone, including myself. But on the day that the 
President of the United States and Speaker of the House and the 
minority leader, and the majority leader and the minority leader here 
made this announcement on January 31, I did not hear a single Member of 
Congress stand up and say, ``No, wait a minute. Wait a minute. You have 
to get the approval of Congress.''
  In fact, the silence was deafening. The silence was deafening because 
we could not come to an agreement in the Congress, as I mentioned, for 
a whole variety of reasons.
  So I say, with all due respect to the author of the amendment, where 
were we the day that this agreement was announced? Where were we then? 
Are we now finding that our expectations or our hopes for the 
performance of the Mexican economy was such that we now feel that it is 
necessary to require additional involvement on the part of Congress on 
this issue?
  I say again, if this amendment had been proposed on January 31 rather 
than today, I think that it might have had a significant degree more 
resonance.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Will my colleague yield for an observation?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes, but first I observe that my colleague would not 
yield to me when I asked him to yield, but I will be glad to yield to 
him.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend and colleague. Just so that we 
understand, and I know every utterance that we make we like sometimes 
for people to pick up--usually they pick up the ones we do not want 
them to pick up--but on the 31st, I did have a hearing. And at that 
hearing, I indicated my very strong concern about this. I indicated 
that I did not think we were doing the right thing. I indicated that I 
would withhold saying anything further until we can get more facts, in 
terms of the implementation. That was on the 31st.
  On the 8th, I came out about 8, 9 days thereafter raising very strong 
positions and concerns in regard to the manner in which we were moving 
forward. I just share that with my friend and colleague because this 
Senator did not want to be an obstructionist, yet I was not afraid to 
express my concerns. I just share that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Let me say to my friend from New York, I expressed my 
concerns, too. I still have grave concerns. I still am worried whether 
the nation of Mexico has implemented the fundamental reforms in their 
monetary system, in fact, in their political system, that would lead to 
the kind of confidence that would allow that economy to be restored 
before it sinks even further into a terrible, terrible depression 
which, obviously, has afflicted the poor people in Mexico in a most 
horrible way.
  But I also suggest to my friend from New York that many people 
expressed those reservations. No one that I know of during the 
intervening time, nearly 2 months, brought forth an amendment like this 
for consideration on the floor 
[[Page S4889]] when we had many pieces of legislation under 
consideration to which this amendment would have been equally as 
relevant.
  I want to say again, I appreciate very much the involvement of the 
Senator from New York in this issue, the fact that he has both the 
authority and the commitment to hold hearings and for us to ventilate 
this entire issue. I do not underestimate, in any way, his dire concern 
and warning about what is at stake. But I question, as I said, the 
vehicle and the language which is in the amendment.
  Mr. President, I do not want to take much longer. I will just suggest 
that there is a great deal at stake on this issue. I urge my colleague 
from New York to continue the hearings that he has scheduled to seek 
the information that sometimes has not been readily forthcoming to him 
about the process that was utilized in coming forth with the decisions 
that were made about Mexico.
  But at the same time, I suggest that if this amendment is adopted by 
both Houses of the Congress, it would have constitutional problems, 
which is sort of an academic argument. But I also think that it would 
probably doom the Mexican economy to a very, very difficult period, 
which sooner or later has effects on this country in the form of lack 
of trade, increase in illegal immigration, et cetera, et cetera.
  Try as we might, we cannot sever Mexico from the United States. It is 
geographically impossible. And I have never believed that we could 
build sufficient walls to separate our two countries, not to mention 
the kind of fundamental Judeo-Christian principle that is involved here 
about helping neighbors who are very much less fortunate than we.
  I do not mean to wax sentimental here, but when I see little children 
crawling through a tunnel that is filled with sewage in order to get 
into Nogales, AZ, where they are forced to engage in theft in order to 
eke out a meager existence--and I see that increasing exponentially--I 
am deeply concerned about the future of our neighbors. I do not pretend 
to know that this is the right solution, but I do believe that if we 
adopt this amendment, we might see a lot more of that for a very long 
period of time.
  Again, I want to thank my friend from New York for his commitment and 
interest in this issue. I also want to thank my friend from Connecticut 
for his deep knowledge and involvement in these affairs for many years.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority manager is recognized.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut, without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the ranking manager of 
the underlying bill.
  I want to commend my colleague from Arizona. We have dealt with these 
issues in the Western Hemisphere for many years together. He is very 
complimentary, and I appreciate it. But there are very few people who 
are as knowledgeable about Mexico as is my colleague from Arizona.
  I think he has appropriately and properly identified the concerns 
incorporated in the amendment of the Senator from New York. All of us 
have had concerns about this. If it were without concern, I suspect it 
would have gone through under a unanimous-consent request in the House 
and Senate back in January.
  Anytime there is a potential exposure, there are some issues that 
need to be raised. No one is questioning that. The President certainly 
outlined that when he made the decision to go with the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund. But the Senator from Arizona has very properly 
pointed out the implications if we do not try to make a difference, not 
only in Mexico but ourselves as well in this country, given the 
implications of the border and elsewhere.
  Others may have already printed this in the Record. There is a letter 
that has been distributed, addressed to the distinguished chairman of 
the Banking Committee dated today, signed by Robert Rubin, the 
Secretary of the Treasury. I will print the entire letter in the 
Record, but there is one paragraph that if it has not been quoted 
already needs to be quoted. In the letter, the Secretary of the 
Treasury says to the chairman:

       I am deeply concerned that the actions you are taking will 
     have the potential to undermine market confidence in 
     international support for Mexico and thereby reduce the 
     likelihood of success. By limiting the American response to 
     the Mexican crisis, your amendment could threaten the 
     credibility of the stabilization program and undermine the 
     confidence Mexico is trying to restore among investors. These 
     consequences could, in turn, have a negative impact on jobs, 
     wages and prospects of American workers here at home.

  I hope my colleagues will read this letter. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 1995.
     Hon. Alfonse D'Amato,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my very serious 
     concerns regarding your current efforts to amend H.R. 1158 to 
     require Congressional approval of aggregate annual assistance 
     to any foreign entity using the Exchange Stabilization Fund 
     (ESF) in an amount that exceeds $5 billion. Your amendment 
     would have the immediate practical effect of curtailing any 
     further use of the ESF consistent with the Administration's 
     package of financial support for Mexico. I would strongly 
     urge that you reconsider your decision to proceed on this 
     course.
       I am deeply concerned that the actions you are taking will 
     have the potential to undermine market confidence in 
     international support for Mexico and thereby reduce the 
     likelihood of success. By limiting the American response to 
     the Mexican crisis, your amendment could threaten the 
     credibility of the stabilization program and undermine the 
     confidence Mexico is trying to restore among investors. These 
     consequences could, in turn, have a negative impact on jobs, 
     wages and prospects of American workers here at home.
       The Mexican government has taken courageous action in 
     directly confronting its financial imbalances and 
     implementing a disciplined economic recovery program. Seeking 
     to attract foreign capital, strengthen the peso and minimize 
     inflation, Mexico has adopted strong remedial policies 
     including fiscal measures that will result in a budget 
     surplus in 1995 reductions in government spending, strict 
     monetary policy, accelerated structural reforms and important 
     enhancements to the transparency of its economic 
     institutions.
       Let me emphasize, however, that the process of restoring 
     market confidence is an arduous one and we need to 
     incorporate this fact into our thinking as we look for signs 
     of progress in Mexico. As such, the success of this effort 
     cannot be judged from day-to-day market movements. This 
     stabilization package that Mexico has adopted is a strong one 
     and seems to be starting to have the desired effect.
       The Mexican government has upheld tight money policy and we 
     are seeing results--through March 15, the nominal money 
     supply has shrunk by 13% since the beginning of the year and 
     the real money supply has shrunk by 23%. The Bolsa in Mexico 
     City is up 15% since last week, representing a 21% gain in 
     dollar terms. Prices on par Brady bonds has risen by 11% from 
     their recent low on March 16.
       Signs of declining volatility in peso trading have emerged, 
     with the peso closing below NP 7 since March 23 and now 
     trading within a narrower range. Demand for government 
     securities rose in this week's primary auctions to 2.4 times 
     the amount offered.
       To reiterate, for its recovery program to succeed over the 
     long term, Mexico is relying upon the U.S. commitment to the 
     agreement signed on February 21. It appears that negative 
     sentiment may be bottoming out and if Mexico holds the 
     course, confidence should return. Any indication that the 
     commitment of the U.S. to those agreements is weakening could 
     threaten to jeopardize the best possible outcome in Mexico.
       There is an additional concern regarding this amendment 
     which relates more generally to U.S. diplomacy. On January 
     31, President Clinton and four Congressional leaders from 
     both parties declared in a joint statement their support of 
     the U.S. financial package for Mexico and recognized that the 
     President has full authority to use the Exchange 
     Stabilization fund (ESF) to that end. This became U.S. 
     policy, and the executive branch negotiated appropriately 
     with foreign governments to implement that policy.
       Now the Senate is considering a measure that could impede 
     that policy. Your amendment would effectively end the ability 
     of the United States to carry out the February 21 agreements 
     and thereby impair the confidence that other nations have in 
     the ability of the executive branch to negotiate agreements 
     with them.
       I hope that we can continue to move forward in the spirit 
     of bi-partisan cooperation, 
     [[Page S4890]] and not invite confrontation by consideration 
     or passage of legislation that could ultimately disable the 
     implementation of American support for Mexico.
       In closing, let me assure you that the Treasury has been 
     complying with all Congressional requests for documents. I am 
     using my full authority to ensure that the Treasury continues 
     to supply timely, appropriate information to the Congress. I 
     look forward to continuing my work with you and your 
     colleagues in our shared commitment to support Mexico's 
     recovery and thus to protect American jobs and interests.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert E. Rubin,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last, I want to address an issue I heard 
raised repeatedly all afternoon. It has to do with the so-called 
corruption in Mexico.
  President Zedillo and his administration, but for the fact that they 
have conducted significant investigations, we would not know what we 
know already. I think it is unfair to this new administration which was 
saddled with a lot of problems not of their own choosing that is making 
very difficult decisions, asking his constituency to make very 
difficult decisions in order to get out of this crisis and, in fact, 
have pointed to a lot of the problems that existed in the past is an 
overstatement, to put it mildly.
  Second, again, there have been a lot of criticisms raised about 
President Salinas. I got to know President Salinas fairly well during 
his tenure in office. Obviously, the jury is still out on some other 
matters unrelated to him personally, but I want to say that had he not 
taken the steps beginning 5 or 6 years ago to inject strong market 
economy principles and to deal with those issues, we would not be in 
the position at least of offering real opportunity for Mexico in these 
coming years. And so while it has become popular to indict President 
Salinas in many quarters, I happen to feel he did a great deal of good. 
I also believe that his successor is doing even better in many ways. I 
would like to see us give him that opportunity to succeed.
  What we are doing here is in our interest. It makes sense to be 
supportive of it. It is not just a largess. These programs, through the 
economic exchange stabilization fund, have been very successful. In 
years past, Mr. President, I will submit for the Record a series of 
countries to whom we have provided assistance under the ESF Program. 
Six times Mexico has been the recipient of ESF funds. On all occasions 
they have paid the money back. There have been suggestions on the floor 
today that we are never going to get the money back. In almost every 
instance, the money has been returned as a result of this program.
  I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                  TABLE 1.--EXCHANGE STABILIZATION FUND FINANCING AGREEMENTS, 1980 TO JUNE 1994                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Drew                                 
                                            Amount agreed  ------------------------------------  Repaid in full 
        Country               Year           (dollars in     Amount (dollars                           by       
                                              millions)       in millions)         Date(s)                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico................              1982           1,000.0             825.0           8-14-82           8-24-82
    Do................              1982             600.0             600.0        9-82--2-83           8-23-83
    Do................              1986             273.0             273.0       8-86--12-86           2-13-87
    Do................              1988             300.0             300.0            8-1-88           9-15-88
    Do................              1989             425.0             384.1           9-25-89           2-15-90
    Do................              1990             600.0             600.0           3-28-90              7-90
Brazil................              1982             500.0             500.0      10-82--11-82          12-28-82
    Do................              1982             280.0             280.0             11-82            2-1-83
    Do................              1982             450.0             450.0             11-82            3-3-83
    Do................              1982             250.0             250.0             12-82              1-83
    Do................              1983             200.0             200.0           2-28-83           3-11-83
    Do................              1983             200.0             200.0            3-3-83           3-11-83
    Do................              1988             250.0             232.5           7-29-88           8-26-88
Argentina.............              1984             300.0               0.0  ................  ................
    Do................              1984             500.0             500.0          12-28-84           1-15-85
    Do................              1985             150.0             143.0              6-85           9-30-85
    Do................              1987             225.0             225.0            3-9-87           7-15-87
    Do................              1987             200.0             190.0          11-12-87          12-30-87
    Do................              1988             550.0             550.0        2-88--3-88           5-31-88
    Do................              1988             265.0              79.5          11-22-88           2-28-89
Jamaica...............              1984              50.0              10.0          12-29-84            3-2-85
Philippines...........              1984              45.0              45.0           11-7-84          12-28-84
Ecuador...............              1986             150.0              75.0           5-16-86           8-14-86
    Do................              1987              31.0              31.0           12-4-87           1-26-88
Nigeria...............              1986              37.0              22.2          10-31-86          12-10-86
Yugoslavia............              1988              50.0              50.0           6-15-88           9-30-88
    Do................              1989             450.0             450.0           3-15-89            4-3-89
    Do................              1990             104.0              25.0           3-30-90           4-30-90
Bolivia...............              1986             100.0               0.0  ................  ................
    Do................              1989             100.0             100.0              7-89           9-15-89
    Do................              1989             100.0              75.0           9-22-89          12-29-89
    Do................              1989              75.0              75.0          12-29-89            1-2-90
Poland................              1989             200.0              86.0          12-28-89            2-9-90
Guyana................              1990              31.8              31.8           6-20-90              9-90
Honduras..............              1990              82.3              82.3           6-28-90          11-20-90
Hungary...............              1990              20.0              20.0        6-90--7-90            9-5-90
Costa Rica............              1990              27.5              27.5           5-21-90           5-21-90
Romania...............              1991              40.0              40.0            3-7-91           3-21-91
Panama................              1992             143.0             143.0           1-31-92              3-92
Peru..................              1993             470.0             470.0           3-18-93           3-18-93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DODD. I know my colleague from Oregon would like to engage in a 
unanimous-consent request to consider another amendment. I am prepared 
to yield for that purpose.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Rather than to ask for just a half-hour, I would like 
to expand that to an hour to take care of two amendments, one on the 
Democratic side and one on the Republican side, Mr. Kyl's amendment, 
each for a half-hour equally divided.
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to accommodate. If there are going to be 
recorded votes, can they be done en bloc?
  Mr. HATFIELD. It will be two one-half hours making 1 hour.
  Mr. DODD. I am told that my colleague from California would like to 
be included for a half-hour on an amendment. So that would make it an 
hour and a half. Can we provide that at the conclusion of the 
consideration of the amendment offered by the Senator from California 
that we would vote on all three amendments, so our colleagues might 
have a window, if that is appropriate?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I know the Senator from California has a number of 
them. What amendment would this be?
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator from California only has one amendment--the 
transfer amendment. That is the only amendment I have. I am happy to 
agree to 30 minutes equally divided.

                          ____________________