[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8184-H8188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               REAUTHORIZATION OF THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 255 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 255

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1370) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of 
     the United States. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. 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 Banking and Financial Services. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. 
     No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     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 on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. 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 committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. 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.

  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized 
for one hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very hard-working friend, the gentleman from 
South Boston, Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], who is carrying his second 
rule of the day for the minority, and I am sure he will do so very 
ably. All time that I will be yielding will be for debate purposes 
only.
  Mr. Speaker, pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 
1370, legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Export-Import Bank, an 
organization often referred to as the Eximbank. The Eximbank provides 
the most significant direct U.S. government support for American 
exporters, a subsidized loan rate to some foreign entities that buy 
American-made products.
  This is a modified closed rule providing 1 hour of general debate, 
divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services. The rule provides for 
consideration of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
as an original bill for purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule. 
The rule waives points of order against the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI, relating 
to germaneness.
  In order to provide for orderly consideration of this bipartisan 
legislation, the rule makes in order only those amendments printed in 
the Committee on Rules report. However, I must note, Mr. Speaker, that 
the Committee on Rules made in order every germane amendment that was 
submitted to our committee in a timely fashion.
  The amendments must be offered in the order printed in the report by 
the Member designated, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a division of the question in the House or the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The rule also grants the authority to the chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole to postpone recorded votes on amendments and to reduce the 
voting time on amendments to 5 minutes, provided that the first vote in 
a series is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, in requesting a rule for consideration of this 
legislation, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services presented a unified front in support of 
this export financing organization, praising both the goals and 
operations of the Eximbank. The charter of the Eximbank expires at the 
end of this year, making action necessary to avoid a very disruptive 
break in its operations.
  Many of my colleagues know that I have been a strong and vocal 
advocate for unfettered free trade. At the same time, I am not fond of 
export subsidies. I believe that the best thing for our economy and the 
economies of our trading partners around the world would be an end to 
government trade subsidy programs like the Eximbank.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in unilateral disarmament. The 
United States should try to eliminate export subsidies through a 
multilateral agreement, the way we have tried to end shipbuilding 
subsidies, for example. The global trading system would be better off 
without the distorting effects of subsidies.
  I believe the American taxpayers should know that the Eximbank has 
been involved in just such efforts. The bank has helped lead U.S. 
efforts within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development, the [OECD] to reach agreement limiting the export 
subsidies of developed countries.
  The Eximbank's ``tied aid war chest'' has been used successfully to 
bring down this trade-distorting practice by 75 percent since 1991.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, I believe the best near-term trade policy is served by 
enacting H.R. 1370 and extending the charter of the Eximbank through 
September 30, 2001. Currently, the bank helps finance $15 billion in 
U.S. exports each year.
  We must be clear about the fact that the Eximbank does not entail 
U.S. taxpayers buying products that are then given away overseas. This 
is not, I underscore again, this is not, Mr. Speaker, foreign aid. 
Instead, this agency provides a slightly subsidized loan rate that 
permits overseas buyers to purchase American-made products. They buy 
the products, and they pay for the products.
  While the Eximbank is only involved in 2 percent of total United 
States sales abroad, it is critical to sales in certain big-ticket 
capital projects, particularly in developing countries in Asia, Latin 
America, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union.

[[Page H8185]]

  Again, Mr. Speaker, I must repeat, while the nominal recipient of the 
slightly subsidized loan is a foreign company or government entity, 
that entity buys and pays for the American-made product. The American 
workers are the real beneficiaries, winning the jobs that go along with 
these major projects.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has made in order the seven 
germane amendments that were timely submitted to the committee, four 
offered by the minority, the Democrats, and three from our side of the 
aisle, the Republicans.
  While I will not go through each amendment, I would like to encourage 
the House to avoid trying to legislate foreign policy priorities on the 
backs of American export workers. Kicking American companies and their 
American workers out of legitimate export markets in the name of pet 
foreign policy goals strikes a blow against the effectiveness of this 
job protection tool. The only winners in such situations are the 
foreign competitors who will step in and fill the void left by American 
companies.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule deserves bipartisan support and this bill 
deserves bipartisan support. I look forward to the House working its 
will on the amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules with the 
hope that the final product is something that can be signed into law 
with the purpose of encouraging job creation in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I thank my colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier], for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Although this bill 
normally comes to the floor under the suspension calendar, our 
Republican colleagues have decided to bring it to the floor this year 
with a rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill passes this Congress every 2 years with strong 
bipartisan support. This year it passed the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services by voice vote. It is a good bill. It is a 
noncontroversial bill. But in order to increase debate time on foreign 
policy, which has nothing to do with this bill, my Republican 
colleagues are bringing this noncontroversial bill to the floor with a 
rule and endangering the bank's authority to issue new export credits 
which expires tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, the Export-Import Bank levels the playing field for 
American companies. It helps American companies overcome export credits 
from other countries and helps make American goods be affordable and 
accessible in these other countries. It is the primary way American 
businesses get credit to sell their goods overseas. Mr. Speaker, that 
creates jobs here, here at home.
  American companies trying to do business overseas have a very hard 
time getting insurance and export credit in other countries. Foreign 
credit export agencies subsidize goods and undercut American 
competitors.
  Mr. Speaker, even with the Export-Import Bank, we still do less for 
our businesses than any other of our major competitors. We provide 
export support only to 1.5 percent of our total exports. France 
provides the same support to 20 percent of their exports, and Japan 
provides support for 48 percent of the goods they export. In other 
words, Mr. Speaker, other countries have a lot easier time picking up 
business here than we do competing in their countries.
  In New England, our manufacturing capacity has been declining for 
years. When manufacturing capacity declines, so do manufacturing jobs. 
Businesses move their operations overseas to take advantage of lower 
labor costs and overhead, and American workers are left holding the 
pink slips.
  The Export-Import Bank enables us to convince companies that they can 
stay here, hire well-trained American workers, and develop competitive 
products. Last year, businesses in my district got $116 million in 
assistance from the Export-Import Bank. Some of those businesses 
include Horizon House Publications, Bird Machine Co., Harding and Smith 
Corp., which makes control system panels, Sea Beam Defense Contractors, 
Stone and Webster Corp., Engineering Contractors, and State Street 
Bank, and many, many others.
  Mr. Speaker, every single employee at every single one of those 
companies who still has a job here in this country joins me, they join 
me in supporting the Export-Import Bank. When these companies do well, 
we all do well. Their success rate creates jobs here in the United 
States. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lincoln, NE, Mr. Beruter, chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the 
Pacific, who will have some very, very worthy advice on the amendments 
that we will be considering. I hope my colleagues will listen to that.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and 
of H.R. 1370, a bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 4 years. 
I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding me 
this time.
  The Export-Import Bank is a crucial export promotion agency which 
provides insurance to lenders to facilitate the purchase of U.S. 
products abroad; in other words, to expand our export base. I 
appreciated the comments of the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Opponents have sometimes labeled the Export-Import Bank as a 
corporate giveaway. Actually, the truth of the matter is that the 
Export-Import Bank facilitates the purchase of U.S. products abroad, 
which in turn provides jobs in the United States.
  This Member doubts you will find any workers, even in one of the 
largest U.S. companies such as Boeing, who feel they are receiving 
welfare payments when they receive their paychecks at the end of a long 
week building state-of-the-art aircraft.
  Export-Import Bank is not a giveaway program. It is a jobs and trade 
program. As long as our competitors continue to provide export 
assistance, as the gentleman from Massachusetts just indicated, and in 
great quantities beyond what we provide, we need to have this 
legislation and this agency to keep us competitive.
  This Member contends that those who attack the Export-Import Bank as 
a wasteful government giveaway with little impact on international 
trade must really be living in a vacuum. If we compare the levels of 
support by our trade competitors, we will see that the United States 
lags far behind Japan, France, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
  U.S. companies have realized the importance of operating in a global 
economy and have made it clear that if the United States is not willing 
to help them to play ball by providing export promotion, they will have 
no choice but to take their production facilities abroad and thus their 
jobs and tax dollars overseas as well.
  As an example, one must only consider the recent decision by GE and 
Voith Hydro to seek German and Canadian export assistance to facilitate 
the purchase of equipment to be used in the Three Gorges Dam project in 
China. The Clinton administration has determined that Export-Import 
Bank participation in the Three Gorges project should not be available.
  Does that mean the project will not go ahead? No. Does it mean that 
U.S. firms will not participate? No. It simply means that foreign 
subsidiaries of U.S. companies will receive the assistance overseas, 
and they will build their products there. And they will spend their 
money there in other countries, and U.S. workers do not have jobs here. 
We must not unilaterally disarm ourselves in this important global 
economy.
  Therefore, this Member urges his colleagues to set aside the 
politically expedient rhetoric of attacking Export-Import Bank as 
corporate welfare and wake up to the fact that without the Export-
Import Bank, the United States is unilaterally disarming in the global 
trade cold war. We must support U.S. products overseas.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the 
reauthorization of this 4-year extension of the Export-Import Bank's 
life and the LaFalce amendment which will soon be subject

[[Page H8186]]

to debate as well in the Committee of the Whole House.
  The LaFalce amendment, for example, will finally rename the agency to 
indicate what it does, and that is to make it the U.S. export agency, 
because this agency has nothing in the world to do with imports. This 
is an export arm of the American economy and of the American 
Government.
  I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member.
  Some of us have some concerns with section 9, and the administration 
has expressed such, which requires the Bank to establish procedures to 
ensure that firms committed to job creation and reinvestment in the 
United States be given preference for receiving financial assistance.
  The Bank is dedicated to the preservation and expansion of the U.S. 
jobs. In pursuing this goal, the Bank provides guarantees and loans to 
creditworthy foreign buyers of U.S. goods. Therefore, the bank 
evaluates foreign buyers, not U.S. firms. Because it is the foreign 
buyer that chooses the exporting company, the Bank is not in a position 
to decide if the U.S. firm has made the commitment called for in the 
bill.
  Also by way of amendment, I am hopeful, and I believe the 
administration would be as well, of addressing the concerns expressed 
in section 5 which would have the effects of statutorily selecting the 
Bank's ethics official. This selection would undermine the 
effectiveness of the executive branch ethics programs by eliminating 
one of its basic requirements; that is, that the agency head is 
ultimately responsible for the conduct of the agency's employees.
  I am just back, as a member of the Committee on International 
Relations, from a meeting of the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe. The Eximbank is most active in the big emerging 
markets such as Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the Newly 
Independent States. I call on my colleagues here to be mindful that 
places like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, or a number of the Newly 
Independent States in the Transcaucasus would benefit from the 
Eximbank, and what we would and could do by not supporting it would be 
to unilaterally disarm and allow our competitors free access to 
emerging markets.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Syracuse, NY [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding me the time.
  I would also like to thank our majority leader, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], for allowing this bill to get to the floor. It is 
very timely. This legislation, the reauthorization expires today. That 
would be a real shame, and it would cause great difficulty for many 
American corporations and American workers.
  I speak in favor of the rule and the bill. The Export-Import Bank was 
established in 1934 and requires periodic rechartering by the Congress. 
As I said, today the bill, the reauthorization, expires so we have to 
act on it quickly. This event would be unprecedented in the Bank's 64-
year history and extremely harmful to the competitiveness of U.S. 
exports. The export authority, export financing provides direct loans, 
loan guarantees, and insurance which enables American exporters to make 
creditworthy sales when other sources of financing are unavailable. As 
my colleague from Florida mentioned, the competitive factor is vital in 
large emerging areas such as Asia, Latin America, and the Newly 
Independent States of Eastern and central Europe.
  We feel the Export Bank represents the best kind of performance-based 
Federal program in which modest resources enable American businesses to 
compete for otherwise lost markets. I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation, to reject all weakening amendments. This is a job 
creator.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Later on in the course of the debate I will be talking about why 
I will support this legislation today, but let me just deal with some 
of the issues that my friends on the other side have raised which we 
should all be aware of when we talk about the Export-Import Bank.
  The fundamental issue is whether working families in this country, 
who for many years have seen a decline in their real wages, people are 
working longer hours and are earning less, should be putting tens of 
millions of dollars in helping large multinational corporations who 
over the last 15 years have laid off hundreds of thousands of American 
workers. That is an issue we have to focus on.
  The Boeing Co., which is the major recipient of this program, has 
laid off over 52,000 workers between 1990 and 1996. General Electric, 
which is taking jobs all over the world, hiring people at 50 cents an 
hour, laid off 153,000 workers from 1975 to 1995. AT&T laid off 127,000 
workers. Are these the companies that the middle class taxpayers of 
this country should be supporting? I think there are real questions 
about that.
  Now, some of my friends say, well, we need a level playing field. 
They are doing it in Europe and they are doing it in Japan. And there 
is truth to that argument. But there is another side to that story, and 
that is that corporations in Japan and corporations in Europe have a 
different ethic in many ways. Their systems are different.
  In Europe they have a national health care system guaranteeing health 
care to all people. In Europe, German workers make 25 percent more than 
manufacturing workers do in the United States of America. In Europe, in 
many of those countries college education is free, not $25,000 or 
$30,000 a year. In many of those countries corporations pay 
significantly more in taxes than do companies in this country pay.
  So what we have is corporations are coming in here and saying, help 
us with Exim programs, we need some help, but of course we want to pay 
less in taxes. We want to pay our workers lower wages. We want to move 
our jobs to Mexico or to China, but we really would like this form of 
corporate welfare.
  Within the Committee on Banking and Financial Services I have 
successfully put in an amendment which begins to address some of these 
problems. Let me be very clear. If that amendment is taken out in 
conference committee, I will lead the effort in this body to defeat the 
Exim reauthorization. With the amendment, I think we will make some 
progress in saying that the companies that we are supporting should be 
companies who are reinvesting in America, who are trying to create jobs 
in America, and are not taking our jobs to China or Mexico.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Surfside Beach, TX [Mr. Paul], who is a member of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services and joins me as an outspoken proponent 
of unfettered free trade.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate the characterization of the benefits from the 
Export-Import Bank as being export subsidies because we are talking 
about subsidies.
  Generally speaking, we on this side of the aisle are against 
subsidies, especially if the subsidies are for the poor people. I just 
suggest we should question whether we should oppose subsidies for the 
rich people as well.
  So I rise in support of the rule. There could be a better rule but, 
under the circumstance, I support the rule but I do not support the 
legislation. There are very good economic and there are very good moral 
reasons why programs like this should not even exist.
  I do want to take a moment to talk about something else I think is 
very important. Sometimes I think if one takes themselves too seriously 
around here one would become depressed, and I try very hard not to be 
depressed. But

[[Page H8187]]

I found something in the committee report that I think is very, very 
interesting.
  We have a House rule that says that in the committee report on 
legislation, when it comes up, we have to explain which part of the 
Constitution justifies what we do here. Of course, there is legislation 
that is proposed that if we pass the legislation it would be the law 
and we would have to answer to that antiquated document, the 
Constitution. I happen to be so old-fashioned as to believe that if we 
were all as serious about the Constitution, all we would have to do is 
vote the Constitution and those convictions each day and we would not 
need rules or laws.
  But nevertheless I think it is interesting to note exactly where the 
constitutional authority comes from for the Export-Import Bank. Of 
course, the old standby is the general welfare clause. We do this for 
the general welfare of the people. But if we think about it, we are 
using taxpayers' money, we are using subsidized interest rates, we are 
benefiting certain companies, and we do benefit the foreign recipients 
and many times these are foreign governments, so they are not the 
general welfare. If it is a cost to the taxpayer, we are doing this at 
a penalty of the general welfare, not to the benefit of the general 
welfare.
  This is a wastebasket used especially in the 20th century as a 
justification for doing almost anything in the Congress. But then the 
justification goes on, and I find this even more fascinating. Of 
course, the other justification is the power to regulate commerce.
  Well, regulating commerce between the States, actually the commerce 
clause was written to deregulate and make sure there were no 
impediments against trade, so we cannot under the Constitution regulate 
trade. But that does not say subsidize certain people at the expense of 
others. So that was a giant leap in the 20th century where the 
regulation of commerce permits us to do almost anything.
  It certainly rejects the whole notion and challenges the whole 
concept of the doctrine of enumerated powers. So we either have a 
Constitution where there is a doctrine of enumerated powers or we do 
not. The document is very clear. It delegates powers. The powers are 
very limited and they are numbered. They are enumerated.
  But today, if we casually look at the welfare clause, and if we 
casually look at the regulatory clause on commerce, we here in the 
Congress, under that understanding, we can do just about anything. And 
what happens? We do just about anything. And that is why our Government 
is so big and our regulatory bodies are so huge and we have tens of 
thousands of pages of regulations, because we have so little respect 
for the document that we should be guided by.
  But there is another justification, according to the committee 
report, as to why we should and are permitted to pass legislation like 
the Export-Import Bank. Now, this one has to catch somebody's interest 
and it has to be slightly humorous to somebody other than myself.
  In addition, the power to coin money and regulate its value gives us 
the justification to give subsidies to big corporations, to benefit 
companies overseas, to take credit from one group and give it to 
another, and to steal the money from the people through an oppressive 
tax system in order to provide these subsidies. And yet the 
justification is to coin money?
  The Constitution still says that all we can do is use gold and silver 
as legal tender. Since we do not do that, we should have changed the 
Constitution. We should do one or the other. But to use the coinage 
clause to extend credit is a stretch beyond belief. It says, though, 
that the courts have broadly construed this to allow Federal 
regulation, the provision of credit, to provide credit.
  Well, this is exactly opposite of what the founders said and exactly 
opposite of one of the major reasons why we had the Constitutional 
Convention. This power that they take through the coinage clause in 
order to extend credit is exactly opposite of the provision in the 1792 
Coinage Act, which says we have to protect against counterfeiting, and 
anybody who would be so bold as to debase the currency and ruin the 
value of the money, there was a death penalty mandated.
  But here we casually give to our agencies of government this 
authority under the coinage clause to provide credit. Credit is nothing 
more than the dilution of the value of money. And believe me, long 
term, this is detrimental.
  Later on in the general debate, I would like to address the economic 
issues as well.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, if this was an ideological debate or an 
attempt at evolving a philosophy for the operation of the globe, we 
might want to discuss, in a theoretical sense, how government got to 
this point and where government should go. But this is a very practical 
life lesson for survival we are involved in.
  The United States of America does very well in international trade. 
We have some very tough competitors. And, frankly, this is one of the 
few tools we have to prevent those international competitors from just 
rigging the system against American workers. We can talk about American 
companies, and sometimes there are differences in the interests of the 
company and the workers, but in this case the workers' and the 
companies' interests are joined. If we do not sell the product, that 
company loses but the workers are unemployed.
  When we look at large capital areas, for a while the French, the 
Japanese, and others were simply stealing markets as the American trade 
representatives and American financial institutions were asleep at the 
switch. What we had time and time again was the Americans making a 
better product at a better price, but the French came in with 1-percent 
financing, or the Germans came in with no-percent financing, or the 
Japanese gave a kicker to begin the program.
  Well, over the last decade we have started responding. As a result of 
that, we have brought back market share to this country, and that has 
indeed helped companies. It has helped the strength of the American 
dollar, I would say to my friend from Texas, and it has helped American 
workers. It is not just large companies, although oftentimes we need to 
use the threat of Eximbank financing to back off other countries trying 
to take away American projects by subsidized financing.
  It is small companies as well. In Thompson, CT, Neumann Tool, a small 
family-held company, has been helped by Eximbank. Companies slightly 
larger, but still relatively new companies that are in international 
trade, like Gerber Garment and Technologies in Tolland, CT, they have 
been helped when they were facing partnerships between governments and 
corporations in other countries.
  If we could stop all the other countries from subsidizing interest 
rates and financing around the world, we could talk about ending these 
programs. But unless we want to give away major markets to Asia and 
Europe, then we need this tool to protect American employment. That is 
what I see this program as.
  What happens in the headlines is that we get ``Eximbank Finances 
Airplane Sale.'' What we really get are workers in America being able 
to compete internationally because they are not disadvantaged by a 
world that used to exist, where only the other side had some financing 
institutions to help save jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Langley, WA [Mr. Metcalf], a member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and 
International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, the Boeing Co. was mentioned by a previous 
speaker. By the way, right now Boeing Co., in my district and in my 
State, is hiring workers as fast they can right at this moment.
  To get to the Export-Import Bank, it is one of the most important 
tools that we have to help the United States compete in the 
international marketplace. For more than 60 years, Exim has supported 
more than $300 billion in U.S. exports, and has more than met its 
primary goal of preserving and creating jobs in the United States and 
working to level the playing field against aggressive subsidized 
foreign competition.

[[Page H8188]]

  The facts show that current accusations leveled against Exim by its 
opponents are unfounded. Exim creates jobs. One-fourth of the new net 
jobs created since 1992 came from export growth. During the last 5 
years, Exim financing supported jobs for nearly 1 million Americans. 
Exim helps United States companies compete against subsidized foreign 
competition.
  Japan and France currently finance 32.4 and 18.4 percent of their 
exports respectively. By comparison, the United States finances 3 
percent of its exports. Eliminating Exim would result in lost jobs to 
American workers and lost market share to American companies.
  Exim has a great return for the taxpayer. For every dollar 
appropriated to Exim the bank returned approximately $20 to $25 worth 
of exports. Exim programs do not just favor big business; Exim plays an 
important role in reaching small businesses interested in exporting. 
Last year 81 percent of Exim's transactions were with small business.

                              {time}  1315

  Exim programs do not create an unhealthy risk for the taxpayer. Since 
its creation, Exim has maintained a strong and healthy portfolio with a 
loan-loss ratio of 1.9 percent. The loss ratios of commercial banks 
average around 6 percent to foreign governments.
  In addition, Exim has more than an adequate reserve of $6.7 billion 
to protect the taxpayer in the event of any unforeseeable loss. We 
should reauthorize Exim today to preserve American jobs.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for further speakers, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply close by saying that I urge 
strong support of this rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the resolution.
  The question is on the resolution.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
objects to ordering the previous question.
  The question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 423, 
nays 3, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 469]

                               YEAS--423

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     DeFazio
     McKinney
     Taylor (MS)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Pallone
     Saxton
     Schiff

                              {time}  1333

  Mr. OWENS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________