[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.
____________________