Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Stump- Solomon amendment to H.R. 1158. This rescissions bill goes a long way toward bringing some fiscal responsibility to the Federal Government. The cuts made in H.R. 1158 exemplify the Republicans' commitment to downsize the Government and reduce our national debt. I fully support the efforts to rescind appropriated funds as a step in the right direction. However, the rescission of moneys allocated to the Department of Veterans Affairs for the health administration and for construction of ambulatory care facilities is a mistake. There are many other programs far more deserving of spending cuts than medical care for America's veterans. I commend Chairman Stump and Chairman Solomon for their amendment. They understand that the VA provides services absolutely essential to the well-being of our Nation's Veterans. Their amendment recognizes the importance of VA programs and prompts the right question: Which is more important, medical care for veterans or AmeriCorps--a multi-million dollar boondoggle that pays young people for an activity they used to do out of a sense of the common good. As one who offered an amendment before the Rules Committee that would have done the same thing as Stump-Solomon--with the one difference that it would have offset the VA restoration with funds from the Environmental Protection Agency's construction budget--I lend my support to this worthy amendment. America's veterans deserve at least this much.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, my friends, in politics as in humor, timing is everything, and the timing of President Clinton's $20 billion bailout of Mexico could not be worse. At the very moment, the American dollar is taking a beating in world currency markets. The Clinton administration is sparing no expense to shore up the Mexican peso. In looking through some of the clips over the weekend, it seemed to me the timing of what President Clinton is doing is everything. For on this House floor this week we will be voting on a rescission package that cuts benefits for veterans. Now, how do the veterans feel about a rescission package that cuts the veterans at the same time we are shoring up the peso by giving $20 billion to the exchange stabilization fund? Let me also talk to you about what the chief economist at Lehman Brothers, Allen Sinai said: ``The dollars' new all-time lows are being generated by the United States ties to Mexico and the panic flight right now of funds away from weak currency countries, Mexico, Canada, and the United States.'' Need I remind the Members of this body that the exchange stabilization fund that is being tapped by the Clinton administration was set up explicitly to protect the value of the United States dollar, not the Mexican peso. Yet the administration has already disbursed $3 billion from this fund to Mexico whose current political corruption saga contains more characters than a Tolstoy novel and is expecting to ship down the next $7 billion by the end of June. And for those of my colleagues who didn't read the paper this morning, Mr. Salinas, the former President of Mexico, has left Mexico, and now intends to reside in Boston, MA, and be a consultant. Mr. Speaker, James Madison wrote, ``The House of Representatives alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the Government. They, in a word, hold the purse.'' My colleagues, what that means basically is Congress has to approve money that you spend. The administration can't take this kind of money from the American people without Congress approving. So that is why I call on the rest of the Members of this House to allow a vote on congressional approval for any additional funds to Mexico and suspend further payment until all the questions are answered from the Leach letter that we approved in a House resolution here on the House floor. I would like to conclude by reading a quote from a leading columnist in Mexico talking about the recent disruption in Mexico and the peso, and she said, ``Two things happened to Mexico under Mr. Salinas. He made us believe in the Government of Mexico and he anesthetized us from the corruption. Now the new President has made us see the corruption, and the result is we don't believe in Government anymore.'' Mr. Speaker, now is the time to allow us to vote on this matter and suspend all further payments, particularly in light of the fact that we have a rescission package coming on this House floor that is going to be $17 billion, almost as much as the President intends to give to Mexico without congressional approval. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. Wednesday on a major rescission. We will be voting to cut the spending for many programs that many of our people have learned to depend upon. Whether or not they should be depending on these programs, whether or not the Federal Government should be in those areas or not is a matter of debate, but if we cut these programs and then we spend the money, not on their benefit by bringing down the Federal deficit, which is the purpose behind cutting spending supposedly, but instead allow that money to be taken from the United States Treasury and sent to Wall Street speculators who went to Mexico to receive high returns on their investment or the Mexican elite, which is a corrupt elite that have betrayed their country time and again, we ourselves will be betraying our people in the same way that Mexican elite has been betraying their own people. This bailout is a crime against our own people, and on top of that, it will not work. One can see the nature of this crime by the fact that here we are talking about the transferring of billions of dollars, American taxpayers' dollars, without so much as a vote of Congress. The last time I heard, money was not supposed to be spent in this country unless the elected Representatives of the people voted for it. This is a travesty. It should and it will be stopped.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 5-minute special order granted to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] for Wednesday, March 15, 1995, be vacated.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman, perhaps like myself, has heard the arguments if we do not give this money to Mexico, there will be a financial catastrophe in Mexico and we hear that oftentimes here in the halls of Congress and we have heard the administration--in fact, recently Mr. Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Rubin, used this. And frankly I think it is sort of a scare tactic because a recent Wall Street Journal properly debunks that whole idea that there would be a financial catastrophe. From early December through mid-February, stock markets in emerging countries that undertook significant pro-markets reforms, the ones you are talking about, and sound money reforms survived quite nicely during the so-called global crisis that the currency has just been through. Stock markets in Singapore, Chile, and the Czech Republic were essentially flat during that period. Emerging nations with partial or faltering reforms, including Brazil and Hungary, however, did indeed suffer mightily during the Mexican breakdown. So, in other words, private global investment capital is discerning and mobile. It knows where it is investing its money. It knows a good deal from a bad deal and it will not be intimidated by disaster scenarios conjured up by financial officials like Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will require Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the congressional budget. We kept our promise. It continues that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we kept our promise; unfunded mandates legislation--we kept our promise; line-item veto--we kept our promise; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we kept our promise; national security restoration to protect our freedoms--we kept our promise; Government regulatory reform--we kept our promise; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits--we kept our promise; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for middle-income families; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, does an economy exist to serve a society or vice versa? Argentina's Minister for Finance put it well when he said that each unit of currency is an explicit contract between the government and the ordinary holder of currency. It is supposed to remain stable through a specified period of time. Following that logic, a purposeful devaluation breaks that contract. If that is so, Mexico has breached this contract and I submit some questions should be answered. And I compliment the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for his resolution. The Mexican Government should not get any more money, not one cent because they have broken their contract with their people. Please take a look at my chart and see how the rate of the peso to dollar has dropped every month since 1994, including a significant plunge from 3.45 to 4.0 in December alone. In January it dropped 5.58 and on February 21, after the announced signing of the President's loan package of $20 billion. The Mexican markets tumbled still lower, and frankly, my friends, I have a little ribbon at the bottom there because I think the market is going to go even further. Officials in Mexico concede now there has been no indication of a turnaround in investor confidence since last week's signing of the United States $20 billion loan guarantee package. The Government of Mexico must be charged with addressing the irregularities in its own contract before asking the United States, American citizens to support any further bailout. The President of Mexico might find it convenient to blame the devaluation on the rebels, investor pullout, political instability or some other factor, but it has become evident that there were clear signs of deficits indicated early in 1994. The administration should have known that. For whatever reason, be it political gain for whatever reason or the financial gain of Wall Street, now the average working American and the average working Mexican now must pay for this devaluation. So I support the resolution, and I am glad it finally came to the House floor.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues we could almost call the Barton amendment the hallelujah amendment because for many of us who have been in the private sector and have worked all our lives trying to live with all the regulations, the fact that we can now finally petition the Federal Government, hallelujah! So I compliment my colleague for what he is doing here. We have heard examples from the gentleman from California [Mr. WAXMAN], these hypothetical examples, but let me give my colleagues a clear example that has occurred which could have been petitioned, it could have been redressed, and it could have been stopped: In the early 1980's, Mr. Chairman, Government scientists argued that asbestos exposure could cause thousands of deaths. Congress responded by passing a sweeping law which led cities and States to spend between $15 and $20 billion to remove asbestos from public buildings. However 3 years ago EPA officials acknowledged further research. Ripping out the asbestos had been a mistake. In fact they pointed out that this mistake had really raised the exposure of the public to the dangerous asbestos fibers which became airborne during removal. To the EPA it was a mistake. To the American taxpayers it was a $20 billion mistake. Wasted. I ask, ``Wouldn't it have been nice, colleagues, to have had a second chance at that rule, to have the opportunity to petition the EPA to change its needless rule to save the American taxpayers $20 billion?'' Again and again examples like that are going to occur. To those colleagues that are watching on television, we need to pass this amendment, hallelujah amendment. I want to conclude. Last term I was involved as a ranking member of a committee called Commerce, Consumer Protection and Trade. We had discussion on redesigning a 5-gallon bucket that is used for painting and hauling water. The Consumer Product Safety Commission analyzed it because a few children got caught in it, and their heads got caught in it because of negligence by the parents. They issued--the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued--a 101-page report. In the report the staff notes that one of their suggestions to the industry was making the bucket so that they deliberately leak. It is being objected to by the bucket makers. Naturally the bucket maker is a little concerned about designing a bucket that deliberately leaks. According to the report, quote, industry representatives claim that they do not envision any use for a bucket that leaks. My colleagues, now is the time to pass the hallelujah amendment. I compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, for what he is doing.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding to me, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the chairman of the Committee on Science, for one great bill that we got out of Congress. I might say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] who preceded me that his other colleague pointed out that he wishes his party could have offered this legislation in the intervening 40 years since Republicans have been a majority, so he does not think it is a fraud. He does not think it is stupid. In fact, many people feel that this particular bill's time has come. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Act of 1995. Many of us know that we spend up until the 15th of May to pay our taxes. That is how long we work to pay our taxes. We go to the 15th of July to pay for the regulations. This legislation represents the Republicans' commitment to achieve true reform of the way government works, and more importantly, it brings us closer to fulfilling the promise that we made to the American people. I find it some concern that there could be any opposition to this legislation, for truly, it is one of the most common sense bills we have brought before the House. It takes a rational look at irrational regulatory process. It forces agencies to slow down and look long and hard at each proposed rule. It forces out irrational regulation based upon upward bound technology, and implements, instead, a process that is both rational and fair. Rules and regulations would still exist, but they would finally be based upon sound science. This bill would force the Federal Government to live under the same rational rules that govern American households and businesses. The bill would require regulators to use their brains when making rules. They could no longer base their overly draconian regulations on the highest available technology, an idea that has led to a huge amount of increased regulatory burden on American taxpayers. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. Its time has finally come.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Well, I would like to make part of the Record my amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for this opportunity to have a colloquy with him, and this concerns an amendment that I would like to offer, but I would ask the gentleman to perhaps give me an explanation I think that already exists in the Norton rule that passed. My amendment was basically to not apply to regulatory rulemaking action by the Department of Housing and Urban Development under section 919 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 which clarifies regulations governing housing for older Americans and significant facilities and services.My concern is that the deputy of HUD has come up with a self-certifying way for seniors to allow their housing facilities to be self-certified. It is very simple, two out of twelve criteria, and now they can self-certify, and no one will have to worry about suits by the Federal Government, by HUD. This agreement has been worked out over a long period of time, and I think it is important that this agreement remain in place, and it is going to go forward in the next 60 days, so obviously I was concerned about that.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as the Defense Department prepares the latest list of military sites it will recommend for shutdown, there is one site that any objective observer would conclude does not belong on that list--the Jacksonville Naval Aviation Depot. Since the 1993 round of base closings cut the Nation's number of naval aviation depots in half, the Jacksonville NADEP's unique role as a cornerstone of America's military readiness has only increased. The core purpose of a NADEP is to provide essential industrial support to the Navy's tactical aircraft--a task the Jacksonville NADEP performs with not only maximum effectiveness, but maximum efficiency. Jacksonville NADEP currently handles fully half of the entire Navy's depot repair of aircraft engines, and does so with annual overhead costs of just 39 percent--11 percent below that of any other NADEP. In fact, the Jacksonville NADEP is so efficient that in 1994 it actually turned a profit of $27 million. Mr. Speaker, the American people want the strongest possible national defense at the lowest possible cost. If the Defense Department wants to achieve this goal, the Jacksonville NADEP is the last base it would ever want to close.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most amazing aspect of the Clinton administration's $53 billion loan bailout of Mexico--$20 billion of which comes straight out of the pockets of the U.S. taxpayers--is that it's a bailout that should not have happened. As the Washington Post recently reported, there were signs as early as February of last year that Mexico's economy was in serious trouble. At that time the International Monetary Fund issued a report stating that Mexico's consumption of foreign goods and services was outpacing the ability of its economy to pay for them. In other words, it was living on borrowed time--and money. Clinton administration officials expressed no alarm, not even when foreign investors began shifting money to dollar-denominated investments that would make it easier to pull funds out of Mexico. As a former analyst for Mexico's Banca Serfin Banking group said, ``That's a clear sign something was wrong * * * if the American Government didn't see that, they're blind.'' But that did not stop then-Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen from claiming in mid-February that Mexico ``has become an example for all of Latin America.'' He said this one year ago. another shock when the ruling political party's Presidential candidate was assassinated. This prompted the Clinton administration to extend a $6 billion credit line to Mexico, even as Mexico was using up its reserve of U.S. dollars to prop up the peso. This occurred less than 1 year ago. Last summer, the Mexican economy had deteriorated to the point that Clinton administration officials finally recommended economic reforms. But as the Washington Post put it, ``those efforts lacked urgency and never went beyond exhortations.'' And the administration never made a big push for Mexico to devalue its overinflated currency. And although administration officials deny it, one has to wonder what role their desire to see Ernesto Zedillo win the upcoming Presidential election played in the decision to abandon calls for real reform. As the Washington Post quoted one official, the CIA accurately predicted Zedillo's victory, but ``it didn't tell you that if he kept driving straight he would fall off a cliff.'' With Zedillo safely elected, Mexico's then-President Salinas finally admitted on October 1 that his country's central bank reserves had fallen to $17 billion from $28 billion at the end of 1993. It became clear a devaluation was coming. But Mexico tried to hide its financial predicament from the world. Not until mid-December did we find out Mexico's reserves had sunk to $7 billion. Even then, Mexico's finance minister said his country would ``absolutely not'' devalue its currency. We all know what happened next. On December 20 the Mexican Government reversed its policy and devalued the peso by 13 percent. There is no good reason the Clinton administration should not have seen this coming. The signs were there a year ago. Now the U.S. taxpayers are the line for $20 billion to rescue the economy of a country that bungled its own economy and hid the facts from us. Congress should not let his bailout deal go through unquestioned.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in President Clinton's State of the Union that he gave just about 2 weeks ago in this Chamber, this is what he said: ``Should we cut the deficit more? Well, of course we should.'' As many of the Members will remember, that was a great line, and many a lot of us applauded. However, his 1996 fiscal year budget came in, and the question is, why did he not? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, does the Clinton administration still have as its highest priority reduced spending? Not only does his budget ring up almost $200 billion in deficit for fiscal year 1996, but it projects deficits of almost $200 billion every year to the year 2005. It uses the same old accounting gimmicks that we have seen before, and it claims $144 billion in cuts in Federal spending over 5 years. The reality is that in fiscal year 1996 alone, the administration proposed increasing spending by $50 billion. Mr. Speaker, do we have to say it again? Raising spending by less than we plan is not a spending cut.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, is it in our best interest to link the economic security of this country to markets controlled by a nation with a record of bankruptcies and devaluations? In fact is it proper to do free trade with a country that has a history of these devaluations, repudiations of debts and a country that lacks real democratic reforms? Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about President Clinton's decision to bail out Mexico. Let us face the facts--Mexico's political system has not been reformed as rapidly as its economy, and therein lies the problem. Government corruption continues, particularly in the form of bribes and kickbacks for government projects and there is a large black market. There is no middle class and most of the wealth is controlled by a few families. Mexico's average inflation rate from 1980 to 1991 was 66.5 percent. There is a high level of regulation and there needs more privatization of government businesses. If we are to rely on back door bailouts for countries that have this economic history, then I question the New World Economic Order. Mr. Speaker, the President should not link our economic sovereignty to a nation that does not have sound economic and political policies.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, history was made on the opening day here in Congress. We passed sweeping reforms to not only change the rules of the House but also to make Congress adhere to laws governing the rest of the country. But now the question is, Mr. Speaker: Do we really need so many regulations? Compliance under some of these strict rules and regulations which are mandated by OSHA, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and all of this massive legislation we passed in the last 150 years is forcing companies to either downsize their work force or go out of business entirely, as we speak. Many small business are struggling under the yoke of overburdensome regulations and rules. They make it virtually impossible for them to operate. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the action taken thus far by Congress to bring this body into the mainstream, but I also think the time is now to do away with many of these needless rules and regulations that are already in existence.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I stand here to talk to my colleagues about base closure. I think many of us realize we just went through a base closure operation not too long ago and I was involved with it. We are having another one in 1995. I want to point out to my colleagues we had a vote on the House floor to slow down this process and I think it is important we do that. Now that Republicans are in control, I hope all of us will realize we have an opportunity to preserve some very important bases around this country, which brings me to my point about a very important base in my congressional district in Jacksonville, FL. It is a naval depot. My friends, it is creating a profit. After all is said and done, here is a government operation that is creating profit every year, so why should we be shutting down something like that? The community is coming together very strongly to protect it. In fact on Monday the First Coast Manufacturing Association kicked off a campaign of 500,000 postcards in support of the Jacksonville depot.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker--it is a wonderful afternoon. I thank my colleague from California. My colleague from Florida on the other side of the aisle talked about seizing the opportunity. He agrees with a lot of the reforms that we are going to present here shortly, but he is complaining about the parliamentary procedure. So I say to him why did he not, he and his party, bring all of these forward during the last 40 years? Let us take this opportunity to look at one of these, the Congressional Accountability Act, that we are going to pass here on opening day. What we are saying is that it will not be business as usual around here, and we intend to make Congress operate in a more fair and open manner. Thomas Jefferson said, ``When a man assumes public trust, he should consider himself as public property.'' By enacting this new set of rules for the House, we are stating unequivocally we believe in practicing what we preach. We must continue providing the bold and decisive leadership that brought us to this moment here in history. I urge my colleague from Florida who talked about seizing the opportunity: Let us move forward.