[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 46 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2286-H2296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3579, 1998 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
                           APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3579) making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for 
other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Obey.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill H.R. 3579, making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, 
     and for other purposes, be instructed, within the scope of 
     the conference, to agree to funding for the International 
     Monetary Fund consistent with the terms, conditions, and 
     provisions of H.R. 3114, as reported by the Committee on 
     Banking and Financial Services.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) is recognized for 30 minutes.

[[Page H2287]]

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from Louisiana 
is, in fact, in opposition to this IMF bailout?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in a curious position here today. I am offering a 
motion to instruct to the conferees to defend what would have been 
considered a core Republican value when I first came to this body.
  When I came to this body, the Republican Party was a very strong 
internationalist party, and it recognized that the best way to defend 
our own economic interests was to make certain that our economy was 
operating in a world which was as stable as possible. We are being 
asked to appoint conferees tonight on a bill which is supposed to 
contain not only supplemental appropriations for Bosnia and for Iraq 
and for flood victim relief, it is also supposed to contain, at least 
the administration asked us to include in this proposition, full 
funding for the IMF replenishment and funding, as well, for the United 
Nations arrearages so that we can eliminate our debt status in that 
organization.
  I have a motion here tonight which would instruct the conferees to at 
least accept, as an add-on to the bill passed by this House, to accept 
our obligation to fully fund the administration request for the IMF.
  I am not doing that because it will help American business, although 
it certainly will. I am not doing that because I care about what is 
going to happen in Asian countries around the world. I care, but that 
is not the reason I am offering the motion. I am offering this motion 
because we need to be aware of the fact that what happens in our 
economies around the world can have a crushing effect on American 
workers and a hugely negative effect on the American economy.
  We have seen what has happened in Asia when that region has continued 
to engage in fiscally ludicrous acts. We have seen Japan for years 
follow an economic policy which has led to a huge over-building in many 
areas in Asia instead of having led to a growth in Japanese 
consumption. And we have seen speculative activities, as well, in Asia. 
And, as a result, a few months ago we saw a huge collapse of Asian 
currencies.
  I do not worry about that because of what it means to Asia. I worry 
about that because of what it means to us. Because what it means is 
that, as a result of those devalued currencies, we have got every cargo 
ship known to man being loaded with artificially low-priced foreign 
goods who are on their way to the American economy and they are soon 
going to be sold in this economy at cut-rate prices because of currency 
disequilibrium; and those sales and the accompanying trade deficits are 
going to cost many American jobs and they are going to close many 
American factories.
  We are being told that, in spite of that threat, we should not act 
upon it because, somehow, an element of the majority party caucus still 
wants to use this IMF crisis as leverage in order to push their 
advantage on a totally unrelated issue involving family planning policy 
known as the Mexico City policy.
  And so, the American business community is being told that they 
should wait for another day to have this problem addressed. I do not 
think we can afford to wait for another day. At any moment, the act of 
some speculator, the run on country's currency could cause a further 
unraveling of the situation in Asia, which would present us with even 
bigger economic problems. At any time, we could have a currency crisis 
in the Ukraine, in Brazil, in Russia, in India, in Turkey; and, without 
IMF replenishment, we would not be ready to defend the economic 
interest of the United States.
  My motion would simply instruct the House conferees to agree to the 
administration's request for funding of the International Monetary Fund 
under the terms and conditions approved by the House Banking Committee. 
That Banking Committee bill was approved on March 5 with the 
overwhelming bipartisan vote of 40-89, with the support of virtually 
all of the Democrats on the Committee and the votes of two-thirds of 
the Republicans on the committee. And that bill was endorsed by the 
administration.
  That bill sets tough new labor rights and environmental conditions on 
IMF lending, as well as new requirements for increased accountability 
and transparency at the IMF. It sets up a watchdog group, including 
representatives from labor and NGO groups, to review the implementation 
of labor rights and other criteria. And it does a number of other 
things.
  I do not think that we can afford to wait, and I do not especially 
think it is a good idea to allow us to go to the Senate and have only 
the Senate language on the table, language which was much more 
favorable to the administration, frankly, but language which I do not 
believe adequately defends the interest of American workers.
  That is why I would simply say to those of my colleagues who have 
told their workers or their businesses or their farmers that they are 
going to be defending the economic interest of American workers, I 
think this is the time and this is the vote. This is not a partisan 
issue. It certainly should not be a partisan issue. It has become 
wrapped up in partisan hostage politics, unfortunately, but it should 
not be so.
  We are here tonight to answer the question whether or not we will 
defend the economic interest of the United States and to defend the 
interest of American workers; and I think the best way to do that is to 
support this motion to recommit, and I would urge the House to do so 
when the vote comes later this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 3579, and that I may include tabular and extraneous 
material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, regardless of one's position on the IMF, 
one should understand that this is simply a motion to instruct the 
conferees to adopt the position that has not been debated on the floor 
of this House. It seems to me that if we are going to instruct the 
conferees to do anything, we are on solid ground if we are instructing 
them to deal with issues that have been debated and sent forward.
  But the fact is the IMF is an issue that will be debated at some 
later date on the floor of this House. It has not yet been debated, and 
forcing the conferees to support this provision dealing with the IMF 
simply because the Senate has dealt with it and the House has not is 
ill-advised.
  Moreover, reading the motion to instruct, it says that we should 
support the terms, conditions and provisions of H.R. 3114, the bill 
reported by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. That bill 
differs substantially from the IMF provisions contained in our Non-
Emergency Supplemental bill. It may never get to the House. We do not 
know what is in that bill, and to force the conferees to support all of 
the terms and conditions of what I believe is about a 60-page bill and 
incorporate it I think is extremely ill-advised.
  The House Committee on Appropriations and the leadership of this 
House decided on a two-bill strategy. The bill which the House passed 
that will be before a conference provides for emergency appropriations 
for Bosnian peacekeeping disaster relief, and other military 
assistance.
  In fact, if we do not address this military assistance by May 1, we 
understand from the Secretary of Defense that he might give notice of 
furloughs for people all within the Defense Department. So there is an 
emergency with respect to defense appropriations.
  And, obviously, we know from all the other disasters that have 
occurred around this country we need to provide additional assistance 
to people. We are trying to give them that relief and not

[[Page H2288]]

get embroiled in a heavy discussion on IMF or any other extraneous 
issues.
  The second bill, which has not come before the House, is a non-
emergency bill that includes $17.9 billion for the International 
Monetary Fund. That bill has passed the Committee. I sent a letter to 
the Committee on Rules asking for an open rule for consideration of 
that bill, and I requested the leadership to schedule that legislation 
as soon as possible.
  Some people say that that second bill will never see the light of 
day. They are wrong. The fact is that many other items in the second 
bill absolutely must pass. They have to pass. Things like the veterans 
compensation and pension benefits. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, there is 
going to be a second bill.
  There is going to be a second bill, and we should not prejudge the 
outcome of that bill by instructing conferees to weigh the consequences 
of that bill before we even have a chance to debate the contents on the 
floor of the House. We are going to have a full and fair discussion of 
those issues at a later date on the floor of the House. We should not 
prejudge them by putting them prematurely into the conference. They are 
totally unrelated to emergency appropriations, and the emergency bill 
needs to move forward so we can meet the needs of the disaster-
afflicted people throughout the country and the military, which has to 
replenish the monies that they have expended in Iraq and in Bosnia.
  So I urge Members to defeat this motion to instruct. It is on the 
wrong bill. It will have a full and adequate debate but not on a motion 
to instruct. We need to get the disaster bill conferenced and on its 
way to the President for his signature.
  Our troops in Bosnia and Iraq will get the money they need to do 
their job, nobody in the Defense Department will be furloughed, and our 
citizens and the victims of the disasters will get the money that they 
deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, let me acknowledge part of what my distinguished colleague and 
good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), said. This 
is not a perfect process, and I do not think that. I want to say to my 
distinguished friend that I appreciate very much the thoughtful 
attention his committee has given to this issue, and I am very much in 
his debt.
  Having said that, I am hard-pressed not to support a product that 
comes from my committee, not only a product that comes from my 
committee but a product that has been caught up in some very unusual 
political kinds of pitfall debates that I think are not altogether 
central to the IMF issue.
  So here let me just take a brief moment to talk about the IMF. The 
IMF, historically, was established in theory before the end of World 
War II and, in fact, right after the war to deal with the causes of 
war, the causes of depression.

                              {time}  1800

  The rationale for the creation of the IMF is very much alive today 
and is symbolized in a circumstance in a part of the world that has 
fought three wars in the last 60 years.
  It is in the interest of the United States of America to stabilize 
the economic turmoil in Asia. It is in the interest of the United 
States economy to stabilize the circumstance in Asia and ensure that it 
does not widen and deepen in terms of a gulf of economic recession 
spreading from one region of the world to another.
  The word bailout is sometimes applied to the IMF. Actually, it is 
anything but. It is a lending, not aid-granting institution. It is an 
institution to which the United States proffers resources which amount 
to less than 20 percent of the total resources of the institution but 
resources which we have to call on on a very, very short notice, an 
institution that has almost $40 billion in gold reserves.
  In a way, one might argue the IMF is the cheapest conceivable 
stabilizing institution in the world today. Rather than relying on the 
United States taxpayer alone and ways it could cause enormous 
liabilities of the United States, we are drawing on over 80 percent of 
the resources from others in ways using an institution that has a 
triple-A rating.
  Finally, with regard to timing, I would also simply add that the 
longer we delay, the greater the likelihood that this problem deepens 
and widens. Delay is on the side of instability. Firm, direct, 
straightforward, prompt American action is on the side of stability.
  For the sake of stability and for the sake of the United States 
economy, for the sake of United States' leadership in international 
affairs today, I would urge that, as awkward as this type of resolution 
is, that it be supported.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, in addressing this issue, I think we ought 
to first ask ourselves who is the IMF. Well, the IMF functions like a 
private club. Its minutes are secret. They are never released to the 
public. Its votes are not a matter of public record. The people who 
work for the IMF do not pay income taxes; or, actually, they pay income 
taxes, but then the IMF reimburses them for those income taxes.
  We are talking about funding the IMF and funding its operation. Hear 
me, we are talking about an organization whose employees receive 
reimbursement for their income taxes.
  When their children want to go to private schools, that education is 
financed; and we will continue to finance that if we vote another $18 
billion to the IMF. When their children want to go to a private 
university or college, the IMF will pay their full cost of education, 
tuition, books.
  We are asking the U.S. taxpayers in this funding request to reimburse 
the employees of the IMF for income taxes, for private school costs, 
for tuition, and not only that, but for salaries higher than those paid 
by the U.S. Government.
  We might say, well, is it worth it? What will the IMF do with our 
money? We have been told they are going to bail out Asia, but that is 
not true. They have already funded the bailouts of Asia.
  They have $80 billion in reserve. They have $40 billion in gold 
reserve. Indonesia, who they loan money to, has $16 billion in 
reserves. What are they going to do? They are going to expand their 
role and continue to give loans to foreign countries at 4.5 percent 
interest when the going market rate is 10 to 14 percent.
  I will tell my colleagues there is going to be an infinite supply of 
those lined up to get money subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this motion. Clearly, the United States has a vested interest in the 
funding of the International Monetary Fund. We have an interest because 
we can protect jobs, we can protect the economic interest of the 
companies which are exporting so much product to Asia.
  When we look at my home State of California, nearly 30 percent of our 
exporting is going to Asia. It is clearly in our interest to restore 
confidence in that market, to provide greater financial certainty for 
our businesses which are exporting critical products.
  It is also in the interest of the United States to provide IMF 
funding because it provides for greater international security. When we 
look at the potential consequences of a weakened South Korea, with 
their inability to deal responsibly with their financial crisis, we are 
on the verge of inviting potential conflict with North Korea, looking 
at perhaps a weakened neighbor to the south.
  Failure also to provide funding could further undermine the fragile 
investor confidence in the region and set off another round of global 
economic insecurity. If we do not arrest the financial crisis in Asia, 
we are inviting this to expand to other parts of the world, be it 
Russia, be it Latin America, which

[[Page H2289]]

would further undermine the economic interest of the United States.
  Rejecting the IMF funding also threatens the leadership the United 
States is providing in the world, the leadership that we are providing 
in terms of providing economic stability as well as military stability.
  Clearly, this motion to instruct the conferees will ensure that this 
Congress will be able to act in an expedited fashion to ensure that our 
interest will be protected.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, if I thought that the $18 billion which is 
being asked for would provide a benefit to the people of this country 
and to the people of Asia, I would be the first one out front voting 
for it.
  The fact of the matter is that the Joint Economic Committee and 
others have been studying this issue since last summer, since this 
request came in, and that is simply not true. It is not true for a 
number of reasons.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) talked about the secret club 
that surrounds the IMF. We cannot find out what they do, why they do 
it, the results of the studies on what they have done, any of that. 
That is all secret.
  Secondly, and more importantly, the average loan rate is 4.7 percent.
  Let me ask you a question, Mr. Speaker. If you were a businessman and 
the IMF came along and said, if you make risky investments, which the 
foreign countries and institutions did, and you fail, which they did, I 
will give you a loan of 4.5 percent, how would that make your decision 
making, understanding that we have two criteria in making investments, 
one is to make a profit and the other is how much risk we have to 
involve when we do it?
  Obviously, a low interest rate bailout loan on a policy of the 
organization that does it on a global basis is going to have a 
deleterious, negative effect on the kinds of investment decisions that 
are made.
  Besides that, Mr. Speaker, I think there is another issue that needs 
to be discussed, and that is simply this: The IMF promotes higher 
taxes. The IMF promotes monetary instability. And here we are being 
asked today, after we have not even had a debate on this House floor, 
to vote $18 billion of American taxpayers' money that promotes, through 
an organization that promotes higher taxes, that promotes monetary 
instability. That has a deleterious effect on foreign economy that is 
not a positive one.
  I vote no, and I hope everyone else will here today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce).
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I really think that passage of the IMF 
legislation is the most important economic issue confronting the 
Congress in the year 1998. If we do not pass it, I believe we would be 
defaulting on our global economic leadership. It is unthinkable for us 
not to pass it. We must participate within the IMF.
  We must also participate in the legislative arena in a manner that 
will enable us to obtain a majority of votes. That means we have to 
proceed collegially. We proceeded collegially within the House 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services. We proceeded in a way that 
was able to bring about a significant majority of Republicans and 
Democrats so that we were able to report the bill out by a vote of 40 
to 9.
  We recognize, of course, that there is significant criticism of the 
IMF and, therefore, we adopted amendments in a collegial, bipartisan 
manner to instruct the administration in the ways to reform the IMF. 
Those amendments are essential to obtain passage and to accomplish 
mutually desired goals. Support the motion to instruct.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise proudly as a progressive, as an internationalist, as somebody 
who is pro-choice, and someone who has a 100 percent lifetime labor 
voting record in the House of Representatives and have worked for labor 
and working people for his whole adult life.
  I rise in strong opposition to the motion brought forth by my good 
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Let us be clear what we are talking about here. We are talking about 
an $18 billion replenishment of the IMF, a 45 percent increase in our 
contribution to the IMF.
  Please understand the Asian bailout is over. The $19 billion that we 
have already given to the Chase Manhattan Bank and the BankAmerica and 
to Citibank for their losses, and they came here for corporate welfare, 
and we gave it to them, that is gone. That is over. What we are talking 
about is new money for a new mission and for an expansion of the 
function of the IMF. That is point number one.
  Point number two, I believe it was last year that many people took to 
the floor of this House and they said, Mr. Speaker, you are wrong for 
combining disaster relief with other matters. I said so.
  How could we come back today and say the IMF is a disaster? It is 
not. People all over this country want to deal with the ice storm in 
the Northeast, tornados, hurricanes. That is not an issue that the IMF 
should be combined with.
  Thirdly, no matter what our point of view may be on the IMF, this 
issue needs serious debate. It should not be brought here all of a 
sudden for a one-hour debate. It deserves many hours, and it deserves 
some ample warning time so we can have serious discussion.
  Fourthly, does the IMF need this money today? No, they do not. Nobody 
believes they do. The IMF has $45 billion now in liquid resources, a 
$25 billion credit line and $37,000 in gold reserves.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a well-known reactionary, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am impressed by the 
gentleman's renewal of the Louisiana/Vermont alliance. Not since the 
war of 1812 has it been so vigorous, but I think it is wrong this time.
  The gentleman from Vermont talked about the Asian bailout as if it 
was all about Chase Manhattan Bank. I happen to thank that Kim Tae-
chung, the President of South Korea, is one of the great, small d, 
democratic heroes of our era. I will guarantee to my colleagues that, 
if asked, he would express his appreciation for the role of the IMF.
  This is a very courageous democrat, a man who risked his life for 
democracy. He was elected president. He is working with the unions. He 
is working to try and help his country. The IMF is very important to 
him.
  We have a thug like Soeharto, and we are working to try and change 
IMF policies there. That is why this particular amendment is such a 
good one.
  People have said, well, we should have debated this. Fine by me, but 
I have not been in control of the committee that kept it off the floor. 
We had a long debate and hearing in the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services. This should have been on the floor before. We 
cannot keep it off the floor and then claim the benefit of it having 
been kept off the floor. We cannot shoot our parent and plead we are an 
orphan and ask for mercy. The people who controlled the House decided 
to keep it off the floor. That is why we are dealing with it now.
  It has been talked about a great deal. This is a version of it that 
reflects the importance of it to places like South Korea and to 
Thailand which are trying hard to make improvements. It reflects the 
need for labor standards. We explicitly here, by the way, included 
strong protections for the agricultural sector of our economy. The bill 
was explicitly amended to recognize that.
  This is not a perfect world. It is not a perfect institution or a 
perfect bill. It is as good an effort as we were able collegially to 
put together, working with agriculture and labor and others, to provide 
more funds. It is true, it is not absolutely necessary now, but I will 
tell my colleagues this: If, in fact, we know that the House is never 
going to vote for the IMF, then maybe we ought to buy some Korean and 
Thai currency and sell it short. Because it is going to have a negative 
effect if we walk away from this on decent, struggling governments from 
South Korea and Thailand that deserve some support. It is also in our 
own self-interest to support them.

[[Page H2290]]

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I understand those that may want to 
support the IMF, but if we look, economists themselves are split 
whether the IMF does any good or not. And then those that say even that 
they doubt that we need it to bail out southeast Asia. But yet $18 
billion.
  As my colleagues know, this body has wrestled with emergency flood, 
emergency El Nino, emergency supplemental for defense, and yet we are 
having to try to offset it so we do not break the budget caps through 
domestic spending. But yet we are going to give away $18 billion. 
Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, $16 billion in operations that we get no credit 
for from the U.N., but yet there are those that want to give money to 
the U.N. in support, $16 billion, $18 billion, $5 billion more for the 
extension in Bosnia.
  My colleagues, where does it stop? The American taxpayers have to pay 
for this. It is not our money. It is $18 billion, not even million 
dollars, and we are going to give it away, Mr. Speaker. That is wrong.
  My colleagues rap on the Republicans all the time for having to 
offset money. We want to break the budget caps, we want to spend more 
money. Well, it is easy to spend it but it is difficult to go to the 
taxpayers and ask them to pay for it, and then even more difficult to 
say where are we going to take it out and still not break the budget 
caps? Alan Greenspan said if we do, interest rates will go back up, the 
economy is going to go to hell, and it just does not work.
  But yet here they are asking us again to spend, to spend, to spend, 
bigger government, higher taxes, spend money. It is the same old 
rhetoric, and I do not support it, and I do not think the American 
people do, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress again, when this bill 
passed the committee it passed by a vote of 40 to 9. Two-thirds of the 
Republican members of the committee voted in favor of this bill. Now, 
why? Not because we are giving money to foreigners, not because we are 
bailing out banks, but because we are concerned about jobs here at 
home.
  I speak from New Jersey, representative of export-oriented States, 
and I can see many around here who understand the agricultural 
community and their dependence on this kind of trade situation. That is 
why it passed with an overwhelming majority.
  I also want to say, and this has not been stressed enough, that we 
have in this bill, and it is included in the motion to instruct, 
certain reforms that are passed. We acknowledge the transparency and 
conditionality questions related to IMF. Those reforms are here. We 
will be requiring certain things of the countries that receive this 
aid. We will be putting more requirements on IMF in terms of the 
transparency, we acknowledge that. But, my friends, this is about jobs 
here at home and also security abroad.
  The House Banking Bill contains strong language on Conditionally and 
making the IMF more Accountable to Congress.
  The bill includes:
  Accountability. I think the American people should know what the IMF 
is doing with the money they have. Not surprisingly previous Congresses 
thought that an audit of IMF lending activity was an important issue. 
The National Advisory Counsel--of which the Secretary of the Treasury 
is the chairman--is required to report annually by April 1 to the 
Congress regarding IMF loans. I was shocked to find out that the most 
recent annual report filed by the Treasury covers 1992--and this was 
transmitted to Congress in December of 1997!
  The Banking bill will require the Secretary of Treasury to provide a 
semi-annual report to the Congress certain IMF loans.
  The report would be a GAO ``audit'' of IMF loans--the amount, term, 
interest rate, disbursement schedule, etc. In addition, the report will 
include information regarding trade barriers in borrowing countries 
which may affect U.S. exporters as well as borrower country export 
promotion policies which may result in dumping of foreign goods in the 
United States. And importantly, the Secretary of the Treasury would be 
required to testify annually before the Congress on the contents of 
such report.
  Let there be no mistake, I support full funding of the IMF--but 
Congress needs to be informed and there needs to be accountability at 
the Treasury Department. Being 5 years behind in providing required 
reports is nothing short of outrageous and an insult to the legislative 
branch. It is for this reason that I will sponsor an amendment today I 
urge my colleagues on the Banking Committee to join me in supporting 
the Treasury Audit and Accountability Amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, you are right, the House should not consider IMF funding 
just an hour before we all get on board planes to head toward home. We 
should have a full debate on this issue.
  Let me just give my colleagues one example of why we should be 
discussing this. The IMF is working on an amendment to its Articles of 
Agreement that would give the IMF the power to require all member 
countries to liberalize their laws regarding the flow of capital 
accounts. They would be the ultimate enforcer of capital deregulation. 
All member countries, including the United States, would be told by the 
IMF what they could and could not do regarding the flow of capital.
  If my colleagues want some international bureaucrat to make that 
decision instead of the elected Members of Congress, then we should 
pass this motion. I think that there are some people probably who may 
disagree with me. The point is, we have not had a chance to study this 
issue, we have not had a chance to debate this issue. We are asked to 
come here at the end of a work week, after a two-week hiatus, and take 
up a very complex issue. And I think that the Members of this Congress 
deserve more, the people of this Nation need more, and whatever Members 
think about the MAI or the IMF, the one thing that they should know is 
that we should be making this decision after we study it and after we 
debate it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  This evening we had a special opportunity in this House of 
Representatives, and that is to accept a motion to instruct for a 
resolution that has strong bipartisan support in its committee of 
jurisdiction. Many others have said it passed 40 to 9 with the support 
of the Chair, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
  It has a framework to address many of the concerns our colleagues 
have about the IMF, and frankly that I share, about the need for 
increased transparency, for conditionality that includes labor rights 
and environmental protections, and the moral hazard issue of do 
countries' financial institutions take risks unduly because they think 
there is an IMF bailout. This resolution, this provides the framework 
to increase that, and all of those concerns are trumped by the 
contagion clause. Contagion, that is the spread of what will happen to 
the currencies in these countries, will have a terrible impact on 
workers in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make one point very, very clearly. This is not 
a bailout, it is a loan. We get a credit, an asset for it. We are not 
bailing out, we are not giving money away. We are honoring our 
commitment. Even the staunchest critics of IMF say we need to do this 
replenishment now and then proceed with the reforms.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we should be debating this. I should 
have more than 1 minute, and I am not complaining to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). It is a travesty to have this debate so 
that Dana Rohrabacher has 1 minute to express himself on this issue. 
And the same with the rest of my colleagues. When are we going to stand 
up for our own rights in this body?

[[Page H2291]]

  Here we have the violation of the rights of our people to control 
their destiny, taken away from them by $18 billion and given to some 
crook or some nincompoop overseas who has basically driven their own 
financial institutions into bankruptcy, and we cannot debate it for 
more than an hour. This is ridiculous, and it is as ridiculous as the 
idea of bailing out the IMF in the first place.
  I just returned from Asia. There are alternatives in Asia to this 
bailout. And yet if we force our money over there in this IMF bailout, 
it will undercut the private efforts in that area to bail out their own 
problems. And what do they do with this money, this $18 billion and the 
other money going over to Asia? It is used to finance factories that 
put out goods and services that put our own people out of work.
  It is immoral for us to give this money to foreigners after we have 
cut programs at home. We should not be bailing out the IMF, we should 
be balancing our budget. And we should have a longer debate.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield unfortunately just 1 minute to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) my good friend, the very 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman if this were here 
under a rule we would have several hours to debate this and not several 
minutes.
  As my colleagues know, in the other body they are debating, my 
colleagues, the NATO expansion bill over there for Poland, Hungary and 
the Czech Republic, and we have asked them to beef up their military so 
that they can interoperate and communicate with our military to defend 
each others' boundaries. We are asking them to pay their fair share.
  Here the IMF is already warning these 3 countries they will not 
underwrite economic development loans if the countries start jacking up 
the military budgets. That could cost us $19 billion over the next 15 
years. What is going wrong?
  We should go slow on this, we should ask the IMF, the socialist 
French economist who is in charge of it, to come here and tell us why 
he is going against American foreign policy. We are footing most of the 
bill; why do they not listen to us?
  This is going nowhere and we are going to see to it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) the chairman of the Policy 
Committee of the Republican Conference.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  I would like to focus our attention on precisely where we are. We are 
being asked to increase the United States' commitment to the 
International Monetary Fund by 45 percent over the longstanding level 
of U.S. support. We are being asked to add $18 billion to our 
commitment. Which works out, incidentally, to over $150 for every 
single working taxpayer in America. Can my colleagues imagine calling 
them up and asking for the money and telling them we only have time to 
debate this for an hour because it is not in the bill? We are adding it 
on the floor at the last minute.
  It has been pointed out here that the IMF needs some reform. We have 
got to exercise some leverage, even if we were going to give $18 
billion to the IMF, if we want those reforms. But if we simply sign on 
at the last minute without any questions, there will not be any 
reforms.
  This proposal hurts American agriculture because the IMF, as is well 
known, is going to continue its policy of supporting devaluations which 
hurt our market for exports. This hurts U.S. exporters. Without 
question, the IMF causes as many problems as it creates. This deserves 
real debate, has not anything to do with our El Nino storms, which is 
what this bill is supposed to be about. Keep it out.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, it ought to be understood that we are not limited in 
debate today because of our choosing. We are limited in debate because 
we were denied the opportunity on the rule when this bill was 
considered to have a full-fledged debate on the IMF. We asked for that 
opportunity. Every person who voted against us on the rule has the 
responsibility for the fact that we are limited only to one hour 
tonight. Do not blame us for the problem which you yourself created.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the great whip of the majority party.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for all his hard work, 
and I appreciate being yielded this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. The 
question today, frankly, is not whether you support the IMF. We will 
answer that question in due time. Instead, we have to ask whether this 
motion will speed up disaster assistance to the American people, or 
slow that assistance down.
  Clearly, if we pass this motion to instruct conferees, we will 
complicate the process of getting needed assistance to Americans who 
have faced disasters in the last year.
  When it comes to the IMF, many of us continue to have strongly held 
and competing opinions. Why would one want to mix that kind of 
understanding and confusion?
  Some believe that we should give more money to the IMF, no matter 
what the consequences. Others of us believe that the IMF is all too 
often not the solution, but rather the problem. Still others have 
opinions that fall somewhere in the middle.
  We all agree, however, that we should do our best to help Americans 
who have suffered from natural disasters. We also should all agree that 
our Armed Forces need the necessary funds to sustain them overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, I just urge my colleagues to keep the process as simple 
as possible. Let us vote against this motion to instruct, and let us 
make sure that the American people are taken care of first.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, not too long ago, several of us met 
with Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Rubin, and Mr. Glickman, and we had quite a 
good meeting. They agreed, and Rubin and Greenspan do not always agree 
on everything, but they agreed that day IMF is very, very important to 
us. I think the question came from at least a half a dozen different 
approaches, and some of you may have been there, too.
  Is there risk in this? Mr. Greenspan said that we have never lost a 
dime on this; that there is always hard collateral. They also said that 
it is their opinion, the three of them, that the hit on this, if the 
Asian economy does go down, would be on agriculture.
  In our State, 40 percent of our production is exported. That is 
important. Forty percent. Then I remembered as I reviewed the figures 
on the trade balance that it is up $26-$27 billion, but that 
agriculture is on the plus side. We cannot afford to take that risk.
  Now, if these people tell us that this is a line of credit, that they 
may not use it, but it ought to be there to save our economy, we ought 
to give it serious thought.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I am urging my colleagues to vote no on 
the motion to instruct. Congress gives instructions to the IMF. There 
has been over 2,000 opportunities for the IMF to listen to the concerns 
of the American people, and each time the people have been ignored. As 
a matter of fact, the Executive Director of the IMF has only voted 12 
of those 2,000 times.
  They have been ``absent without leave'' at the IMF. Over and over 
they have ignored the will of the people and the will of the Congress. 
AWOL on labor rights, AWOL on environmental rights, AWOL on human 
rights.
  So we are now going to tell this Congress that they are going to 
guarantee labor and environmental rights? That is baloney. Vote against 
the IMF, vote against the motion to instruct, and vote to stand up to 
this international financial cartel, which is destructive of

[[Page H2292]]

jobs and human rights all over this world.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Obey motion to 
instruct. The fact is that the money is already in the Senate bill. The 
question is, are we going to give them any guidance, any further 
guidance, on how to use it?
  So the IMF wants what every bureaucracy wants, all the money and all 
the flexibility they can get. We are limiting them. The fact is there 
is an urgency to the passage of this money. There are 62 nations out of 
183 that have loans, 183 Members of the IMF that have loans. It is 
obvious with the recessions or lack of growth in the European and Asian 
marketplaces that that does constitute the opportunity for our markets 
in terms of trade.
  This is a fight really about those of us that are really wanting to 
have a free market and free trade to occur. We have a battle going on 
right now in terms of those markets. If the American model and the 
model of free markets does not work, and it is going to fail, we have 
to have mechanisms in place that can prevent it from going down to 
ground zero. That is what the IMF does.
  All of us admit the IMF is not perfect, but what other tool do you 
have to go to? If you are in the middle of the ocean facing a storm, I 
do not think the idea to jump overboard and start swimming is a good 
one. That is what the Members of this Congress are proposing to do.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to instruct 
conferees to provide funding to the fiscally unsound IMF.
  Mr. Speaker, for a moment let us consider a conversation down in my 
district with Alice and John Moore. If Bob Newhart could do this, he 
could do a much better job than I am going to do.
  I knock on the door and I say, ``Hello, Alice and John. I am your 
Congressman. Tonight I am going to vote to fund the IMF.''
  They say, ``What is the IMF?''
  I say, ``This is an international fund, not from the United States, 
that is going to take your tax dollars and give it to Indonesia, South 
Korea, Thailand and others to help bail them out.''
  They say, ``Mr. Stearns, you are my Congressman. Why are you doing 
this?''
  ``Well, let me tell you, there is an elite group in Congress, in the 
Senate, particularly down at the White House, who thinks they can spend 
your money overseas with these countries.''
  ``Why haven't these countries taken care of themselves?'' This is 
Alice talking about her and her two daughters, and she is talking also 
about John, his paying the bills. She is saying if I can take care of 
my family, if I can take care of my bills, why can't Indonesia, South 
Korea and these others take care of theirs?
  ``The bottom line, there is a little group in Washington that thinks 
we need to tax you higher so we can pay the IMF.''
  Vote against this motion.
  Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to the Motion to Instruct 
Conferees to provide full funding to the fiscally unsound International 
Monetary Fund and to provide to the fiscally irresponsible United 
Nations with alleged arrearages owed by our nation.
  This Motion to instruct is being offered under the guise of an 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation.
  Let me be clear. The International Monetary Fund is not currently 
suffering an emergency. The money that has been pledged by the IMF to 
Indonesia, Thailand, and South Korea to combat their fiscal crisis is 
already provided.
  Let me reiterate that point. By denying this Motion to Instruct and 
by denying any IMF money as part of a Supplemental Appropriation we 
will not harm the ongoing financial bailout of these Asian nations.
  The IMF and its proponents scream that they cannot handle a crisis 
and that the IMF immediately needs $18 billion from the American 
taxpayer. How ludicrous.
  Since the financial crisis started in Asia in the Summer of 1997, 
there has been no other financial crisis that required the assistance 
of the IMF. In fact, the economic situation has settled down in East 
Asia and there is the beginnings of an economic recovery.
  The IMF has, right now, more than $75 billion to combat financial 
crises. The IMF has an estimated $50 billion in reserve right now in 
addition to $25 billion in an emergency account. On top of all that, 
the IMF will receive $28 billion in loan payments from other borrowing 
nations to the IMF by the end of the Year 2000.
  With all that said, by the end of 2000, the IMF will have over $100 
billion in reserve for their uses. Plus, these Asian nations will be 
paying back the $120 billion that they have borrowed from the IMF in 
the last few months.
  Is a $200 billion IMF reserve fund not enough? This attempt to 
increase the IMF quota is not to deal with any emergencies, but is a 
naked attempt to expand bureaucracy and the scope of the IMF.
  The IMF wants to play a dominant role in the world's economic 
policies, not simply aid nations in distress. The IMF has even tried to 
tell the United States what its economic policies ought to be.
  The IMF is so arrogant that they still refuse to give Congress 
documents that we have requested over and over again that will give us 
more detail about how poor the IMF's policies are.
  I urge my colleagues to soundly defeat this Motion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in my 30 seconds, let me 
say I rise in strong support of this motion. I regret having to support 
this procedure, but in spite of my great respect for my chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) and for his fairness, there is no way we can get this issue 
of funding for the IMF on the floor as a clean debate, where we vote up 
or down on IMF funding, without unrelated issues that constitute 
legislating on appropriations bills, which is against our rules, but 
has been allowed in regard to this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support IMF funding. It is definitely jobs in 
my district. This House bailed out the S&L's because we knew we had to 
minimize the damage, so we need to involve ourselves in this loan 
program to contain the Asian problem.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong objection to this motion. 
This should be a very easy vote for all of us; we should all vote no. 
They already have $35 billion of our money. They want $18 billion more. 
That is $53 billion.
  Think about it. Some of you would like to spend that on the military, 
on national defense. That would not be too bad an idea. Others might 
want to spend it on domestic welfare programs. This would be a better 
idea than bailing out rich bankers and foreign governments. Besides, 
there are some of us who would like to give the $53 billion back to the 
American people and lower their taxes. But to give them another $18 
billion does not make any sense.
  Then to come to us and say it will not cost the taxpayers any money 
is absurd. Why do they come here and try to sneak through this 
appropriation with a parliamentary trick, if it is not going to cost 
the taxpayers any money? Certainly it is going to cost the taxpayers 
money. It adds to the national debt, and we have to pay interest on the 
national debt. This is a cost.
  Now, the Director of the IMF had an interesting proposal. He said 
this will not cost us anything because it is coming out of the Central 
Bank.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, these elite groups that we heard talked 
about a moment ago that are sneaking this through include the American 
Farm Bureau Federation, Dairy Farmers of America, National Cattlemen's 
Beef Association and, U.S. Wheat Associates.
  To all of these who have suggested that we are spending taxpayer 
money,

[[Page H2293]]

you are not reading the facts. You know better than to stand here in 
the well and tell our colleagues who are not here that we are going to 
be appropriating this money, when we have not appropriated one penny in 
the history of the IMF.
  Why are we here for the IMF? Because it is in America's best 
interests. It has been ever since we have had the IMF, and it is today.
  To those who want the reforms, I agree with you on that. And let us 
look at the Wall Street Journal of April 10. ``IMF moves are expected 
to force open markets.'' We are doing all of the things that critics 
who usually we agree on are saying we need to do, but the only way we 
can get it done is to bring this bill and have this action done.
  If we had not had this in place, we could not have had GSM-102 
funding for agriculture that has been very successful in building up 
markets.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman think money grows on 
trees? Where does the IMF get the money, if Congress does not give it 
to them? Why are we voting on this tonight, if the gentleman does not 
think we are going to appropriate? Could the gentleman explain that?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, these are loan funds. 
When loan funds are granted and paid back, there is no loss to the 
taxpayers of America. The gentleman knows this and I know this.
  Mr. STEARNS. The money is guaranteed by the taxpayers of this 
country, and the money is given to them.
  Mr. STENHOLM. ``Guaranteed'' is correct. But the bottom line is, is 
it a good investment and for whom is it a good investment? It is a good 
investment for American agriculture. And to those who continue to drag 
your feet and say we could not even bring this bill up and consider it, 
to those who continue to do that, you are in danger of doing 
irreparable harm to the American farmer and rancher, because we depend 
upon world trade, and we are a part of a 182-nation group that is 
attempting to have organized trade.
  For us to continue to drag our feet can do irreparable harm to the 
American farmer, and when you vote no on this, understand that.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is to provide supplemental 
emergency aid. I thought it was to provide supplemental emergency aid 
to the Southeast United States of America, not Southeast Asia. I 
thought it was to provide emergency aid for American citizens, not for 
foreign citizens.
  Leave this bill alone. We were elected to the Congress of the United 
States, not to the Council of the United Nations. If the International 
Monetary Fund is worthy, the International Monetary Fund should stand 
on its own merit, not on the backs of American victims of great 
disasters which brings us to the floor about this bill.
  This is about emergency aid for American families, for victims of 
great disasters. Leave the bill alone. If you want to do something 
about the IMF, bring it up; let it stand on its own merits.
  Quite frankly, I think we are too international around here, and we 
should be taking care of the Midwest a hell of a lot more than we take 
care of these countries overseas.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not spend $18 billion, it will 
not cost $150 to the taxpayers. What will cost the American taxpayer is 
chaos in Asia. The IMF has made mistakes, but more often than not, it 
led to liberalization of trade. Look at Poland, Estonia, Uganda and 
Egypt.
  Globalization is changing. For the first time, we have a bill that 
says an international institution has to pay attention to labor market 
conditions and the environment. Vote for this instruction.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Majority Leader 
of the House.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, what is this IMF that wants $18 billion of our money? 
Where did they come from and what do they do? I am shocked and appalled 
at how little we know about the IMF. We know a little bit about its 
history, but we do not know a thing about how it does business.
  We have an international financial institution that purports to 
manage international markets and commerce, has failed in its originally 
intended mission, and now intends to self-describe a new mission so 
that it can become an international deposit insurance corporation.
  It is run by a French Keynesian, who operates the agency at such 
levels of secrecy that we have no idea how they come by the decisions. 
It is alleged by many fine scholars to have been the agency that caused 
the Asian flu first by forcing the Thais to devalue their currency. It 
seems to have a consistent track record of opposing tax decreases and 
requiring tax increases.
  Now, even for a Keynesian, you have got it backwards. This is the 
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. We are being asked by this agency, that 
operates in secrecy, ``Give us the money, or more catastrophe will 
come.'' Many fine scholars believe that the catastrophe we have called 
the Asian flu was, in fact, created by the IMF.

                              {time}  1845

  There is an old adage in economics, Mr. Speaker: When the government 
assumes the risk, nobody assumes the risk. If we have an agency out 
there with taxpayers' dollars, that sends a message out, Mr. and Mrs. 
International Investor, irrespective of the denominations in which you 
will make risky, careless decisions, do not worry about it. We will be 
there with a bailout, decisions made in countries that practice the 
worst kinds of failed crony capitalism. No, we need to study this 
issue. We need to understand this.
  I understand that there are industries and sectors of the American 
economy that feel they themselves are at risk. But will they, in fact, 
not put their own industries, agriculture, even, at worse risk if, in 
fact, the IMF is indeed the perpetrator and not the savior in 
international crises? We need to understand this. They need to come 
clean.
  They need to be willing to tell us who they are, how they do 
business, how decisions are made, by what criteria, on what empirical 
data, and through what historical precedents they base their judgments. 
They have a failed track record. They are not a good bet.
  If I were to take $18 of my own money out and bet it on a racehorse, 
I would not bet it on one that I had observed consistently running the 
wrong way in the dark of night. No, I would bet it on a racehorse that 
was running the right way and winning the race.
  Members are asking me to bet $18 billion of the taxpayers' money. I 
am telling the Members, they are asking me to bet on a blind racehorse 
going the wrong way and dragging too many others with it. I need to 
know more. It is our duty to know more. If we do not see it as our 
constitutional duty, let us see it as a matter of the basic, 
fundamental dignity and integrity of the House of Representatives.
  Members could not come to me today through any agency of the American 
government, working on behalf of the American people immediately and 
directly, and say, give them $18 billion, no strings attached, no 
questions asked. We would certainly laugh them out of the body. Why 
would we do that for an international agency that refuses to reform and 
refuses to even tell us how they do business?
  Certainly, they are a grand institution. Certainly, they are wrapped 
in wonderful, international mystique. But because they are mysterious, 
is that the reason to give them more money more easily, with less 
consideration than we would give even an agency of our own government? 
No.
  The answer is, vote no. We will discuss this at greater length later. 
We will hold the hearings. We will understand it later better. It just 
very well

[[Page H2294]]

may be that we conclude, after thorough, full, complete understanding 
that we ought not to bet on this blind horse at any time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague from 
Texas, in the debate I have heard today there are a great deal of 
Members here who in fact do not understand the IMF and do not 
understand the situation, but the fact is this. I am not going to get 
into the details, because I don't have enough time, but if we wanted 
to, we did not have to take 3 weeks off over the Easter recess. We 
could have passed the supplemental with the disaster relief. We could 
have done the work on this. We could have taken several hours and 
debated the IMF. But the leadership chose not to do that.
  We are all paid the same, and we are all here to work. We have 
important issues we have to deal with. The IMF is a very important 
issue. If the United States fails to act on this in what is a liquidity 
facility, the rest of the world will see it, the markets will see it, 
and the markets will be very efficient in how they will treat it, and 
we will see what will happen to the East Asian economies and the effect 
on the American economy.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Minority Whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I share some of the concerns that have been expressed on 
this floor this evening. I would not be in this well today to support a 
bill that endorsed the status quo. This bill is about reform. This vote 
is about reform.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, who in an overwhelming vote, 40 to 9, endorsed the first 
major revisions and reform of the International Monetary Fund.
  They put for the first time in 50 years working men and women at the 
table. They put for the first time the concerns of our fragile Earth at 
the table. They did this in a responsible way. I would have liked more, 
but I think they did the right thing, and they moved things forward in 
a responsible way.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill sets labor standards and environmental 
standards and accountability standards and transparency for the IMF in 
a way that we have never seen before. It will, Mr. Speaker, for the 
first time, allow people to assemble, to organize, to bargain 
collectively. It will take on sweatshops and child labor. It will do 
the things that we all talk about around here, but we have not been 
able to accomplish through these lending institutions.
  So I say to my friends, this is a good bill. Not only will it do it, 
it will set up a watchdog group, including representatives from 
business, from labor, from agriculture, and from NGO groups to watch 
what they are doing and to report back to the public. It will require 
our Secretary of the Treasury to meet on a regular basis defined in the 
bill with different groups and issue a report card on how we are doing 
in these areas.
  It is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote yes 
on the motion to recommit, so we can begin the process of changing how 
we do business in this world. The world is a different place. These 
international organizations must reform to the reality of a different 
place. This bill helps do it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to the very distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrich).
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my friend, the gentleman 
from Louisiana, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that I rise first to point out that the bill 
which we are actually going to conference on is, in fact, an important, 
urgent bill. In my State, for example, where we have had significant 
tornado damage, and my friends from Alabama, who can report on their 
tornado damage, Tennessee, other places around the country, where there 
are real problems, we are trying to get the aid to the Federal 
Emergency Management Administration. That is urgent.
  The Secretary of Defense has indicated if we do not get this bill 
finished and to the President before May 1, that he will have to begin 
to initiate laying off personnel, laying off contracts, cutting off 
training. That is urgent. So this is an important supplemental bill 
that is urgent.
  The Committee on Appropriations reported out a second bill, a bill 
which is not quite on as fast a track, but which will in fact be 
considered by the House. But I cannot help but draw to the House's 
attention who has been lecturing us today on international trade: 
Members who voted against NAFTA, Members who were prepared to vote 
against fast track, Members who have made a career out of 
protectionism, Members who are dedicated to not being part of the world 
market.
  They now get up to lecture us, those of us who voted for NAFTA, those 
of us who supported fast track, those of us who actually believe in the 
world market, and we are to be told, rush this thing through; make sure 
that you get $24 billion or $18 billion down to the International 
Monetary Fund, or whatever number the Secretary of the Treasury sends 
up. Do not look at it. Do not ask questions about it. Do not explore 
it. Send the money. Because after all, it is only money.
  Now, I believe we have an obligation to the people of America to look 
critically at the International Monetary Fund. Former Secretary of the 
Treasury Bill Simon has said, abolish it, it is obsolete. He happens to 
be a man who has made a great deal of money in international trade. But 
ignore him for a moment.
  Former Secretary of State, former Secretary of the Treasury, former 
Secretary of Commerce, former Secretary of Labor, this is all the same 
person, George Schultz at Stanford University, one of the most 
respected international figures in American government history, has 
said, abolish it, it is obsolete, it no longer serves a function. When 
Bretton Woods died, it died. It is a large, expensive bureaucracy 
finding a new excuse to mess things up.
  But we are not suggesting that we abolish it. We are suggesting we 
ask some questions. For example, the International Monetary Fund is 
consistently wrong. There is a very significant report that says it is 
the IMF which caused the bank crisis in Indonesia. There is a 
significant study which says it is the IMF which caused Thailand first 
to quit fixing its money, then to float its money, and then to suffer 
from an economic disaster. We know from Latin America it is routine for 
the International Monetary Fund to go in and say, raise taxes; take 
care of the international banks, but raise taxes.
  Let us talk about the crisis in banking. Two major U.S. banks 
reported yesterday that they had had record profits. None of the big 
banks are suffering out of Indonesia. They have made their money. They 
are not suffering out of South Korea. But what does the International 
Monetary Fund answer? Raise taxes on the working poor.
  I hear people come to this floor who claim they represent the 
workers, who say they are for an international bank institution that is 
totally secret, that is run by a bureaucrat whose major policy is to 
raise taxes on workers in the Third World to pay off New York banks. 
That does not sound like populism to me.
  But let me go a step further. We were told at Thanksgiving, I got the 
phone calls, big crisis in Asia, everything is going to collapse by 
Christmas. We were told at Christmas, big crisis in Asia, everything is 
going to collapse by mid January. We were told in January, big crisis, 
might even lead to a war in Korea. We were told in February, big 
crisis, could be bad by March.
  But do Members know what we were told, over and over? Japan is not 
the problem, because all of Japan's debt is denominated in yen, and the 
Japanese can cope with it, and they have $270 billion in reserve. Do 
Members know what the statement was this week? We have to have this 
money for Japan; which is, by the way, intellectually nonsense, because 
the IMF does not have enough money to deal with Japan.
  So what is really at stake here? We believe, on behalf of the 
taxpayers, that we have the right as the Congress to ask some very 
tough questions of a

[[Page H2295]]

multi-billion dollar bureaucratic institution that is totally secret.
  I will start with question number one: If they think tax increases 
are so good, how come no staff member of the IMF pays any taxes 
anywhere in the world? They do not pay taxes in the U.S., and they do 
not pay taxes in their home country. So the French leader of the IMF 
pays no taxes in socialist France while advocating tax increases. Maybe 
if the IMF staff paid taxes, they would not be as excited about tax 
increases.
  Let me give just one quick example of how out of touch with reality 
the IMF is. This is their annual report for 1997 in which they 
recommend that we not have tax cuts because they are worried that the 
budget will not be balanced. This is their annual report leading into 
this year.
  Now, we are the most transparent Nation in the world. There is more 
information available about us than any other country. We are going to 
have a surplus this year of somewhere between $18 billion, the 
inaccurate low and defensive Congressional Budget Office number, 
because they are like the IMF, they are bureaucrats, and the free 
market estimate of $50 to $80 billion.
  If the IMF is wrong about the surplus of the United States of 
America, when it is headquartered in Washington, could it be possible 
that their bureaucrats do not have a clue about how the modern, 
instantaneous real-time worldwide money markets work, and could it be 
possible that their advice is consistently wrong?
  They said as late as July 28, 1997, that, ``Many directors also 
indicated that a faster pace of fiscal consolidation by bringing 
forward spending cuts and delaying tax cuts than that envisioned in the 
balanced budget agreement would help to contain demand pressures and 
enhance the plan's credibility, as well as increase the latitude for 
countercyclical fiscal policy.''
  What does that mean? It means as late as July last year, when we were 
bringing the budget agreement to the floor, they were against tax cuts, 
they were for deeper spending cuts. They did not have a clue about the 
politics of the country their headquarters is in, and their policy was 
exactly backwards.

                              {time}  1900

  It was a big tax increase, big government, socialized policy.
  So here is my proposition. We have several hearings coming up. The 
Joint Economic Committee under Chairman Saxton will be holding 
hearings. Former Secretary George Schultz has agreed to come and 
testify. Others will be asked to testify. I am certain our friends on 
the left who would like to have more taxes and bigger bureaucracy will 
have a chance to come and testify.
  When we have finished the hearings and we are prepared to have 
appropriate requirements to get transparency and accountability out of 
the International Monetary Fund, we will bring an appropriate bill to 
the floor this year in the appropriate way.
  But for my friends who are protectionists, who opposed NAFTA and who 
opposed Fast Track, to come to the floor and lecture the rest of us on 
the world market and demand that we move in ignorance now, before we 
can learn anything, I think is highly inappropriate.
  I hope every Member will vote this down on behalf of defending the 
American taxpayer, so we can get an effective IMF program that in fact 
truly helps American agriculture and truly helps American exporters.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the distinguished Speaker, those 
of us who voted against NAFTA and Fast Track want to be involved in the 
world market, but in ways that are fair to workers and not just 
investors and CEOs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for this motion to 
instruct. I obviously reject the Speaker's categorization of some of us 
as protectionists. I voted for Fast Track when George Bush was 
President. I voted for the WTO. I stand ready to vote for Fast Track 
for President Clinton if we can have the proper provisions to recognize 
the rights and the needs of workers and the environment. I was ready to 
vote for a NAFTA that had sufficient teeth in the side agreements.
  To refresh everybody's memory, it was not long ago that the Speaker 
and I were called to the White House with then Majority Leader Dole and 
Mr. Daschle, and the President and Bob Rubin and Allen Greenspan told 
us that there was a crash happening in Mexico, this was after NAFTA was 
passed, and that we needed to replenish funds for the IMF so that 
Mexico could be bailed out.
  We all said that we thought it was necessary to do that because there 
was no good for America in Mexico going bankrupt. But after we came 
back to the House and consulted on both sides of the aisle, we found 
there was not a good deal of support for doing that. And so the 
President, using a Justice Department opinion, decided to go ahead with 
that loan.
  One of the reasons they felt it was important to do that was because 
while Mexico was going down, something was happening that none of them 
had ever seen before. That was, developing countries' economies all 
over the world, Thailand, Indonesia, were going down.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in a new world. And in that new world, technology 
has put us at a point where when one developing country has a horrible 
problem it begins to invade the economies of all the developing 
countries in the world. I believe the President did the right thing in 
using the IMF and Treasury funds to do something to help Mexico. As a 
result of that, the problem was stemmed across the world. Mexico is 
paying that loan off. In fact, most of it is already paid off with 
interest.
  The problem we face now is greater than the problem we faced with 
Mexico because it is not just one country that is experiencing trouble, 
it is six or seven or eight in Asia.
  Now, the Speaker says there is no rush and that he thought people 
were kind of overstating the problem a few months ago. Well, I do not 
think they were overstating the problem. But they were able, because 
they had funds available to commit, to go to these countries and to 
keep them from going into bankruptcy. So because of the existence of 
the IMF and the ability to do this, we have avoided tremendous 
problems.
  There is no good for any worker or any business in the United States 
to have any of these countries fail. Even with that in place, they may 
fail. And when we criticize the IMF, and I am sure there is a lot to 
criticize, I think we have to keep in our mind a little bit of humility 
about what is going on here. Let us face it, nobody at the IMF, nobody 
at Treasury, nobody at the World Bank, and I dare say nobody in the 
world really knows how to do what we are trying to do.
  We are literally trying to build a new architecture in our world for 
world trade. The truth is crony capitalism is not consistent with 
capitalism. And I now believe we cannot really have capitalism unless 
we ultimately have democracy and human rights. But we also know we 
cannot get those things to be achieved overnight, and so we have got to 
have a little bit of humility about what we know will work and what can 
bring these countries back to economic health.
  Mr. Speaker, it is great to have a pledge that we may get to vote on 
this before the year is out. We could wake up tomorrow morning or next 
month or the month after that and be in a world of trouble. The IMF, 
the truth is, does not have the ability to deal with these problems 
now. We have a chance tonight to vote to instruct the conferees to try 
to pull some of this funding into this bill. We may be sorry, we all 
may be sorry, if this bill does not contain the monies that the IMF 
needs.
  This is an important moment. None of us will like a world that is in 
free fall, and it will be in free fall very quickly if they cannot move 
and act to stem problems that we have never seen before in the history 
of the world.
  I ask Members and beseech Members to act responsibly tonight and vote 
``yes'' for this motion to instruct, so we have a chance to bring to 
this bill the kind of funding that it needs for the good of the world.

[[Page H2296]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 222, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 109]

                               AYES--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--222

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Filner
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bateman
     Boehner
     Burr
     Clay
     Coble
     Dixon
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Fox
     Gonzalez
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Kaptur
     Meek (FL)
     Miller (FL)
     Morella
     Paxon
     Poshard
     Reyes
     Stark
     Tanner
     Yates

                              {time}  1929

  Ms. McKINNEY and Mr. BLUNT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I regret I could not be present to vote on 
the Motion to Instruct Conferees on IMF funding. I am attending a 
special family milestone--my oldest son's graduation from college. Had 
I been present I would have voted Nay.

                              {time}  1930

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Livingston, McDade, Young of 
Florida, Regula, Lewis of California, Porter, Rogers, Skeen, Wolf, 
Kolbe, Packard, Callahan, Walsh, Obey, Yates, Stokes, Murtha, Sabo, 
Fazio of California, Hoyer; Ms. Kaptur and Ms. Pelosi.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________