Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by apologizing to the approximately 80 House employees who will be kept a little bit late this afternoon as a result of this. What the people in the gallery and many of the folks back home do not realize is that under present system these employees have to stick around as long as we have special orders. There is a room right up there that has a television camera. I have asked the previous Speaker, and I'm going to ask that the Speaker try to change that policy. There is really no reason to keep these people around late, but I would not keep them here if it was not worthwhile. What we have to talk about today is of the utmost importance to our Nation. We are talking about $20 billion for the single largest expenditure on the part of this country that has ever been made without the consent of Congress, and the potential for an additional $15 billion to be spent at any moment by the President of the United States, again without the consent of Congress. It is particularly frustrating as a Member of Congress that earlier in this week, when the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], seven Republicans, an equal number of Democrats, and the body's only Independent Member offered a resolution to demand of the Comptroller General the information as to whether or not what President Clinton did last week, when he guaranteed the loan to bail out Wall Street, to bail out the Mexican peso, whether or not that was even legal. Second, we wanted to know how often this fund has been used, and what amounts of money have been appropriated over the past. We also wanted to know who knew that the bailout was going to take place. We know that Speaker Gingrich knew; we know that President of the Senate, Senator Dole, knew. We know that the President knew. Who else knew that this was going to take place? The reason that this is so important is, they knew before the announcement that the value of the peso was going to jump dramatically. It has now been shown that it jumped 20 percent in less than 48 hours. For those who have a small savings account, for those who might own a stock, can they imagine having a guaranteed 20-percent return on their investment in only 48 hours? That is why it is important, and that is why it was so wrong, that this deal was cut with the Speaker, with the President, with the President of the Senate, in secret, without the approval of Congress to bail out the peso, but most importantly, to bail out Wall Street, the same people who just 15 months ago said ``We have to have NAFTA, even if it means that the garment workers down in rural communities like south Mississippi will be thrown out of work, even if it means that the fishermen and the shrimpers down in the Gulf Coast States will be put at a severe disadvantage,'' because they have to live by all of our laws, our minimum wage laws, our OSHA laws, the pollution laws. They have to pay our taxes. And they will be competing with shrimp brought in from Communist China, for which there is no import fee at all. They said it was economic Darwinism and that we had to have NAFTA because the chips are just going to fall where they are. It is kind of strange, then, that 15 months later when Wall Street is hurting, when Wall Street is losing a few bucks on their investments down in Mexico that they run to this body, that they run to the President and demand to be bailed out. It is not right. It is not fair. And it is your money. I think the people of America need to realize that these are unsecured loans. Now, the President will tell you and Speaker Gingrich will tell you that the Mexicans have pledged the oil revenues to pay these loans back. Who's kidding whom? If those oil revenues had not already been pledged in a dozen different places, do you think they would be having to borrow $20 billion? That oil revenue has been pledged long ago and will not be available to repay those loans and $20 billion of your tax dollars have already gone down the rathole. Some of the older Members of this body tell me that this is much like the S&L crisis where they came to Congress and said, ``You know, for $5 billion we can solve the problem,'' only a few months later to come back and say, ``Well, you've now invested $5 billion, you have to invest some more to get your money back.'' There is not a doubt in my mind that within a certain period of time, the President of the United States will be asking for the remaining $15 billion. And it is your money. And it is the only money spent without the approval of Congress. It is the only money spent without the approval of the Senate. And if you take the time to read our Nation's Constitution, it is very clear in article I, section 9 which says the Congress shall have the power to coin money. No money shall be spent from the Treasury without an appropriation by the Congress. And yet what the President did was completely contrary to that. He will point to an old law from 1934 that was meant to get us out of the depression, that was meant to prop up our currency, that has never been used for more than $1 billion at a time and say that that $20 billion somehow benefits us. Who's kidding whom? ever really know if some phone calls were made to some people who happen to be Wall Street buddies and said, ``Go out and buy a bunch of pesos because the value's going to go up very quickly and very soon,'' and your money was used to guarantee that. It is wrong, and that is why what the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], a number of Republicans including the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], that is why we are trying to find out what happened and that is why equally importantly we have a bill in the Banking Committee to say that this cannot happen again, that from now on these moneys have to be appropriated by Congress. At this time I would like to yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], who has been most instrumental in doing the research on this matter.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I would like Members of Congress to be granted the 1 hour that the House rules allow for to speak on this matter. preferential motion offered by mr. armey

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry: What is the procedure for----

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 57) to preserve the constitutional role of the House of Representatives to provide for the expenditure of public money and ensure that the executive branch of the U.S. Government remains accountable to the House of Representatives for each expenditure of public money, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the past few days a dozen Members of Congress, ranking from people on the ideological right, like the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], all the way to people on the ideological left, like the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], have asked the question of whether or not the role of Congress has been shortchanged in the decision by the President to use this fund to guarantee the loans to Mexico. We have come to the conclusion that it is privileged under the Rules of the House of Representatives, under rule IX, Questions of Privilege. It states, ``Questions of privilege shall be first those affecting the House collectively.'' Obviously, the fact that every Member of this body was denied a vote on the matter is a matter of the House collectively. Furthermore, in section 664 of rule IX, entitled ``General Principles,'' as to the precedent of questions of privilege, it states that ``As the business of the House began to increase, it was found necessary to give certain important matters a precedent by rule. Such matters were called privileged questions.'' Section 664 goes on and says, ``Certain matters of business arising under the Constitution mandatory in nature have been held to have a privilege which superseded the rules establishing the order of business.'' One provision of our Nation's Constitution that is most clearly mandatory in nature is article I, section 9, clause 7. It states, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.'' Mr. Speaker, this Congress cannot stand idly by and avoid our constitutional duty, a duty mandatory in nature. I request that the Chair rule immediately on this resolution, and in making that ruling abide by section 664 of rule IX, General Principles, as to precedents of question and privilege. Once again, it states that ``Certain matters of business arising under the provisions of the Constitution mandatory in nature have been held to have a privilege which has superseded the rules establishing the order of business.'' Obviously, 31 U.S.C. 5302 is unconstitutional because it allows the executive branch to exercise powers exclusively given to the Congress in the Constitution. Therefore, it is a matter which directly affects a provision of the Constitution mandatory in nature. This resolution is therefore a privileged resolution as defined by rule IX of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, since there were a dozen cosponsors of this resolution, each of us with an equal input, I would like the Chair to oblige those other Members who would like to speak on the matter.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, since the Speaker has gone to great pains to research the precedents of the House, I would like to point out to the Speaker that in the past whether or not the ceiling tiles were properly affixed to the ceiling of this Chamber has been ruled as a privileged resolution.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that the original custom of this body was to present any question of a privilege of the House to the Members and let the Members decide whether they felt it was a privilege of the House that was being violated. Is the Speaker willing to grant the Members of this House that same privilege?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this 1- minute to inform my colleagues that within a matter of minutes this House will be given the privilege that the President of the United States did not give us; and that is, to decide for ourselves whether or not we thought the Mexican bailout was a good idea. The privileged motion that will be before the House in just a few minutes is to require the comptroller general to tell us if the law was obeyed when the President used $20 billion from the stabilization fund to bail out Mexico. It will further give us a report of all the transactions for the past 24 months so that we can have some sort of an idea if this is being done on a daily basis, has become a regular thing, or something of a one-time thing. Getting to what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] said, there is a reason for getting this information. First, we have to isolate the problem so that later in this session we can offer a solution. And the solution to that should be that this fund, like every other fund in the budget, has to be appropriated. Members of Congress have to know how much is in it, what are our risks, and there ought to be an up or down vote by this body as to whether or not this should exist. First of all, we need the information to show the American people that the purpose of this fund has been abused.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. How did Ms. Kaptur vote on the issue?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in the past couple of weeks this Chamber has taken some steps toward getting our financial house in order. Regardless of where you stand on it, the House has passed a line-item veto. The Speaker as we speak is holding a press conference bragging about how that is somehow going to save the House of Representatives from itself, but we passed it. A few weeks ago we passed the balanced budget amendment, which I supported, because I think we have to be accountable. We passed earlier on the first day a resolution calling for an audit of every single House office and every single budget within the House of Representatives. But going back to what Mr. Sanders says, if it makes sense, and the Speaker will support an audit for a congressional office that has a budget of about $600,000, don't you think he would support an audit of a fund that has $35 billion in it; we think $35 billion, because no one really knows for sure, and it is the taxpayers' money. It is not the Speaker's money, it is not the money of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and it is certainly not my money. But don't the taxpayers deserve to know where it came from, where it is going, and don't they deserve an up-or-down vote of their elected representative on how this money ought to be spent, especially when our Nation's veterans are being told ``There is not enough room in the military hospitals for you;'' especially when every university within short order in the continental United States is going to get a letter saying ``Don't ask for as much money as you got last year, money is tight;'' especially when highway funds are getting ready to get cuts; especially when everybody's State's budget, at least the money they receive from the Federal Government, is going to get cut? How on Earth can we say domestically we want all you people to share in the pain, but if you are south of the Rio Grande, or if you happen to be a big shot up on Wall Street, here is a blank check for $20 billion, and here is $15 billion more when you need it? And the vote tomorrow morning is the only chance the people in this body are going to get to have an accounting on that. I hope the Speaker will rule that this resolution is in order. But if he does not rule it is in order, then we have got to wonder whose side is he on. Is he on the side of accountability or is he on the side of hiding all of this from the public? I had an interesting call today from an Under Secretary of the Treasury, and he will meet with a number of us tomorrow morning. Interestingly enough, he said, ``You know, I can't give you all that information publicly.'' Why? I can understand a military secret being kept from the public, we would not want our enemies to know our capabilities of our weapons or troop strengths, but why should not the public know how their money has been invested and where it has been invested and what kind of return they have on it, and what kind of promise we have to get this money back? That troubles me. That is sort of like the old Washington mentality, ``We know it all and those folks back home don't know.'' Tomorrow morning, the Members of this body will decide who they are with, whether they think the people of America are smart enough to know and ought to know where their money is coming from, and where it is going, or whether they just think a couple of guys, the Speaker, the President, the minority leader, a couple of guys from the Treasury Department, whether they think they alone ought to have the responsibility for $35 billion. That is really what the vote tomorrow morning is all about. No. 1, I would certainly encourage the Speaker to rule that this resolution is in order so that we can have a vote on it. But, No. 2, if he decides that he will not rule it in order, then I think he ought to at least be man enough to give us an hour to decide, to make our pitch in front of the full body before any sort of a motion is made to table it, because the people of America deserve to know what in the heck is going on, and they deserve an opportunity to fix this problem. I want to thank the gentlewoman and both gentlemen for their time.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that every group--there are groups like the National Taxpayers Union, Common Cause, groups that represent the defense industry, groups that represent the homeless, everyone has a score card on how you voted. You hear the Nation has incurred at least a $20 billion liability and there was not even a vote on it, and there will not be a vote on it next year or the following year or the following year, unless something happens. Mr. Speaker, I think the point all of us are trying to make, and maybe not saying as well as we can, is that the reason we need the information, the reason for the vote tomorrow morning, is that, No. 1, we find out just how far our liability goes with this; just what kind of assets, if any, the Mexicans have pledged. I have heard they pledged oil revenues that have already been pledged to pay other bills, so, therefore, they are really not available to get our money back. What kind of track record do the Mexicans have in paying things back? Where did this money come from? Isn't it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that while everything comes before this body, from the amount of money we will have to mail letters home to our constituents, the amount of money we will spend on B-2 bombers, the amount of money we will spend on housing and urban development, the amount of money we will spend on veterans, all these things, sometimes much, much smaller amounts dealing in just tens of thousands of dollars, we will get an up-or-down vote on, but for $20 billion, neither the President of the United States nor the Speaker of the House nor the minority leader even though we ought to have a vote. The only chance we get to rectify that starts tomorrow.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. The only point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, and I wanted to get back as to the very eloquent delivery by the former mayor of Burlington, could he not just vote against the appropriation for this when it comes up?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. There are, I believe as many Republican sponsors of this resolution as Democrats. I think that is very important, because I think a number of the Republicans are at odds with what their leadership has done, which is, again, to deprive the majority of the Members of this body just expressing this sentiment, yes or no, this is a tremendous obligation. I know it is more than three times the State budget for a whole year of my home State.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. If I may interrupt, on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I wanted to get back to something the gentleman from Vermont mentioned, when he said that Wall Street was all in favor of NAFTA and Wall Street was all in favor of the bailout. In fact, former U.S. Trade Representative, Ms. Carla Hills, who used to come regularly up to Congress and tell us what a great deal NAFTA was, has written an article for the Washington Post saying we have to bail out these poor people. It was funny that just 1\1/2\ years ago, when Ms. Hills came before the Merchant Marine Committee and I brought to her attention that a lot of shrimpers in the gulf coast, a lot of people in the garment plants would probably lose their jobs as a result of NAFTA, she said, ``that is economic Darwinism. You just have to have some people who are going to suffer when things like this happen, but it is for the benefit of everybody that this happens.'' Would someone explain the wisdom to me why it is OK to let somebody who makes $5.50 an hour working at a sewing machine all day lose their job, but when some Wall Street investor loses a couple of bucks on his investments down in Mexico, or maybe a lot more than a couple bucks, that it suddenly becomes the responsibility of the working people of this country, the very same working people that you may have put out of work to bail them out, to go on the line and cosign that loan? And above all, why is it right that this huge expenditure, the equivalent of the Veterans Administration budget, is being made available for the President alone to spend and the Congress of the United States, which is given the constitutional duty, not privilege but the constitutional duty to see how our money is spent, what kind of debts we incur, where is the Speaker? Where is the minority leader? Is this not crazy that neither party's head is demanding a vote on this and that 6, 7, 12 Members have to be the ones to come forward and, by using the rules of the House, demand a vote on this? It is just not right.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. So if you would explain to the Members who might still be watching, what is it that you are trying to accomplish tomorrow?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. So again going back to what Mr. Sanders had to say, what incentive then does Speaker of the House Gingrich have to bring this to a vote? After all, his folks got their $20 billion. The American people are left holding the bag. Four hundred and thirty- five Cngressmen never voted on it. Folks back home do not know if they were for it or against it. What recourse is there for a Member of Congress who feels like his constituents have gotten the short end of this stick, and that his constituents' children have gotten the short end of the stick? After all, they have already lent $20 billion. But it is my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong, there is $35 billion in this fund. That means there is $15 billion still to be left at the whim of the President. To put that as a reference to the citizens of this country, $35 billion is roughly what this Nation will spend on its veterans this year. Yet, you are telling me without a vote in this body, up to $35 billion can be pledged by the United States, with little or no guarantee that it will ever be repaid. As a matter of fact, I have heard the Mexicans have only made one debt payment one time in the past dozen years of so.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Ms. Kaptur, is it really fair to say the executive branch did this entirely on their own? Let us go back the 13 months that my friend Mr. Sanders made reference to. What was then minority whip, now Speaker of the House Gingrich's position on NAFTA?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. When will Congress get a chance to vote on this?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Twenty billion dollars of American tax dollars, and there was not a vote in the Congress of the United States. Is that what you are telling me?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. How did the Speaker of the House vote on the issue?