[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 137 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8395-H8397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
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 further consideration of the bill, H.R.
1370.
{time} 1812
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 further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 1370) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, with Mrs. Emerson, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose
earlier today, amendment No. 7 printed in House report 105-282 offered
by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] had been disposed of.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 255,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 4
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and
amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
{time} 1815
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was refused.
So the amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was refused.
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the Committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1370, reauthorizing the Export-Import
Bank, should be rejected for several reasons. The claim to
constitutionality is dubious. The Bank rewards special interest groups
with political favors. Reallocating money from the job-producing,
productive sectors of the economy to the less efficient sectors
distorts credit allocation. Reauthorization of the Bank is both bad
economics and bad politics.
Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates areas over
which Congress has authority. The ninth and tenth amendments further
reinforce that powers not vested in the U.S. Congress are reserved to
the States or to the people. The fifth amendment of the Constitution
forbids the taking from the people in order to subsidize the business
of the politically well-connected. It is not through free trade that
the Government subsidizes the politically well-connected. Rather, it is
through such organizations as the Eximbank.
The justification of H.R. 1370 under the general welfare clause of
the Constitution stretches the imagination of the intent of the
Founding Fathers. Nowhere in the authors' dreams could the general
welfare clause be used to tax all American individuals in order to give
corporate welfare to a few, specific, large political donors. The
supporters of the bill have not satisfactorily explained how the
authorization of the Eximbank could be justified as regulating
commerce. To construe Congress' power to coin money so broadly as to
include the Federal regulation of the provision of credit by creating
and perpetuating the Eximbank threatens the intrinsic value of American
money itself. As former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker pointed
out, ``The truly unique power of a central bank, after all, is the
power to create money, and ultimately the power to create is the power
to destroy.'' Even if Congress has the constitutional authority to
destroy money incident to its enumerated authority to coin, this is not
to say it should do so through the reauthorization of the credit-
misallocating Eximbank.
The U.S. Government takes money from its citizens through taxes to
subsidize other nations' purchases. Very often, our Government
subsidizes the purchases by foreign governments, such as the People's
Republic of China or other brutal regimes, whose practices many
Americans find objectionable. In fact, according to the Export-Import
Bank's 1996 Annual Report, the People's Republic of China was the
second largest recipient country of U.S. Eximbank loans or loan
guarantees; American taxpayers subsidized $4.1 billion of mainland
China's purchases. It is one thing to permit voluntary exchanges
between citizens of different countries but quite another to coerce the
American taxpayer to subsidize the purchases of a country whose
practices offend many. Such practices can best be explained by
considering the way in which the Eximbank operates.
Maria L. Haley, one of the five Bank directors, is a long-time friend
of Bill from Arkansas who ran then-Gov. Clinton's program to attract
foreign investment in the state. She advocated approval of loans to
Pauline Kanchanalak (a Thai native living in Virginia) to set up
Blockbuster video stores in Bangkok, Thailand. The Eximbank has never
approved financing for franchise rights; retail stores abroad do not
create U.S. jobs. Ms. Kanchanalak contributed $85,000 on June 18, 1996,
the same day DNC fundraiser John Huang arranged for her to be invited
to a White House coffee. Mr.
[[Page H8396]]
Huang called her that day and twice more in August. The DNC eventually
returned $250,000 of Ms. Kanchanalak's donations because of
questionable foreign origin. It is clear that the Bank sometimes acts
as a slush fund to repay political favors--it is, however, not their
money to lend. It is the taxpayers' money.
The act of the government taking from its people to return only part
of it--and that part with strings attached--is another sign of the so-
called Nanny State. The strings are meant to induce the welfare or
subsidy recipients to act in a manner that another group of
individuals, through the coercive power of the State, subjectively
consider desirable. A ``Bully State'' might be a better
characterization of such a government. The Frank amendment rightfully
acknowledges this fact and attempts to maintain some form of equality
of discrimination.
The section added by Rep. Bernard Sanders makes an effort to address
the charge that the Bank uses taxpayer dollars from both individuals
and job-producing small businesses to fund large corporations that
export American jobs or downsize their workforce here. If money is to
be taken from the paychecks of our citizens, then it should at least be
spent on companies showing a commitment to reinvestment and job
creation in the United States.
That the Eximbank works at cross-purposes with our stated foreign
policy objectives is clear. The bank supports state-owned and military-
controlled companies in foreign nations at the same time that our
foreign policy calls for the privatization of the same companies and
limitations on the activities of many foreign military companies.
Amendments correcting these problems should be favorably considered by
the House.
The supporters of the Export-Import Bank will point to the few
examples of claimed jobs created through subsidized exports of the
beneficiaries of their programs. They will be conspicuously silent on
the greater number of jobs lost or forgone, dispersed throughout the
country, due to the increased tax burden levied on the productive
companies to support the less efficient companies living on government
subsidies. The few beneficiaries of government largesse are easier to
identify than the no less real, but harder to identify, losers of the
government's misguided policies.
The funding for the Export-Import Bank affords politicians the
opportunity to pay back their contributors with other people's money.
By voting for reauthorization of the Bank, those individual politicians
that depend on the political support of the few large companies
subsidized at taxpayer expense can return the favor. This Congress
should put a stop to this special interest favoritism. The
Congressional Research Service, in a recent report, noted that the
Bank's ``subsidized export financing raises financing costs for all
borrowers by drawing on financial resources that otherwise would be
available for other uses.''
Small businesses that are the engine of export growth and job
creation in this country subsidize the larger corporations that are
shedding jobs in America. This misallocation of credit occurs because
the larger corporations have the resources to lobby politicians in
order to seek special favors that are out of reach of the smaller
businesses. These lobbyists will claim that these special interest
subsidies are important to the country. Yet with over $600 million
funding for the Bank, only $20 billion of our total U.S. exports of
$700 billion are subsidized.
Arguments that we must reauthorize the Bank because it creates jobs,
generates economic growth, and counterbalances the subsidies of our
major trading partners is not supported by objective economic data:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Percent
country's rate of Percent rate of
Country exports real GDP unemployment
subsidized growth \2\ \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\-----------------------------------
Japan.............................................................. 32 0.7 3.1
France............................................................. 18 2.2 11.6
Canada............................................................. 7 2.2 9.5
Germany............................................................ 5 2.1 9.4
Italy.............................................................. 4 3.0 12
U.K................................................................ 3 2.4 8.2
U.S.A.............................................................. 2 2.0 5.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Export-Import Bank, 1995 figures.
\2\ Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, 1995 figures.
It would be difficult for anyone but the most committed statists to
argue that the dirigiste wonders of government bureaucrats could be
demonstrated by macroeconomic statistics. However, if there is a broad
relationship, it is directly inverse to the relationship the central
planners envision.
In 1995, according to Export-Import Bank data, Japan subsidized 32
percent of its exports and France subsidized 18 percent while the
United States only aided 2 percent of total exports. However in the
same year, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic and
Business Affairs, Japan's real growth in Gross Domestic Product
registered a paltry 0.7 percent against a solid 2.0 percent here in the
U.S., and France had an unemployment rate of 11.6 percent, more than
double the American rate of only 5.6 percent. Perhaps, following the
logic of the Bank's supporters, we should increase the portion of our
subsidized exports to nine times the current level (with the
accompanying tax increases) to double our unemployment rate, and, if
that isn't desirable, we could double that rate of subsidy (again with
the increased tax burden) to cut our economic growth rate to one-third
its current level. We should not jump off the bridge of special
interest corporativism just because our competitors do.
``Corporate welfare does not work anywhere in the world. It does not
work because it penalizes a country's winners with excess taxes in
order to fund that country's losers with inefficiently run government
programs,'' testified Dr. T.J. Rodgers, President and C.E.O. of Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation, before Congress in 1995. `` `They've got
subsidies; we need subsidies,' is exactly wrong. America will be much
more competitive on a relative basis if we allow the nations with whom
we compete to squander their taxpayer's money, while we encourage our
companies to win without subsidies. It's like the Olympics: there comes
the day when an athlete must walk alone into the arena of competition.
The government cannot lift the weights and run the miles that are
required to be a champion--only an individual can.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Shaw] having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1370)
to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States, pursuant to
House Resolution 255, she reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 378,
nays 38, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 492]
YEAS--378
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutierrez
[[Page H8397]]
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--38
Andrews
Armey
Barr
Bass
Bilirakis
Bonior
Campbell
Chabot
Coble
Cox
DeFazio
Duncan
Ganske
Hayworth
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Johnson (WI)
Jones
Largent
McDermott
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Paul
Petri
Radanovich
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sanford
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (MI)
Solomon
Stearns
Wamp
Watts (OK)
NOT VOTING--17
Brown (FL)
Coburn
Foglietta
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Hilliard
Maloney (NY)
Owens
Pombo
Rangel
Schiff
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Weygand
Whitfield
{time} 1836
Mr. WAMP changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GILLMOR, Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Mr. EVERETT changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was delayed on my arrival to
Washington from New York, which prevented me from voting on rollcall
No. 490. Had I been able to vote I would have voted ``aye.''
I was also inadvertently detained in voting on rollcall No. 492. Had
I been Present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1026) to reauthorize the Export-
Import Bank of the United States, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Delaware?
There was no objecton.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 1026
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Export-Import Bank
Reauthorization Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSIONS 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. 3. 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''
and all that follows through ``1997''.
(b) Section 10(e) of such Act (12 U.S.C. 635i-3(3)) 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 undertake efforts to
enhance the Bank's capacity to provide information about the
Bank's programs to small and rural companies which have not
previously participated in the Bank's programs. Not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
subparagraph, the Chairman of the Bank shall submit to
Congress a report on the activities undertaken pursuant to
this subparagraph.''.
Motion Offered by Mr. Castle
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Castle moves to strike all after the enacting clause of
S. 1026 and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R.
1370, as passed by the House.
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 1370) was laid on the table.
Appointment of Conferees
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House
insist on its amendment to S. 1026 and request a conference with the
Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Delaware? The Chair hears none and, without objection,
appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Leach, Castle, Bereuter, LaFalce and Flake.
There was no objection.
____________________