Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who represents the Flatow family.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the chairman and the ranking member and all those who have spoken in favor of this amendment tonight. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3460, the bill just passed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3460) to approve a governing international fishery agreement between the United States and the Republic of Latvia, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, first let me say a word of thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), who permitted us to take this bill out of order, and we will move through this quickly. It is noncontroversial, and we appreciate very much their consideration. First, let me say to my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the ranking member of the subcommittee, a strong ``thank you'' for helping on a bipartisan basis to bring this bill to the floor. We find that most of the good progressive, supportive, forward-looking things that we do out of our subcommittee are done because of the great relationship between the majority and the minority both on the Member and staff level. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3460 to approve a governing international fisheries agreement between the United States and the Republic of Latvia to reauthorize the Atlantic Tuna Convention Act of 1975, to extend the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Conservation Act of 1995 and extend the current regulatory scheme for the Dungeness crab in the Pacific Ocean. Governing International Fishery Agreements, GIFAs, are currently authorized under Title II of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Foreign fishing vessels may not operate in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone unless they are registered in the country, has agreed and has signed a GIFA with the United States. The Northwestern Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act is the implementing legislation for the convention on the future multilateral cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic fisheries. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, was established in 1979 under the terms of the convention. While the U.S. has participated in fishery negotiations in the past, the U.S. did not agree to the convention until 1996. The implementing legislation delineates our involvement in the NAFO, which is responsible for managing and conserving fishery resources from North Carolina to Baffin Bay, Canada, and it establishes the procedures for the delegate selection and includes a reporting requirement. The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act is the implementing legislation for the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna and for other species. This bill also speaks strongly to that issue. The final title of the bill extends the current regulatory scheme of the Dungeness crab fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Ocean fisheries for Dungeness crab is found in the State waters off California, Oregon, Washington and in the EEZ adjacent to those States. In order to assure continued conservation of the Dungeness crab as well as accommodate tribal treaty rights, some regulatory authority is necessary in the EEZ. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council unanimously recommended that Congress make the in term State authority permanent. This bill would establish that purpose. Mr. Speaker, for all of the appropriate reasons I strongly support this important bill and urge an aye vote on it, and I ask that my entire statement be placed in the Record. The statement referred to is as follows: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for H.R. 3460, to approve a Governing International Fishery Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Latvia, to reauthorize the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, to extend the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995 and extend the current regulatory scheme for Dungeness crab in the Pacific Ocean. Governing International Fishery Agreements (GIFAs) are currently authorized under Title II of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Foreign fishing vessels may not operate in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) unless they are registered in a country that has signed a GIFA with the United States. These agreements require the foreign nations and vessels to comply with all U.S. laws governing the conservation and management of living marine resources. In return, foreign fishermen may receive an allocation of any excess fish that our government determines is available in the fishery. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act is the implementing legislation for the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) was established in 1979 under the terms of the Convention. While the U.S. has participated in fishery negotiations in the past, the U.S. did not agree to the Convention until 1996. The implementing legislation delineates our involvement in NAFO, which is responsible for managing and conserving fishery resources from North Carolina to Baffin Bay, Canada, and it establishes the procedures for delegate selection and includes a reporting requirement. The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) is the implementing legislation for the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), an international treaty for the conservation and management of highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Mediterranean. The Act delineates the involvement of the United States in ICCAT. It establishes such necessary procedures as the selection of the U.S. delegates to the ICCAT Commission, the U.S. Advisory Committee, and Species Working Groups. The final title of the bill extends the current regulatory scheme for the Dungeness crab fishery in the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Ocean fishery for Dungeness crab is found in the State waters of California, Oregon, and Washington and in the EEZ adjacent to those States. A related tribal fishery is conducted under the provisions of court order (United States v. Washington) in ocean areas designated by regulation as tribal ``usual and accustomed'' areas. Conservation and management regulations are implemented and enforced by the three States and the tribal governments. In order to ensure continued conservation of Dungeness crab, as well as accommodate tribal treaty rights, some regulatory authority is necessary in the EEZ. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) unanimously recommended that Congress make the interim State authority permanent. This bill would accomplish that purpose. While the Council could develop a fishery management plan, such a step could impose a fiscal burden on taxpayers, an unnecessary regulatory burden on harvesters and processors, and it would detract from efforts to conserve other species under the Council's jurisdiction. I strongly support this important bill and urge an AYE vote on it.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a consultant, friend, and mentor, J. Garfield DeMarco, better known to his friends as ``Gar.'' Gar turns 60 years old today, July 29. Garfield is well-known throughout southern New Jersey for many things, but among them three stand out: (1) his political and public policy insight, (2) his cranberry-growing prowess, and, (3) most importantly, his compassion for those less fortunate. Garfield was born, raised, and still resides in the beautiful small town of Hammonton, New Jersey. He graduated Dartmouth College in 1959, Yale Law School in 1964, and received the Fulbright Grant for European study. Garfield was admitted to the New Jersey Bar in 1966. Gar used his educational background and natural talents to continue the family business--cranberry growing. The business, known as A.R. DeMarco, is now the second largest cranberry growing entity in New Jersey and one of the largest in the entire Ocean Spray system with production of 140,000 barrels a year. Mr. Speaker, Garfield also cares deeply about the community in which he lives and does business. He served as the Director of several area banks, Chairman of the Pinelands Environmental Council, and Chairman of the Burlington County Bridge Commission. Garfield has been honored by many area civic and charitable organizations. And, Mr. Speaker, Garfield DeMarco understands New Jersey politics better than almost anyone I've known in my 25 years of public service. I could list his political accomplishments, but it would take far too long. It's enough to say that he's served the taxpayers of our area well, by helping to elect quality leaders on the local, county, state, and federal levels. Mr. Speaker, J. Garfield DeMarco's first 60 years have been incredibly successful, valuable, and productive. I speak for thousands of Burlington County residents when I wish him the happiest of birthdays and a long, healthy and delightful future.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent, Jirair S. (Jerry) Hovnanian, President of J. S. Hovnanian & Sons, Inc. as he celebrates 50 years in this great nation. Arriving in the United States in 1948 to attend the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, from which he graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration, he was then, and continues to be, a creative and inspirational individual who is widely respected, personally and professionally. As Past President of the Home Builders League of South Jersey and a Life Director of the National Association of Home Builders, he was instrumental in the Uniform Building Code and the Municipal Land Use Law being enacted. Jerry pioneered the concept of using state pension funds for home mortgages to maintain a healthy economy in our home state. In recognition of his dedication and hard work on behalf of the housing industry, Mr. Hovnanian has received such coveted awards as the New Jersey Builders Association's ``Builder of the Year Award,'' and is a member of the Hall of Fame. His civic activities include the Presidency and Chairmanship of the Burlington County United Way, charter membership in the Mount Laurel Rotary, Executive Board Membership of the Boy Scouts of Burlington County, Founder of the Armenian Sisters Academy, a Montessori private school, and Jerry serves as Arch Deacon of St. Gregory's Armenian Church in Philadelphia. A ``golden'' anniversary is an accomplishment to be celebrated, and I congratulate Mr. Hovnanian on his fifty years in the United States of America.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for me to request the gentleman to reserve a point of order in order that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and I, who offer this amendment together, might at least have the opportunity to explain the provisions of the amendment?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, we can deal with it in a very short order tonight or, having talked to leadership about this, we can go into a series of hearings on this measure to try and determine why it is that the administration is taking a position against the American people and in favor of the government Iran.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just take a minute to say that the arguments brought forward by the ranking member relative to negotiations and relative to equity to perhaps other future litigants are nice to talk about but have very little real meaning in this situation. With regard to negotiations by the administration, the administration never was negotiating for these families. The negotiations that have been taking place may have some other broader meaning, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the law we passed nor with the families that have been affected by terrorist actions. With regard to equity, unfortunately, in our system of jurisprudence, as various types of cases come forward, whether they be bankruptcy or other types of liability cases, there are people who choose to enter into litigation early and there are people who do not. And those who enter into litigation early, in our court system, are granted awards. And perhaps assets are used up and are, therefore, not available to others. So there is nothing unusual about this. I would just like to conclude by saying this issue is not going to go away. And I am speaking, yes, in terms of the Flatow case, but I am also speaking in terms of the statute we passed which this State Department is not enforcing and, in fact, is standing in the way of the courts who wish to enforce it. At the earliest opportunity, I intend to introduce a freestanding bill to take care of this problem. I obviously intend to work with Senator Lautenberg from the other body and Senator Stevens, who agree with our position and have included it in their appropriation bill. And I intend to take whatever other actions we may deem as necessary and appropriate to affect the action that is just and due the Flatow family. In addition to that, I would just conclude by making one final point. Terrorists operate around this world, and there is seldom a price to pay. I thought in 1996, when we passed this law, we took a step in the right direction in creating a price to pay. Whether it is the Khobar Towers, explosions that occur in England or France or in the Middle East or in this country, terrorists walk away scot-free in most instances. This is a tool for us to use as a civilized society to prevent acts of terrorism by letting would-be terrorists know that there is a price to pay. I regret deeply that the administration is standing in the way of the law we passed and not permitting it to work. And I regret just as deeply that we have not been able to affect a step in the direction of correcting that inequity here tonight. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Morella

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I would have offered, which I would have done in a more substantive way, is an amendment which is intended to correct a grave injustice that is being carried out by this administration. Mr. Chairman, on April 9, 1995, a terrorist act took place against an American family in which an American lady died in Israel. Her name was Alisa Flatow. She was an American student studying in Israel. She was riding in a bus on a holiday in Israel. This wonderful lady is no longer with us. This is the vehicle in which she road. Hardly recognizable as a vehicle of mass transit today. The Flatow family came to me and to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and to others and asked for help, because the American statute that governs the activities of the Federal courts did not permit the latitude for them to seek redress in court. Due to the great cooperation of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chairman of the Committee on International Affairs, we changed the statute to give the Flatow family the ability to sue. Subsequently they did, and subsequently the Federal district court here in Washington granted them a judgment in the amount of $247 million against the Islamic Republic of Iran. That was step one. It was important, but it was step one. And it said to the Islamic Republic of Iran, if you commit acts of terrorism, there is a price to pay. The Flatow family went back to court to perfect their judgment, identified three Iranian-owned properties in Washington, D.C. owned by the Iranian government, began to perfect the judgment and get liens against the properties. And along came our own State Department and our own Treasury and said to the judge, stop. You cannot perfect this judgment in the form of liens against those properties because there is another statute that gives us the ability to stop you and we will. And so this administration, in acting against the Flatow family and for the government of Iran, is standing in the way of the will of this body, which just a year or so ago amended the statute to give the Flatow family the ability to sue, and is protecting the assets of the State sponsor, proven in court to be the State sponsor of the death of Alisa Flatow. Now, the amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I would have offered would have quietly taken care of this whole deal. As a matter of fact, the Senate has already made it part of their Treasury, Postal appropriations bill. And for the life of me, I cannot imagine why the minority ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations would want to side with the administration on the side of Iran against the Flatow family in complete and utter defiance of the law that this body passed and the President of the United States signed known as the Effective Death Penalty and Anti-terrorism Act. If it seems as though I am unappreciative of the treatment that we have received here tonight, it is so. I believe this administration is creating a grave injustice, and to some extent, at least by the actions of the minority member, that injustice has been carried through here in this body tonight. I will have more to say on this in the days ahead.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, let me just begin by saying that I rise in support of this rule and of the underlying bill, H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Act. Let me just say, or let me just express my admiration for the great job that the gentlemen from California, Mr. Duncan Hunter, Mr. Kenny Calvert, Mr. David Dreier, my friend here, Mr. Duke Cunningham, have done, and let me say just especially to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mary Bono) how pleased I am to be here today to support this major effort she picked up on just several months ago, and has really led the way in this effort. I have not seen this many Californians agree on an issue in the 14 years that I have been here, and I say to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), it took her to bring them all together. As an Easterner and as chairman of the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans subcommittee. Let me just stress how important I think this bill is. It represents a major stride towards improving the water quality of the Salton Sea by reducing the salinity and stabilizing the elevation along the shoreline. The Salton Sea is certainly of extreme importance as a major stopover for avian species along the Pacific flyway. As chairman of the subcommittee, I must stress the importance of saving habitat for migrating birds. Already many of the traditional nesting and feeding areas have been destroyed, and if the degradation of the Salton Sea continues unabated, this important habitat will surely be lost. Let me just say also that I have received a number of communications from ornithological council members, which include the eight major scientific societies of ornithologists in North America. Collectively, these professional organizations include over 6,000 scientists and students of bird life. The letter of the council states that ``The Salton Sea ecosystem has long been recognized as providing significant wetland habitat for immense numbers of migrating birds.'' Let me just say, in conclusion, to my friends from the other side of the aisle, with whom I oftentimes, in fact most often, agree, I think we all want to get to the same place. I will be supporting the underlying bill. Others here will obviously support the substitute. I am hopeful that the underlying bill will prevail and that we will be able, therefore, to proceed to come to a conclusion that is beneficial to all concerned. Let me once again congratulate the members of the California delegation, and particularly the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mary Bono), for their great leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time today to talk about an issue which I think is of extreme importance to the American people and, I must say, one that does not get front-page newspaper attention very often. That issue involves a request by our administration for $18 billion to fund the International Monetary Fund. As I said, this is not always a front-burner issue, and so I take this time today to reflect on it inasmuch as Vice President Gore yesterday made some rather disparaging remarks about those of us who do not share his position that it would be timely at this time to vote for an appropriation of $18 billion to add to the International Monetary Fund. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Vice President Gore, I think, made some rather exaggerated and unfortunate political remarks on a variety of subjects including this one: According to press reports today the Vice President labeled opponents of the IMF appropriation, or at least those of us who would like to reform the IMF operation along with some kind of an appropriation, the Vice President labeled us as under the influence of a dangerous and growing isolationism. Mr. Speaker, this attempt to associate IMF reformers with isolationism is simply not credible. In recent months I have talked to a number of economists who are opposed to the IMF operation as it stands today. Some of these economists have testified before us at the Joint Economic Committee as well as other committees here in the Congress both in this House and in the other body. If we have disagreements of policy, we ought to talk about it. But not one of the economists critical of the IMF was an isolationist or a protectionist, and neither am I. If we have these disagreements, they ought to be discussed openly, and that is why I am here today. Let us talk about these issues: transparency, moral hazard, subsidized interest rates, taxpayer exposure and other conditions that are associated with IMF loans to other countries. Unfortunately the Vice President seems more inclined to score partisan points rather than to discuss the substance of IMF issues. Mr. Speaker, let me discuss these issues one at a time. First, the amount of money that the IMF has at its disposal and then what it has requested through our administration as an additional appropriation or quota. Second, the issue of moral hazard, which essentially means loaning money at subsidized interest rates. Three, conditions that are associated with IMF loans which have oftentimes proven to be less than helpful to the receiving economies that we are trying to boost up. Fourth, the issue of secrecy. The IMF does operate largely in a cloak of secrecy, and therefore a fourth point that I will discuss this afternoon is that of more transparency for the IMF. Fifth, exposure of taxpayer dollars. Yes, if we vote for an appropriation of $18 billion, there surely will be an exposure of taxpayers' dollars, and $18 billion even here in Washington, Mr. Speaker, as you know is still a lot of money. And six, the sixth point that I would like to speak on this afternoon is that the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, does have available assets at its disposal which it has as of this date left remained untapped, and depending on how you count that can be as much as very close to 80 or $90 billion. So let me begin by saying what got my attention on this issue almost a year ago was the amount of money that the IMF today has in its coffers which have come from the United States Treasury and their current request for 18 or $17.9 billion, and I am going to say 18 billion because it is a round number. Actually the number for the record, Mr. Speaker, is 17.9 billion, pretty close to 18 billion. Since 1945, when the IMF was put into business for the first time, our total appropriations, called a quota, total quota dollars to the IMF have been $36 billion. Last summer the IMF came to the Department of the Treasury and Treasury Secretary Rubin came to the Congress and said they needed an extra $18 billion. Now you do not have to be an expert at arithmetic or math to understand that $18 billion is about 50 percent of what we have given them since 1945, and, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to all those who are listening that $18 billion is a tremendous amount of money particularly in light of the fact that we are fighting here every day to keep our budget balanced. $18 billion, a 50 percent increase, Mr. Speaker, in 1 year after 45 years of accumulating expenditures, which now have come to $36 billion; it seems like a lot to ask us to do, $18 billion in one single appropriation. And I was surprised, therefore, to find out even after that request came to us that that is about half what they think they will need. In other words, if they have already gotten 36 billion, and they have now indicated that they are going to come back in a few years for another $18 billion, that means they want to increase our quota by a hundred percent or very close to it. And so I begin to ask myself, I said this is very curious. For the past 53 years we have given or lent them $36 billion, and in 1 year they came back and wanted 18. There must be some reason for this. So we began to study almost a year ago what it is the IMF does with our money and why it is that they might need this kind of an increase. And we found, Mr. Speaker, that in countries recently like Korea, and Russia, and Indonesia, and Thailand large amounts of money have been left to institutions in those countries to help bolster their economic position, and what we found, Mr. Speaker, was that these loans on average over the last decade or so have averaged about 4.7 percent in terms of the interest rate that the IMF charges with moneys that we have provided and, I must say, that other countries have provided as well. Now I would ask anyone who is listening today if they could get a loan in today's market at 4.7 percent, I dare say that there would be a lot of people who would be anxious to get those kinds of loans, and, as a matter of fact, that is exactly what happens with the countries around the world where these loans are offered at 4.7 percent. They like this program, and so, as their economies begin to falter for one reason or another, perhaps it is because of faults that are inherent in their banking systems; we had a banking system problem here a few years ago when we had savings and loans fail; perhaps it is something like that or perhaps there are some other economic difficulties in some of their institutions in their countries, and they say, ``Well, where do we go for help? I mean how do we solve this problem? Well, we have got some very painful things that we could do on our own, or we could ask the International Monetary Fund to give us one of those subsidized loans at 4\1/2\ or 4.7 percent.'' And so what this does, Mr. Speaker, is to create a tremendous demand in the world markets for subsidized loans subsidized by American taxpayers' dollars for loans from the IMF, and that, we discovered, was the reason, after a great deal of study, that the IMF needs more money. Because of their policies they are expanding their role in the world economy to the point where they have requested this 50 percent increase in quota from the United States and, we believe, will be back, if they are successful in obtaining this and expanding their economic activities throughout the world, we believe that in just a few years they will be back with another request for a like amount. Now we asked the question of ourselves: Is this what we want to believe is an appropriate use of these kinds or these numbers of dollars from United States taxpayers, and that is a question that I guess everyone can answer for themselves, but it seems to me that we have some domestic needs, we had some discussions this morning about our national security and how we are spending less today than we were in 1985 in real dollars, and so there are many things that we want to consider when we begin to look at whether or not we want to appropriate this kind of money to provide for an expansion of an international loan program being subsidized by American taxpayers dollars. The third point that I would like to mention is the IMF practice of imposing what we think are sometimes appropriate but oftentimes inappropriate conditions that go along with the loans. And the way this happens is that the IMF officials, oftentimes represented also by, I might say, officials from the United States Treasury, in offering to make loans negotiate certain types of conditions that go along with the loans. For example, it may be thought that it would be a good idea to change the way a country has its banking system structured, or at some times the IMF officials might think it is a good idea to devalue currency, or they may think it is a good idea to get out of a deficit spending program that may be inherent in some country's practices by increasing taxes. And those of you who have heard me talk many times before know that those of us on the Joint Economic Committee, at least on the Republican side and I think it is fair to say on both sides of the aisle have questions about whether or not these conditions are appropriate. As a matter of fact, a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit with some officials from the Korean government in Korea, and we talked about these matters and the reforms that are underway as part of the conditions of loans the International Monetary Funds have made in Korea, and there were questions raised about whether or not they were appropriate by me, and there was a great deal of talk about it, and then, as I went out and left the meetings and rode out through the commerce sections of Seoul there in South Korea, I noticed that there were some signs on the shop windows, and of course they were written in Korean and I could not tell what they said. But in the middle of the signs, the three American letters IMF. IMF were there in the middle of the signs. So I said to the gentleman who was with me, what do these signs say in Korea that have the letters ``IMF'' in the middle? He said, well, they say different things, but they are all very meaningful. They essentially say that the IMF is here and that things are very bad, and that the IMF is part of that because of the conditions that the IMF apparently has imposed, and therefore, we are having a big sale because nobody can afford to buy our goods at regular market prices, and so we have cut-rate sales going on because the IMF is here. That is because, Mr. Speaker, the conditions that are imposed by the IMF are often very harmful and hurtful to the economy of the countries that the IMF is proposing to try to help. So what we might want to do if we are going to address the issues involved here with the IMF, and I hope the Vice President may take note of these things, is to have a thorough review of how the IMF arrives at its decisions, not only about interest rates, but also about this point focusing on conditions that accompany the loans. Number 4, Mr. Speaker, we discovered during our studies of the International Monetary Fund that it is, in fact, very difficult to study the International Monetary Fund and how it works because they work in a cloak of secrecy. We began last summer making requests for information from the IMF, and it was not forthcoming. We asked again and again and again for information and it was not forthcoming. We soon learned that the IMF does, in fact, insist upon a level of secrecy that prevents those of us who are here in Congress, representatives of the American people, prevents us from doing an in-depth study of the IMF in answering such questions as: what are the criteria that are used to identify a country that needs help? What are the criteria that are used to identify conditions that are imposed? What are the criteria that are used for studying the effects of loans that are made by the IMF? And questions as those are things that we, as responsible individuals who are asked to vote for an $18 billion appropriations, ought to have access to before we, as representatives of the American people, are asked to vote on those issues. So as to the issue of secrecy or transparency, we call upon them for a more transparent system so that we can see into the system and see what it is doing. Now, I must say in fairness that partway through the process the officials from the IMF said to my staff, tell Congressman Saxton to come over, and if he promises to look at the documents, and if he promises not to tell anybody what he sees, well, he is welcome to come. Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. The point is that the American people who provide these dollars, and economists and experts in financial matters in this country, have as much right to see that information as Members of Congress or as people who administer the IMF itself. So this issue of transparency or secrecy is the fourth point that I believe needs to be strongly addressed. The fifth point is what I call exposure of taxpayers' dollars. Now, there are those who advocate the $18 billion appropriation without reforms; there are those who say that this really does not cost the taxpayers a dime. I think that was the phrase that was used; it does not cost the taxpayers in this country a dime, because in exchange for the $18 billion, we get a promissory note. So the promissory note becomes an asset in our portfolio, and in exchange, there is simply a transfer of assets. I have a hard time, I have a hard time with that because if we have the $18 billion, we can apply it against our national debt; or if we decide in this body that we need to spend it on national security, we can spend it on national security; or if we decide that we want to spend it on education or environmental protection, we can do that; or if we decide we want a tax cut, we can apply it to the cost of a tax cut. But I dare say that it would be somewhat difficult to take the IMF's IOU or the promissory note that they signed for us and make the same kinds of use of it so it may be considered an asset, but it is certainly not a liquid asset; it is certainly not the same kind of asset that we transfer to the IMF in exchange for the promissory note. So I have a difficult time understanding the argument that it does not cost the taxpayers a dime for that reason, and I also have a difficult time understanding how it is that that great big bureaucracy that is downtown here in Washington, D.C. known as the IMF with thousands of square feet of office space and secretaries and administrators and computers and all of those things that have to be paid for that comes out of the IMF funds as well. So whether we accept the argument that trading dollars for an IOU does not cost, if we accept the fact that that does not cost the taxpayers a dollar, which I do not, so there certainly is an expenditure and there certainly is an exposure of taxpayer dollars. Now, so far here today I have tried to be as explicit as possible about the fact that the IMF already has $36 billion of our money and it has asked for a 50 percent increase, because they want to expand their activities, because they believe it is the right thing to do, and we ought to question that and have an opportunity to study it and talk about it. Second, there is the issue that we call moral hazard; that is, continuing to bail people out with subsidized interest rates, which is not a very painful thing for them to do. As a matter of fact, I have said this before, and I do not mean to trivialize this issue, but if there were a bank across the street from the front of the Capitol that had a sign on the front of it that said, come on over and we will provide you with a 4.5 percent interest rate, I bet there would be a long line in front of that building. So this issue of moral hazard and subsidized interest rates encourages the wrong kind of behavior. It encourages the kind of behavior that we are trying to quell or to stop because of the incentive that is built into receiving low, cut-rate, subsidized loans. Also, the conditions that are imposed on countries, whether or not they are helpful, perhaps sometimes they are hurtful. I believe that sometimes they are, and I have gone into that. The issue of transparency or secrecy is also I believe very important, and the issue of the exposure of taxpayers' dollars is also important. Let me conclude with point number 6 which I think is very important. Secretary Rubin and other proponents, both in the United States Treasury as well as in the IMF, and some people here in the House have said, they need the money. Whether one agrees with everything the IMF does or not, they perform a valuable function and therefore, they really need the money. I would just point out to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the IMF currently has assets that include $40 billion in cash, $25 billion in a program which gives them the authority to borrow $25 billion; they have $30 billion in gold. Now, if I add all of this up, that looks like it comes to $95 billion in assets already, and some are making the argument that they need the money because of the need to go around the world and expand programs. So I guess I would just return to my initial point that the Vice President brought this issue up yesterday, and it was reported in today's newspapers that we who oppose flat out appropriating $18 billion without reforms are somehow isolationists, that is not true; nothing could be further from the truth. If we can get the transparency that we need, if we can study the process through which the officials at the IMF proceed, if we can understand the necessity for the conditions that we think are sometimes harmful; if we can do something about this moral hazard issue so it does not encourage people to come back to us time after time after time for bailout after bailout after bailout, then perhaps those of us who call ourselves IMF reformers will be willing to proceed with a new IMF appropriation of some kind. So, Mr. Speaker, I have made the points here that are important to be made. I am sorry that the Vice President has an inaccurate assessment of our motivations. They are, in fact, honorable, and we, in fact, do want the IMF to work, and we think that with some changes, it will work, and this House ought to proceed to seriously consider those changes or those reforms in conjunction with any appropriation that is made for these purposes.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I just rise briefly to commend both the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for the great job that they have done in bringing this bill to the floor, apparently without opposition, and that is great work. We have all heard stories from time to time of telemarketing scams that too often target, as both the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Massachusetts have pointed out, our Nation's older citizens. However, yesterday, I met with a group of seniors in my district from Toms River, New Jersey, and one of my constituents brought this very issue to my attention and shared his own fears of being swindled. Seniors are apprehensive of these predators, and with good reason. It is a horrible day when greed motivates someone to strip the hard-earned earnings and livelihood an older adult has accumulated over a lifetime. These corrupt schemes will come to an end, or at least will begin to come to an end under this bill. I fully support the provisions of the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act of 1997, which protects seniors and punishes ruthless criminals. Under this bill, the U.S. Sentencing Commission must increase its punishment level guidelines by eight levels for persons convicted of telemarketing crimes against anyone 55 years of age. There is no excuse for behavior that victimizes those who rely on their savings to survive. These con artists must be punished for such horrendous crimes. I sincerely hope that one day soon our Nation's seniors will no longer be preyed upon by these criminals.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) that he and I and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) are on the same side. There is no question about it. We work closely together as members of the Committee on Armed Services, and I just want him to know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is sitting here by me, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) want to convey to the gentleman how much we appreciate having been able to work with him as Americans from two different parties on these issues. We appreciate that very much. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just address this issue of high tech transfer from perhaps a slightly different point of view. I offered an amendment or I asked that an amendment be made in order by the Committee on Rules which I am terribly disappointed was not. It has to do with Hong Kong and transfer through Hong Kong of technology to China. There are currently two separate sets of export laws that apply to China and Hong Kong. Everyone here knows that in 1997, Hong Kong came under the rule of China. And yet we continue to have these two separate sets of laws. So this morning in a Joint Economic Committee hearing, we asked some very knowledgeable witnesses, who, frankly, are associated or have been associated with the CIA, whether our concerns are valid on this issue. I would say to the well meaning Members of the Committee on Rules who may be listening, I think they made a mistake on this issue because witness after witness has said that these concerns are valid. This came to my attention, Mr. Chairman, because of a contractor wanting to transfer a weapons system which, if it had not been for some of us here sitting here now, would have never been a reality, a modified version of a weapons system transferred to Hong Kong, presumably eventually to be transferred to China. Our amendment was not made in order, and I am terribly disappointed by that. But we will have other days and other forums on which to make those points.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, Americans across our country have seen televised pictures of rioting in Indonesia, of social unrest and political unrest and, according to various news service accounts, the outbreak of rioting in Indonesia was triggered by price increases of basic commodities mandated by the International Monetary Fund. One recent Reuters news story notes that the IMF conditions were ``A key cause of the recent demonstrations.'' The recent violence raises important questions about whether the IMF and its program underestimated the political fragility and instability, both political and social, of Indonesia. This is a relevant concern because political instability could well undermine the potential for economic stabilization. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal there was an article, and I would like to read a few lines from it. Date line, Washington: Last fall, Indonesia turned to the International Monetary Fund for an economic life raft. Instead, the resulting IMF program contributed to the turmoil now wracking the world's fourth most populous nation. The IMF program failed to stabilize the Indonesian economy, its stated purpose. As the economy worsened, domestic dissatisfaction grew. And it goes on, Jeffrey Sachs, whose Harvard institute has long been an adviser to Indonesia, has been warning for months that the U.S.-backed IMF prescription was harsh and counterproductive. In addition, it goes on, Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad also blames the IMF for worsening Indonesia's problems. ``The IMF is not sensitive to social and economic restructuring,'' he said, according to Malaysia's official news agency. To answer these questions, more information is needed to understand the International Monetary Fund program and its recent impact on Indonesia. Once again I call on the IMF and the Treasury to publicly release its staff reviews of the Indonesian bailout so that Congress, the public, and private experts can better understand the IMF policy and its effects. Previous problems with the IMF program were documented in the New York Times article last winter which reported that the International Monetary Fund reviewed and found that the IMF conditions had sparked a bank run on Indonesia several months ago. In recent days the Wall Street Journal has also come to similar conclusions, and I just read from that article. Given this horrific outburst of violence in Indonesia, Congress has an important obligation to examine the role of the IMF and the role it has played in contributing to this situation with, I might add, the use of U.S. taxpayers' dollars. While it is clear that the policies of the Indonesian government had caused severe economic problems, it appears that the IMF conditions made the situation even worse. The fragility of the political environment and the potential for violence must be adequately considered when considering these programs. For example, is it not evident that the IMF formally integrated a political risk analysis into the economic program? Obviously, it failed to do so. If the IMF program failed to address the potential that it could destabilize political, social and economic conditions even further, then it was flawed to start with. Congress has the public need and the ability to examine the IMF staff reviews of the bailouts to determine whether the risks of the IMF program were adequately considered. We have that responsibility and the IMF should give us the information. These documents have been requested repeatedly of the IMF and the Treasury Department. It has been made clear that they may be sanitized before their release. Mr. Speaker, I include the entire article from the Wall Street Journal for the Record: [From the Wall Street Journal, May 18, 1998] Time Will Tell if IMF Helped Save or Wreck Indonesia (By Bob Davis and David Wessel) Washington.--Last fall, Indonesia turned to the International Monetary Fund for an economic life raft. Instead, the resulting IMF program contributed to the turmoil now wracking the world's fourth most-populous nation. The IMF program failed to stabilize the Indonesian economy, its stated purpose. As the economy worsened, domestic dissatisfaction grew. The fund also high-lighted what the IMF and the U.S. condemn as a crooked brand of capitalism practiced by the Suharto regime, undermining its legitimacy and emboldening the opposition. Whether the IMF, in the end, is seen as a villain that provoked widespread suffering or a catalyst for constructive change depends largely on what happens in Indonesia over the coming weeks and months. IMF critics, led by outspoken Harvard University economist Jeffrey Sachs whose Harvard institute has long been an adviser to Indonesia, have been warning for months that the U.S.-backed IMF prescription was harsh and counterproductive. ``The IMF program was really badly designed and made a bad situation worse,'' says Steven Radelet, a Sachs colleague. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad also blames the IMF for worsening Indonesia's problems. ``The IMF is not sensitive to the social cost of economic restructuring,'' he said, according to Malaysia's official news agency. But the Indonesian government hurt itself, too. It backtracked on pledges it made publicly to the IMF, undermining the confidence of both domestic and foreign investors. It vowed to dismantle unpopular arrangements that enriched Suharto cronies, but then rebuilt them under different names. And, at a pivotal moment, it flirted with a controversial currency-board approach to monetary policy. After a parade of international leaders pressured Indonesia to live up to its agreements, Mr. Suharto relented, underscoring his weakness to the newly emboldened opposition. Then earlier this month, Mr. Suharto's new cabinet ministers changed direction and implemented IMF-backed increases in fuel prices much faster than the IMF demanded, sparking the recent riots. Although the IMF program allowed for the increases to be spread out over a month, some prices soared as much as 70% overnight. ``We didn't set a precise date for [removing subsidies]. The date was chosen by the government,'' an IMF official says. Despite occasional misgivings about some elements of the IMF approach, the Clinton administration strongly defends the fund. ``The IMF didn't create the Indonesian economic and political crisis,'' says Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger. ``Indonesia created the economic and political crisis. The International Monetary Fund came in to try to help restore stability and put it on a path back towards growth.'' At their annual summit this weekend, leaders of the Group of Seven large industrial nations and Russia, put the onus on the Suharto government. ``Successful economic reform and international support for it will require political and social stability,'' they said in a statement, and urged the Indonesian government to open a dialogue with opposition leaders over reforms that address ``the aspirations of the Indonesian people.'' Inside the IMF, some argue that the fund's willingness to confront not only fiscal and financial policy issues, but also the corruption of the Suharto regime, is hastening long- overdue social change. Indeed, IMF programs in Korea and Thailand, they argue, may be succeeding precisely because they coincide with political reforms--a new democratic government in Seoul, constitutional reforms in Bangkok. Mr. Suharto's departure wouldn't be mourned at the IMF. But it's also clear that IMF advice failed to revive the Indonesian economy and may have worsened a bad situation. Last year's demand that Indonesia close 16 troubled banks-- meant a signal that the government was finally addressing problems in the financial sector--backfired. Depositors pulled funds out of other banks, further weakening the system. Harvard's Mr. Radelet said the IMF's emphasis on ending monopolies and closing government projects that are owned by friends and family of Mr. Suharto didn't address some fundamental economic problems. For months, for instance, the fund did little to help restructure Indonesian companies' huge foreign debt, which prevents them from getting the added financing needed to run their businesses and from taking advantage of a weak currency to increase exports. The IMF has until early June to decide whether to disburse another $1 billion to Indonesia, as part of a $43 billion bailout package it cobbled together for the nation. Indonesian authorities have said they plan to roll back some of the price increases that sparked riots. But that by itself isn't expected to put the IMF's added lending in jeopardy.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a program that has proven itself in many ways. The law was designed to be a catalyst for partnerships between various levels of government and the private sector to accomplish incentive-based wetlands conservation. It demanded a non-federal match in order to level federal dollars and the match that has been produced has more than doubled that required threshold. This high match level is one evidence of the success of partnership the Act intended and delivered. Another group of very important partners are the members of the North American Wetlands Council. These unpaid volunteers contribute incredible numbers of man hours to this process. Ducks Unlimited is an excellent example of a Wetlands Council member. From the beginning of the program DU has volunteered to serve. They not only commit the equivalent of a full time staff member to assist in carrying out Council business, they play a key role in communicating support for the program on Capitol Hill. They have contributed by far and away more match funding continentally for these projects than any other partner group. It is partners like DU with a demonstrated level of commitment that the Act envisions should serve on the North American Wetlands Conservation Council. That kind of commitment is what creates this program's level of success.