[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 25, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  EXTENSION OF REMARKS IN SUPPORT OF BILL TO REFORM THE EXPORT-IMPORT 
              BANK TO BE MORE RESPONSIBLE TO AMERICAN JOBS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 25, 1997

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill which I 
introduced today, with Mr. Lipinski of Illinois and Mr. McGovern of 
Massachusetts as original cosponsors. This bill would require the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States, when selecting among firms to 
provide financial assistance, to give preference to any firm which has 
shown a commitment to reinvestment and job creation in the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill gets at, I believe the heart of the issue of 
the relationship between the U.S. Government, the taxpayers of this 
country and corporate America.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little bit about some of the companies 
which have received financial assistance from the Export-Import Bank in 
recent years--and you tell me whether these are really the best 
companies that the middle income people of this country should be 
subsidizing. According to information from Ex-IM, among the top 25 
companies which receive assistance from Ex-Im are Boeing, General 
Electric, and AT&T. Let's take a brief look at these companies and see 
whether these really are the types of companies that the American 
taxpayers should be rewarding.
  In terms of employment, in 1990 Boeing had 155,900 employees. In 
1996, it had 103,600 employees--a decline of 52,300 jobs during that 
period. In other words, it laid off \1/3\ of its workforce, despite 
being the top recipient of Ex-Im aid.
  Mr. Speaker, General Electric is the number two recipient of Ex-Im 
aid. In 1975 GE had 667,000 American workers. Twenty years later, it 
had 398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. General Electric CEO Jack 
Welch, is well known for his ruthlessness in moving GE jobs to anyplace 
in the world where he can get cheap labor--Mexico, China, and other 
poor Third World countries. Is this really the type of company we want 
to be rewarding with taxpayer subsidies? Downsizing American workers 
has been at the core of the Jack Welch philosophy at GE, and Ex-Im is 
actually providing millions of dollars in support of this company.
  As for AT&T, in 1995 AT&T laid off 40,000 workers. Interestingly 
enough, reports show that in that same year, AT&T provided its CEO, 
Robert Allen, with $15 million in options plus a $11 million grant.
  My point, Mr. Speaker, is that the entire approach of Ex-Im in terms 
of job creation is too narrow. They approach the idea of ``jobs through 
exports'' on a project-by-project basis, and ignore the totality of 
what the company is doing.
  My bill is quite simple. This bill would simply require the Export-
Import Bank to look at the totality of the situation. And if there is a 
company that is showing a commitment to job creation and reinvestment 
in the United States, then that company should receive preference for 
assistance.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                          ____________________