Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. LEACH. Certainly this is a constitutional arrangement. This arrangement was constitutional, although it would have been preferable for this body to have acted on its own, but the legal authority was there for the President to act.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished and good friend for yielding, and, as an aside, I want to thank him for his kind comments that related to the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. Let me make one minor correction to the statement, virtually all of which I agreed with, of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. The real power in the House on that issue rested with the gentleman from Massachusetts, not the President. The reason the Speaker did not bring a bill up was that we could not get majority support in either party, as symbolized by some of the concerns of the gentleman from Massachusetts. But I also think from a historical perspective, to be fair to the President, it is important to point out that a point was reached 4 months ago in which the leadership, which was working on the issue, came to the conclusion that majority support was unlikely to be achieved on a timely basis and this information was conveyed to the President with the recommendation, given the significant diceyness of the day, that he act utilizing executive authority at that time. So the recommendation came on a timing basis from the Congress of the [[Page H 7221]] United States, from the leadership of the Congress, recognizing that Members, like the gentleman from Vermont and the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from Ohio did not support the legislation, and that Executive initiative that we believed, after careful legal review was legal and was constitutional, should be taken. But I want to make the distinction between ESF and certain appropriated programs. The Exchange Stabilization Fund was established, I believe, in 1934. The original appropriation, and my understanding is the only appropriation, was about $200 million. It now has resources of about $42 billion, which relate to earnings in the fund in interventions and defense of the dollar and other currencies. So we are talking about a fund that was built up 95-plus percent outside the appropriations process. Mr. Chairman, I would also stress that the Exchange Stabilization Fund allows us the capacity to quickly intervene. If we unilaterally disarm our capacity to defend the U.S. dollar, overnight we will precipitate a weakening of the dollar. In macroeconomic terms, this will cause a rising of interest rates, which will be to the disadvantage of the United States of America. I would also state that it will weaken the United States capacity to maintain a principal role as a major reserve currency. That role allows seniorage, which earns us a great deal of money every year and is also a stabilizing influence for American business. A gyrating dollar is not in the interest of the United States commerce. I would also stress that in many regards the Mexican crisis represents the first issue of a new financial order. In that crisis, in a bipartisan way, the President of the United States worked with the new leadership of another party in the Congress, and came up with an ad hoc bipartisan approach which also provoked bipartisan criticism. I would say to the gentlewoman from Ohio and the gentleman from Vermont that there are two parts of your argument I totally agree with. It would have been vastly preferable for Congress to have acted. It is also true that this is an unprecedented usage of these funds in terms of magnitude, although not in principle. Having said that, I personally believe the President of the United States is to be credited. The Speaker of the House is to be credited. The minority leader is to be credited with working to try to constructively come up with an arrangement which is legal--although with unprecedented aspects--and which fits the times. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be more ironic, that after what appears at an early stage to be an extraordinarily successful program, we were to undercut that program and at the same time, in the same way, weaken the capacity of the United States to work in traditional ways with the Exchange Stabilization Fund to defend the dollar in the future.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I said in the background of this debate was the failure of the Congress to act. I did not use the verb ``to blame.''

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point? The gentleman used my name.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the gentlewoman is precisely correct on what the fund was set up to do under original law, but the law was changed in 1977 under the Gold Reserve Act. It was precisely changed to allow greater flexibility in usage of these funds, and they have been used for this purpose many times since 1977, with full concurrence of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would only make one modest point. I think several of the points of the gentlewoman are correct. On the point of precedent, though, I would say that the fund was set up for this purpose. It has been used for this purpose in the past, but never at this magnitude. The magnitude is unprecedented. That is the unprecedented point. However, the legal authority is there. We have carefully reviewed that legal authority, so as a constitutional issue, I would beg to differ with the gentlelady.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. It is interesting to note that this debate is taking place almost 5 years to the day since the last time the House considered amending the Constitution to protect the flag. The intervening years have been ones of momentous change. As we approach the conclusion of the bloodiest century in human history, the United States has emerged as undisputed leader of the world community. The individualistic, democratic values that are the hallmark of our society are in ascendancy everywhere and America has never been more secure from foreign threat. Yet all is not well here at home. The heinous crime perpetrated in Oklahoma City this spring raises anew questions about America's social fabric, of whether, in William Butler Yeats' terms, the center--that is, civilization--can hold. In what may be the most disturbingly prophetic poem in Western civilization, ``The Second Coming,'' Yeats wrote: Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity. ``Surely,'' Yeats continues, ``some revelation is at hand.'' The question is of what that revelation might be. In America today hate is one the rise; prejudice is bubbling. There is growing doubt, if not fear, of the very values--such as free competition within the rule of law--that have impelled America to the position of unprecedented preeminence on the world stage it now occupies. It is in this context that the amendment before us has been brought forward. It is an attempt to affirm all that is good about our great country. It is, in the words of our distinguished colleague from Illinois and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, ``an effort by mainstream Americans to reassert community standards. It is a popular protest against the vulgarization of our society.'' This is an honorable motive, and I am reluctant to oppose it. Moreover, this amendment is championed by organizations--particularly the American Legion, VFW, and DAV--which represent those without whose sacrifices this country and its values would not exist. Had it no been for our Nation's veterans, the only competition in the world today would be between totalitarianism of he left and totalitarianism of the right. These are honorable men and women, and I am reluctant to oppose them. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this amendment because I am convinced that to do so is to undercut the very essence of the system of governance for which the flag itself stands. At the heart of our democracy is a struggle, an ongoing conflict of ideas for which the Constitution provides the rules. It is in this conflict that the e pluribus unum--the ``one out of many,'' as the motto borne on the ribbon held in the mouth of the American bald eagle on the Great Seal of the United States puts it--arises. And it is precisely this unity in multiplicity for which our flag with its 50 stars and 13 stripes stands. The genius of our Constitution lies in the ways in which it structures and ensures the continuity of this conflict of ideas which is our democracy. It does so through the system of checks and balances and separation of powers with which it structures our Government on the one hand, and the protection of freedom of expression it provides in the first amendment on the other. The former ensures that the fight is always a fair one and that no momentary majority uses its temporary advantage to destroy its opponents; the latter ensures that no idea, however obnoxious, is excluded from the consideration in the debate. It should be stressed that the protection provided by the first amendment is a two-edged sword. In fact, the Bill of Rights does not exempt ideas and the actions that embody them from criticism, but ensures they are exposed to it. As Jefferson put it in his ``Act for Establishing Religious Freedom'' in Virginia: Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapon, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. Thus any abridgment of the protections provided by the first amendment, no matter how nobly motivated, would diminish freedom and in all likelihood precipitate, in this instance, more symbolic incidents tarnishing the flag than would otherwise be the case. Accordingly, great care must be taken not to take actions in the name of protecting the flag that have the effect of misinterpreting the meaning of the flag. In this assessment, the distinction between liberties to protect and symbols to rally behind must be made. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion require constitutional protection. The flag, on the other hand, demands respect for what it is--the greatest symbol of the greatest country on the face of the Earth. It is appropriate to pass laws expressing reverance for the flag and applying penalties, wherever possible, to those who would trash it, but I have grave doubts the Constitution is the right place to address these issues.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I ask unanimous consent to file a supplemental report to House Report 104-127 which accompanied H.R. 1062 and that such report be printed. The supplemental report incorporates, as required by rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office of H.R. 1062, as reported and amended by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, well, let me just stress that I think we have probably exaggerated the debate. The fact is the Department of State can well function with the consolidated basis. The foreign policy of the United States can well function in a more decentralized basis. As perhaps the only Member of this body who has served in one of these agencies as a Foreign Service Officer, having spent 2 years in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, it is my sense that for long term continuity the country's foreign policy probably operates better on a decentralized basis. We have a long and proud history of the United States Information Agency, under great leadership, of great independence and respect. Likewise with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and while AID is obviously a serve at the Agency for International Development. I would only rise to stress whether one is for or against this bill, it should not relate to the outcome of this particular amendment. My view is to be sympathetic to it, and I will support it, but I would also stress that one can consolidate and function effectively. It all is a matter of leadership at any given point in time, and here we are involved in kind of a great political science debate in the sense of sometimes agencies of government, like business, are better off consolidated; sometimes, depending on leadership, they are better off with decentralized leadership. Sometimes there is a case for flux, where one has one circumstance to change it. Sometimes, in addition, there is a case for stability. Now, having said that and having noted that one can reach opposite conclusions, I think in the long term the best interest here is for stability and for decentralization and, therefore, I think on balance the Ackerman amendment makes the most sense at this particular time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first there are two issues under consideration with this amendment. One relates to the concept of an appraisal, and I would say the gentleman from California has a point that the last appraisal was done 12 years ago. I would affirm to the gentleman that most Iowa small towns have not seen property appreciate in levels above the inflation rate, and generally it is less than that. I would acknowledge that in terms of view, Fairport enjoys one of the most spectacular views in the world, every bit comparable to Big Sur; in fact, probably exceeding. On the other hand, great land and seascape portraits in Iowa are valued far differently than they are in other parts of the country, and I cannot say that on a dollar basis that view value would be reflected. But even if the property value were 50 percent higher than the 1983 appraisal, 100 percent higher, 200 or 300 percent higher, the point still holds that that would not be a credible reason for not making the transfer, and so I would suggest that the concern for an appraisal, while being of 12 years of age, does not constitute a compelling point. The second issue is the issue of what is equity between the parties. Should the State of Iowa pay the Federal Government? And I would say that the gentleman's points would be not only more plausible, but very compelling, if this were a transfer of land from the U.S. Government to a private sector source. This is not. This is a transfer between two levels of government. The public interest is the same. The constancy of the public interest has to be considered a factor of some significance, not precluding other factors, but a factor of serious significance. In this regard it also should be stressed that there is a reversion clause in this agreement. If the State of Iowa were to sell the property for another use or use it itself for another use, the property rights would revert back to the U.S. Government. I would also like to stress, and I tried to lay it out in my opening statement to this body, that because the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has a point in the abstract and a point that also could well be valid in concrete circumstances, it is important to lay down criteria where transfers might take place without proceeds involved. I would suggest five relevant criteria: First, when the purpose is to maintain a public service which would otherwise be dropped; second, when the cost is de minimis; third, when there is no intent to take advantage of anyone or any institution; fourth, when the public body which the property is transferred to has an historical commitment to and investment in the property or program in question; and fifth, when all relevant professional bodies, private and governmental, are in concurrence. With these five criteria met, I would suggest that there is no credible reason whatsoever not to proceed with this transfer, leaving open the philosophical question that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] raises that there might well be a philosophical circumstance in which these criteria are not met in other kinds of situations. But I would stress to the gentleman, to the committee and to this body that to act on a line of reasoning because of something that might exist in another circumstance that does not relate to this precise circumstance where a series of very careful weighings have taken place and where, by the way, and I would stress again, this administration and its professionals, as well as the Iowa administration and its professionals, are in concurrence, would be a mistake. I leave myself open to supporting the kind of amendment that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] or any other member of this body may raise in other contexts at other times, but in my judgment to apply it to the Fairport fish facility, a facility with two full-time employees and one part-time employee, a facility that is serving the interests of the State and the Midwest, would be a mistake of not large, but symbolically quite sad proportions.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, 3 weeks ago in thunderous debate the House considered the ``mega'' implications of the budget resolution. Now we have before us perhaps the smallest bill of the year, H.R. 584, which would have the effect of conveying a small federally owned, State- operated, fish hatchery to the State of Iowa. This hatchery, operated by the State of Iowa since 1973, is crucial to the fishery resources program in my State, and the legislation before us formalizes a permanent transfer of title between the Federal and State government. The hatchery is located in Fairport, an unincorporated town of 50 people situated on a beautiful hillside embankment overlooking the Mississippi River approximately 8 miles east of the community of Muscatine. The facility was originally donated at the turn of the century to the Federal Government by an association of button manufacturers who, prior to the advent of plastic alternatives, utilized the shells of freshwater mussels from the Mississippi River as raw material for the making of buttons. With the subsequent acquisition of surrounding land, at a total cost of $21,771.22, Fairport was established by Congress in 1909 as a biological research station, and in 1929 became a fish hatchery operated and maintained by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. In 1973, as a result of Federal budgetary constraints, operation and maintenance of the facility was assumed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The Fairport Fish Hatchery has served as an important part of the State's fish hatchery system since that time. The State of Iowa agreed to assume responsibility for the facility partly to assist sports fisherman but mainly to help advance a growing/ midwestern acquaculture industry, particularly for the stocking of farm ponds. As an augment to farming the land and feeding livestock, increasing numbers of farmers are finding they can diversify into aquaculture. The Fairport facility is one of three warmwater fish hatcheries within Iowa's hatcheries program. The facility fills the need for several fish including bass, bluegills, white amur, and channel catfish, which are utilized throughout the State as a part of the Iowa stocking program. Simply put, fish that are not hatched cannot be caught or bred. The State Iowa has committed substantial resources to providing for its fisheries needs through the operation and maintenance of the Fairport facility. Unlike other States, it has done so without seeking Federal funds for 22 years. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources estimates that it has expended $2,100,000 for the operation of the hatchery under the memorandum of understanding with the Fish and Wildlife Service since 1973. This sum is substantially greater than the market value of the property which, according to a 1983 appraisal, was $717,000. It is possible that the property has slightly increased in value since then, but before use by others, numerous ponds would have to be filled and the extensive well and underground pipe system removed at considerable cost. In addition to its current operating budget of $175,000, the State of Iowa has to date spent $220,000 on necessary improvements to the hatchery. If title to the property is transferred, the State intends to make an additional $350,000 investment in the facility, including a new holding house and dike improvements. But the State of Iowa cannot afford both to buy the property and then improve and operate the facility. Without this transfer the facility is likely to close and the Federal Government will have to either make necessary improvements and operate it itself or take on the costly task of closing it. Iowa's interest in obtaining title to the hatchery is based on the concern that the State be able to make these needed improvements to the facility without risk of loss. If the State does not have title to the property, the Federal Government could divest itself of the hatchery along with any investment the State might make in it. The State would be left vulnerable to property confiscation precipitated either by the executive branch in Washington or capricious Federal legislators. Because investment without owner-ship would be imprudent, Iowa has secured the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's agreement to transfer title to the property to the State. To obviate concerns that the State of Iowa might accept property conveyance and then turn around and put it on the market or use it for another purpose, the agreement between the Department of Interior and the State provides that if the property ceases its fish related functions, it will revert back to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, conveyances of national fish hatcheries to States are normally noncontroversial. Indeed, since 1989, four almost identical conveyances have taken place--in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Ohio--all with the unanimous approval of this House. And, in an analogous transaction for a different purpose the 103d Congress transferred land to Imperial Beach, CA. Federal and State officials involved in the Fairport conveyance unreservedly support this transfer. Mr. J. Edward Brown, State Water Coordinator for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, is particularly to be commended for his long and hard work in this effort to secure the future of the Fairport Fish Hatchery. I also wish to thank Mr. Saxton of New Jersey, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries. Wildlife, and Oceans, and Mr. Young of Alaska, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources and their staffs for providing the residents of my State and my district with a great service by moving this legislation quickly to the floor. While by precedent such conveyances to States are normally routine, I was surprised to learn that the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] objects and in the committee report as well as in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter suggests that it is the taxpayers who, along with the fish, are being ``soaked.'' Actually, it is citizens who are being served by this approach and politician who are being ``fishy'' in their arguments in opposition. This is, after all, a country with one Government of, by, and for the people. It is true there are different levels of governmental organization--local, State, and Federal--but the obligation is the same: to serve the people. Transferring property from one level of government to another has implications that must be assessed on a careful basis--on this, Mr. Miller is correct--but, when the purpose is to maintain a public service which otherwise would be dropped; when the cost is de minimus; when there is no intent to take advantage of anyone or any institution; when the public body the property is transferred to has a historical commitment to and investment in the property and public program in question; when all relevant professional bodies-- private and governmental--are in concurrence, there is no credible reason not to proceed. In this regard, let me tell a tale of two States and two fish hatcheries to illustrate why I believe Mr. Miller's 4 [[Page H5642]] protestations represent ``upstream'' logic with a fishy ``downwind'' odor. Iowa, unlike California, has no national parks. Iowa, unlike California, has no Bureau of Land Management projects. And, Mr. Chairman, Iowa, unlike California, has no federally subsidized fish hatchery. In Iowa, private citizens almost a century ago gave a piece of property to the Federal Government for the purpose of advancing Mississippi River aquaculture. For the last generation the State of Iowa has exclusively borne the cost of such activities and maintained and upgraded the property. On the other hand, in the State of California there exists a fish hatchery which the Federal Government bought and which the Federal Government on a yearly basis subsidizes. Indeed, this year the Federal Government has committed $1,902,000 to the Coleman National Fish Hatchery in Anderson, CA, a sum which is $887,000 or 87 percent more than that obligated just 4 years ago. By comparison, the value of the Fairport property is about one-third the annual Federal subsidy to California's fish hatchery and less than the increase in that subsidy authorized in the last 4 years. A fair question might therefore be asked: Which fish are more important--California's federally subsidized steelhead trout or the Mississippi River catfish which do not receive a Federal subsidy? Mr. Chairman, I do not rise today, nor have I ever risen, to object to the California Fish and Wildlife Protection Act, which the gentleman from California sponsored; nor do I rise to object to nor did I vote against passage of the California Desert Protection Act, which Mr. Miller assured us was vital to the needs of his State; nor, Mr. Speaker, do I rise to object to nor did I vote against addition of land to the John Muir National Historic Site in Martinez, CA. But I do think it fair to point out some irony in the fact that the gentleman from California has proposed new environmental projects costing multibillions in the gentleman's home State while he now objects to the transfer of an existing small fish hatchery which will cost the Federal Government nothing and which the Federal Government paid next to nothing for to begin with. Methinks it is hollow conservatism for the gentleman to protest so much. Why, pray tell, is it fair for Iowans to pay for California fish propagation when Californians object to Iowans taking responsibility for their own aquaculture? The issue, let me stress, is not traditional congressional logrolling. I ask no money for anything from anyone. I ask only that this Congress allow a transfer of property and responsibility to take place between one level of government and another. This transfer, as small as it is, represents a symbolic step away from all-knowing Washington hegemony toward a new federalism in which States rights are matched by State responsibility. Beyond this, it is particularly poignant that the transfer contemplated symbolizes a State taking responsibility for a governmental service after the Federal Government has abdicated its traditional role. In fact, under State management, the Fairport Fish Hatchery provides regular advice and information to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Mississippi River ecosystem. The State in other words, willingly provides a service to the Federal Government, without charge or complaint. It is a commonsense thing to do. The gentleman might wonder why I object so strenuously to his legislative sophistry. Let me say as carefully as I can: I don't like legislative games being played with people's livelihoods and a town's well-being. At a personal level I spoke twice to the gentleman this year asking for comity. For the last generation citizens of my State have provided tax resources to advance environmental projects all over the country. All Iowans ask today is the opportunity to invest in our future at our expense. Aquaculture and the study of the Mississippi River ecosystem are important to our region. It is simply not fair to ask Iowa taxpayers to foot the bill for environmental projects in virtually every other State but their own and then pay Washington for a facility the State of Iowa has invested more in than the Federal Government. Let me conclude by stressing that H.R. 584 is supported by all executive branch parties involved, including the Republican administration in Des Moines and the Democratic administration in Washington. The approach it contains is consistent with precedent, in conformance with administration policy, and represents mutual fairness to all parties. No obligations are being placed on the Federal taxpayer. I doubt if there is a stronger equity case anywhere in the federal system for the transfer of property from one level of government to another. To turn down an agreement in which a State accepts responsibility for services the Federal Government abandons in some parts of the country but embraces elsewhere is not only unfair, it risks the transfer of an environmental jewel to industrial development. If Mr. Miller's irascible approach is adopted, a wonderful small town in my congressional district will be faced with the elimination of its second largest employer--negatively impacting the quality of life of this beautiful river community and severely retarding the development of aquaculture in the State of Iowa. To paraphrase Daniel Webster in a reference he made in a court case involving a small private college: ``Fairport is, Sir, but a small place but there are those who love it.''

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and pursuant to the order of the House, I call up House Resolution 80 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, under the Rules and the rule of the House, I have been granted as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction 60 minutes for purposes of debate only. It is my intention to divide the time equally with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake]. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has before it House Resolution 80, a privileged resolution of inquiry introduced by the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, and modified by the committee of jurisdiction, particularly under the leadership of Mr. King, who introduced a resolution of similar intent. House Resolution 80 requests the President to provide the House with documents relating to the administration's use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund [ESF] and the administration's proposal to stabilize the Mexican peso. The documents are to be provided no later than 14 days after the adoption of the resolution by the House. According to rule 22, clause 5, of the Rules of the House of Representatives, House Resolution 80 is considered to be a resolution of inquiry, which requires the committee of jurisdiction to act on the resolution within 14 legislative days after its introduction. House Resolution 80 was introduced and referred to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services on February 10, 1995, with action taken on February 23, 1995. Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution of inquiry is the means by which the House requests information from the President of the United States or the head of one of the executive departments. According to ``Deschler's Procedure'' it is a ``simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual information in the possession of the executive branch.'' The effectiveness of a resolution of inquiry derives from the comity extended by one branch of government to another, and not from any legal obligation. Under Rule 22, the practice of the House gives a resolution of inquiry a privileged status. To enjoy the privilege a resolution should call for facts rather than opinions, should not require investigations, and should not present a preamble. Turning from procedure to substance and the implicit policy question at issue in the resolution--the President's decision to utilize up to $20 billion in resources from the ESF to help stabilize the Mexican currency and financial system--it is my view that the U.S. government has sufficient legal authority to enter into the framework agreements signed with the Government of Mexico on February 21. Nevertheless, Members on both sides of the aisle have reflected differing views on this sensitive issue of judgment. Whatever one's perspective on the legal basis of Administration decision-making, the scale of the proposed ESF swap and guarantee arrangements with Mexico are of such an unprecedented magnitude that unprecedented accountability is in order. It is therefore the obligation of Congress and the Committee of jurisdiction in particular to review how Mexico got into this dilemma and what obligations the U.S. Government has undertaken to resolve the crisis. It is also the obligation of this Congress to assess why and how Mexico lost its way and whether the U.S. government failed to recommend or insist that Mexican officials follow a less bumpy road. In this regard, let me stress this resolution of inquiry is of a fact-finding nature. It looks to the basis of policy without having the effect of changing administration commitments. Nothing, in other words, in this approach jeopardizes the stabilization package itself. But there should be no doubt that many citizens of the United States as well as of Mexico wonder if their governments let them down and question whether, in a new interrelated financial world, elitist decisions beyond effective citizen control hold consequences for their families' standards of living. There also should be no doubt that if the U.S. Government had failed to act, an international economic crisis could have been precipitated which would have had extraordinary job loss consequences in America and around the world. Hence the rationale for this resolution, as well as language in the Committee report suggesting bipartisan Member interest in ongoing, detailed reporting by the Executive Branch on implementation of the United States and international financial package for Mexico. Here it is the view of this Member that in Mexico a government of thoughtful economists made thoughtless economic mistakes. While Mexican policymakers were thoroughly correct in pursuing fiscal and macroeconomic reforms designed to foster an open market economy, the government of Mexico also chose to ignore economic reality throughout most of 1994 in order to put off tough economic decisions which might have included a higher interest rate or more restrained money supply environment or, lack thereof, devaluation of the peso prior to a presidential election. In this context, one of the lessons of the Mexican financial crisis would appear to be that putting off resolution of economic problems of a potentially systemic nature generally increases economic costs, in this case dramatically. Mexico's attempt to protect the value of what the markets determined to be an overvalued peso cost their treasury approximately $25 billion, and substituting (dollar-indexed) tesebonos for (peso-denominated) cetes cost Mexico a comparable sum. Using public monies to protect the pride and ambitions of Mexican politicans thus cost the Mexican people almost $50 billion, and precipitated a run on the peso that has unfortunate consequences for real personal purchasing power and broader economic growth. Here in Washington, post mortem assessments of the Mexican crisis have featured a clash of two divergent economic perspectives. One group of eminent economists has argued that Mexico's decision to devalue the peso was inappropriate and should have been avoided at all costs. While most Americans as well as Mexicans favor a strong Mexican currency, the trouble is the government of Mexico squandered some $25 billion in foreign reserves and incurred another $25 billion liability defending the peso against market forces. The U.S. government might well have incurred similar liabilities in December 1994 if it had also attempted a desperate defense of a fixed peso valuation of 3.5 to the dollar, in the aftermath of the Mexican government's decision to increase, to the extent that it did, the money supply in 1994. The establishmentarian economic view, on the other hand, is far more congenial to a floating or flexible exchange rate policy. But here too there is a problem for policymakers, in that officials in Mexico City refused to allow greater exchange rate flexibility on a timely basis, presumably out of concern for electoral backlash. Washington, it would appear, capitulated to desire to subtly influence the Mexican election; perhaps out of a desire to avoid destabilizing shocks in the context of consideration of NAFTA, ratification of the Uruguay Round, and the December 1994 summit of the Americas in Miami; or perhaps because Washington simply didn't know that the Mexican central bank had increased the peso supply in 1984 at a far greater clip than the Federal Reserve had allowed the money supply in the United States to grow. Whatever the reason and whatever economic camp one is in, Washington clearly erred in turning a blind eye or flinching before Mexican decision-making. Any defense of the Mexico City-Washington policy in 1994 with respect to the peso is rooted in a catch-22: a policy of fixed exchange rates failed, while a policy of flexible exchange rates was implemented in such an untimely and confidence-shattering manner as to precipitate a financial crisis. The reason this discourse matters and the reason this resolution of inquiry is in order is to make clear that abstract macroeconomic decision-making holds real consequences for real people, in this case the American taxpayer as well as the Mexican public. When the American taxpayer is made liable, especially by decisions made outside the normal legislative process, it is incumbent that disclosure of all relevant facts and perspectives be full and complete. Accordingly, I urge passage of the King-Kaptur resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, in this context I move the previous question on the committee amendment and on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. LEACH. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham]. (Mr. GRAHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute]. (Mr. BLUTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman].