[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.
____________________