[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8188-H8200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, due to a memorial service in New Jersey for 
the airmen from McGuire Air Force Base who were killed off the coast of 
Namibia, I was unable to make rollcall votes 465, 466, 467, 468, and 
469. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on vote No. 465, 
``yea'' on vote No. 466, and ``yea'' on votes Nos. 467, 468, 469.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 255 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1370.

[[Page H8189]]

  The Chair designates the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] as 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and requests the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Pease] to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1336


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1370) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States, with 
Mr. Pease (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, the Committee meets today to consider the 
bill, H.R. 1370, legislation to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States, Eximbank, as it is known, for an additional 4 years. 
The bill, as amended, was favorably reported by the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services by voice vote to the House of 
Representatives on July 9 with a report on this bill, Report No. 105-
224, being filed on July 31, 1997. Without timely reauthorization, 
Eximbank will have to shut down its operations at the end of this 
fiscal year, literally less than a day away.
  Briefly, H.R. 1370 provides for the following:
  First, a 4-year renewal of Eximbank's charter through September 30, 
2001;
  Second, an extension of the tied aid credit fund authority;
  Third, an extension of the authority for providing financing for the 
export of nonlethal defense articles;
  Fourth, a clarification of the President's authority to prevent bank 
financing based on national interest concerns;
  Fifth, the creation of an Assistant General Counsel for 
Administration position;
  Sixth, authorization for the establishment of an advisory committee 
to assist the bank in facilitating United States exports to sub-Saharan 
Africa;
  Seventh, a requirement that two labor representatives be appointed to 
the Bank's existing advisory committee;
  Eighth, a requirement that the Bank's chairman design an outreach 
program for companies that have never used its services;
  Ninth, the establishment of regulations and procedures as appropriate 
to ensure that when the Bank is making a determination as among firms 
that receive assistance, that preference be given to those firms that 
have shown a commitment to reinvestment and job creation in the United 
States.
  Not every Member may be familiar with the work of Eximbank, so let me 
clarify what the Bank is and what it is not. Eximbank is an independent 
Federal agency established in 1934 to provide export financing for U.S. 
businesses. It has the twofold purpose of neutralizing an aggressive 
financing by foreign export credit agencies and to furnish export 
credit financing when private financing is unavailable and only when 
the Bank has a reasonable assurance of repayment.
  Eximbank is not a foreign policy agency. Eximbank is not a 
development agency. The Bank's narrow purpose is to create jobs in the 
United States by promoting exports abroad.
  Why do we need Eximbank?
  Largely because many foreign governments provide official financing 
to their countries' exporters.
  Although many of us would like to reduce or eliminate export credit 
subsidies, it is clear that without Eximbank the United States would 
have no leverage to help bring more market discipline to the rules 
governing international trade finance.
  Likewise, American exporters would be hindered in their efforts to 
establish market presence in developing countries lacking full and easy 
access to private sources of finance.
  While American workers and companies have made enormous strides to 
compete in the global economy, they cannot compete and win against 
Government-supported foreign competition. We need Eximbank to deter the 
distorting tied aid and other forms of economic pressure used by some 
of our trading partners. We also need Eximbank to help secure the 
necessary financing that will enable our dynamic small businesses to 
export their goods and services to the broader global market.
  American firms will simply not thrive at home unless they take full 
advantage of the tremendous opportunities abroad. Today, 96 percent of 
U.S. firms' potential customers are outside U.S. borders, and key 
developing markets alone will account for almost half of the world's 
market by the year 2010. These markets are already our country's best 
economic opportunity, with developing countries already accounting for 
67 percent of world import growth.
  This body and the American people should have no illusions about the 
intensity of commercial competition for export contracts in emerging 
markets, competition that frequently hinges on the terms of export 
financing. The simple fact of the matter is that without Eximbank, U.S. 
exporters would lose contracts in important developing countries to 
companies in Japan, France, and Germany that receive trade finance from 
their Government-supported export credit agencies. Moreover, in 
critical technology, such as aerospace, power generation, and 
telecommunications, the loss of markets is long-term as the initial 
choice of a supplier determines services, parts, and follow-on sales.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, the committee has reported out a solid 
bipartisan bill reauthorizing this vitally important agency. I would 
urge Members to give it their enthusiastic support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill and urge that my 
colleagues would support the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services's report on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of 
America.
  Let me first thank the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], the chairman 
of the committee, for his consistent efforts to reach an agreement on 
each and every one of the difficult issues that we have had to face. I 
would be remiss if I did not thank the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle] for his efforts at the subcommittee level. We worked well 
together on the bill that is before this House this afternoon. I also 
wish to thank the gentleman for continually including my staff in 
bipartisan deliberations throughout this past 2 years as we have moved 
forward on this bill.
  We have accomplished a great deal in the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services's markup of the Export-Import Bank reauthorization, 
H.R. 1370. We reached three major goals. First, we instruct the State 
Department to expressly use the Chafee amendment process when it has 
national interest concerns with potential Ex-Im deals. Last year, the 
bank was requested to more or less take a role in deciding foreign 
policy. That is not the bank's mission. With guidance from the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], we have adopted a policy in 
this bill which would make Congress's intent clear with respect to the 
Chafee amendment.
  We also create an advisory panel to counsel the bank on efforts to 
increase United States imports to sub-Saharan Africa. Congress has 
witnessed, over the past 5 months, the bipartisan commitment to 
increase trade with Africa. This commitment seems to resonate from the 
administration, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Speaker, and the 
rank and file Members of this Congress. I believe this is the right 
thing to do, and in fact, we should have done it years ago. 
Nevertheless, I am happy to have created this panel now, and even as we 
move forward, my hope is that it will do what we have created it to do.
  Finally, we create mandated ethics counseling within the Ex-Im. 
Consequently, we assure that employees have the best possible ethical 
advice when major financing decisions are made.
  Mr. Chairman, let me expand my remarks by stating that we need the 
Export-Import Bank. We need the institution because the global market 
for U.S.

[[Page H8190]]

products shrinks when foreign companies consume lucrative 
opportunities. Furthermore, this market contraction is most often due 
to the fact that the companies have the complete support of their 
export credit agencies when they come to the table from other 
countries. While these companies have this explicit support from their 
governments, our companies face financial reluctance from private 
capital markets, and tend to find it extremely difficult to finance 
their exports and thus maintain a viable employment base of 
economically empowered U.S. citizens. Their lender of last resort 
policy has thus become a problem for the Export-Import Bank.
  Ex-Im also is the financier of companies willing to export to risky 
markets. As we all know, taking risks is in the great American 
tradition of creating opportunities throughout entrepreneurship. 
Export-oriented entrepreneurs are the enterprises which government 
should assist, and supporting new opportunities and emerging markets 
will continue job growth where we need it the most, here in our own 
labor markets. As many should come to realize, Ex-Im operates under the 
adage, ``jobs through exports.''
  My last remarks will again focus attention on Africa. We have a 
tremendous opportunity to foster trade with this last untapped market 
in the world. The export markets in Europe, Latin America and Asia are 
saturated, and new opportunities will come far and few between in the 
years to come. Africa, on the other hand, is still ripe for business. 
Countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia have 
growing economies with sophisticated indigenous business cultures and 
represent viable markets for United States exports. French, English, 
German, and Malaysian businesses are moving aggressively into these 
marketplaces, and they are doing so with tremendous support from 
foreign credit agencies. U.S. businesses also need that same kind of 
support which only the Ex-Im Bank can give.
  Toward that end, I am pleased to note that Ex-Im has recently sent a 
delegation to sub-Saharan Africa to explore opportunities for United 
States exports, and I am equally delighted to see efforts by the 
administration and colleagues of ours like the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] who promote 
trade between the United States and Africa. I will encourage Ex-Im to 
work within these discussions, and signal my intent to encourage and 
craft a working system within Ex-Im to explore the very new 
opportunities that have been made available to us in sub-Saharan 
Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, I close by noting that there are detractors of the 
agency, and we certainly are cognizant of corporate welfare arguments. 
This line of reasoning, however, ignores the fact that 81 percent of 
Ex-Im's financing deals go to small businesses. It also ignores the 
reality that for the 29 percent of deals that Ex-Im does with large 
enterprises, it inherently still maintains the operations of small 
business subcontractors and suppliers. These enterprises operate 
throughout the Nation and employ thousands of American citizens.
  Thus, if we examine the institution's impact on American employment, 
we cannot come to the conclusion that Ex-Im is an exclusive 
concessional window of credit to corporate America. Rather, it is a 
lender of last resort, and it is successful in financing billions of 
dollars in U.S. exports for a rather small budget. In short, we need 
Ex-Im, and I intend to support its reauthorization and hope that my 
colleagues in the House will join me.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], a member of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services.
  (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, every bill and subsequent law that we 
pass in the House of Representatives has a face to it, and I would like 
to tell my colleagues about a couple thousand faces, people who get up 
at the crack of dawn, pack their lunch, get their kids off to school, 
go off to work, come back home, and oftentimes their spouses are also 
working. These are the 2,000 faces of the highly skilled union members 
of Beloit Corp. in Beloit, WI, and South Beloit, IL. They are the ones 
on behalf of whom I speak this afternoon in urging this body to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. Chairman, there are only three manufacturers of papermaking 
machines in the world: one in Finland, one in Germany, and one in the 
United States. These are obviously very sophisticated and huge 
machines. Some run as long as an entire football field. In doing battle 
with countries overseas that have subsidies of a sort to the 
manufacturers, these men and women who work very hard at the Beloit 
Corp. do not quite understand the intricacies of international banking, 
but they do understand when their company is put in a position where it 
is being hammered by overseas export agencies that prefer Finland and 
Germany. So the Export-Import Bank was started on behalf of these 
working men and women so that the corporation for which they work could 
be on an equal footing with the Finns and the Germans.
  An opportunity came up for these men and women to build some huge 
machines to go to Indonesia. We helped Beloit Corp., and we helped 
those 2,000 people, and by helping those 2,000 people get that type of 
loan, the loan of last resort, the loan that would not exist otherwise, 
the loan were it not for the existence of Ex-Im Bank would have meant 
that they would have lost their jobs for a considerable period of time, 
that that loan not only made possible the work for these 2,000 people, 
but also 2,940 suppliers all over the United States. In fact, over 640 
in the State of Massachusetts alone; several hundred in the State of 
Illinois, and likewise throughout the country. Because these types of 
loans that are given to companies doing royal battle in the 
international market really are not about corporate subsidies, end of 
quote; they are about the 2,000 people I represent at Beloit Corp. and 
about the nearly 3,000 suppliers, many of whom are little bitty guys 
that are battling it out, and Ex-Im is really for them.
  Now, most of these people do not even know what the Ex-Im Bank is. 
All they know is whether or not they have an order to ship parts and to 
do some labor for Beloit Corp. So I am here today to speak on behalf of 
these 3,000 suppliers and the 2,000 people directly involved at Beloit 
Corp., and to the tens of thousands of workers across the land whose 
very livelihood depends upon the ability of the United States to engage 
competitively for overseas markets.
  That is really what Ex-Im Bank is all about; it is about people. It 
is not about big companies, it is not about corporate welfare; it is 
about people, people who get up at the crack of dawn, pack their lunch, 
go off to work and thank God that they have a job so that they can 
raise their children.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members of this body to reauthorize 
Ex-Im Bank because it does one thing that the private sector simply 
cannot do. It provides the tough, last-chance financing that companies 
need in order to be competitive globally. Ex-Im, in fact, in 1995 
helped generate $13.5 billion in exports for the U.S. economy, which 
directly exported 200,000 high-wage U.S. jobs.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. LaFalce], the outstanding senior member of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  First of all, I want to commend both the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], and the ranking 
Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], 
especially Mr. Flake because he will be retiring from Congress on 
October 15, for the outstanding job they did, both in subcommittee and 
full committee, in developing this bill and having it reported out in a 
bipartisan and enthusiastic fashion.
  Some individuals ask the question: Should governments be involved in 
the subsidy of exports? And the theoretical answer to that is well, no, 
they should not be. So if we lived in this theoretical world that we 
would like to, governments would not subsidize.

[[Page H8191]]

  But the fact of the matter is, we do not live in a theoretical world, 
we live in a very real world, a very real global economy, in which 
other governments assist companies in their countries to export. How 
much do they do this? Well, in the United Kingdom, 2.7 percent of 
national exports are subsidized. In Italy, 3.1 percent. In Germany, 5.2 
percent. In Canada, 7.9 percent. In Spain, 8.3 percent. In France, 19.6 
percent. In Japan, 47.9 percent. I repeat, in Japan, 47.9 percent. In 
the United States, 1.58 percent.

                              {time}  1400

  Our subsidy is infinitesimally small in comparison to the subsidies 
of some of our principal competitors, such as Japan, France, et cetera.
  Until the real world conforms to this theoretical world that we would 
like to exist, we must not unilaterally disarm. We must reauthorize our 
export agency, the Export-Import Bank.
  There are a number of amendments that have been allowed by the 
Committee on Rules, seven. As we consider these amendments, let us 
realize that this bank is not a foreign policy instrument. This bank 
does not give subsidies to foreign countries. This bank gives business 
exclusively to United States companies for U.S. exports, regardless of 
the country involved. We ought not to try to make this an instrument of 
foreign policy micromanaged by the U.S. Congress.
  Let us also keep in mind that there is a significant small business 
impact. I reiterate the comments of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Flake]. In fiscal year 1996 there were almost 2,000 small business 
transactions, a 60-percent increase since 1992. Of these, about 25 
percent were first-time transactions for small businesses. Of all the 
transactions of the Eximbank, 81 percent of all transactions, 
accounting for about 21 percent of the dollar amount handled, were for 
the small business community. Of all the transactions, 81 percent were 
for small businesses in the United States.
  For all of these reasons, I hope this body will overwhelmingly 
endorse and reauthorize this Bank. I hope we will look at these 
amendments that will be offered, these seven, one of which is mine, 
which would be to simply rename the Bank, and be selective in our 
acceptance or rejection of them, not trying to make it a foreign policy 
judgment, but a trade judgment, a jobs judgment that we make.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], with whom I disagree on this bill, but 
I totally agree with his right to present his points of view.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Chairman, and for the disclaimer.
  Mr. Chairman, it is correct, I am going to vote no on this bill, for 
various reasons. I stated some of those earlier on. One is 
constitutional. There is a strong moral argument against a bill like 
this. But I am going to talk a little bit about the economics. Also, 
one other reason why I am going to vote against this bill has to do 
with campaign finance reform. If we vote no against this, I think we 
would be working in the direction of campaign finance reform.
  I myself get essentially no business PAC money. I do not have any 
philosophic reasons not to take it. I would take the money on my 
conditions, but that sort of excludes me. But not infrequently when I 
would visit with large corporations they would ask me, what is my 
position on the Export-Import Bank. And when they would find out, of 
course they would not give me any money.
  So I would say that the incentive to get people to do certain things 
for subsidies gives this incentive for big corporations to subsidize 
and to donate money to certain politicians. If we did not have so much 
economic power here, there would not be the incentive for big business 
to come and buy our influence.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not happen to believe that campaign finance reform 
will ever be accomplished by merely taking away the right of an 
individual or company to spend money the way they see fit. Regulating 
finances of a company, once a company can come in here and put pressure 
on us to pass the Export-Import Bank, I think is an impossible task.
  There have been certain economic arguments, so-called, in favor of 
this bill, but I think there are some shortcomings on the economics. 
One thing for sure, I think even the supporters of this bill admit that 
this is not free trade, this is an infraction that we have to go 
through because the other countries do this.
  But we might compare this. It is true, we subsidize our companies 
less than Japan, but would Members like to have Japan's economy right 
now? Japan has been in the doldrums for 8 years. They subsidize it 30, 
40, 50 percent of the time. Maybe it is not a good idea. Yes, ours are 
small in number, but why should we expand it and be like Japan? So I 
would suggest that the benefits, the apparent benefits, are not nearly 
as great as one might think.
  The other thing that is not very often mentioned is that when we 
allocate credit, whether we expand credit, which was mentioned earlier, 
that we do expand credit, we extend credit, we allocate it, we 
subsidize it, so we direct certain funds in a certain direction, but we 
never talk about at the expense of what and whom.
  When a giant corporation or even a small business gets a government-
guaranteed loan, it excludes somebody else. That is the person we never 
can hear from, so it is the unseen that is bothersome to me. Those who 
get the loans, sure, they will say yes, we benefited by it. Therefore, 
it was an advantage to us. But we should always consider those 
individuals who are being punished and penalized, that they do not have 
the clout nor the PAC to come up here and promote a certain piece of 
legislation.
  Another good reason to vote against this piece of legislation, it is 
through this legislation that we do support countries like China and 
Russia. This is not supporting free markets. They are having a terrible 
time privatizing their markets. Yet, our taxpayers are being required 
to insure and subsidize loans to state-owned corporations.
  China receives the largest amount of money under Eximbank. I do 
believe in free trade. I voted for low tariffs for China. I support 
that. But this is not free trade. This is subsidized trade. It is the 
vehicle that we subsidize so much of what we criticize around here. 
Some people voted against low tariffs for China because they said, we 
do not endorse some of the policies of China. They certainly should not 
vote for the subsidies to China nor the subsidies to the corporations 
that are still owned by the state in Russia, because it is at the 
expense of the American taxpayer.
  It is said that the companies that benefit will increase their jobs, 
and that is not true. There are good statistics to show that the jobs 
are actually going down over the last 5 or 6 years. Jobs leave this 
country from those companies that benefit the most.
  It is also said quite frequently here on the floor that this is a 
tremendous benefit to the small companies. Eighty-some percent, 81 
percent of all the loans made go to small companies. There is some 
truth to that. That is true, but what they do not tell us is only 15 
percent of the money. Eighty-five percent of the money goes to a few 
giant corporations, the ones who lobby the heaviest, the ones who come 
here because they want to support high union wages and corporate 
profits for sales to socialist nations and socialist-owned companies.
  For these reasons, I urge a no vote on this bill.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] to 
understand that when the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and I 
started putting the bill together, campaign finance reform was not such 
a hot issue. I think it is a bit of a stretch to include it in the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento], a senior member of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 4-year 
reauthorization and the tied aid program that is also being 
reauthorized in this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, this measure is necessary because so often in the 
markets in which we are exporting in an increasingly global 
marketplace, the nature of the risks and the structure of

[[Page H8192]]

the economies in these nations does not permit our companies, our 
entities that want to sell a product, a quality American product, to in 
fact be purchased; often there is not the financial structure.
  As an example of that, look at the newly independent nations, the 
newly emerging nations that formerly comprised the Soviet Union. It is 
a very good point in fact that the committee report outlines. Here the 
banking and finance structure in these nations does not facilitate the 
extension of credit. So in order to facilitate the sale, many nations, 
our competition, in fact, provide for a more integrated type of credit 
structure to provide the sale of those products at the end of the day.
  This credit that we extend here in fact attempts to do that. Usually 
it is a blended credit, a credit that we provide in conjunction with 
other U.S. financial institutions and other international financial 
institutions. So we are simply taking some of the risks, but an 
essential part. In doing so, the Ex-Im Bank, by taking that position, 
actually builds a foundation upon which credit in turn is built in 
these newly independent nations, as I pointed out, or states, newly 
independent states in the former Soviet Union.
  Of course, it facilitates then a new marketplace for our products and 
facilitates an economic growth. For I think most of us, it is in our 
interests obviously in terms of jobs, in terms of making our global 
economy and marketplace work, to have this program in place. While a 
large number of the loans, 81 percent, are to small business, they make 
up only about 20 percent of the export credit.
  So I want to credit the subcommittee ranking member and chairman for 
their work, and especially the ranking member, for whom it will 
probably be his last bill on the floor that he manages. He has been a 
good and dedicated Member. He shall be missed. We appreciate very much 
the gentleman's work, and I thank him.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brady].
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, American companies and American workers can 
compete against anyone in the world if they are given a fair chance. 
With 95 percent of the world's consumers residing outside of America, 
we have economic battles going on around the globe.
  Just as a strong national defense has ensured American military 
superiority, the Eximbank allows our companies to have a level playing 
field, and allows our companies to have an opportunity to compete 
against workers and companies anywhere throughout the world.
  Right now the Government Accounting Office has said the most 
compelling reason for reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank is to level 
the international playing field for U.S. exporters, and to provide 
leverage, very much needed leverage, in trade policy negotiations to 
induce foreign governments to reduce and ultimately eliminate 
subsidies. Without the Bank, we do not have that opportunity, that 
leverage, and that strength, and our companies need that.
  My goal is to have throughout the world a playing field where 
decisions of purchasing are made on the basis of price and quality and 
product and service. But that is the world we live in today. We need a 
strong economic tool, the Eximbank, to guard against unfair foreign 
subsidies and to give our companies and our workers a fair chance.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters], a ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1317 to 
reauthorize the Eximbank. As a member of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Delaware 
[Mr. Castle], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and 
International Monetary Policy, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Flake] for their work on this important bill.
  The Eximbank provides low-interest rate direct loans, export credit 
insurance, and loan guarantees to finance the purchase of U.S. goods 
internationally. There have been some criticisms today of the Bank. I 
share in some of those criticisms.
  There are those who would believe that somehow I want to do away with 
the Bank. If we ask a lot of people, their first thought is the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Maxine Waters] is not going to support 
it, because too many big businesses receive the benefit from it. Not 
true.
  Yes; I am concerned that too much of this goes to big businesses, but 
I am also concerned that we have the kind of dollars to support 
American firms that will make them competitive in the international 
market. Therefore, I want to expand this to more small businesses. I 
want to pay some attention to Africa, I want to make sure we make it 
what it should be. I do not want to get rid of this money. I do not 
want to do away with this opportunity.
  There have been some important reforms that have been put into the 
legislation by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and others to 
make sure that labor is represented on the advisory board, to make sure 
that we have recommendations about how we can increase projects in 
Africa. I think we have some opportunities here.
  I do not think we should just sit back and say, well, it is all 
right. It has not done everything we would like it to do. I think we 
should say, let us take this opportunity to provide subsidies, to 
provide credit, to provide loan guarantees, to be more competitive in 
the international market, to create jobs, to do all of those things. 
But let us not just sit back and criticize it and say the big firms are 
getting it all. I want some of the firms in my district to be involved, 
and I am going to make sure they are. I am going to make sure I pay 
attention to it.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, before coming to Congress, I was involved in 
international trade and saw firsthand what is happening in the trade 
arena. In fact, if all things were equal, we would not need Eximbank, 
but I am here to tell my colleagues that in fact we need Exim. In fact, 
it is one of the most valuable programs of this Government. In fact, 
the United States is in an economic fight for its life. In fact, the 
United States is now running a trade deficit that exceeds the national 
annual deficit. The fact is that we are competing against Japan, the 
United Kingdom, France, and a host of other countries that do a much 
better job backing up their business and creating an unlevel playing 
field for our business people.
  Exim creates thousands, tens of thousands of jobs. Exim allows U.S. 
companies to compete in this international marketplace. Exim is not 
corporate welfare. Exim is not any type of subsidy. Exim in fact gives 
our American companies and our men and women that are seeking jobs and 
opportunity in this country that opportunity and the ability to compete 
in a growing world marketplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly recommend the passage of this legislation 
and request support from every Member of this Congress that is 
interested in jobs and opportunity for every American.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of this legislation because it contains some 
amendments which I think make the reauthorization palatable. But I 
should be very clear that if the amendments are taken out in 
conference, I will do everything that I can to defeat this 
reauthorization.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the great economic crises of our time is the 
decline in real wages of American workers and the loss of millions of 
good manufacturing jobs. In my view, we are not going to rebuild the 
middle class and create good paying jobs unless we rebuild our 
manufacturing sector. Given that reality, Mr. Chairman, it is 
unacceptable that the taxpayers of this country continue to provide 
financial support for large multinational corporations who are laying 
off hundreds of thousands of American workers,

[[Page H8193]]

they are taking our jobs to China, to Mexico, to countries where 
workers are paid 20 or 30 cents an hour. But then they come into this 
building and they say, help us, we need some money to participate in 
the export-import program.
  Mr. Chairman, I have introduced an amendment which was accepted by 
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services which has a very simple 
goal. It demands that the Export-Import Bank implement procedures to 
ensure that in selecting among firms to which to provide financial 
assistance, preference is given to a firm which has shown commitment to 
reinvest in America and create jobs in America.
  I do not think that is too much to ask. If the American taxpayers are 
going to help out in this process, they have a right to know that the 
companies who receive that help have a commitment to reinvest in 
America and create jobs in America and not to run to Mexico, not to run 
to China.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to spend a lot of time 
because most of the arguments that I would use have already been used 
and they have been gone over and over and Members understand the merits 
and the demerits.
  I think the only thing I can say is, I have been there. I understand 
what the Eximbank can do. It is a little bit like the Olympics. It used 
to always be amateur, and then all of a sudden it changed, and then 
people said, gee, maybe we ought to change, too.
  Commercial banks used to be able to do what they are no longer able 
to do, and you find corporations, little companies, competing against 
countries. That is wrong. We can see it in the marketplace. Many times 
you have a good product, good service, good reputation, terrific 
quality, cannot sell your equipment because the financing terms are 
wrong. That is what the Eximbank does. I strongly support this 
amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend 
the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the chairman, and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], for their hard work on 
this legislation and particularly to add my words of appreciation to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] for his many years of service. 
We regret that he has chosen to retire from this body, and we will miss 
him.
  If we want to compete in the world economic arena, we must stand with 
the people who make the products which are exported. American companies 
need to enter the trade battle well armed, and the best way we can arm 
them is by allowing the Export-Import Bank to continue its work. Since 
1990, one-third of the total growth in U.S. output has been in exports. 
In other words, if we want the tremendous growth we are seeing at this 
point to continue, we need to be aggressive in promoting exports.
  The Export-Import Bank helps to level the playing field with U.S. 
exporters by using specific tools to make sure our industries are able 
to do business overseas. These tools include export credit insurance, 
guarantees on commercial loans for purchases of U.S. exports, and 
working capital guarantees to encourage banks to lend money to small 
exporters.
  The bank only provides these tools when the private sector does not 
or cannot. The bank does not prevent anyone else from providing these 
services. It only provides them at or above market rate when no one 
else can or will.
  I know from the experience of my own State of New York just how great 
an impact the Export-Import Bank has had on our economy. Between 1992 
and 1996, the bank supported 345 companies and financed $3.8 billion in 
exports. This has translated into an estimated 56,000 jobs. During this 
5-year period, the bank has returned about $20 worth of exports for 
each dollar it has spent. I support this.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], chairman of the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services.
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I would like to also express my great appreciation for his 
leadership on this issue and also that of the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Flake].
  In that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] is retiring from this 
body, I would think it very appropriate to point out that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Flake] is not only one of the most decent Members I 
have ever served with, he has a streak of pragmatic practicality that 
is as large as any Member in this body. I think that is something that 
is much appreciated by everyone who has ever worked with him.
  As for the Export-Import Bank, I know of no institution in the U.S. 
Government that has been more successful and is more supported on a 
bipartisan basis. Republicans, Democrats, business, labor, all have 
come to appreciate this particular small institution that helps the 
American worker and American business to compete in a very 
sophisticated global environment. Reauthorization of this institution 
is, thus, highly critical for America's competitive position in the 
world.
  Just to give one example, because sometimes in vignettes there is 
great truth, I spoke at an event in East Moline, IL, this spring at the 
John Deere Co., where business and labor came together to celebrate an 
Export-Import Bank supported production assembly of hundreds of 
tractors and combines that were sent to the Ukraine. At this event, a 
train actually took off with a group of combines on it. A series of 
people talked abstractly about the Export-Import Bank, but real meaning 
was brought by an 18-year-old woman who had been hired by Deere and 
Company, their first literally youthful hiree in the last decade. Her 
job was made possible simply because of this export-supported program. 
I think that is a very telling circumstance.
  The issue of corporate welfare has properly been raised. On the other 
hand, the Export-Import Bank over its long history has about broken 
even, slightly made a little bit of money, but approximately broken 
even. But if one adds to the U.S. Government revenue all the funds that 
are derived from those that pay taxes because of jobs they had that 
they would not otherwise have had, the Export-Import Bank is enormously 
in the black. So I think one can say that this is a very pragmatic 
institution of government.
  If there is a corporate welfare argument, which properly arrises any 
time there is government intervention, it should be noted that the real 
corporate welfare would be to Japanese and French and German companies 
if we do not reauthorize Export-Import Bank.
  In conclusion, let me just suggest that if we look at our own 
economy, that is doing rather well the last few years, it is impressive 
to point out that fully one-third of the economic growth in this 
country is related directly to exports. That export-driven growth is 
singularly important to the well-being of all Americans.
  Finally, because this is a fairly partisan era, let me say to the 
Clinton administration that they have appointed decent people to work 
at the Export-Import Bank, decent people to lead it, and they have led 
in a very pragmatic direction that has emphasized small business 
support, and as chairman of the authorizing committee, I want to tip my 
hat to the administration for its attention to this institution.
  Let me also express my gratitude to our distinguished retiring former 
chairman, Representative Gonzalez, Representative LaFalce, the chairman 
of the Asia Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, and one of this body's 
strongest supporters of small business, Representative Manzullo, among 
many others.
  Mr. Chairman, as Members are aware, Eximbank is an independent 
Federal agency established to provide export financing for

[[Page H8194]]

U.S. businesses. The Bank has a dual purpose: to neutralize aggressive 
financing by foreign export credit agencies, and to furnish prudent 
export credit financing when private financing is unavailable or 
insufficient to complete the deal. It does this through a variety of 
loan, guarantee, and insurance programs. Since its founding, Eximbank 
has supported more than $300 billion in U.S. exports, almost $100 
billion in this decade alone. The Bank currently supports about $15 
billion in U.S. exports annually. More than 80 percent of Eximbank's 
transactions are for exports from small businesses, a dramatic increase 
from just a few years ago.
  Most of Eximbank's activities are directed at supporting U.S. exports 
to emerging market economies. As we all understand, developing markets 
offer tremendous opportunities for American businesses. More than 40 
percent of U.S. exports, worth about $180 billion, go to developing 
countries, and the amount is rising. The World Bank estimates that by 
the year 2010, these countries will consume 40 percent of all goods and 
services produced worldwide. From a midwestern agribusiness 
perspective, exports not only of crops, but value-added products from 
processed pork to refined steel, tractors and combines are increasingly 
in demand.
  In many respects, the heightened importance of exports to my home 
State of Iowa parallels the growing importance of exports to the 
overall national economy and the Nation's standard of living. In 1970, 
for example, the overall value of trade to the U.S. economy equals 
about 11 percent of GDP. Over the past 3 years, exports have accounted 
for about one-third of total U.S. economic growth. In 1995, some 11 
million jobs depended on exports, and by the year 2000 that number will 
have risen substantially.
  But commercial competition for sales in the global economy is 
formidable, particularly in emerging markets. Evidence of competitive 
financing is often a requirement just to bid on a contract. To sweeten 
the financing terms for potential buyers, many foreign export credit 
agencies eagerly offer officially backed loans or guarantees as a way 
to cinch the deal for their own country's exporters. At other times, 
the requirement of official financing for the import of goods and 
services is simply written into the terms of the foreign contract.
  If the United States is to remain the world's preeminent exporter, 
which I am sure is the goal of every Member in this body, then American 
companies and American workers need the support of Eximbank to defend 
themselves against foreign government-supported competition. And that 
competition is substantial.
  According to the General Accounting Office [GAO], no less than 73 
export credit agencies now exist worldwide. Yet the United States 
devotes fewer resources to trade finance than our competitors. For 
example, in terms of the percentage of national exports financed by the 
G-7 industrialized countries, Eximbank is tied for last. In 1995, 
Eximbank supported 2 percent of total U.S. exports. By contrast, Japan 
supported 32 percent of its countries exports that year, with France 
second at 18 percent.
  That lower level of spending is also consistent with a U.S. 
preference for fair competition in free markets. Again according to 
GAO, unlike Eximbank, other export credit agencies ``appear to compete 
to varying degrees with private sources of export financing. They do 
not aim to function exclusively as `lenders of last resort,' as 
Eximbank strives to do.''
  Eximbank is the last line of defense for American businesses that are 
competitive in terms of price, quality, and service but which are 
facing officially financed foreign competition. As one witness 
testified before the Banking Committee earlier this year, ``This is the 
crux of the matter. No U.S. company, no matter how big, can compete 
against a foreign government in international finance. Neither can U.S. 
commercial lenders.''
  In this context, Eximbank estimates that in 1995 almost three-
quarters of its activity was directed at leveling the playing field for 
American exporters, while the rest went toward making up gaps in 
private financing. Eximbank also helps give our negotiators leverage to 
bring greater discipline to the rules governing official export-credit-
agency financing. And this trade policy leverage has been used 
effectively to negotiate subsidy reductions. For example, tied aid 
export promotion offers by foreign governments have declined by 75 
percent since 1991.
  Interest rates on Eximbank's direct loans are priced at the cost of 
borrowing plus 1 percent. Guaranteed loans are priced by commercial 
banks at market levels. Eximbank also charges U.S. exporters exposure 
fees to cover the risk of loans. The Bank's annual program budget 
reflects the difference between these fees and losses which may be 
incurred on new business committed that year. This appropriation acts 
as a loan loss reserve. As a result of the Bank's requirement of a 
reasonable assurance of repayment for each transaction, losses on the 
approximately $125 billion of loans financed since 1980 are less than 
$2.5 billion--a loan loss ratio of 1.9 percent. This figure is superior 
to that of commercial banks lending to foreign governments. It should 
also be noted that the Bank is fully reserved against potential losses 
in its guarantee and insurance portfolio.
  In closing, I would stress that Eximbank's role in U.S. trade finance 
reflects the almost instinctive American philosophical preference for 
open markets and open trade. As GAO testified before the Banking 
Committee, Eximbank functions as a lender of last resort to American 
exporters. But while Congress has mandated that Eximbank complement the 
market and not compete with the private sector, other well-supported 
export credit agencies have historically demonstrated less fidelity to 
the precepts or free markets of fair trade.
  Without Eximbank, American exporters would be left defenseless in the 
face of aggressive officially financed foreign competition. The ability 
of American firms to win contracts, market-share, and follow on deals 
in important emerging market economies--and the high paying jobs that 
support those exports--would be placed in jeopardy. Congress needs to 
reauthorize Eximbank to help continue to reduce export credit subsidies 
and make international trade more market-oriented. I urge support for 
this important legislation.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Flake], and congratulate him on his service in this 
House, working with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Delaware [Mr. Castle], on getting this bill through.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 1370, I strongly support its 
passage. I am going to bypass getting into the issue of the amount of 
exports it has done for my State and talk about a couple of issues that 
my colleague from Texas raised earlier.
  I think we need to get at the real issues about this. This is not a 
question of living in a perfect world. We do not live in a perfect 
world. We cannot go back to mercantilism, and, as a matter of fact, 
mercantilism did not work. I am afraid my colleague from Texas is 
advocating just that.
  The fact is, it is not an issue of free trade. If it were free trade, 
the Japanese would not subsidize their export market up to 32 percent, 
the French would not subsidize their export market up to 18 percent. 
This is a question of leveling the playing field.
  What Exim does is to extend credit where the private market will not 
go or at the price that will not allow U.S. companies to participate in 
the deals. The fact is, only 3 percent of the U.S. export market is 
involved in this. The loss rate is 1.9 percent, which is less than the 
commercial lending loss ratios.
  The classical view offers no empirical evidence of any misallocation 
of credit. That would assume both an extremely finite capital market, 
which I think is unlikely, and the nonexpansive U.S. business strategy 
that, if you go one place, you are not going to try and get business 
somewhere else. Those of us who came from the private sector realize 
you try and get business where you can.
  The fact is, U.S. companies which cannot obtain financing without 
Exim would either lose the business or would partner with foreign 
companies who had more favorable financing terms from their home 
countries. That would be at the expense of both the United States 
economy and U.S. workers at home.
  I would encourage my colleagues not listen to these cries of 
corporate welfare but to look at the facts, look at what really has 
been laid on the table, because the opponents of this in the hearings 
before the committee brought no evidence whatsoever to the contrary 
that Exim does, in fact, create U.S. jobs and protect U.S. jobs.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith], in a sense of fairness and comity, because he is 
on the other side of this.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the issue of 
corporate welfare.
  The Export-Import Bank subsidizes loans and loan guarantees to 
American exporters and it has cost hundreds of

[[Page H8195]]

millions of dollars. The experts agree Ex-Im Bank should be abolished.
  The Congressional Budget Office makes the following observation: Ex-
Im Bank has lost $8 billion on its operation, practically all in the 
last 15 years. ``Little evidence exists that the bank's credit 
assistance creates jobs.'' ``Providing subsidies to promote exports is 
contrary to the free market. It subsidizes big companies at the loss of 
small companies.''
  The Heritage Foundation recommends that Congress close down the 
Export-Import Bank. Heritage further states, ``Subsidized exports 
promote the business interests of certain American businesses at the 
expense of other Americans.''
  Mr. Chairman, I think it needs to be closed down. I do not think we 
can close it down all at once. It needs to be phased out, but let us 
alert ourselves to what is happening. We are subsidizing huge 
corporations at the expense of small business.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the issue of corporate welfare. As we 
eliminate the fat from the Federal budget, we should recommit ourselves 
to making sure all projects and programs are closely examined--not just 
the politically easy ones.
  The Export-Import Bank [Eximbank] subsidizes loans and loan 
guarantees to American exporters. These corporate welfare subsidies 
have been appropriated $787 million for 1996.
  The experts agree; Eximbank should be abolished.
  The Congressional Budget Office makes the following observations:

       Eximbank ``has lost $8 billion on its operations, 
     practically all in the last 15 years'';
       Little evidence exists that the bank's credit assistance 
     creates jobs;
       Providing subsidies to promote exports is contrary to the 
     free-market policies the United States advocates.

  The Congressional Research Service writes that:

       Most economists doubt that a nation can improve its welfare 
     over the long run by subsidizing exports;
       At the national level, subsidized exports financing merely 
     shifts production among sectors within the economy, rather 
     than adding to the overall level of economic activity;
       Export financing ``subsidizes foreign consumption at the 
     expense of the domestic economy'';
       Subsidizing financing ``will not raise permanently the 
     level of employment in the economy . . .

  The Heritage Foundation recommends Congress close down the Export-
Import Bank.
  Heritage further states:

       Subsidized exports promote the business interests of 
     certain American businesses at the expense of other 
     Americans;
       Little evidence exists to demonstrate that subsidized 
     export promotion creates jobs--at least net of the jobs lost 
     due to taxpayer financing and the diversion of U.S. resources 
     in to government-favored export activities at the expense of 
     non-subsidized business.

  According to Heritage, phasing out subsidies will save 2.3 billion 
over 5 years.
  The director of regulatory studies at the Cato Institute calls the 
subsidy activity of Eximbank ``corporate pork.'' He stated, ``Even in 
the face of unfair international competition, the U.S. government 
doesn't have a right to use tax dollars to match equally stupid 
subsidies.''
  Eximbank's financial statements show that the Bank has paid $3.8 
billion in claims from 1980-94. These dollars paid off commercial banks 
who couldn't collect from foreign borrowers. American taxpayers took 
the hit.
  Exports financed by Eximbank actually hurt competitive U.S. exporters 
not selected for subsidies. The Bank chooses winners and losers in the 
economy. The only winners are selected foreign consumers and selected 
U.S. corporations.
  The Eximbank is a prime example of corporate welfare. The majority of 
Eximbank subsidies go to Fortune 500 companies that could easily afford 
financing from commercial banks: Boeing--over $2 billion worth of loan 
guarantees; McDonnell Douglas--$647 million; Westinghouse Electric--
$492 million; General Electric--$381 million; and At&T--$371 million.
  To raise funds for its lending and guarantee programs, Eximbank puts 
additional pressure on Treasury borrowing, driving up interest rates 
for private borrowers. That's all of us. From a corner barbershop 
wanting to expand to a young family trying to finance their first home. 
We all pay the price.
  Sadly, there's more.
  Eximbank appears to have wasted money on frivolous items as well. 
After 50 years with the same agency logo, Eximbank decided it needed a 
new one. Designing a new logo--including creation, copyright search, 
and the redesign of Bank brochures and literature--cost nearly $100,000 
last year.
  And in 1993, Eximbank spent $30,000 to train 20 employees how to 
speak in public--including chairman Kenneth Brody. An outside 
consultant was paid $3,000 a day for this task.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe Government shouldn't choose winners in the 
economy. With Eximbank, the big winners are foreign consumers, large 
corporations, and professional speech coaches. The losers are American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, it's time to derail this gravy train.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut, Mrs. Kennelly.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues 
today to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for one very, very 
important reason, and that is because it will create jobs.
  In my home State of Connecticut the bank has already supported $251 
million in exports from almost 100 local companies. Not big companies, 
small companies. In short, these exports mean jobs.
  Connecticut is far from alone in benefitting from the Export-Import 
Bank. Over the last 5 years, the Bank has supported over $76 billion in 
foreign sales of American products which supported almost 200,000 jobs. 
The Bank produces these results by providing loans and insurance to 
help American companies export products, and this point is very, very 
important.
  We do, in fact, live in an international world. If we are to keep our 
standard of living in the United States as we want it to be, we are 
going to have to export more and more. Small companies can begin if 
they have help, if they can get that insurance, if they have that 
initial financing. Then, once they become exporters and become savvy in 
the way of exporting, they can be on their own. But right now the 
export-import financing is so important, especially in developing 
countries.
  The Bank has a very good record of using taxpayer resources. Its loan 
loss ratio of 1.9 percent compares favorably to commercial loans that 
are made by banks. The mission of the Export-Import Bank is simple: 
Create jobs by increasing exports.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this reauthorization.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
reauthorization of the Exim Bank, and I do so for the following reason:
  Certainly the economy is doing well. Nobody can argue that. But we 
are not doing well enough in terms of manufacturing products in the 
United States, in terms of the $114 billion trade deficit projected for 
this year, and in terms of too big a trade deficit with the Japanese 
and the Chinese.
  So some might come to the floor and say, well, we need to eliminate 
the Exim Bank. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. The accusations 
here on the floor about corporate welfare, about exporting jobs, about 
foreign aid are absolutely wrong.
  The Exim Bank, while not a perfect tool yet, is moving in absolutely 
the right direction to manufacture more products in this country. There 
is a requirement in the charter, that the product must be manufactured 
in the good old United States of America.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, we are seeing more and more of the business, in 
terms of transactions, move to small businesses. Eighty-one percent of 
Exim's transactions went to small businesses. Almost 2,000 small 
business transactions took place. The number of first-time small 
businesses in the Exim financing, 411, and many of those in my great 
State of Indiana.
  So if my colleagues are concerned, Republicans and Democrats, about a 
$115, $114 billion projected trade deficit, if we are concerned about 
corporate welfare, if we are concerned about more small businesses 
getting in on these transactions, if we are concerned about making 
products in the good old USA, let us work together to make the Exim 
Bank be a product, a tool, an instrument more of our trade policy in 
addressing these things. While not perfect, it is moving in this 
direction.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H8196]]

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  In the years to come, our domestic fortunes will be directly tied to 
our place in the global marketplace, and those countries that get a 
foothold today in the major markets of tomorrow will be the ones that 
thrive.
  If Japan becomes the major supplier of telecommunications technology 
to South American countries, for example, whose technology will become 
their standard? Whose spare parts will they buy in the years to come? 
And who will they call to upgrade their systems in the next century? 
Japan. But with the support of the Export-Import Bank, they will be 
calling us in the 21st century, and our kids and grandkids will be 
making the technology. That is America's future.
  The mission of the Export-Import Bank in this process is simple but 
critical: finance U.S. exports where commercial banks cannot or will 
not because of unfair foreign subsidies. If and when our trading 
partners throughout the world reduce their export programs, then we 
might begin looking at modifying ours. But in today's world, a show of 
anything less than the strongest support for our Export-Import Bank 
would be a sign of unilateral economic disarmament.
  This is about jobs. It is why Republicans and Democrats alike are 
getting up to support it. It is about American jobs that will feed 
American families, that will pay American mortgages, that will send the 
kids to school. So I urge my colleagues to send a strong signal that 
America is not going to stand down in this competition for new export 
markets; that we are going to be able to stand up on behalf of American 
jobs and get this bill reauthorized.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  This is not a selfish stance I take, Mr. Chairman. This is one that 
really comports with what we should be doing in the U.S. Congress. I 
support the work of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] to avoid a 
shutdown of the Export-Import Bank, and offer that we should 
reauthorize it. We should extend it for another 4 years. I wish we 
could do it for more. But $76 billion is not something to sneeze at. 
This is what has been generated by this bank in economic opportunity 
for American companies.
  Additionally, in Texas it has helped textile manufacturing and 
petrochemical and energy companies in my district. I am delighted to 
emphasize that small businesses are, in fact, also targeted; that 81 
percent of the bank's total transactions are with small businesses, 60 
percent since 1992.
  In sub-Saharan Africa we have made a decided difference in helping to 
enhance economic development with our own community of businesses there 
in Africa. And, yes, this is about jobs, 200,000 jobs. Jobs in the 
West, jobs in Houston, jobs in the Midwest, in South Dakota, in 
Michigan, in New York, in Atlanta, and all over this country people are 
benefiting with jobs because of the Export-Import Bank reauthorization 
act.
  I would simply say to those who would argue corporate welfare, the 
fact is that Americans who work look to us to keep working to provide 
jobs. This bill will do this, Mr. Chairman. This is the right action to 
reauthorize this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am gratified to have had just a small time to work 
with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake]. He is someone that is not 
only practical but is compassionate. I pay tribute to him, because of 
the great leadership that he has shown in this Congress.
  And might I say that I have his wonderful family in Acres Home, TX, 
in the 18th Congressional District, which I represent. He is a friend, 
but he is a friend of all Americans. And I thank the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle] for working as well with him on this very, very 
important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1370, the Export-Import 
Bank Reauthorization Act. My colleagues, in today's highly competitive 
global marketplace the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank will 
ensure that U.S. companies have the ability to compete globally and 
compete against other countries which subsidize their exports.
  The Export-Import Bank has proven to be a productive tool in selling 
American-made products overseas. Over the past 5 years the Export-
Import Bank has helped to sell more than $76 billion in U.S. exports in 
the world. In our global economy, opportunities for American trade with 
fast growing emerging economies around the globe have never been 
greater, and the stakes for U.S. business and labor in competing 
effectively for those markets have never been higher. The United States 
major trading competitors, with strong and abundant support from their 
governments are working to win these markets for their own. The Export-
Import Bank is a key tool in our economic arsenal, and ensures that 
U.S. companies have a competitive edge.
  In Texas, the impact of these exports on our economy is significant. 
In my district, Export-Import Bank financing has helped small textile 
manufacturing companies, to the large petrochemical and energy 
companies, as it exports abroad. Texas companies sell the second 
highest level of exports in our Nation. The Export-Import Bank helps to 
ensure that our State will continue to prosper and sell more Texas-made 
products.
  I strongly believe that the Export-Import Bank is a good investment 
by our taxpayers. The Export-Import Bank works to level the playing 
field for U.S. companies and only targets those investments where our 
private capital markets have failed to serve.
  Further, I was pleased to learn that H.R. 1370 is targeting small 
businesses. It is very important that small businesses do not feel left 
our of this economic boom because they have become an important engine 
of the economy which account for half of our gross domestic product 
while employing 54 percent of the private work force. In fact, a recent 
study by the Export-Import Bank shows that 81 percent of the Banks 
total transactions were with small businesses. This is an increase of 
60 percent since 1992.
  Being a adamant supporter of increasing trade with Africa, I am 
pleased to see the provision for promoting the Bank's financial 
commitments in sub-Saharan Africa under the Bank's program. Africa has 
been neglected by this Congress in terms of trade and economic 
development for far to long. I think this is a step in the right 
direction by the Export-Import Bank.
  Some have labeled this program to be corporate welfare, others have 
argued that it is inefficient. In fact, Export-Import Banks' role 
cannot be dismissed. Over the last 5 years, the Bank has supported over 
76.3 billion in exports, which in turn supported almost 200,000 jobs 
directly and over 1 million indirectly each year. This is a good deal 
for the U.S. Taxpayers.
  My colleagues, all the evidence highlights the continued need for the 
Export-Import Bank. If the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank is 
denied it would put U.S. companies at a disadvantage in that every 
other developed country has an export credit agency. If the Export-
Import Bank is disbanded, it will put U.S. exporters at an unacceptable 
disadvantage. It would be foolhardy and dangerous to unilaterally 
disarm U.S. exporters. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1370 to 
ensure the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Thank you.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
comment that the gentlewoman does much to squeeze much out of a minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to also add my personal tributes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Flake] who will be leaving us; and I also want to 
commend both the chair of the subcommittee, along with him, in bringing 
this reauthorization bill here.
  We create jobs through promoting trade. By maintaining an effective 
marketing promotion program, we can more effectively compete globally.
  Export promotion programs are producing unprecedented gain. The 
balance of trade deficit compels us to take a close look at American 
trade policy and at the institution responsible for carrying out those 
policies. But we should not ignore the fact that the best opportunity 
for growth in America lies beyond the borders of the United States.
  There are some who question the wisdom of investing in global 
competition;

[[Page H8197]]

whether we should continue the Export-Import Bank. I think that 
questioning is really shortsighted. There is much to be had.
  Look at the Pacific Rim, where two-thirds of the world's commerce 
flows. How can we ignore that? Look at China. One and a half billion 
citizens, potential consumers of American products, producing American 
jobs. Look at India, where people buy products and services, with a 
middle class larger than the United States. We cannot ignore that. 
America must be involved in that.
  How must we be involved in that? The Export-Import Bank of the United 
States provides fertile ground and opportunity for those companies 
having that vision and who will take the time to venture out in those 
foreign markets. Their emphasis should be, indeed, on exports, because 
jobs are created as a result of that.
  Yes, I say we should vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and 
vote also ``yes'' on the LaFalce amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
close the debate by urging all my colleagues to understand the valuable 
resource that that Export-Import Bank is; to understand that we, as a 
nation, cannot afford to not be in a position to be globally 
competitive, and that our small businesses are in great need of the 
resources that are provided by this Bank.
  This is not an entity where we are giving money away; therefore, any 
argument for corporate welfare is not consistent with what the Eximbank 
is. As a matter of fact, this Bank actually brings resources back to 
the Nation. Dollars that are invested actually bring money back to this 
country. It creates jobs in this country. It is a major economic 
development vehicle.
  So it is my hope that all my colleagues will understand that it is 
important for us to put this Nation in a competitive situation, put our 
small businesses in the best possible posture so that they are not 
competing against governments of other nations.
  I am pleased to have served in this last term of Congress with the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] as my chairman; with the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Leach] as chairman of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services; with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] 
preceding him; with the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], and 
others who I have had an opportunity to work with.
  This probably is my last bill on the floor, but my calling to 
ministry supersedes my election here, so I leave by saying I am 
grateful for the opportunity to have served.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to start by standing in praise of our distinguished 
colleague, the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Flake]. We said goodbye to him on the floor about a week 
ago and here he is back again. But that shows us something about just 
how good he is.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, that is 
politics.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is a 
tremendous asset to this House and, unfortunately, it is the good 
people who we tend to lose in circumstances like this, and he will be 
missed tremendously. I have enjoyed working with him in every way 
possible.
  I will not add too much more to what has already been stated on this 
legislation. I think there is some confusion about what we are dealing 
with. We are not dealing with OPIC. We are not dealing with foreign 
policy. I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] made that 
comment. This is not a foreign policy instrument.
  We are going to see amendments here in a little while which would 
make one think it is a foreign policy instrument in which we will try 
to impose our different standards on various countries, some of which 
we will oppose, some of which we will swallow on a little bit, but all 
of which, I think, are a little bit dubious in terms of what this 
policy should be. This truly is what it may be renamed to, which is an 
export bank for the United States to help our businesses, large and 
small.
  I think it is important to understand there has been a change in the 
mindset at the Eximbank, and that is that small businesses need to be 
served. There has been a mindset change already, and we have also put 
it into this legislation as well, as well as some of the other 
amendments that were put on at the committee level which were discussed 
today, to make sure that we are encouraging this Bank to help American 
businesses, dealing with Americans, giving jobs in America, and giving 
jobs particularly to the small businesses in our country.

                              {time}  1445

  While in the past some of our large companies have dominated and to 
some degree still do dominate the loan scene with the Eximbank, that is 
changing very, very rapidly. I think if we can chart that pace of 
change, we will see that the small businesses are now sharing 
dramatically.
  Plus, I think, from comments of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Manzullo], we saw what it means to the various suppliers to one company 
where the suppliers are all over the United States of America producing 
jobs in various parts of the country, and I think that is every bit 
equally as important.
  Would taxpayers save money if we closed Eximbank? That issue has been 
raised by my colleagues here. The taxpayers would save no money by 
closing the Eximbank. A very credible study by the Economic Strategy 
Institute suggested, after 10 years, closing the bank would actually 
cost the Federal Government $24 billion annually due to the loss of 
Federal tax revenues that are generated by bank-approved exports and 
their indirect effect on the Nation's economy. And that is very, very 
important.
  We need to understand all the economic ramifications of this, and I 
think that has been well studied and well demonstrated.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just according to the Heritage 
Foundation, phasing out subsidies will save $2.3 billion over 5 years.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Obviously, that kind of discussion is money that would be foregone, 
not spent. But it does not use the offset of the revenue that comes in 
from the jobs which are created, which produces the $24 billion net 
surplus to the Federal coffers as a result of the tax payments which 
are made.
  We have dealt with the issues of the distorting of free trade, does 
it do that. No, it does not. It is actually making trade more market 
driven than it otherwise would be. The so-called tied aid export 
promotion offered by foreign governments worldwide has declined 75 
percent by 1991, a dramatic U.S. policy success. We have heard some 
mention of that. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is very 
concerned about that issue, and I am too.
  I think we have had some modicum of success in trying to deal with 
that issue and drive it down as well as some of the other things that 
we have done, and I think that is the way that we should go.
  We deal with Eximbank's policy on domestic content. The bank 
currently only finances products at no more than 15 percent foreign 
content. The bank will only finance the U.S. portion of the export. So 
we have paid attention to what happens in the United States of America.
  We are paying more attention to the environmental guidelines. Quite 
frankly, I think a lot of this is because of the pressure which has 
been applied by the Congress of the United States. We are concerned 
about labor laws. We are concerned about jobs. So we are concerned 
about environmental laws and regulations in this country. We are 
raising these issues. And this is one agency which has responded to it 
and which has come forward and said that we are going to make the 
changes, and they have started to make the changes and, in my judgment, 
is worthy of the support of each and every one of us in Congress.

[[Page H8198]]

  We do have, I believe, 7 amendments which will be coming up here 
shortly. I hope the Members will listen to the discussion of those 7 
amendments, keeping in mind the mannerisms in which this bank has 
already worked and whether or not we should make substantial changes 
which could be harmful to it. And then at the end of it all, I hope we 
can have votes where we need to on the amendments and vote for full 
support of the reauthorization of the Eximbank for the next 4 years.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1370, the 
Export-Import Bank reauthorization bill, because I believe that the 
Export-Import Bank will have been made better as a result of amendments 
which were added to its authorization bill during its consideration of 
the Banking Committee.
  I am very pleased that the committee approved an amendment that 
directs the Export-Import Bank [Exim] to establish procedures to ensure 
that, when selecting firms to provide financial assistance, preference 
is given to any firm which has shown a commitment to reinvestment and 
job creation in the United States. Because the purpose of Exim is to 
support U.S. jobs through exports, the Bank should give preference to 
U.S. corporations which reinvest and support jobs in the United States, 
as opposed to corporations which are laying off American workers only 
to locate production and other facilities in countries which have less 
expensive, unprotected workforces.
  This preference provision 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. A number of Federal programs are being 
criticized, inside and outside Congress, as corporate welfare and these 
programs are being targeted for spending cuts by people with widely 
different political philosophies. The Export-Import Bank is one of 
those programs.
  The Journal of Commerce reported on June 12, 1997, that Exim, like 
the rest of the country, is presently facing a money crunch. The 
journal reports that Exim: ``faced with strong exporter demand, may run 
out of money this fiscal year as early as July, officials indicate. 
Next year, the money squeeze could be worse.'' It seems clear that it 
is time for the Export-Import Bank to prioritize; this money squeeze 
should indicate to us that there is actually a need for a system of 
priorities, such as that in this amendment, to ensure that companies 
which are the most committed to jobs in the U.S. are given preference 
over companies that are not.
  It is becoming too common for U.S. corporations, including 
corporations which are supported by Exim, to downsize their U.S. 
workforce and move their production facilities to take advantage of 
cheap labor in other countries. According to information from Exim, 
among the top 25 companies which receive assistance from Exim are 
Boeing, General Electric, and AT&T. A brief look at the employment 
practices of these corporations underscores the need for an amendment 
which gives preference to corporations that show a commitment to 
employment in the United States.
  Boeing is the top recipient of Exim loans and guarantees. Reports 
indicate that 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 Exim aid.
  General Electric [GE] is listed as the No. 2 recipient of Exim aid. 
In 1975 GE had 667,000 American workers. Twenty years later, it had 
398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. General Electric is well known for 
its politics of moving GE jobs to anyplace in the world where it can 
get cheap labor--Mexico, China, and other poor Third World countries.
  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.
  The point here is that the entire approach of Exim 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. This amendment, on the other hand, expands Exim's 
focus when making the determination as to how many jobs a transaction 
will support. This amendment directs the Export-Import Bank's to look 
at the totality of the situation regarding a company's commitment to 
job creation in the United States, and not just a particular project. 
In other words, 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.
  At a time when the Congress is working very hard to balance the 
budget, it seems only right that if U.S. taxpayer funds are to be used 
to support U.S. corporations' exports, then incentive and priority must 
be given to those corporations to reinvest and support jobs in the 
United States. A preference system, as provided by this amendment, 
would provide such an incentive to corporations, while at the same 
time, allowing the Bank some discretion in implementation, to ensure 
that both the purpose of the Bank and this amendment are fulfilled.


 two representatives from the labor community on the advisory board of 
                         the export-import bank

  The committee also approved an amendment which directs the Export-
Import Bank to include upon its advisory committee no less than two 
representatives from the labor community.
  Because the purpose of the Export-Import Bank is to support U.S. jobs 
through exports, it is important to have two members representing the 
American workforce on the advisory committee to ensure that the 
influence of the advisory committee is more evenly balanced for the 
sake of U.S. workers.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of reauthorization 
of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. This institution is 
absolutely vital for our Nation in order to keep American companies and 
workers competitive in the world marketplace.
  My philosophy on trade has always been that we should take every step 
possible to make it free and fair for all countries, and that purchases 
should be made based on quality, price and service. I firmly believe 
that, under such circumstances, American companies will excel. 
Unfortunately, as my colleagues know, this is not always the case 
today. In a perfect world, France, Germany, Japan, England, and our 
other competitors would not provide unfair advantages to their 
exporters. If that were the case, we would be having a different debate 
today. We would not need the Eximbank to level the playing field.
  However, the fact remains that the Eximbank finances American exports 
where commercial financing is simply not available or competitive and 
where, without Government action, the sale would be lost. The Eximbank 
does this at a low cost to the taxpayers and with a tremendous positive 
impact on the American economy. Last year alone, Eximbank supported 
over 200,000 high quality American jobs.
  It is also important to note that the Eximbank is not a giveaway 
program. The Bank must be repaid every dollar it lends, and has had a 
default rate of only 1 percent over the last 15 years. This is 
significantly better than our own commercial banks have performed over 
the same period of time.
  Last week I met with Mr. James Harmon, the new president of Eximbank. 
Frankly, I was impressed with his determination to institute management 
and policy changes at the Bank that will make it an even better value 
for the taxpayers. He has some great innovative ideas that will help 
make American companies even more competitive in the 21st century. I 
look forward to working with him and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against unilateral economic disarmament and vote in favor of 
reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and 
shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1370

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.

       Section 7 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635f) is amended by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``2001''.

     SEC. 2. TIED AID CREDIT FUND AUTHORITY.

       (a) Section 10(c)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 
     (12 U.S.C. 635i-3(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``through 
     September 30, 1997''.
       (b) Section 10(e) of such Act (12 U.S.C. 635i-3(e)) is 
     amended by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Fund such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes 
     of this section.''.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR THE 
                   EXPORT OF NONLETHAL DEFENSE ARTICLES OR 
                   SERVICES THE PRIMARY END USE OF WHICH WILL BE 
                   FOR CIVILIAN PURPOSES.

       Section 1(c) of Public Law 103-428 (12 U.S.C. 635 note; 108 
     Stat. 4376) is amended by striking ``1997'' and inserting 
     ``2001''.

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF PROCEDURES FOR DENYING CREDIT BASED 
                   ON THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

       Section 2(b)(1)(B) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 
     (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in the last sentence, by inserting ``, after 
     consultation with the Committee on Banking and Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate,'' after 
     ``President''; and

[[Page H8199]]

       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Each such 
     determination shall be delivered in writing to the President 
     of the Bank, shall state that the determination is made 
     pursuant to this section, and shall specify the applications 
     or categories of applications for credit which should be 
     denied by the Bank in furtherance of the national 
     interest.''.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COUNSEL.

       Section 3(e) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635(e)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(e)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The General Counsel of the Bank shall ensure that the 
     directors, officers, and employees of the Bank have available 
     appropriate legal counsel for advice on, and oversight of, 
     issues relating to ethics, conflicts of interest, personnel 
     matters, and other administrative law matters by designating 
     an attorney to serve as Assistant General Counsel for 
     Administration, whose duties, under the supervision of 
     the General Counsel, shall be concerned solely or 
     primarily with such issues.''.

     SEC. 6. ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.

       (a) In General.--Section 2(b) of the Export-Import Bank Act 
     of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)) is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9)(A) The Board of Directors of the Bank shall take 
     prompt measures, consistent with the credit standards 
     otherwise required by law, to promote the expansion of the 
     Bank's financial commitments in sub-Saharan Africa under the 
     loan, guarantee, and insurance programs of the Bank.
       (``(B)(i) The Board of Directors shall establish and use an 
     advisory committee to advise the Board of Directors on the 
     development and implementation of policies and programs 
     designed to support the expansion described in subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(ii) The advisory committee shall make recommendations to 
     the Board of Directors on how the Bank can facilitate greater 
     support by United States commercial banks for trade with sub-
     Saharan Africa.
       ``(iii) The advisory committee shall terminate 4 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.''.
       (b) Reports to the Congress.--Within 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and annually for each of 
     the 4 years thereafter, the Board of Directors of the Export-
     Import Bank of the United States submit to the Congress a 
     report on the steps that the Board has taken to implement 
     section 2(b)(9)(B) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 and 
     any recommendations of the advisory committee established 
     pursuant to such section.

     SEC. 7. INCREASE IN LABOR REPRESENTATION ON THE ADVISORY 
                   COMMITTEE OF THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK.

       Section 3(d)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635a(d)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' ``(2)''; and
       (2) by adding after and below the end the following:
       ``(B) Not less than 2 members appointed to the Advisory 
     Committee shall be representative of the labor community.''.

     SEC. 8. OUTREACH TO COMPANIES.

       Section 2(b)(1) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(I) The Chairman of the Bank shall design and implement a 
     program to provide information about Bank programs to 
     companies which have not participated in Bank programs. Not 
     later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     subparagraph, the Chairman of the Bank shall submit to the 
     Congress a report on the activities undertaken pursuant to 
     this subparagraph.''.

     SEC. 9. FIRMS THAT HAVE SHOWN A COMMITMENT TO REINVESTMENT 
                   AND JOB CREATION IN THE UNITED STATES TO BE 
                   GIVEN PREFERENCE IN FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 
                   DETERMINATIONS

       Section 2(b)(1) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635(b)(1)), as amended by section 8 of this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(J) The Board of Directors of the Bank shall prescribe 
     such regulations and the Bank shall implement such procedures 
     as may be appropriate to ensure that, in selecting from among 
     firms to which to provide financial assistance, preference be 
     given to any firm that has shown a commitment to reinvestment 
     and job creation in the United States.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in 
House Report 105-282, which may be considered only in the order 
specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered read, shall be debated 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.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.


             Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Mc Dermott

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128, 
noes 291, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 470]

                               AYES--128

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--291

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon

[[Page H8200]]


     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Archer
     DeGette
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Meek
     Nadler
     Norwood
     Pallone
     Price (NC)
     Roukema
     Schiff
     Tiahrt
     Yates

                              {time}  1509

  Messrs. LEWIS of Kentucky, WHITE, SANFORD, KINGSTON, and BAESLER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. JOHN, Ms. DeLAURO, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. GREEN, Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD, 
Ms. DANNER, and Mr. SERRANO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________