Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I am proud to be a Democrat today. Mr. Chairman, I would love to run against any Member of this Chamber who votes to eliminate the summer jobs for our teenage sons and daughters. I would be proud to run against any Member who votes to eliminate the winter heating program that helps people like Sadie in my district, a women who is 73 years old, worked all her life at a laundry, raised a family, and now survives by picking up odd jobs at age 72. I would love to run against any Member who votes to eliminate this program today for the hundreds of thousand of seniors across our country who depend on this program, and then to take those savings and save them up for a tax cut for the wealthiest people in our society, rather than raising the money by closing tax loopholes that let billions of dollars go out the back door by letting our pharmaceutical companies manufacture abroad, or not close the transfer pricing loophole that lets foreign companies do business in this country and not pay their bills. Mr. Chairman, I would love to run against anybody that votes to eliminate summer jobs and this winter heating program.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to help try to have a reasonable discussion to set the record straight here. Tomorrow and Thursday this House will have a major debate on actions to balance the budget of this country, starting with the goal of $17.3 billion, trying to find money to cut across the government, and I think that the goal of trying to balance the budget is absolutely worthy, and each of us in our capacities, as chairs of committees and as Members, has to be a part of this very serious task. I think that, however, as we try to plug the dike, the holes in the dike of our increasing debt, this $17.3 billion action is really going to be somewhat fruitless because at the same time there are billions flowing out the other side of the dike that we are not even taking a look at, and I want to talk about that tonight. But let me say I am very proud to rise as a Democrat this evening and say that this will not be one Member who will vote to eliminate the summer jobs program, and I would love to be the opponent of any Republicans who votes to eliminate the summer jobs program--on that basis alone. In my district there are over a thousand young people; in fact there are 4,000 in line, for the summer jobs program. We want to provide the best opportunities for our young people, and yet the first place they look is the summer jobs program for our young teenagers; probably for most of them, if not all, the first opportunity they have to have any kind of gainful employment. As a Democrat, on the second program, I will not vote to eliminate the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program. Twenty-five thousand senior citizens in my district benefit every year from that program. And for anybody who comes from the north and you know how cold the winters get and you know how tight those senior dollars are, I would love to be the opponent of any Republican who votes against the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program. Let me also say as a Democrat, I will not vote to hurt seniors who are forced to buy these medigap policies when they really cannot afford supplemental insurance. And that is hidden in this rescission bill. I am proud to be a democrat and stand at the side of every poor senior citizen in our country who depends on that medigap insurance. Now, what is interesting about this discussion is what the Republican Party will fail to go after and this is where my challenge lies with them. Why do you not do anything about plugging the tax breaks that are there for corporate welfare? We hear a lot about welfare for ordinary citizens. What about corporate welfare? How about getting rid of the $5 billion that is there to let these pharmaceutical companies leave the United States and manufacture offshore? There is $5 billion of the $17 billion right there. How about $30 billion worth of transfer pricing? All these foreign corporations that operate in the United States do not pay a dime of taxes. That is twice as much as you need right now to deal with the 15.3 billion. How about all the multinational corporations that have got their hands out to the taxpayers of the United States like the market promotion program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture? We are subsidizing Pet Milk. We are subsidizing Mars Corporation. We are subsidizing Archer Daniel Midland & Company to the tune of millions of dollars a year. But who do you go to to try to cut when you want to balance the budget? You go to the kids in my district who don't have work this summer. You go to my senior citizens who cannot pay their heating bills. You know, I heard the Speaker say something really interesting. He is interested in privatizing NASA. Well, I do not know if I want to privatize all of NASA, but I would be happy to be a Democrat that supports privatization of the space station. That would be $40 billion. That is three times as much as you need this first time out of the box before we start taking all of the nicks out of the weakest and most vulnerable people in this country. And I just want to say to my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], who I know labors under great pressures of that particular committee in trying to find these spending cuts, you know, Mr. Goodling, I do not really think--and you cannot say this and you would not say this, because you are a very loyal servant of the people--but I do not think the Speaker of this House should go to the weakest people in this society and try to balance the budget on their backs. I would have more respect if he followed through with some of the suggestions he had, for example, with NASA, in trying to get the money we need by cutting off some of the biggest leeches we have in this country who have their hands out and can pay for the lobbyists in this town to take out people's money and then they get kicked in the gut back in districts like mine. I am proud to be a Democrat who is going to vote against this particular rescission bill.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100 years of living by one of our community's most endearing constituents, Mr. Phil Zimmerman of Toledo, OH. Mr. Zimmerman, born on March 16, 1895, married his wife Eva, 70 years ago. Together they have reared 3 daughters, 7 grandchildren, and 13 great-grandchildren, all of whom join our community in congratulating this centurion of a man on his 100th birthday. One of the founding fathers of Toledo's Old Newsboys Goodfellow Association, Mr. Zimmerman serves now as the organization's honorary president, the only person ever to hold the post. A life member, he remains actively involved in its good works--providing scholarships to talented students and winter outerclothes to needy children--by serving as a cochairman of the finance committee. Phil Zimmerman has been active in our community in other ways as well. He is a 32d-degree Mason, a Shriner, member of B'nai B'rith, and past president of the Fraternal Order of Eagles. He was a business leader as well and owned the Diamond Jewelry Co., and served as vice president of the Toledo Blueprint Co. The actress Helen Hayes has said, ``Old age is not something at which I have arrived reluctantly, it is something which I have achieved.'' His family, friends, and community honor and applaud Phil Zimmerman on his rare and remarkable achievement of a lifetime with 100 years and more.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I say to the gentleman that Drabik was a very distinguished resident of my district for many years until his death about a year ago. We were very proud of his service. He was the first U.S. soldier across the Rhine.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Oh, was an error. All right. Madam Speaker, let me just say in closing, is not it time someone in this House rang the alarm bell to say enough is enough, and I call on Speaker Gingrich to allow our bills to move to the floor to stop the further outflow of taxpayer dollars to Mexico.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the prior speaker. There is no question that the value of our Nation's currency on international markets is a measure of our Nation's economic strength and economic health. And over the past few days and weeks, our dollar has hit historic lows against currencies of all the nations that we trade with. In fact, it is at the lowest level, our dollar's value, since World War II. That is a longer time than many people in this Chamber have been alive. so it has not been at this point for decades. The dollar's exchange value stands at a scant 92.8 yen to the dollar. I can remember when it was 240 yen to the dollar and 1.4 German marks against the dollar. In other words, the dollar is not looking so good to the rest of the world. It is losing its value. It is looking cheap. Little that our Treasury Department or Federal Reserve have been able to do over the last few days to give the dollar a boost has worked. In fact, they put over $2 billion into buying currencies around the world over the weekend and it did not do any good. Did not do any good, had no impact on stopping the dollar's further decline. Now, what does this really mean to families in our Nation? It means that our money, our people's money, cannot buy as much, not just here at home, but abroad. It means that interest rates in our country rose seven times over the last 12 months, even though most people were going, well, why are interest rates going up? There is really in good money off of our people, and though there is no inflation on the horizon, we see that our Nation is raising interest rates to attract money from other places because our money is not worth as much. In fact, we are now, the United States of America, the largest debtor nation in the world, and through NAFTA, we linked ourselves to Mexico and Canada, and North America is now the largest debtor continent on the face of the planet. And the markets know it. For 15 years our country has been importing vast amounts of merchandise, more than we exported. In fact, last year, 1994, we had the largest merchandise trade deficit in the history of our country; as Congressman DeFazio referenced, over $166 billion more of goods coming in here than we sent out. In effect, what we have, we have a decapitalization of the United States of America; production that used to be done here is being done somewhere else. We are importing all this stuff and then we have to pay for it with borrowed money. Doesn't sound like a very smart policy to me. Last year, our deficit with Japan went up even more, to over $65 billion. Our deficit with China went up to nearly $30 billion, and the former surplus that we had had before NAFTA with Mexico dried up and went into the negative numbers in October and November of last year, and with the incredible devaluation of the peso, it is estimated that this year of 1995, the United States will yield nearly $15 billion more of trade deficit in the red with Mexico. In other words, Mexico will be sending more goods to this country than we will be sending down there. That is not how NAFTA was supposed to work. It is clear that since the middle of February, and like Mr. DeFazio, I have a chart that shows the value of the U.S. dollar going down. Since the mid-1980's until the most recent period here after the Mexican peso was devalued, to which we have not linked ourselves inseparably, the value of our dollar has dropped at the fastest rate in the history of our country, and like Mr. DeFazio, I am shocked there are no emergency hearings in the Congress. There is no word from the White House. At least the newspapers are reporting, and it has been in top headlines in USA Today, in the New York Times, in the Wall Street Journal. You think Washington fell comatose on this one. There is a major economic crisis brewing, and money is flowing out of our Treasury to try to prop up the Mexican peso, a few billion dollars. Actually there is more money that has flowed out of the Treasury to prop up the Mexican peso than money has flowed out of the Treasury to prop up the United States' dollar in international markets, we learned this morning. What happened today? Peso went down again in terms of its own value. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. First let me thank the gentleman from Texas for the bipartisan nature of an important resolution on which we will vote this afternoon. I wish to draw my colleagues' attention to it. Mr. Speaker, today the American people are going to win the first vote being allowed in this Congress on the misguided taxpayer-backed bailout of the Government of Mexico. As a result of a procedure we employed to force the leadership of this House to let us vote on the first step in getting to the bottom of this, the House this afternoon will vote on House Resolution 80, a bipartisan resolution of inquiry which requires the administration to answer key questions regarding its $52 billion bailout of Mexico. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on House Resolution 80. Get answers to questions for your constituents such as who are the private creditors who will benefit from this rescue package? How solid is Mexico's pledge of oil collateral? Demand answers for your constituents. This will be the first vote in many to follow, I hope, so we can get to the bottom of who our taxpayers are being asked to bail out.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] if he would be kind enough to take a microphone. I would like to enter into a colloquy with him, and perhaps the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman]. I think it is maybe perhaps important for us to explain to the membership and to the listening public that the only way we could get any vote on this matter was to enter a privileged resolution 2 weeks ago asking the Committee on Banking and Financial Services to discharge this bill to the floor. They had 14 days in which to do that, and we thank the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], for doing that. Our wish would be to have a straight vote on disallowing the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund for this purpose and to stop appropriated moneys and those funds from outflowing without a vote of Congress. We want a vote. The fact is our own leadership on both sides of the aisle have not agreed to give us that vote. So I think it is important for the membership to understand this is a base hit. It is not a home run, but at least we are at first base.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] and I rise in strong support of House Resolution 80, our resolution of inquiry to investigate the $52 billion Mexican rescue package. Members of Congress should not have had to fight this hard nor wait this long to achieve this first vote on a matter of such profound economic and political consequence to our people and to our continent. Having gotten this far, Mr. Speaker, despite fierce opposition from the leadership of this House and the administration is a clear initial victory for the American people and our tax-paying public over powerful, monied interests who would wish to muzzle our voices. I will be entering in the Record an article that appeared in the Washington Post today on page C-1, in confirmation of what I am saying. Today's vote will be a victory for every working family that obeys the laws, pays the taxes, and fights the wars. Today's vote should signal a political change to those powerful special interests that have for too long written the rules of banking and trade, who have given away our jobs, and then had to call on our U.S. Treasury to bail out their mistakes. Let me remind my colleagues, this is a first vote. We must continue our efforts and pass other bills strictly proscribing the authority of the executive branch over the Exchange Stabilization Fund, so that it can no longer be used as an unauthorized form of back door foreign aid. I am proud that this House and this Committee on Banking and Financial Services will go on record today as the first branch to begin doing its job. The recent action by the U.S. Treasury is absolutely unprecedented in both magnitude and duration. It is 20 times larger than the largest prior use of this particular fund. Never has it been the will of Congress to provide the Executive Branch with unlimited authority of this sort. In the past, we have used the fund for intervention in exchange markets and for very short-term loans, usually bridged to a guaranteed repayment in hard currency. No amount of United States taxpayer money will solve Mexico's problems, which are rooted in deep-seated political corruption, as today's papers remind us, the lack of rule of law, and mismanaged economic programs for decades. Thus Congress through this resolution must demand answers for our people to questions like, what is the full extend of United States taxpayers' exposure to the deepening crisis in Mexico? Since Mexico owes nearly $200 billion, how deep can the United States promise extend? Which United States creditors will benefit from the rescue package with which Mexico still holds outstanding debts? solvent is Pemex? Will there be new U.S. appropriations required to the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements? The American people have a right to know how their money is being risked and spent. Nothing is more important than the integrity of our Constitution, the prerogatives of this House which protect the interests of all Americans rather than the rich and powerful few. Let me say there, four men do not make a House of Representatives. If this rescue package is as necessary as we are being told it is, then we deserve to have our questions answered. As economist Jeff Faux reminds us, there have been other moments in our history when Washington's best and brightest led the Nation step by step into a disaster. Remember the Vietnam war, when we were assured at each stage of the escalation that the new expansion would solve the problem? With Mexico first came the Brady debt buyout plan, then came NAFTA, now comes the bailout. As with Vietnam, we have a domino theory. If the peso is not propped up, investor confidence will collapse throughout the world, throughout Latin America. As in Vietnam, commonsense questions go unanswered. If the loan is so secure, why are private banks not willing to put up the money? As in Vietnam, the mistakes of elites are being paid for by the ordinary people of both countries, lost jobs, lost incomes, lost hopes, lost business. And as with Vietnam, we have had to fight a war in this Chamber to even get this vote. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution requesting the executive branch to provide the House not later than 14 days after the adoption of this resolution the information we are seeking. We must work the will of the people here today. Vote ``yes'' on House Resolution 80. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [From the Washington Post, March 1, 1995] Fund Used for Peso Faces Scrutiny (By Clay Chandler) When Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan went to Congress in January asking approval for a $40 billion, U.S.-led bailout for Mexico, several Republican lawmakers offered what they thought was a better idea: Rather than risk a messy political brawl, why not tap the Exchange Stabilization Fund, a little- known Treasury Department reserve over which Rubin had almost sole control? At a late-afternoon meeting in the office of House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), Rubin, Greenspan, and Treasury Undersecretary Lawrence H. Summers dismissed the suggestion as impossible, participants recall. But three weeks later, with its bailout proposal mired on Capitol Hill and the Mexican government hurtling toward bankruptcy, the administration abruptly changed its view. On Jan. 31, President Clinton announced he was extending the Mexican government an unprecedented $20 billion in loans and loan guarantees--some of them for as long as 10 years--by drawing on the very Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) Rubin had said could not be used. Now lawmakers are calling for hearings over whether the administration's use of the obscure Treasury fund violates the law. The Exchange Stabilization Fund ``is not the president's personal piggy bank,'' Senate Banking Committee Chairman Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-N.Y.) thundered in a Senate speech last week. On that January afternoon and in subsequent discussions, Rubin, Greenspan and Summers argued that using the fund would stretch the limits of the law and precedent, participants recall. The fund's primary purpose, they said, was for short- term currency transactions to bolster the dollar--not to rescue cash-strapped foreign governments. In any case, they calculated the $25 billion fund was too small to address Mexico's problem by itself. But as events unfolded, administration officials reconsidered. A last-minute $18 billion offer from the International Monetary Fund, along with the money in the ESF, provided the credit administration officials deemed necessary to stabilize the peso. ``They needed a way out . . .'' a House Republican involved in the discussions said of the change: ``They obviously looked at the ESF at the outset and said, `There's no way.' But when pressed, they went back and said, `We haven't been sufficiently creative in our interpretation of the law.''' The night before Clinton announced the new rescue plan, Gingrich, House Banking Committee Chairman Jim Leach (R- Iowa), Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) met and agreed that the administration's bailout plan was in deep trouble. One of the lawmakers telephoned Rubin and raised use of the fund again, according to Treasury and congressional sources. Rubin said Greenspan and others had advised him it would be politically unwise to tap the fund without congressional approval. ``What if I told you that no one in Congress is going to complain?'' the lawmaker asked. ``That would change things entirely,'' Rubin replied, the sources said. But now, members of Congress are complaining. D'Amato has vowed to make the fund's legal status a focus of hearings later this month. Last night, a Treasury Department official lamented that ``many members of Congress are now criticizing us for what [other] members asked us to do'' earlier. Most of the past fund loans to foreign governments have been for less than $1 billion. The 1934 law establishing the fund restricts loans to foreign governments to six months unless the president ``gives Congress a written statement that unique or emergency circumstances require the loan or credit be for more than six months.'' Clinton has deemed the Mexican case an emergency, arguing the Latin nation has broad commercial and social links to the United States and a Mexican default might have triggered a global financial meltdown. Many legal experts doubt opponents could overturn the administration's decision to lend ESF money to Mexico on strictly legal grounds. The fund is ``under the exclusive control of the secretary,'' the statute states, adding, ``decisions of the secretary are final and may not be reviewed by another officer or employee of the government.'' That is not likely to silence congressional critics. D'Amato is likely to use hearings to question whether the funds for Mexico are really foreign aid--a use expressly prohibited by law. In a 14-page brief to D'Amato's committee, Treasury Department General Counsel Edward S. Knight said, ``Treasury has taken steps to assure that there is a source of repayment'' of the Mexican loans. But the lending agreement Rubin signed with Mexico's government last week describes the Mexican oil proceeds that secure the U.S. loans as ``assured sources of repayment'' rather than collateral--an artful turn of phrase opponents say reflects the shakiness of U.S. claims on Mexico should the country fail to repay its debts. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.), who initially endorsed the use of the ESF, expressed concern about using the fund to prop up the Mexican banking system. ``The Treasury Department needs to be very careful in the use of funds from the Exchange Stabilization Fund,'' Dole said in a statement. ``I am not convinced that thrusting the United States into the middle of a Mexican banking crisis is prudent or necessary.''

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman]. However, prior to that, I mention on page C-1 of the Washington Post today House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Treasury Secretary Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Undersecretary Lawrence Summers were heavily involved in this agreement. We need to know what their involvement was, as well.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respectful tribute to a young man from my district who has made the ultimate sacrifice, giving his life in service to our country in a foreign land. Justin Aaron Harris, a Marine Sergeant, was tragically killed last week when his helicopter went down at sea after hitting a ship off the coast of Mogadishu. He died on February 19, 1995, leaving a wife, Chantay, and a young son, Justin, Jr., his parents, Peggy and Joe, a sister, Julie Morrison, brothers, Joe, Jeffrey, Jerry, and Javan Harris and scores of relatives and friends who mourn the loss of a promise-filled life cut short. We offer them our hearts in empathy as they face this deep tragedy. We hope that his vision for America and his devotion and belief in service to our nation and oppressed people around the world will make this cross a little easier to bear. We pray the memories his family and friends shared in his too-brief life will sustain them all. Justin knows as we all know, the price of freedom is not free. He laid down his life in service to us. A poem was read at his memorial service, held in his hometown of Toledo, Ohio on February 25, 1995. The author apparently unknown, it symbolizes Justin's and his family's faith and offers a meaning to his passing, helping all to understand and to gain strength: I'm Free Don't grieve for me, for now I'm free I'm following the path God laid for me. I took his hand when I heard Him call I turned my back, and left it all. I could not stay another day To laugh, or love, or work, or play Tasks left undone must stay that way I found that place at the close of the day. If my parting has left a void, Then fill it with remembered joy. A friendship shared, a laugh, a kiss Oh yes, these things I too will miss. Be not burdened with times of sorrow I wish you sunshine of tomorrow. My life's been full, I savored much Good friends, good times, a loved one's touch. Perhaps my time seemed all too brief. Don't lengthen it now with undue grief. Lift up your heart and share with me . . . God wanted me now He set me Free! Justin Aaron Harris, age 23; always remembered, always honored, always loved.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit widened last year to $166 billion, the worst performance in the history of the United States. What does that $166 billion deficit mean? It means $166 billion worth of U.S.-made goods were lost to import sales in our own marketplace. It means jobs lost here in America. And it means in order for us to pay the bills, more foreign investment here in the United States on which our people end up owing principal and dividends to others off shore, not ourselves. Incredible as it may seem, what does the executive branch's Trade Ambassador say about all of this? Well, he just turns his back. He said, ``It is not the worst.'' He says he is happy as a clam that exports rose 12 percent last year. But, my friends, that is only half the ledger, because imports rose even more, nearly 16 percent. The flow is heavier and heavier in the wrong direction. If you are $166 billion more in the hole, how can it be a good outcome? In fact, the trade numbers for last year were worse than they were in 1993 and worse than in 1992 and worse than in 1991. If this administration's trade policies are so good, why are the numbers worse than even in the Bush years which, by the way, back then were the worst ever in the history of the United States? Remember, each lost billion represents 20,000 jobs the United States shuttled out to somewhere else. Think about this. Last year the United States sucked in a staggering $800 billion worth of foreign-made goods, much of the goods we used to make here. And have you noticed prices have not gone down? We sucked in $66 billion more from Japan than we exported from them. That has been a continuing hemorrhage through our adult lifetimes. We sucked in $26 billion more from China than we exported there, a nation not known to respect political freedoms for a free market or the rule of law. And this year it is anybody's guess how many billions more we will suck in from Mexico that we export down there. Our former trade surplus with Mexico bit the dust late last year, even before the peso devaluation. So, when you look at your paycheck and wonder why you have not been keeping pace with price increases, ask yourself what would happen if the United States and your community made $800 billion more of goods right here in the U.S.A.? Think about it. For those of us old enough to remember, we would be in Ozziet and Harriet land once again.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. USA Today last week had a big page in the business section that showed all the different funds, the stock and bond funds, the mutual funds in the United States and what their earnings had been since 1991, and the emerging market fund under which this would fall, investments in Mexico had yielded a 66 percent return over the last four years. So the companies that we are talking about are not poor little lambs. These institutions have made incredible profits, and as they made those profits, why should they not eat their losses? And for the big banks, this has been a great time to be in banking in America. They put a fee on everything, right, if we go down here to the little checking machine and I try to get some money from my bank in Ohio, they charge $2.50 or $3.50 for the transfer. You pay for your checks. You pay for everything. You practically pay to go into the bank. They are making lots of money off of customers. So this is true. Banking has been very profitable over the last 5 years. Why should they not eat their losses? Why have they come to the taxpayers?

Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank Congressman Taylor for his extraordinary leadership on this effort and for gaining the special order time this evening. It is my privilege to join him and to thank him so very much for cosponsoring the special resolution of inquiry that was filed today here in the House of Representatives asking the President of the United States to submit information to this House within the next 2 weeks answering questions that we cannot answer for the American people simply because the executive branch chose to take a unilateral action without a vote of the Congress of the United States. Congressman Taylor has outlined the amount of money that is on the line initially, money that is flowing out of our Treasury, not just in the form of loan guarantees, although we cannot get specifics on this, but we understand direct loans as well. We do not know for what duration, we do not know what the terms are. We do not know exactly what the purpose is. But we know that part of the money is being used to help Mexico refinance what are called pesobonos, the bonds that she holds, that creditors hold against her that she has to refinance. Approximately 10 billion to 16 billion dollars' worth of those are owed to U.S. investors. I would just ask our colleagues and people around the country to be aware that this resolution of inquiry asks very specific questions of the administration asking them to give us the assured source of repayment to our country for any of the short, intermediate or long- term credit facilities that were designed by the administration and made available to Mexico, to give us any documents--we are just asking for facts here--concerning the net worth of Pemex, the state-owned oil company, the historical annual revenues of Pemex and as Congressman Taylor mentioned, to what other purposes those revenues have already been dedicated, which means that the collateral really is not worth anything. As one of our colleagues over in the other body said, we may have to send in the 82d Airborne to collect on the oil collateral because it has been so overpledged. We are asking for other information concerning what criteria the administration used in deciding to make loans from this fund to Mexico when in fact it has refused so many other countries around the world access to funds through that particular credit facility. So why should this situation be different and why should the Executive go around the Congress of the United States? We are also very interested in knowing what additional replenishment of funds will be required in the International Monetary Fund and Bank of International Settlements, because they have now been drawn into this agreement and the United States does provide some of their working capital. What are the nature of those arrangements and what additional amounts of taxpayer dollars will be required to replenish those funds? In any case, there are over seven pages of questions here, and this particular resolution was today referred to the Banking Committee. The Banking Committee under the rules of the House has 14 days in which to respond. If I just might take 2 extra minutes here, I want to say something very important tonight that we did not talk about during the day today. That is, as a result of press clips today in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other newspapers, the President of Mexico evidently yesterday effectively declared an end to that Government's peace efforts in that country to try to keep the lid on the uprisings that are occurring, particularly in the southern part of Mexico, and I want to say something about this, because it cuts to the quick of what is happening in relations between our two nations. It is not enough for just the President of the United States to be friends with the President of Mexico or the biggest banks in America to be friends with the biggest banks in Mexico. Good relations between our countries depend on the people of the United States being friends with the people of Mexico. As we watch the people of Mexico stream across our borders, stream across our borders because they are hungry, our response as a nation is, well, we have to close the borders, because the exodus is so huge. But let me say this: That all the interests on Wall Street that are watching what we do here, and I will call some of them by name, Citibank, Chase Manhattan Bank, the Fidelity mutual funds. Over there in Illinois, Archer-Daniel-Midland, you sell a lot of grain down in Mexico, but I will say this tonight: There is not one share of your stock that is worth the life of one Mexican peasant fighting for enough to eat off their land that they are being divested of. And we have to speak out for those people here in the Congress of the United States. It is not reported in the press, it is not reported on television, it is hardly reported in the newspapers. In fact one of the newspapers says today, many investors in America here have said that continuing political instability in Mexico is the main reason that they are withdrawing their money from Mexico. They have been withdrawing their money from Mexico in recent months. It is very interesting that they are worried about the political instability. Yet you do not hear one call for democracy building in Mexico. We do not hear one call out of Wall Street for human rights. We do not hear one call of sympathy for the farmers in Chiapas who literally plant coffee with their hands on the hillsides, and as a result of this NAFTA agreement are being thrown off of their land, and they call it in the paper, they call them rebels, and call them insurrectionists, and make them seem like they are traitors. Well, they are not traitors to the ordinary people of that land, and frankly, I think they had the real true belief in democracy in their hearts. I would hope that our country would listen to the Catholic prelates who spoke out this morning in the New York Times, Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia, who said that this is a very, very serious situation. It is pointing to a solution of war, and it breaks the process of dialog. This is not a situation that will be solved with guns or with the President of Mexico sending in the federal police. We can take a lot more lives, and I would hate to see the biggest financial interests in this country part and party to killing the common people of Mexico. That will not build friendships over the years. But the biggest interests in this country, political and economic, ought to be for democracy-building south of our border, because only when the people there have a right to have a decent wage and to own a piece of property and have enough to eat will there be political stability and economic stability in that country and four our own country. I felt compelled to speak out. I am very worried about what could happen over this weekend when Congress goes home with that cease-fire having been lifted, and at least I wanted to put something on record about my deep concerns, and also that those who have their monied interests at heart would also put to heart the interests of the people of Mexico and be a voice for them.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] for this special order.

Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to say it is rather interesting when you look at who will get the $20 billion as it is drawn down from the Treasury, it will not be the people in the United States who have lost their jobs to Mexico. We have had over 18,000 Americans since January 1, 1994, lose their jobs to Mexico already because the wages down there are so cheap. Our plants, several thousand of them, have been relocating down there over the years, and after NAFTA that exodus accelerated. So our people will not be getting the money. In fact the big financial institutions. We know the money will not go to feed the people of Mexico. The people of Mexico understand that their government will not help them, because it is in fact a one-party government and an authoritarian state that has been in power since before my grandmother was born. So they know that they will not get assistance from there. So it is interesting to think about who the money is really going to and at the same time as those dollars flow between the central bank of Mexico and its public treasury and Wall Street here in the United States and the central bank of Germany and Japan, when you think about that movement of money, and then you think about the fact that some of those very same institutions, especially the private creditors, have said very quietly to our government it is all right, let Mexico clean up its problems in Chiapas, clean up its problems in Tabasco state, in other words, kill the people of Mexico who are fighting because they basically do not have enough money to survive for life, enough to eat. I remember one woman said to me when I visited down there, ``Well, Ms. Kaptur, you do not understand. We work for hunger wages.'' I said, ``I beg your pardon? I never heard that term.'' She said, ``People get about 80 percent of the calories that it takes to keep a person's weight in balance,'' so in the part of the countryside that we were in, the people were very thin, and they were very hungry, and it was very hard to even get tortillas. The children were eating tortillas. They did not have fresh water. It is hard for Americans to imagine if they have not visited the inland area how people are actually living in that nation of nearly 100 million people, yet the dollars will not go to help those people. In fact, the people that are suffering most, the ones who are crying out for their own government, for their own government to help them, are being felled by the federal police. And so we ask ourselves, what are we doing as a country; what are the major institutions of this country doing, political and economic? Are we standing up for the best ideals that are in the Constitution? I think not. And so it is my pleasure to join with the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] this evening and to be a voice for people on both sides of the border who feel that this money is being incorrectly used to support a government that does not represent the majority of people in that nation.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, today with bipartisan cosponsorship, I am introducing a resolution of inquiry concerning the recent U.S. taxpayer-backed Mexican rescue package. Far too many questions regarding the terms of the financing and the financial risks to our people and our banking system remain unanswered. The purpose of this resolution is to obtain factual information from the Clinton administration on a series of questions contained in the resolution, including the soundness of the collateral backing the agreement, the solvency of PEMEX, the actual terms of the short-, medium-, and long-term loans, and the rate at which funds are being drawn down. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution of inquiry and respectfully request the Committee on Banking and Financial Services report it favorably within the 2 weeks required.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an exemplary citizen who has earned the moniker of Mr. Polka in my northwest Ohio district, Mr. Chester ``Chet'' Zablocki. Chet has been an active leader in our community for many years and in the polka music industry since 1947. Allow me to share with my colleagues just a few of this remarkable and fine gentleman's accomplishments. His voice and name are synonymous with Toledo. Chet became active in his community at the age of 15 by forming a polka band to entertain his family and friends. After serving in the Air Force, he married his childhood sweetheart, Helen Zdawczyk in 1942. Sharing his love for music, Chet and Helen began the ``Polish Festival'' radio show on the new local radio station, WTOD. In 1951, Chet recorded his first record for Continental Records, which featured him as the vocalist on ``Johnny from Poland.'' In 1963, Chet began a local polka newspaper called the Polka Star to inform the local patrons about the polka music and dance industry. In 1968, part of the heart of the ``Helen-n-Chet's Polka Party,'' as the show was known then, was lost with the death of Helen. Chet continued to broadcast the show alone the next 5 years, with the occasional assistance of his sister, Carol. Chet was remarried in 1973 and the show became ``Sharon and Chet's Polka Party.'' The show continues to air every week over northwest Ohio's airwaves reaching into the hones of thousands of listeners. Along with the radio show, Chet unselfishly conducts benefits for the American Cancer Society, the WTOD Penny Pitch, the Diabetes Foundation and the Polish American Festival. He also serves as the executive director of the Central Lagrange Senior Center. In August, Chet was inducted in the International Polka Association's Polka Hall of Fame in Chicago for his extensive work in our community and in the polka industry. Mr. Speaker, I know my collleagues join me in recognizing the efforts of Mr. Chester Zablocki, a truly devoted individual who has enriched our lives with his love for his community, family, and the music which has lightened our hearts in northwest Ohio for nearly 50 years.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, incredible as it may seem, certain promoters still claim NAFTA to be a success. Eighteen thousand United States workers have already lost their jobs to Mexico with thousands more surely to be lost as more plants relocate to that cheap wage environment. Our trade advantage with Mexico wiped out last year, and red ink is ahead of us as far as we can see. A 50-percent peso devaluation in Mexico will dry up our consumer market for exports down there, and the $47 billion taxpayer backed bailout of Mexico and its Wall Street friends. Tuesday's New York Times tells the story of Tracy Bartrom of Indiana. A former maintenance worker for Magnatek in Huntington, IN, she recalled a meeting she had in Mexico as she trained her replacement worker. Through a translator, she asked how much he was paid. He told her $1 an hour. And for him, the job is certainly not desirable as strong fumes cause nausea and vomiting. The true story of NAFTA needs to be told, but it will never get the coverage that the O.J. Simpson trial gets on U.S. television.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. And thus, Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress will be deprived by this vote without any type of a debate on the authority vested in our constitutional rights to vote on this issue?

Mrs. KAPTUR

Mrs. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise as an original sponsor of this legislation and in full support of our bipartisan efforts to get a vote on this very serious matter. Our resolution is very straightforward in attempting to reassert our rightful authority under the Constitution of the United States. Our resolution simply requires that the Comptroller General report back to the Congress within 7 days, particularly with regard to a detailed evaluation of the terms and conditions of the commitments and agreements entered into by the President or any officer or employee of the United States acting on behalf of the President. This is not an insignificant amount of money. From our study of this particular section of the law that the President claims he used in presenting this particular arrangement for Mexico, never, never in the history of the United States has that fund been used to such a large extent, over $20 billion, and it appears to be growing as the days go on, and never for this particular purpose. As one looks down the road at the conditions in Mexico and the fact that inflation is out of control----

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. We believe that this is a question of privilege of the House because of the constitutional role of the House of Representatives to provide for the expenditure of public money and ensure that the executive branch of the U.S. Government remains accountable to the House for each such expenditure of public money. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] referenced the section of the Constitution, article I, section 9. Let me reference article I, section 8 of our Constitution to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins. Member of the House of Representatives.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, let me say, is it the Chair's understanding that when any matter comes before the House for a vote, each Member's vote has equal value in standing? On any vote we might take?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, in order for Congress to begin to fulfill our duty under our Constitution regarding the Mexican rescue package, my colleagues and I have introduced a privileged resolution, House Resolution 57. This resolution will be brought up today under special parliamentary procedure after the 1-minute session and the Journal vote this morning. constitutional authority in regard to the purse strings of this Nation, and it also asks the Comptroller General of the United States to report back to the Congress within 7 days on how our tax dollars are being used. Four men in this Congress and one in the White House do not a republic make. Our bipartisan resolution speaks on behalf of the vast majority of American taxpayers who have clearly said to us that they do not want their money put at risk to ensure a foreign nation nor its creditors. We were told NAFTA would not result in a great sucking sound. Well, it has not only resulted in a sucking sound of jobs, but now also our taxpayer dollars. To the unilateral actions of the administration in concert with four men here in the Congress, the American people have been denied their just voice on such a consequential matter. Our Government is not a monarchy. It is not a parliament. We are not here to approve what the Executive does. This legislative branch has equal powers in the law. Let me read you two sections of the U.S. Constitution which pertain to the powers of Congress in this regard; under article I, section 9, the Constitution states, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' And under article I, section 8, the Constitution states, ``Congress has the power,'' and I underline Congress, ``to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare of the United States, to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin.'' As is evident in this reading, the administration's recent decision to extend United States taxpayer funds to the Mexican Government and its Wall Street creditors without a vote of Congress is a direct violation of the spirit and letter of our United States Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say that the executive branch has the sole power to create new money and use that money to fund a multibillion-dollar back door foreign aid program for Mexico without the approval of this Congress? Where in the Constitution does it give the executive power to make U.S. taxpayers liable for the mistakes and machinations of a foreign government and its rich U.S. speculators from the United States who went south in search of quick profits? Today vote for House Resolution 57. Reassert Congress' proper duty and obligation.