Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate be concluded on this amendment and all amendments thereto at 8:35.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Fine.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, is he proposing, I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that each side control 15 minutes?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side have 3 more speakers for 5 minutes each.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the request until the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] has concluded his remarks.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate be concluded by 8:30 and both sides share equally in the time between now and 8:30.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. We do not plan any. That is correct.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield, sure. That is fine.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Can we make an agreement of no more than 3 on each side so that we can bring this to a vote? Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to end all debate at 8:30 on this substitute. We have debated the substitute for 2-plus hours already and in the total of 10 hours to consume, we have about seven or eight more amendments on our side.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] for yielding. May I inquire of the other side, because of time constraints on the total time we are allowed to debate, how many more Members are planning to speak on the other side? I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] if someone can let us know how many Members are speaking. We have several other amendments to offer. I imagine your side has a few. We would like to bring this to a close as quickly as possible if I can inquire how many Members you have. We have 2 or 3 left on this side.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If I could ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to explain on page 29 of the bill, notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, the decision criteria of subsection A shall supplement and, to the extent there is a conflict, supersede----

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for an explanation?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. When the cost-benefit displaces clean air, when the cost-benefit displaces--when those calculations displace public health issues, public health standards, when my area of Ohio has some of the highest breast cancer rates in the country and we do not know why, and we only are going to look for cost-benefit analysis, and yet it is superseded by this law, it simply does not make sense. Let us get out and debate these issues so we know what we are really doing----

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, the Republican Contract on America mandates Congress to spend $1.5 million on a new commission to study our Nation's military needs. Great. A new idea for more government. Do not we already have people studying the Nation's military needs and reporting to the legislative branch and the executive branch? Is not that what the Pentagon does? Is not that what the House Committee on Armed Services under the gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, has been doing? Is not that what the Committee on International Relations has been doing under the gentleman from New York, Chairman Gilman? Why do we need to spend $1.5 million on a commission to do what the Pentagon and Congress already should be doing and already are doing? Why do we need to spend money so we can find ways to spend more money? It is the full employment act for unemployed defense consultants. It is a bad idea. Vote for the Menendez-Harman amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as Republicans rush to enact the Contract With America, they brag about cutting spending, about eliminating agencies, about reducing the size of Government. But wait a minute; go ahead and listen to what they say, but more importantly watch what they do. As the Republicans call for budget cuts, look at what they have done in H.R. 7. They have written a bill with billions and billions of dollars in new defense spending, new weapons systems. And then they snuck a new little something into the bill, H.R. 7: The Republican Contract With America mandates Congress to spend $1.5 million on a new commission, a task force, a committee, a blue-ribbon panel, another layer of bureaucracy. Can it be that the Republicans have discovered that one of the problems in this country is a shortage of agencies and commissions and task forces and layers of bureaucracy? Time out for common sense. Do we really need a new commission to study military needs? This new $1.5 million commission is redundant, it is superfluous, it is another layer of bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, it is the Full Employment Act for Unemployed Defense Consultants. I urge Members later today to support the Menendez amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. You know, as bad as we thought, as bad an idea as we thought the bailout was 3 weeks ago, in the last few days, with Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates in this country, it only exacerbates the problem in Mexico. If you remember 2 weeks ago, 3 weeks ago, Mr. Greenspan was all over the Congress, lobbying, talking to Republicans, talking to Democrats, meeting with Speaker Gingrich, talking to the President, everybody he could, about this Mexican bailout on the one hand. Then on the other hand we began to hear stories that he was leaking out that the Federal Reserve is about to increase interest rates. When that happens, when interest rates are increased in this country, which happened late last week, in addition to what it does to home buying, homebuilding, the cost of credit, the costs to borrowed money for small businesses, all the hurt that puts on the economy, what it does with the Mexico situation is simply pull the rug out from under this whole bailout situation whereas the price, the cost, as the dollar gets stronger, the peso by definition gets weaker, which means that the $16 billion or so that Mexico already owes back to western investors gets more expensive so that it decreases the chance of pay back. It means those loan guarantees and direct loans may in fact not be paid back, but increases the chances there, and at the same time it undercuts the whole ability of the Mexican Government to get back on its feet in the Mexican society. It simply does not make sense that the Federal Reserve did both of those things, or the Federal Reserve Chairman did both of those things the same month.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. American investors were benefiting. There were incentive for American investors to pull their money out, and that is what accelerated the whole downward plunge of the peso. You couple the politics of NAFTA, that the Mexican Government and the American Government did not want any peso devaluation during NAFTA, the Mexican government did not want any peso devaluation, although it could have been done in small increments during their own Presidential elections. So the politics of Mexico and the easy availability of money sent to Mexico, and the American bankers and American investors it, certainly with the NAFTA stamp of approval, yes, our Government was saying it is OK to invest there, all played into this.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield, including one of the major presidential candidates in Mexico who has come out against and spoken at a rally of literally tens of thousands of Mexicans, I would add.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President, with support of Republican leadership, proposed committing $20 billion to Mexico to prop up the peso. Today the Federal Reserve, behind closed doors, will decide whether or not to raise interest rates yet again. Mr. Greenspan has lobbied Congress relentlessly in recent days on behalf of the Mexican bailout. But by raising interest rates again, Mr. Greenspan will contribute to a further weakening of the Mexican peso. By raising interest rates again, more importantly, Mr. Greenspan will make it harder for American families to pay for houses, to pay for cars, to pay for student loans. And by raising interest rates again Mr. Greenspan threatens to choke off the recovery. Higher rates will also make it harder to pay off the $20 billion the President and Republican leadership wants to send to Mexico. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, raising interest rates simply makes no sense.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the day that Congress votes on the balanced budget amendment I am troubled by the fact that the Republicans still have not told the American people where the cuts are coming from. One thing the Republicans are telling us, however, is that they want to change the Consumer Price Index with smoke and mirrors. They want to change the way the Consumer Price Index is calculated. What does that mean? It means that Social Security benefits will be cut by $27 billion, cutting benefits for 42 million senior citizens. Republican recalculation of the Consumer Price Index means taxes will be increased by $21 billion, raising taxes on 114 million families. Wait a second. Are these the two steps Republicans promised not to take, cutting Social Security and raising taxes? Republicans again want to magically massage budget numbers to balance the budget. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we can now expect Republicans to name David Copperfield as the new CBO Director. Mr. Speaker, Republican smoke and mirrors will not fool the American public.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I drive a Thunderbird, a car that is made in my district.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. And coupled with that, what about American corporations that have benefited from NAFTA, have built plants in Mexico, have seen economic problems as a result of the peso devaluation? Are we rushing forward, in part, to bail out those investors? Are they going to be part of a plan in this economic liberalization, will they participate financially in the bailout in the same sense that Congressman Gephardt suggested they help finance NAFTA, with across-the-border transaction fees? That is something that we need to address. Last, thinking the unthinkable, what happens, what steps should we be prepared to take in the event the bailout package fails to stop the hemorrhaging of confidence in the Mexican Government and in the Mexican economy? The issues here, Mr. Speaker, is to slow down, to have extensive hearings, not to delay for 3 to 4 months. We do not need to do that, but there is no reason to rush into this. Investors around the world, the international finance community do not expect the U.S. Congress to address this this week. We need to slow down, we need to have extensive hearings, we need to discuss these questions, explore these answers, and find out what in fact is the situation all around this $40 billion bailout. I again say I hope, Mr. Speaker, that Speaker Gingrich makes the decision to slow down, particularly for all the new Members of the new Congress, some 85 new Members that are not really familiar with this issue. We cannot be spending American taxpayer dollars the way we have so profligately in the past, we have to slow down and look at this so that all of us can understand it better.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Good car, and, if they talk about selling Thunderbirds in Mexico, if it cost $14,000 today in Mexico, 3 weeks ago in Mexico, today it will cost about $4,000 more than that, and people-- think about it yourself. I say to my colleague, you are not going to buy a car where the price has gone up $4,000, and the relatively few cars we are selling in Mexico that are made in America, that number is going to shrink. Going the other way it is going to increase with the way prices have shifted because of peso devaluation, and I think, as the gentleman from California says, it's a lose, lose, lose situation where not only are we losing American jobs, not only are we losing jobs before the peso devaluation, it is getting worse with devaluation, and they are asking for taxpayers dollars to bail them out. We have got to examine this question much more carefully.