Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

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, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2807) to amend the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 to prohibit the sale, importation, and exportation of products labeled as containing substances derived from rhinoceros or tiger, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is now considering H.R. 2807, a bill which I introduced with the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) entitled the Rhinoceros and Tiger Product Labeling Act. The fundamental goals of this measure are to eliminate the U.S. market for illegally obtained rhino and tiger products and, by so doing, the incentive to kill these magnificent animals. All populations of rhinos and tigers have been listed as endangered for over 20 years. Despite this fact, there are thousands of prepackaged oriental medicines sitting on pharmacy shelves throughout America with labels indicating they contain parts of rhinos and tigers. In fact, according to a recent survey conducted by the World Wildlife Fund, nearly 50 percent of the 110 shops they visited in North America offered medicines for sale containing or claiming to contain rhino and tiger parts. Investigators identified at least 31 types of rhino and tiger medicines that have been produced by 34 different manufacturers. What is most shocking was the study conclusion that the availability of these products has greatly increased over the last 5 years, while the danger to rhinos and tigers has increased as well. While these products are primarily manufactured in China, the U.S. has become a major market for their sale. Those who buy these medicines believe they are effective in combating pain, headaches, convulsions and other ills. Unfortunately, those practicing traditional Chinese medicine are not aware that synthetic alternatives are available and that they are directly contributing to the demise of rhinos and tigers. The underlying problem and the primary reason law enforcement officials are not confiscating these medicines is because it is virtually impossible to conclusively prove that they contain rhino and tiger parts. It would cost thousands of dollars to perform DNA tests on each of these products, and neither the Customs Service nor the Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient resources to even begin to undertake such a massive job. The Rhinoceros and Tiger Product Labeling Act, which has now been cosponsored by over 40 Members, will solve that problem. Quite simply, if a label on a product says that it contains rhino and tiger parts, then we accept the truthfulness of the manufacturer's claim and stop the sale in the United States. In other words, the label is enough proof under this law. This will save the Federal Government a substantial amount of money, and it will help to ensure that rhinos and tigers can continue to survive in the wild. During our subcommittee hearing on H.R. 2807, every witness testified in strong support of the bill and for closing the loophole in our wildlife laws. These groups include the Clinton administration, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the International Rhino Foundation, Safari Club International, and the World Wildlife Fund. In his testimony, Dr. Terry Maple, the president-elect of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, stated that passage of H.R. 2807, combined with increased appropriations for law enforcement, will certainly be a bold step by the United States in ending the slaughter of rhinoceros and tigers in the world. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2807; and I want to thank my colleagues who have joined in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As both my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and I indicated earlier, there has been a broad range of support for this effort, and I want to personally thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for his cooperation. Inasmuch as this is a trade issue, it was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and their responsibility was waived by the chairman, and we want to thank him for that. I also want to mention the gentleman from the other body, Mr. Jeffords, has been extremely effective in his leadership in the other body, and I hope that we will together be able to make strides this year in bringing this to fruition. I would just like to close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this is not just an issue that is considered here in Congress. I have here a copy of Time Magazine from, I believe, March 1994, and it features an article about this issue, and it has a picture of one of these great cats on the cover; and the headline here on the cover is ``Doomed, Why the Real Tiger is on the Brink of Extinction.'' And it goes on at some length in the feature story to talk about tigers on the brink. ``Once considered a conservation success story, they are again sliding towards extinction. This time the world's nations may not be able to save these great cats.'' And that is what we are here today making an effort to do. And in the story it just points out that the levels of populations throughout that part of the world that the tigers live, that many of the species, the Siberian tiger, for example, the population is down to an estimated 150 to 200 animals. The South China tiger is down to an estimated population of 30 to 80 animals. The Javan tiger has been extinct since the 1980s. The Bali tiger has been extinct since the 1940s. The Caspian tiger has been extinct since the 1970s. The Indochinese tiger is down to a population of 1,000 to 1,700. And the Bengal tiger, which apparently in India is the most healthy of the species, has a population of an estimated 3,300 to 4,700 animals. So we are hopeful that everyone here today will vote in favor of H.R. 2807, the Rhino Tiger Labeling Act. It is a very simple concept. It simply makes it relatively easy for us to enforce the laws that this House has previously passed. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone will vote yea today.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, 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 on H.R. 2807.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, if I thought that the $18 billion which is being asked for would provide a benefit to the people of this country and to the people of Asia, I would be the first one out front voting for it. The fact of the matter is that the Joint Economic Committee and others have been studying this issue since last summer, since this request came in, and that is simply not true. It is not true for a number of reasons. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) talked about the secret club that surrounds the IMF. We cannot find out what they do, why they do it, the results of the studies on what they have done, any of that. That is all secret. Secondly, and more importantly, the average loan rate is 4.7 percent. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Speaker. If you were a businessman and the IMF came along and said, if you make risky investments, which the foreign countries and institutions did, and you fail, which they did, I will give you a loan of 4.5 percent, how would that make your decision making, understanding that we have two criteria in making investments, one is to make a profit and the other is how much risk we have to involve when we do it? Obviously, a low interest rate bailout loan on a policy of the organization that does it on a global basis is going to have a deleterious, negative effect on the kinds of investment decisions that are made. Besides that, Mr. Speaker, I think there is another issue that needs to be discussed, and that is simply this: The IMF promotes higher taxes. The IMF promotes monetary instability. And here we are being asked today, after we have not even had a debate on this House floor, to vote $18 billion of American taxpayers' money that promotes, through an organization that promotes higher taxes, that promotes monetary instability. That has a deleterious effect on foreign economy that is not a positive one. I vote no, and I hope everyone else will here today.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order on today, or on any day thereafter, for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3164) to describe the hydrographic services functions of the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes, and that consideration of the bill proceed according to the following order: One, the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI or section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. Two, general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. Three, after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. Four, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII. Each section of that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI or section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. Five, during consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. Six, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may, one, postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and, two, reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting in the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. Seven, at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. Eight, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3164, the bill just passed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to commend the gentleman for the well-thought-out amendment. It certainly does a great deal to enhance our bill. As one of our staffers said a little while ago, we should have thought of this ourselves. I commend the gentleman for his forethought and his effort in bringing the amendment to the floor, which apparently he will do in just a few minutes. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of H.R. 3164 is to speed up the critically needed improvements to our Nation's nautical charting program. Nautical charting receives much less publicity or funding than either highway construction or airline safety, but it is just as important to the United States' economy, particularly in today's world of international trade. However, funding for nautical charting has been cut in half over the last 15 years, and at the present time it will take nearly 30 years just to bring the minimum number of charts necessary to ensure safe navigation in U.S. waters up to modern standards. Congress has recognized the need for more support for this program and increased appropriations for nautical charting over the last 4 fiscal years. However, with only three Federal survey ships available, serious efforts to reduce the charting backlog will require a partnership between the Federal Government and private contractors. This process has moved slowly over the last 3 years due to disagreements over the extent of Federal and private responsibilities in ensuring data accuracy. H.R. 3164 defines these responsibilities, allowing the process of reducing the backlog to proceed more quickly. It authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to maintain sufficient ships and personnel to certify the accuracy of charts and protect the government from liability. After this requirement is satisfied, all additional survey work will be carried out by the private sector. H.R. 3164 also sets policy for modernizing tide and current prediction systems in major ports and authorizes increased appropriations for nautical charting and tide and current programs. At the funding levels authorized in this bill, the survey backlog could be completed at least 30 percent faster, and commercial vessels as well as private boats would be able to take advantage of modern navigational technologies, and have the potential to significantly improve safety and efficiency on our waterways. Mr. Chairman, investing in these programs yields a huge payoff in both economic competitiveness and environmental protection. We need to make this small investment now in order to protect ourselves from possible serious dangers in the future. The bill is an important step in the right direction, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who recognizes the effect of high taxes on the economy. As a matter of fact, recently he traveled to my home State of New Jersey to boost an effort there to do a very similar type of thing that we are trying to do here, hopefully, with a successful vote today. He went to New Jersey because New Jersey serves as a case study for the reasons that we believe strongly that this bill ought to be passed today. And let me just recite a bit about that case study. Back in 1990, the then Governor of New Jersey proposed a $2.8 billion tax increase on the citizens of New Jersey, Mr. Speaker. By a single vote, by a single vote in both the State Assembly, that is the lower house, and, of course, the State Senate, also by a single vote in the Senate, the tyranny of a one-person majority pushed through the largest tax increase in New Jersey's history. The consequences of this onerous tax cost 300,000 taxpayers in New Jersey their jobs. And 300,000 people, following that tax break, following that tax increase, were out of jobs. The economy of New Jersey, already hit by the nationwide recession, fell into further crisis. We called it a recession within a recession because of that large tax increase. As a result, the leadership in New Jersey changed. It changed hands. And Governor Christie Todd Whitman was elected to reverse the devastating effects of the 1990 tax increase. Governor Whitman pledged during her campaign to cut taxes and then maintained the pledge, and followed through even earlier and more quickly and more efficiently than she had promised. However, the real threat continues in New Jersey. The tyranny of a one-person majority still has the power to raise taxes on hard-working people in New Jersey. For this reason, Governor Whitman has set out on an ambitious endeavor to ensure that a one-vote majority in both Houses of the State legislature will never again raise the taxes on hard- working families in New Jersey with similar results of the 1990 increase. Governor Whitman has begun to lobby the State legislature to enact a supermajority to raise taxes modeled after the attempt here today to pass the Constitutional amendment. The people of New Jersey have experienced firsthand the devastating impact of raising taxes on the work force and on the economy. Providing an amendment to the Constitution requiring a supermajority to raise taxes will negate the possibility of the tyranny of a one- person majority as history in New Jersey has demonstrated. It will be more difficult to raise taxes on hard-working Americans. It will be easier for people to make a living, and easier for the economy to respond in a positive nature. I urge Members to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 111, and commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, there is an old military saying which alerts us to ``expect the unexpected.'' This time-tested adage is as true today as we send young fighting men and women to Bosnia as it was two generations ago in World War II. On April 23-24, 1998, the New Jersey Exercise Tiger Association will commemorate the 54th anniversary of Exercise Tiger. This year is a special year as the Exercise Tiger Association commemorates all Exercise Tiger veterans in the nation while embarking on the Ohio class USS Maine SSBN 741, a nuclear missile submarine of the United States Navy's Sub Group 10 based at Kings Bay, Georgia. In particular, four veterans of the historic battle will be honored representing all Exercise Tiger veterans. They are Bud Carey, Lt. USN ret. LST 507, Ocean City, NJ; Tom Glynn, USN ret. LST 289, Cape May, NJ; Bob Benson, US Army ret. 3207th Quartermaster Co., Columbia, MO; and Charles Griffey, US Army ret. 478th Truck Co., Independence, MO. Exercise Tiger was designed to be a dress rehearsal for the D-Day invasion of France. But as is so common in the ``fog of war,'' the best laid plans are always subject to the unexpected and the unanticipated, the unforeseen. And so it was on April 28, 1944 when an American amphibious assault force which was practicing for the D-Day invasion was suddenly attacked by German warships. The surprise attack resulted in the death of 946 men, the second highest death toll of that long and embittered war. Today, U.S. service men and women are serving in Bosnia in an effort to again secure peace in Europe. These dedicated individuals, like those who have served so honorably before them, have the difficult task of fulfilling the commitments made by American foreign policy makers. And like those who served in uniform over 54 years ago, the unexpected can happen at any moment with devastating effect. I wish to salute the fine men who served and died 54 years ago while conducting Exercise Tiger. There is a special kinship between those American heroes and the men and women who today are serving on Bosnia. I wish also to pay tribute to Walter Domanski of the New Jersey Exercise Tiger Association. I consider Walter to be one of the ``keepers of the flame,'' ensuring that Americans will remember and reflect on the sacrifices that our military has made and continues to make on our behalf. Finally, I wish to commend these four honored veterans, for they are the models and inspirations for those who serve our country today.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Joint Economic Committee, sometime ago I began or the Joint Economic Committee began a review of a proposal which came to us from the International Monetary Fund through the Treasury of the United States. Secretary Rubin, in essence, passed along the request of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, for an appropriation of $18 billion to, in their words, permit the IMF to continue their work. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker. The IMF, which was established in 1945, over the years since 1945 has had a total, a quota appropriated to it, of about 36 billion U.S. dollars. So one might ask why it would be that the IMF would come to us today and in one lump sum request the appropriation of $18 billion, a 50 percent increase in 1 year over what they have had over the past 50-some odd years? So we began to look at this as a very serious matter. This is $18 billion of U.S. taxpayers' money that would be used for purposes around the world; for perhaps good purposes, in some instances, and perhaps for questionable purposes in other instances; but $18 billion, billion with a B, of U.S. taxpayers' funds. So when we began to look at the operations of the IMF, we noticed that something was quite peculiar. That was that, after a great deal of study, we determined that the average amount of interest that the IMF obtains in making its loans to risky creditors in other countries is about 4.7 percent; that is right, 4.7 percent. By today's standards, or by any standards in the modern world, 4.7 percent is a fairly low interest rate. Americans who buy homes pay in the neighborhood of 7 percent. Americans in this day and age who buy cars pay an interest of 9 or 9\1/2\ percent. Americans who use credit cards pay interest rates from 18 to 24 percent. So 4.7 percent interest is a relatively low interest rate. After we determined that this was the case, we drafted some legislation to try to change the way the IMF does business. Mr. Speaker, we did not suggest that the $18 billion of American taxpayers' money should be forwarded, appropriated and forwarded to the International Monetary Fund. We said, before we even consider sending them another dime, that we ought to change the rules as we see them, as we participate in the IMF, as to how it operates. They would be some fairly simple and straightforward changes. The first change would involve our ability to find out what the IMF is doing, why they make their decisions and how they make them. Because today they do it in secret, Mr. Speaker. They do it in secret. And, as a matter of fact, even when Members of Congress ask why the decisions were made that were made, we cannot see their minutes, we cannot see their reports, we cannot see the studies of the results of what they obtained. So we are requesting to be able to see into their procedures: transparency, we call that. We also introduced in the same bill, which happens to be H.R. 3331, a provision that would require them to use American dollars, both in the case of the $36 billion they already have and in the case of whatever we may appropriate in the future, and that they loan at market interest rates, adjusted for risk. That is an important factor, because, Mr. Speaker, if you have the opportunity to go out and borrow some money, if you are a lender and you start loaning at 4.7 percent, believe me, you have lots of customers. So we would require that they loan at market rates, and we would also require that they establish an independent advisory board that would report to the public periodically about their activities. The reason for me taking the floor to explain this tonight, because I have done this before, is that a very prestigious organization in Washington, the Heritage Foundation, will soon release a report, a draft of which I have here. They support the notions and the concepts contained in H.R. 3331. They say, for example, that with regard to the issue of being able to see what the IMF does, they say, ``Demands for greater transparency are a part of nearly every piece of legislation involving the IMF.'' Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article by Brett Schaefer on this subject.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favor of H.R. 3113, a bill introduced by the distinguished Chairman of the House Resources Committee, to extend the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. Prior to 1994, the United States had not provided any financial assistance to those countries that were desperately trying to stop the slaughter of their rhino and tiger populations. In fact, today all species of rhinos and tigers are listed as endangered in the United States and internationally. With the passage of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, this Nation took a bold step when we told the rest of the world that we would support conservation projects to assist these two irreplaceable species. While the amount of assistance has been small, about $585,000, our government has now funded 31 conservation projects for rhinos and tigers, and the Department of the Interior is now carefully reviewing an additional 70 proposals. It is essential that this assistance be available in the future, and that is why I support H.R. 3113. During our Subcommittee hearing on this legislation, Secretary Bruce Babbitt testified that ``the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund has gotten off to an excellent start over the past three years. The job has only just begun, however. There is much more work to do and no shortage of committed partners seeking our help in Africa and Asia.'' At the same hearing, Dr. Terry Maple, the President-Elect of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, states that ``this Fund is designed to be a `quick strike' in assisting conservation organizations on the front lines of saving these animals from extinction.'' Mr. Chairman, it was no surprise that every witness strongly supported the enactment of H.R. 3113 because they believe, as I do, that the grants made from this Fund are making a positive difference in the international fight to save rhinos and tigers. I urge an AYE vote on this important wildlife conservation measure.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, during the past several months, I have warned time and again that the International Monetary Fund's lending policies are counterproductive. That is because they lend at rates far below market rates. That practice, in and of itself, generates demand for even more low interest rate loans. That is called moral hazard. Yesterday's Financial Times, published in the U.K., reported that European central bankers agree with my position. They attack the bailout practices of the IMF, and they say it will be putting forward proposals next month that would involve commercial banks at an earlier stage. The criticism reflects concern about the IMF's handling of the Asia financial crisis. Hans Tietmeyer, president of the Bundesbank said, the multibillion dollar international rescue plans for Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia could encourage reckless banking practices. The IMF should reevaluate its policies, he said. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [Monday, Mar. 23, 1998] Criticism: EU Bankers Hit at IMF on Bail-Outs (By Wolfgang Muchau and Lionel Barber in York) European Union central bankers have attacked the bail-out practices of the International Monetary Fund and will be putting forward proposals next month that would involve commercial banks at an earlier stage. The criticism reflects concern about the IMF's handling of the Asia financial crisis. It also signals the EU's intention to raise its profile in international financial institutions as 11 European countries prepare to adopt a single currency next January. The US has dominated the policy agenda of the IMF, even though EU countries have a larger combined shareholding. Hans Tietmeyer, president of the Bundesbank, speaking after the informal meeting of EU economies and finance ministers at the weekend, said the multi-billion-dollar international rescue plans for Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia could encourage reckless bank lending. ``The IMF should re-evaluate its policies and should question itself on how far its policy generates moral hazard. The IMF should consider whether it is better to tackle problems with large sums of bail-out money or whether it might be better to involve private sector creditors at an earlier stage,'' he said. Mr. Tietmeyer said he had drawn up proposals which he would present to the IMF's interim committee at its next meeting on April 16 in Washington. He did not divulge details of the programme, but a key element is believed to include regular monitoring of private sector debt. At the meeting, EU central bankers also discussed the possible dangers of electronic money to monetary policy under Emu. Smart cards with computer chips are becoming increasingly popular, but central bankers are worried because this is a form of money that operates outside the control of central banks. The bankers are particularly concerned that the transition period between the launch of monetary union in January and the introduction of euro notes and coins in 2002 could encourage the use of electronic money. Mr. Tietmeyer called on the European Commission to consider regulating the markets for electronic money and electronic banking, restricting its use only to established banks

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to recognize and honor the Christian Caring Center-Pemberton, Inc. for their 15 years of service to the community. At its inception, emergency food and clothing were distributed from a 20 x 40 foot building one day per week. Remaining there for nine years, 40 to 50 families per day were served with life's necessities. Today, in a larger facility, nine programs are administered by the caring employees and volunteers. These include emergency food and clothing, thrift store, information and referrals to social service agencies and churches, community lunch/rural homeless program, Bible hour worship services and job training among others. The families who have been assisted by the dedicated volunteers of this worthy organization are too numerous to be counted. On April 19, 1998, these volunteers will be honored with a celebration dinner. It is these devoted individuals, especially, to whom I pay tribute. Their caring and commitment to those in need is worthy of the highest praise and honor. They have the gratitude of the community for their efforts in behalf of the less fortunate.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak to my colleagues about what I think is a very important issue. It involves the International Monetary Fund. That may be a dry issue to some. But when we consider that the International Monetary Fund today has available to it $36 billion of American money, of U.S. dollars, it is a rather sobering thought. We have lots of needs for money in our country, and we have seen fit in a benevolent way to help others around the world with various economic situations to the tune of $36 billion. But what got my attention, and I hope has gotten Members' attention, is that the International Monetary Fund through Secretary Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury, has requested $18 billion more. The signs are that that is not all they want. If we put that in perspective over the last several decades, we have contributed $36 billion to the IMF, and this year they are asking for $18 billion more. That is a 50 percent increase in what we have provided. I guess the question is, is there even more to come? The issue of how much we contribute to the IMF is important. But there are other issues that are just as important, and that is questions involving how the money is used. I am not saying the money is used incorrectly, because it may very well be, but the fact of the matter is we do not know and we cannot find out, because the IMF operates in a cloak of secrecy. Here around our government in Washington, D.C. and throughout the States, we learned decades ago that government works better when people can visualize what we are doing, when they have access to our process. The cloak of secrecy that surrounds the IMF and the reluctance or refusal of the Secretary of the Treasury and his staff to communicate with us relative to the activities of the IMF are something that needs to be changed. My experience in January and February of 1998 have revealed that there is a huge reluctance on the part of IMF officials and of the Treasury to come forth with information. In fact, they have refused on all but one occasion and when they finally agreed to permit certain information to come forward to the Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, they would have made us promise not to disclose it to anyone else. The very same cloak of secrecy would have been imposed upon us that we are trying to take away. The issue of transparency with the IMF is extremely important. Number two, it is also important to recognize that the IMF loans at what we call, what I call, subsidized rates. In other words, while American taxpayers are paying 7 or 7\1/2\ percent interest for mortgages, the IMF loans money to high-risk foreign investors at less than 5 percent. In fact, in the last fiscal year, the IMF loaned 90 percent of its funds that it loaned at 4.7 percent. That is a subsidized rate. While auto loans in this country go for 9 percent to 10 percent interest, the IMF was loaning at 4.7 percent to 90 percent of its borrowers. And while credit card holders in this country pay 16 to 21 percent or greater, the IMF was loaning at 4.7 percent. It is bad enough that these subsidized rates were being used, but even worse, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to provide these loans to people who get themselves in trouble economically, does it not just encourage people to make bad loans, to take high risks? Everyone who invests in this world, in this country or this world, takes some risk. In some cases you invest in a bank. If you invest in a bank in this country, Mr. Speaker, those loans are insured. That is a low risk. But if you want to take a speculative risk, if you want to take a big risk, go get something speculative to invest in. If someone is standing there by you as a benefactor saying, if you get in trouble, I have a 4.7 percent loan for you, not a bad deal. In fact, if we went out on the street corner next to the Capitol building and set up shop and said, we are going to make loans at 4.7 percent, why, we would have a line stretching around the block. That is what the IMF effectively does. So I have introduced H.R. 3331, which is a bill that would correct the use of these funds with American money, and I urge all Members to look at it. ]

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. I could not agree more with regard to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), as well. One of the really productive things I believe about the style of leadership that the gentleman from South Carolina provides is that he recognizes that in each committee member there is a little bit different area of expertise, whether it happens to be shipbuilding, and I think of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), or whether it happens to be munitions and I think of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), or whether it happens to be some other area, there are many members of our committee, and I might say on both sides of the aisle, to which the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is willing to hand the ball at any given time to carry it through his or her area of expertise. I think that is the mark of a real leader, to be able to dispense the job the way the gentleman from South Carolina has been able to. I wanted to bring up a bit of history, and fairly recent history, actually when I heard the gentleman's opening statement at the beginning of this hour about how we had built down for the last number of years, I believe since 1985 actually was when the builddown in defense spending started. I think back to those days, I think of the speeches that Ronald Reagan gave about how we would make our country proud again and how we would make our country, the country's national security worthy of the respect of the American people again, and how in 1980 and 1981 he began that buildup. But I also remember another person who served at the end of the decade of the 1980s and the beginning of the decade of the 1990s, the Secretary of Defense, our friend Dick Cheney, who at the time was Secretary Cheney. I remember one speech that he gave in particular which is most, I believe, noteworthy today in the context of where we find ourselves. That occurred over in the then-Armed Services Committee room. I believe it was in September of 1990. Saddam had invaded Kuwait. Secretary Cheney came before the Armed Services Committee and he said words that were almost identical to this, one of those phrases or one of those few sentences that I will always remember. He said, ``The Cold War is over, and I am here on the brink of our going to war with Iraq to explain to you why I think we need a smaller defense.'' He was very determined to make sure he got the right message across. He continued, ``But,'' he said, ``I want to make sure everyone understands that unlike after every other conflict,'' he was saying every other conflict prior to the end of the Cold War, ``unlike at the end of every other conflict, this time,'' he said, ``we're going to do it smart.'' Well, I wish he were still in that chair, because we probably would have done it smart. But I am afraid in the meantime perhaps we have not been so smart. Maybe the builddown has gone too fast. I do not think he had in mind the speeches we have to give like the one we are giving tonight about cannibalization, OPTEMPO, lack of readiness, modernization problems that we have, making decisions about how we are going to best use the limited resources. That is not what Dick Cheney had in mind, I am sure. Then after he fully discussed that with us, he said, ``And remember something else, too.'' He said, ``The Soviet threat has diminished. The Soviet Union is on the verge of breaking up.'' He said, ``But remember this. The threat will not go away. It will only change.'' Words to remember. Earlier I heard the gentleman discussing the situation relative to China. We know the situation relative to South Korea and North Korea. We know that we were on the brink of another conflict in the Middle East just a few weeks ago. We have got, what is it, 25,000 troops ongoing in Bosnia, give or take a platoon or two? And so the threat has changed. As the gentleman knows, it is not just a conventional threat that we face today, it is new threats that perhaps existed in the past but are even more prevalent today than they were during the Cold War. The acronym WMD is spoken in these halls quite frequently, particularly in our committee, weapons of mass destruction, WMD, and the technology that we are in the process of developing to deal with the problems involved in weapons of mass destruction. That is what this entire flap over Iraq was about, how to deal with this issue and all of these kinds of threats, I am afraid, are what Dick Cheney was talking about when he said, ``And don't ever forget, the threat may change, but there will be a threat.'' And so today, more than ever, I think it is important that Members of this House and Members of the other House and Members of the American public and people that work over in the Pentagon recognize the need to face today's threat, because it is different, but it has not gone away.

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before the gentleman from North Carolina leaves the floor, I just want to thank him for being here tonight and making the contribution that he did. I know how deeply and earnestly he feels about the issues that he was talking about relative to our national defense. We value the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) on these issues. We were delighted he was able to be here with us tonight. First, let me say how much I enjoy serving on the gentleman's subcommittee, the Procurement Subcommittee. There are darned few things that we have to be thankful for, that is, those of us who disagree with the Clinton administration on our level of military commitment in these days, but one of the things that we do have to be thankful for is that the gentleman is where he is. I watched, actually I helped, I was there by his side last year on the Procurement Subcommittee as we tried to sort out and make those difficult decisions about how to best allocate the very limited resources, relatively limited resources that we have to make use of relative to our national security. It always made me feel good at the end of the day that the gentleman was there holding the reins to make sure that we were guided correctly through that maze of decisions that we had to make.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I hope not, too. Obviously it does not, but for one reason or another, one time out of every 8 they take off, they cannot take off, so this creates a very big problem if one flies from this country overseas and makes a few landings there, by the time you get back around the loop, if you have landed 6 or 7 or 8 times, and you figure you are not going to take off one of those times, which is very bad. So this modernization proposal that they have is a very good proposal. Actually, the airframe has 80 percent of its life left in it, but the hydraulics and engines and aeronautics all have to be replaced. So, Mr. Speaker, that is essentially where we are. The craft fleet will remain very important, but basically, our military airlifters are either in need of replacement or very extensive modernization programs.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today was a momentous day for many of us who have worked for over a year to accomplish what I guess I would describe as a very, very important and worthwhile goal. On April 9, 1995, a young lady by the name of Alicia Flatow was the victim of a terrorist attack as a college student while riding in a bus in the Gaza strip. Soon after the terrorist attack, the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Then about a year and a half ago, Alicia's father, who was a resident of New Jersey, Steven Flatow, came to visit me in my office with his attorney, Steve Perles, from Washington, DC. It seems that they had filed suit against the Islamic Republic of Iran for the part they played in this terrorist attack, and for allegedly supporting the terrorist attack. I was informed by Mr. Flatow and his attorney that in filing and successfully pursuing such a court case, that momentous expenses are incurred, and at the most, under then current law, under then law, that law that existed at that time, a year and a half ago, the most that could be recovered would be something slightly over $1 million, and that in order to pursue a proper remedy, that Federal law would have to be changed to permit recovery for punitive damages. I went to see the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Henry Hyde], explained the situation to him, and he agreed that if the chairman of the Committee on International Relations also agreed, that we would make the appropriate change in the law. We did, and in the Senate, Senator Lautenberg lent his hand, and the change in the law was made. Today, at a little after 10 o'clock this morning, Federal District Judge Royce Lambeth issued the statement in which was embodied his decision. The State of Iran this morning was entered against a judgment for $247 million for the part they played in the killing of young Alicia Flatow. This is justice for the Flatow family. It sadly does little to remedy the damage that was done to the young lady, but it is some form of justice to the family. But just as importantly, perhaps more importantly, we have established through law and through now judicial process that there is yet another tool that the citizens of the United States of America have available to use against terrorist attacks like the one that occurred on April 9, 1995, in the Gaza strip. I hope that the message goes out loud and clear to terrorists around the world, wherever they may be, and would-be terrorists, and, importantly, very importantly, today's governments around the world that are known to be supporters of terrorism, that the United States and the citizens of the United States and the Congress of United States and the court system in the United States, that none of us are going to rest easy until every act of terrorism is stopped. Today was a good day in our fight against terrorism, but we must be determined to carry this battle further in the days ahead. So today I thank all of those who were involved in this process. I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Henry Hyde] for the part he played, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ben Gilman] for the part he played, and the court system and Judge Royce Lambeth for the part he played.