Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the also reknowned gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) in this, the line up of champions. We heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) who was much acclaimed on the floor earlier, and now the much acclaimed gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Yates.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is an expert on international relations, and I am pleased that he will be speaking on this bill.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her remarks about our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). Mr. Chairman, in my opening remarks I referred to the concern that I had that the full funding for the International Monetary Fund was not included in this legislation, and that was one of the reasons that I was urging our colleagues to oppose the bill. I have serious concerns, as I mentioned, about a conference committee increasing the IMF by $14.5 billion without the benefit of debate on the floor. I completely associate myself with those who object to the manner in which the IMF has conducted its business. I think the issue of conditionality, transparency, moral hazard, the description of how some countries and companies take risks, knowing that they will have a bailout. Maybe they make decisions based on that, or maybe they do not, but there certainly is the appearance of that happening. I think all of these concerns are trumped by the contagion issue; by the idea that our economies are interrelated globally, and that we need to have a mechanism, we need to have an institution that can act to buoy up currencies or whatever so that our markets are not flooded by cheap labor and that the markets for our exports are not diminished. So it is with grave concern about the impact on our own economy, and certainly with concern about the impact on the economies in the world and the well-being of those countries and their people that I believe that we should give one more round of funding to the IMF, but not any more. We should take it down to the basics and build it up from there. Again, IMF is just one other reason why I am opposing this legislation. Another concern that I have in this legislation is that while my colleagues on the other side have traditionally given the President a great deal of flexibility in this bill, that is not the case in this bill. One area of concern that has not received much attention so far is the Global Environmental Facility, the GEF. We are $300 million in arrears with the GEF. That was the request of the administration. There is $45 million in the bill, and I had an amendment which was offered in committee and defeated that would have put $50 million more into the GEF. These are arrears, therefore I do not need an offset for the $50 million. I think that if we care about our children and our grandchildren, we have to be concerned about the air that they breathe and the water that they drink and recognize that we are not isolated from the impact of pollution in other countries. The work of the GEF is very, very important work when it comes to improving the environmental technologies in these countries, and many of those technologies exported from the United States. That again is another reason why I am opposing the bill, because of the lack of funding, increased funding to pay the arrears at the GEF. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, recognizing that our distinguished chairman wishes to close, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) so that he can speak before the close of the gentleman's remarks.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and commend him for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the final minute to close. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to again commend the gentleman from Alabama, our chairman, for his leadership and his cooperation. I want to commend the staff, the majority staff, Mr. Charlie Flickner, John Shank, Bill Inglee, and also Mark Murray and Lori Maes on the minority side. I commend Nancy Tippins of Mr. Callahan's personal staff, and Carolyn Bartholomew of my personal staff as well. I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on the floor, and it is always a pleasure to work with him on these international issues. I want to commend Ann Huiskes of his staff for her work. Earlier the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was on the floor, and I want to commend Joseph Reese of his staff with whom we have worked. While the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is not on the subcommittee, we have worked on many of these international issues although we are not in complete agreement today. Mr. Chairman, again I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I think it does not measure up to the vision that our country should have about our foreign policy, that it is a departure from our bipartisan tradition on international relations, and that we can do better. I hope that, in the course of the process, we will and that I will be able to support the bill. But as it stands now, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for his fine statement. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) who has been a leader on this issue in the Congress.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the amendment and I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the gentleman's resolution. I thank him for his leadership on this and am pleased to support the gentleman's legislation.

Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, I believe that it is important for this body to have an opportunity to discuss the funding for the International Monetary Fund. I believe that the timing on it is appropriate. It was one year ago that we stood here to talk about the IMF. The matter was tied to the international family planning issue, and, therefore, the funding did not occur but we were assured that this would probably take place in February. Then it was going to be in the spring and here we are one full year later. Secretary Rubin wrote in July to Congress indicating that the IMF has only $7 billion to $12 billion in usable quota resources and its available credit lines have been reduced to $14.2 billion. Recent GAO reports on this confirm the validity of the secretary's statement, and since Mr. Rubin's July letter, the matters have gotten worse. I would remind Members again that we have needed this replenishment for one year. Since that time, the condition of the world markets has deteriorated drastically and we have recently seen the effects that are now being felt in our own financial markets. That is my view. I also know that many of my colleagues have a different view about the IMF and I believe that as the world is being impacted by the Asian economic crisis, that it is appropriate for our House of Representatives to have a debate on this issue. Replenishment of the IMF, in my view, has been critical to protecting our own economy. The fundamentals of our economy remain strong but I would point out to Members that U.S. exports to Asia have already declined by 20 percent, which amounts to a $22 billion loss to our economy on an annualized basis. Farmers have been especially hard hit. The trade deficit is expected to skyrocket to the $250 billion to $300 billion range this year. We must not leave town without giving the administration the tools it needs to protect American workers, businesses and farmers. The debate on IMF is focused primarily on the reforms necessary within the institution, the mistakes made in certain countries and blaming the institution for not anticipating the global crisis we are now in. I believe, as I said earlier, that we must subject the IMF practices to the harshest scrutiny: Moral hazard, conditionality, need for more transparency. But as I said also before, the issue of contagion to our economy trumps all other concerns. We have a responsibility to the American worker. With respect to individual countries, I would say that certainly in the case of Thailand and Korea, progress has been made and reforms continue to take place in their economies. Russia, of course, is a special case and we know that Indonesia is still suffering and trying to democratize. Whether each of these countries is included in the IMF replenishment funding, again should be a subject for debate for this floor. Essentially, the IMF was taking a risk on the government and its reformist agenda in Russia and that subject is probably the most important issue we could be discussing here, with the possible exception of the legislation regarding North Korea that is in this bill. In conclusion, I would say that I hope that the chairman will not sustain the point of order if indeed it is offered, because the effects to the American crisis have been felt, as I said before, by the American farmer and that should demonstrate to all of us that this is not a foreign give-away. I remind my colleagues that this is not scored, this is not money that is an opportunity cost for us in the budget. This is money for which we receive a credit and a reserve when we put forth our funding. It is a loan. This is not a grant in aid. It is not an opportunity cost. It is an opportunity for us. In any event, I am not speaking to persuade anyone one way or the other on the IMF. My point is that this issue should appropriately be debated on this floor, and I would hope that the point of order, if offered, would not be sustained.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should not forget, he is my leader. He should not say those things about himself.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank him and look forward to working with him.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his courtesy, which seems to be boundless. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that if the chairman insists on his point of order, then I will, as the maker of the amendment, have the opportunity to address the point of order, as will my colleagues?

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the Chair.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who again represents a great financial center of commerce in our country and understands this issue full well.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) a person who has been a leader for us on these issues and has a balanced view.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who is a true internationalist and understands the interrelationship of our economies.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations and a person who understands this issue full well. She, too, represents a center of commerce and understands the IMF. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue and for her fine statement. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge the gentleman not to insist on his point of order. I call this action of not allowing us to have a full debate on the IMF and a vote on the IMF the stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off approach. We have to understand the interrelationship of our economies. We have to debate pro and con the approaches we would take. This House should take responsibility for the $14.5 billion we wanted added. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) has stated that IMF is authorized in this bill so the point of order on the basis of authorization is not legitimate. The reforms that the gentleman from Alabama suggested, were a part of an amendment that I offered in committee which failed and which the Committee on Rules rejected last night. Point of Order

Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, and because of the generosity of the chairman's time earlier, in the interest of time, I will be brief. Mr. Chairman, I reject the notion that was put forth by our distinguished chairman that the point of order should be insisted upon and agreed to because this $18 billion is not authorized. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) the chairman of the full committee, said on this floor earlier that the authorization is contained in this bill and, indeed, $3.5 billion for the new arrangements to borrow for the International Monetary Fund is included in this bill. If the $14.5 billion is not authorized, then neither is the $3.5 billion. So I think there is a real inconsistency here and I think that we have to be consistent. It would follow, I think, that if the point of order is agreed to, then we must strip the $3.5 billion for the new arrangements to borrow from this legislation.