Date: 1983-11-03
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. four major pieces of legislation which vitally affect the domestic economy and international financial stability await final action in these closing weeks of the first session. All fourfunding for the International Monetary Fund. ExportImport Bank. the various multilateral development banks and housinghave passed the House. Key elements of thle package have not passed the Senate. and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the administration cannot decide whether it wants to participate in the legislative effort or whether its preference is for Ideological debate. If the IMFHousingEximMDB legislation is to succeed it must move as a package. This is not a question of holding any part of the package "hostage" as some have suggested. Rather. It is an absolute necessity If we are to gather and hoid the votes for four very difficultand not overly popularpieces of legislation. To ignore these political facts of life Is to imperil the entire package and each of its parts. Each provides essential political glue that holds the package together. Surely even the most Imprecise and naive among this citys vote counters can understand the fragiie nature of the coalition surrounding thle IMFhousing package. None Of US Will get everything we want out of this packageneither the House. the Senate. nor the administration. But. we canif the administration will leave the philosophical and Ideological debates for the Heritage Foundationcome up with a sane. rational. and responsible compromise that will serve the public interest across a broad front. We on the House Banking Committeemajority and minorityhave met with our Senate counterparts since September in an effort to reach Just such a compromise. While he may not agree on many points. Senator GARN has cooperated and he. too. seeks a rational compromise that can send this package to the President before the end of the session. Both Senator GARN and I have Instructed our staffs to work on all the nittygritty details. the paperwork. the identification of key Issues necessary In preparation for a conference. We are in a position to move and move quickly If we can reach a conference. The hangupI am sorry to reportis the administration. It has not given the green light for Senate action on a meaningful housing bill. We have met with OMB Director David Stockman. We hope to meet with him again very soon. To date. the Idea that the Federal Government should have a role in the production of low- and moderateincome housing troubles Mr. Stockman. We are back to the old 1981 call for hardnosed philosophical "diginthehecels" approaches that Ignore all economic and human needs involved in thle issue. This time the Stockman approach not only imperils the hopes of lowand moderateincome families. but the stability of the international financial system. It is not a responsible position in a critical hour for both the domestic and international economy. Mr. Speaker. the intransigence of the administration on housing Is particularly disappointing In the face of our efforts to pare down and compromise the housing legislation. The committee orginally passed a bill calling for $24.3 billion In authorizations for housing programs. On the floor. we amended the billon the Democrats own initiativeto cut the funding to $15.6 billion to make certain that it was within the budget resolution. And we recognize that we must face an equitable give and take when we ultimatelyand hopefullysit down in conference with the Senate. We have leaned over backward on housingdespite overwhelming needs In this areain an effort to move this package. only to face an administration that says it is all for naught. "Remove the heart and well let the patient live." Is the word from OMB. Such an attitude clearly throws chilling water on the hopes for Senate action and any kind of conference that could produce an acceptable result. Mr. Speaker. I commend my colleagues on the Banking Commit tee and throughout the House for their patience and support during this long hard effort to produce an IMPhousIng package. For Democrats. who have provided the overwhelming majority for the IMP bill. It has been i trying and frustrating year. Let me assure you. having this administration as a partner in a highwire legislative actleaves a whole lot to be desired. Last year. all of us assumed that an IMP bill would be needed. But In August 1982. the administration started sending signals that we need not worry about such problems. On August 30. 1982 the Wall Street Journal reported: "Tile Reagan Administration.. reluctant to enlarge the IMP resources at all. Is seeking to hold any increase to a minimum.". "U.S. Takes Dim View of a Major Increase in the IMP Quotas." a headline In the Washington Post read. "Reagan Rejects IMP Doubling of Qtiotas." read another. During 1982. the administration*.position. enunciated through various columnists. Interviews. and official statements. ranged from opposition to minimal increases. Finally isolated as the only reluctant nation among thle Western industrial countries. the United States finally climbed aboard at the annual IMP meeting in Toronto in September. But. the message was clearthe Reagan administration was a reluctant. grudging. and footdragging supporter of additional fund.. for the IMF. This message was not lost onl thle world or on the U.S. Congress. Hardly an auspicious beginning for what was% certain to be a tough. grinding legislative battle to get any increase. But.. on November 15. 1982. thle Treasury Departmentacting as If it had never had another positioncame roaring to the Hil1l with an urgent letter demanding posthaste that the Congress hand over $8.4 billion of new funding for the IMP. Most of us were Just back In town after hearing our Republican opponents denounce us time after time In political commercial after politichi commercial as dastardly big spenders. It was an ironic message from an administration that had told the world that it wasnt happy over new IMP quotas and had lectured thle Congress ad nauseam on the sins of increasing spending for anything but weapons systems. Despite this. we Scheduled early hearings for December and started what we knew would be a long and difficult. process of exploring the issues4 and trying to answer thle questions we knew the House would ask If thle legislation reached the floor. Throughout this process. we tried to explain to the administration lobbyists that the votes were not there and that the Reagan forces would have to push hard to maximi".e the Repuhllc~n supportsupport thAat had not been there for earlier IMF nuota increases. We received lots of bland assurances and even more insistence that v"e leap forward and force the bill to an early vote. The administrations nose counts were anywhere from bad to atrocious misreadings. The administration failed miserably to rally Its own troops to either block crip~pling amendments or to support the bill onl final passage. In the end. only 72 Republicans supported IMF. and the majority side had to work like Lte devil to provide the margin withi 145 Democrats voting for tile Presidents package. When the dust cleared. we had a sixvote margin thanks to the Democrats. No sooner had we survived that perils of Pauline experience than the Republican Campaign Committee decided that time IMF bill was fertile ground for partisan games. Suddenly. we found key Democratic supporters of the IMP bill attacked In scurrilous Republ ica n campaign releases for supportin mriv positions of the Republi(.an President onl thle Issues. Here were thle Democrats under attack as somehow aiding Commnunist dictatorships" by providing thle Presi(lent badly needed votes to keep the IMP bill intact. Witli all the difficulty we had faced in putting that coalition togethier it was unbelieveable that the President and his administration would allow such outlandish back alley political tactics t~o rip it apart. It took the President 21/z long uuonths to face uip to the damage his party had inflicted onl his own bill and to write a letter recognizing that fact to time D~emocrats. It was not a particularly gracious letter. but it did provide somec surcease albeit not commensurate with the viciousness of the original at tack. Again. tin thle spirit of reaching a compromise. I think most Democrats at( willing to accept thle Presidents letter and put this issue behind uts. Again. thle Democrats walk the extra mile because thle legislation is needed. Now. we face the issue of a critically needed hiousing bill. We are faced with anl adimiinistrntion that apparently will not even let the bill out of thle Senate. not even walking that first ile with