[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 19, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H954-H958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1515
               EXTENDING AUTHORITY OF EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 2019) to extend the authority of the Export-Import Bank 
until April 30, 2002.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2019

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXPORT-IMPORT BANK.

       Notwithstanding the dates specified in section 7 of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635f) and section 
     1(c) of Public Law 103-428, The Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States shall continue to exercise its functions in 
     connection with and in furtherance of its objects and 
     purposes through April 30, 2002.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. LaFalce) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend remarks 
on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to yield 10 minutes of 
my 20 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) so that he 
can manage that 10 minutes in opposition to the bill. I will manage 10 
minutes of the 20 minutes in support of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) each 
will control 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This Member rises today in support of S. 2019, which is being 
considered under the suspension of the rules. This legislation extends 
the authorization of the Export-Import Bank until April 30, 2002. This 
Member would also note that he introduced identical House companion 
legislation, H.R. 3987.
  Under current law, the authorization of the Export-Import Bank 
expires on March 31, 2002. If this short-term authorization extension 
is not signed into law, the Export-Import Bank could engage in no new 
transactions and would have to wind down its current operations as of 
the expiration date. On March 14, 2002, the Senate passed this Ex-Im 
extension bill and a separate Ex-Im authorization bill. It is important 
that the House debate and approve the Senate extension bill today so 
that the President can sign this into law before the March 31 
expiration date.
  At the outset, this Member would like to thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Financial Services from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) 
for his leadership on Ex-Im Bank issues and for that of the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the 
distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for their help and 
assistance and for their support of this legislation in general. This 
Member has, of course, a special interest since he chairs the House 
Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and 
Trade, which has jurisdiction over the Ex-Im Bank.
  The Export-Import Bank is an independent U.S. Government agency that 
provides direct loans to buyers of U.S. exports, guarantees to 
commercial loans to buyers of U.S. products and insurance products 
which greatly benefit short-term small business sales. To illustrate 
the importance of the Ex-Im Bank, in fiscal year 2000 the Bank invested 
over $15 billion in exports through loans, guarantees and insurance by 
which the Ex-Im Bank financed exports such as civilian aircraft, 
electronics, engineering services, vehicles, agricultural products, et 
cetera, for businesses of all sizes. The Export-Import Bank, I stress, 
is intended to be only the lender of last resort and is not intended to 
compete with private lenders.
  On October 31, 2001, the House Committee on Financial Services passed 
H.R. 2871, a more comprehensive and 4-year authorization bill, by voice 
vote. That legislation, among other things, would require that the 
Export-Import Bank earmark at least 20 percent of its total financing 
for small businesses. Under current law, the Ex-Im Bank is required to 
use only 10 percent of its total financing for small businesses. This 
authorization bill also would require the Export-Import Bank to 
continue to increase its investment in Africa.
  Moreover, an amendment was accepted at the full committee markup, 
which was offered by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey), that would address Ex-Im Bank's transaction with a Chinese 
steel producer. This legislation would also make a clarification in the 
administration of the Tied Aid War Chest which finances tied aid 
transactions. However, a veto threat by the Treasury Department over 
the relationships and disputed powers of the Treasury and the Export-
Import Bank and lost time in sporadic negotiations between the 
committee and the executive branch have delayed the committee in 
bringing H.R. 2871 to the House floor for action. Thus, the need for 
this extension.
  In conclusion, this Member urges his colleagues to support this 
short-term extension for the Export-Import Bank until April 30, 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this measure to ensure that the operations of 
the Export-Import Bank are not interrupted for a 30-day period while we 
continue our work on a multiyear reauthorization of the Bank. I am 
hopeful that we will use these additional 30 days to resolve any 
remaining issues with H.R. 2871, the multiyear authorization bill that 
was reported out of the Committee on Financial Services on a bipartisan 
voice vote.
  It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we put to rest as quickly as 
possible any uncertainties about the Bank's ability to operate in the 
months ahead. Mind you, it is our position that we should bring the 
bill to the floor of the House, that was reported out of the Committee 
on Financial Services. There are issues in dispute. We hope they can be 
resolved before they come to the floor. If not, they should be brought 
to the floor and they should be voted upon, which is what we are 
elected to do. And so, while I support this 30-day extension to keep 
the operations of the Bank functioning, this should not be viewed as a 
sign on the part of the Republican leadership that they can continue to 
delay consideration of those issues over which certain Members 
disagree.
  The Export-Import Bank promotes U.S. exports, but it does so for very 
specific reasons. First, Ex-Im operates in a very competitive 
international environment in which export credit agencies in other 
countries are increasingly aggressive in supporting the exports of our 
competitors. Ex-Im is critical in countering these transactions and, in 
doing so, providing leverage for the United States to negotiate a 
gradual reduction in export subsidy activities amongst OECD members. In 
short, absent the United States Ex-Im Bank, U.S. exporters would find 
themselves competing at a disadvantage against foreign exporters who 
enjoy government subsidies.
  Secondly, Ex-Im provides critical export financing in cases where 
there is a market failure in private lending. Frequently, these 
failures relate to the nature of the exporter. Small businesses

[[Page H955]]

too often face problems obtaining private credit for export 
transactions. Failures also relate to the nature of the export market. 
Markets in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere in the developing world are 
frequently overlooked by private export credit. Ex-Im goes where 
private lenders are unwilling to go to the ultimate benefit of these 
developing countries, the United States and the global economy.
  Finally, I would like to highlight very briefly the importance of 
H.R. 2871, the bill that was reported out of the Committee on Financial 
Services but that the Republican leadership refuses to bring to the 
floor for a vote. In addition to reauthorizing the bank for 4 years 
rather than 30 days, the bill contains important provisions that will 
better define and guide Ex-Im's policies and programs. I am hoping that 
we will have the opportunity to take up that bill within the next 30 
days.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to tell the gentleman that it is not the Republican leadership 
that is delaying the movement of this bill to the floor. It is a matter 
of dispute between Treasury and, I might say, our committee and also a 
matter of dispute between Treasury and the Export-Import Bank as to 
whether or not Treasury has a veto over the use of the Tied Aid War 
Chest, which the gentleman and I both support; and we are trying to 
have the committee's position prevail and avoid a veto threat in the 
process.
  Mr. LaFALCE. It is my position that the Treasury does not determine 
what bills come to the floor of the House of Representatives, that it 
is the House Republican leadership that makes that determination.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Monetary 
Policy and Trade, I rise to express my strong concerns regarding the 
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. Speaker, many supporters of the Export-Import Bank argue that the 
Bank is necessary because it creates jobs and it helps out small 
business. Obviously, when you spend hundreds of millions of dollars, 
you are going to create jobs. You could drop money out of an airplane 
and you would create jobs.
  The question is, given the amount of money that we spend, given the 
risk to American taxpayers, is the Export-Import Bank doing a good 
enough job in creating work for the American people? And I would submit 
very strongly that that is not the case. And if the Export-Import Bank 
is not thoroughly reformed in terms of its goals and the way it 
functions, it should not continue to exist.
  The problem that I have with the Export-Import Bank is that we 
continue to primarily fund many of the largest corporations in America, 
who openly acknowledge and are very proud of the fact that they are 
laying off hundreds of thousands of American workers and taking our 
jobs to China, to Mexico, and to other desperate developing countries 
where people are being paid pennies an hour to do human labor. 
Essentially what the Export-Import Bank says is, ``Thank you, large 
corporation, for laying off thousands of American workers; and as your 
reward for doing that, hey, come on in line and we're going to give you 
a loan or a loan guarantee or some other kind of subsidy.''
  I am sure that that policy and that approach makes sense to somebody, 
especially the well-paid CEOs of the large multinational corporations 
and their lobbyists and friends who contribute huge sums of money into 
the political process, but I do not think it makes sense to the average 
American worker or the average American taxpayer. How could we have a 
so-called job-creating program when the major recipients of Export-
Import loans and guarantees are the major job cutters in the United 
States of America?
  Some of my opponents will say, well, they are creating jobs. I 
acknowledge that. But the fact of the matter is, given the huge amount 
of money that is being spent, given the leverage that the Export-Import 
Bank has, they are doing a poor job. And in my view, you do not reward 
companies that publicly acknowledge to the world that they are going to 
China to hire people at 30 cents an hour and then you say to those 
people, ``No problem. Come on in line and you're going to get taxpayer 
dollars.''
  Mr. Speaker, last summer I worked with the subcommittee chairman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a good friend of mine, who is doing a very 
good job on this issue. Together, we introduced a bill, H.R. 2517, that 
would have addressed this problem in a very serious way. H.R. 2517 
would have prevented companies from receiving Export-Import Bank 
assistance if they lay off a greater percentage of workers in the 
United States than they lay off in foreign countries.
  For example, if a company lays off 20 percent of its American 
workforce but only lays off 10 percent of its foreign workforce, that 
company would be denied future Export-Import Bank assistance unless it 
restored those American jobs. I know that people think that is a 
radical idea. Imagine telling American companies who want taxpayer 
money that they cannot just willy-nilly lay off American workers. 
Imagine them having to come forward and say that they want to grow jobs 
in their company.
  The other aspect of the legislation that the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter) and I worked on together was to put more emphasis on 
small business help for the Export-Import Bank. The fact of the matter 
is, it is not Boeing, it is not General Electric, it is not the large 
multinationals that are creating jobs in this country; it is small 
business. I say that if small businesses want help in creating jobs in 
the United States, let us support them. And if Boeing and General 
Electric want to take jobs to China, that is fine, but do not come to 
the taxpayers of this country and ask for support.
  I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that that legislation had the support 
of eight major labor unions and one prominent business group, including 
the United Steelworkers, the International Association of Machinists, 
UNITE, Boilermakers, Pace, the United Electrical Workers, the 
Independent Steelworkers Union, the Teamsters and the U.S. Business and 
Industry Council.

                              {time}  1530

  I would like to ask my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter), the chairman of the subcommittee, if he will support me in 
allowing me to bring this amendment to the floor of the House so that 
the Members have a chance to vote on that.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I must hedge my answer. As I told the 
gentleman, I am not at all reluctant to have that issue voted on, as 
the gentleman suggested, and as we had originally described it. I am 
concerned about a wide-open rule.
  So perhaps the gentleman, if we do not bring this on the suspension 
calendar, would assist me in making our case to the Committee on Rules 
to avoid some things that I think would be very detrimental in general 
to the public interests were it to be offered under a completely open 
rule.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to 
work with my friend on that approach.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue here is whether working families in this 
country, many of whom are working longer hours for low wages, should be 
providing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year to large 
multinational corporations who are laying off hundreds of thousands of 
American workers. That is the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he 
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo), who represents an area with a wide and important export 
base.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2019, which will 
give us another month to work out the remaining details with Ex-Im's 
reauthorization.
  I represent Rockford, Illinois, which in 1981 led the Nation in 
unemployment at 25.9 percent. More people were unemployed in Rockford 
then proportionally than during the so-called Great

[[Page H956]]

Depression. Rockford is about 35 or 36 percent manufacturing base, 
compared to most cities, which are half of that.
  There are about 60 companies in the district that I represent, and 
hundreds of sub-subcontractors, that comprise the $232 million dollars 
worth of products that they sell to Boeing Corporation, a so-called 
multinational corporation. Of course they are multinational 
corporations. They make airplanes. Those are big companies. But a 
corporation is composed of the people that work for it, the labor union 
that works there at Hamilton Sundstrand that supplies $232 million 
worth of products, and the 60 other small business people and the 
hundreds of unknown sub-subcontractors.
  Ex-Im Bank makes possible millions of dollars for small business 
people, many of whom do not even know their products are going into an 
aircraft that has been sold by a ``multinational corporation'' which 
somehow is supposed to be the cynosure of evil in this Nation. That is 
what Ex-Im Bank does. It tries to level the playing field in this 
highly competitive, unfair world, so that American manufacturers can 
compete on a level playing field with manufacturers from other 
countries. That is what Ex-Im Bank does. That is the whole purpose of 
it.
  In fact, Ex-Im Bank makes jobs in the United States. Ex-Im Bank makes 
jobs in the United States. Let me say it three times. Ex-Im Bank makes 
jobs in the United States. Were it not for the Ex-Im Bank, Boeing would 
not be as competitive, and thousands of people would be laid off in the 
congressional district that I represent. Those are the facts as to the 
relationship between Ex-Im Bank and so-called large multinational 
corporations.
  But I am also chairman of the Committee on Small Business, and I 
agree that Ex-Im Bank has to reach out to help small business 
exporters. The number of small business exporters has more than tripled 
over the past decade. They comprise 97 percent of all U.S. exporters. 
Last year, 86 percent of their transactions and 18 percent of the 
dollar volume of Ex-Im went to small businesses, and it continues to 
rise. I would therefore urge my colleagues to support S. 2019 and work 
over the next month to come up with a final bill.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time, and I commend the hard work and leadership not only 
of the ranking member, but the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Monetary Policy and Trade; and I appreciate very much the 
important, thoughtful views of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders). Yet on this issue, I support the ranking member and others in 
requesting the authorization of the Export-Import Bank for an 
additional 30 days.
  The Export-Import Bank is tremendously important to the district that 
I represent and to the State that I represent. New York City is a major 
exporting center. Just 3 weeks ago, a woman came to my office and 
expressed her support for the Ex-Im Bank. She had created a perfume 
called Akabar, it is a very small business, and she stated without the 
support of the Export-Import Bank, she would not be able to export it, 
as she is now, to Italy and many European countries.
  Many large and small businesses in my district are benefited by the 
work and support of the Export-Import Bank. I hope that in the course 
of the next month the final reauthorization for 4 years through 2005 
will be completed so that the bank can get on with its tremendously 
important work. I understand that there are final negotiations on 
remaining issues and that these negotiations are progressing, and I 
compliment the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on Financial 
Services for working to complete this process in a timely manner.
  The Export-Import Bank is a worthwhile institution, a successful 
government entity, that facilitates American businesses and worker 
interests by making exports possible to areas of the world that would 
not otherwise be open to U.S. companies. The Export-Import Bank is an 
independent Federal agency that helps to finance the export of American 
products and services that would not go forward, which in turn sustains 
and grows U.S. jobs. In its 68-year history, the Ex-Im Bank has 
supported over $400 billion of U.S. exports, sustaining and creating 
millions of high-paying U.S. jobs, many in the district I represent.
  In fiscal year 2001 alone, the Ex-Im Bank supported $12.5 billion of 
U.S. exports to emerging markets around the world. This business 
enabled many U.S. companies to maintain and even expand their 
workforces.
  The Ex-Im Bank's financing does more than support jobs at exporting 
companies. It helps sustain and create jobs at tens of thousands of 
U.S. suppliers around the country who participate indirectly in Ex-Im 
Bank-financed exports. These indirect exporters, many of which are 
small businesses, supply components, services and technology to U.S. 
exporters of a wide range of products and services, as diverse as 
environmental technology, construction and agricultural equipment, 
amusement park rides, aircraft, furniture, computer and 
telecommunications technology.
  Export-Import Bank financing has a ripple effect that sustains jobs 
at companies large and small throughout the United States economy in 
almost every State and the great majority of congressional districts. 
Through the bank's loan guarantees, insurance and direct-lending 
programs, Ex-Im programs account for approximately 2 percent of all 
U.S. exports annually.
  By leveraging the appropriation we grant Ex-Im, the bank returns a 
very good investment to the United States taxpayers. For every dollar 
of taxpayer money invested in the bank's program budget, we have seen 
returns of $15 in credit support for transactions.
  Over the course of the past year, the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Chairman Bereuter) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the 
subcommittee ranking member, held a series of extremely informative, 
thoughtful hearings on the bank. We heard testimony from the business 
community, labor and environmental organizations. The final product, 
that I hope we will fully extend next month, builds on the important 
input that we got at these hearings.
  I might add that the bill includes an amendment that I offered in the 
Committee on Financial Services giving the bank explicit authority to 
turn down an application for Ex-Im loan guarantees or insurance when 
there is evidence that a foreign company had practiced fraud in the 
past. The full authorization also continues the bank's commitment to 
small businesses and to working with African countries.
  This is a very important institution. I just want to reiterate that 
it is very supportive to the exports in my district and in New York 
State and many other States. I urge this temporary reauthorization and 
hope we will have a full reauthorization coming before this body soon.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, after all is said and done, one of the major economic 
crises facing this country is the decline of manufacturing; the fact 
that we have roughly a $400 billion trade deficit; the fact that it is 
harder and harder for the American people to find products made in the 
United States of America when they go shopping, whether it is textiles, 
and that industry has suffered a huge loss and the loss of God only 
knows how many jobs, shoes, sneakers, which used to be big in New 
England where I am from, televisions, toys, bicycles, phones, U.S. 
flags, increasingly made in China by American companies who threw 
American workers out on the street and went abroad to exploit people 
who make 20 to 30 cents an hour who cannot form unions and who have 
very little civil liberties.
  This is a huge issue that must be dealt with if we are going to 
protect decent-paying jobs in America and if they are going to protect 
wages so that people can earn family-based incomes.
  I continue to believe and will always believe that it makes no sense 
for the taxpayers of this country to reward those multinational 
corporations who throw American workers out on the street and run 
abroad. I do not think it is too much to ask them to invest in this 
country and create jobs here.
  As far as I understand it, in terms of the forms associated with the 
Export-Import Bank, there is not even a line there that asks these 
companies to pledge to create new jobs in the United

[[Page H957]]

States of America, because they could not sign that pledge in good 
honesty, in a straightforward way, because they do not believe in 
creating new jobs in America. They believe in going abroad in many 
instances and paying people sub-standard wages.
  So I think we have to use every opportunity we can, whether it is the 
Export-Import Bank, whether it is OPIC, to start addressing this issue, 
and force these very large companies who have been throwing American 
workers out on the street to reinvest in this country and put our 
people to work. American workers who lose their jobs from companies who 
go to China should not be asked with their tax dollars to help these 
very same companies throw other American workers out on the street.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I conclude our debate here today, I want to thank my 
colleagues on the committee and subcommittee for their support in 
attempting to craft important reauthorization legislation that makes 
some reforms that I think are necessary. These reforms, and many 
others, are always resisted by the executive branch; but it is our 
responsibility as Congress, as authorizers, to in fact do what is 
appropriate to make sure the programs work, that they serve their 
original purposes or such new purposes as the Congress assigns.

                              {time}  1545

  I want to particularly thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) for her very constructive approach to the committee's 
deliberations and her continued support for the Export-Import Bank.
  I would say to the ranking members of the committee and the 
subcommittee, I have confidence we can work together to put together a 
structured rule that will provide an opportunity to debate the crucial 
amendments that were offered, but not successfully, at the subcommittee 
or committee level, and still avoid some of the things that would be 
very much contrary to the national interest.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reauthorizing taxpayer support for the Export-
Import Reauthorization Act for every 1 day, much less for a month 
violates basic economic, constitutional, and moral principles. 
Therefore, Congress should reject S. 2019.
  The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers 
to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just 
any company that receives Eximbank support--rather, the majority of 
Eximbank funding benefits large, politically powerful corporations.
  Proponents of continued American support for the Eximbank claim that 
the bank ``creates jobs'' and promotes economic growth. However, this 
claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt 
called ``the broken window'' fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock 
through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the 
economy, as the store owner will have to spend money having the window 
fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for 
all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as 
economically beneficial. However, the ``benefits'' of the broken window 
are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not 
seen; the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store 
owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather had been free to 
spend his money as he chose.
  Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all; what is 
not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses 
that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created 
had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of 
consumers.
  Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with 
supporting ``free trade,'' and claim that opponents are 
``projectionists'' and ``isolationists.'' Mr. Speaker, this is 
nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade 
involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not 
forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful 
companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where 
winners and lowers are determined by how well they please government 
bureaucrats instead of how well they please consumers.
  Expenditures on the Eximbank distort the market by diverting 
resources from the private sector, where they could be put to the use 
most highly valued by individual consumers, into the public sector, 
where their use will be determined by bureaucrats and politically 
powerful special interests. By distorting the market and preventing 
resources from achieving their highest valued use. Eximbank actually 
costs Americans jobs and reduces America's standard of living!
  The case for Eximbank is further weakened considering that small 
businesses receive only 12-15 percent of Eximbank funds; the vast 
majority of Eximbank funds benefit large corporations. These 
corporations can certainly afford to support their own exports without 
relying on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force 
working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the 
exports of the large corporations; it is also immoral. In fact, this 
redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the 
most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most 
accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how 
members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional 
grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that 
provide welfare for the rich.

  The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers 
that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is 
communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures 
with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one's position on 
trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong 
to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. 
Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia, Yemen, and even 
the Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade courtesy of the 
Eximbank!
  There is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure 
of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the 
Constitution would be horrified to think the federal government was 
taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit 
the politically powerful.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing 
government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of 
individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of 
morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of 
wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own 
trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the 
Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to 
take the property of individual citizens and use them to benefit 
powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my 
colleagues to reject S. 2019.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure and 
encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of extending the 
authorization of the Export-Import for an additional thirty days while 
the details of the full authorization are finalized. The Financial 
Service Committee has been working diligently to bring this 
authorization to completion, however; the events of September 11 and 
the anthrax contamination on Capitol Hill have delayed the process 
considerably. The full reauthorization makes several strong 
improvements to the Ex-Im charter, which will enable it to deliver more 
U.S. goods to foreign customers. We are currently in negotiations with 
the Department of the Treasury to finalize some technical concerns with 
the full reauthorization and expect to have resolution of these issues 
soon.
  This thirty day extension of Ex-Im's authorization will enable the 
Bank to continue its important work of encouraging U.S. exports 
overseas and promoting U.S. jobs. Ex-Im plays a key role in leveling 
the playing field between U.S. and foreign based exporters. Without the 
activities of Ex-Im, U.S. exporters would be at a distinct disadvantage 
against foreign exporters who receive subsidies from their foreign 
export credit agencies. With the help of Ex-Im loans, insurance and 
guarantees, U.S. exporters can counter export credits offered to 
foreign competitors and reach critical overseas markets. Ex-Im helps 
increase the number of U.S. exports, it encourages trade and it helps 
sustain U.S. jobs.
  Without this extension, Ex-Im will have to wind up its current 
outstanding business and will not be able to make any new commitments 
for the export of U.S. manufactured goods. This will have a negative 
effect on jobs and will inhibit our economic recovery at a time when we 
are working to emerge from a period of high unemployment and low 
growth. Passage of this measure is critical to the U.S. economy, to 
U.S. workers and to U.S. manufacturers.
  In a perfect marketplace there would be no need for export credit 
agencies, however; the realities of today's international trading 
system demand that Ex-Im operate aggressively to support the sale of 
U.S. products abroad. Every major actor in international trade utilizes 
an export credit agency similar to the Ex-Im Bank to promote its trade 
initiatives. Ex-Im keeps U.S. exporters competitive, without it foreign 
manufacturers would be able to enter

[[Page H958]]

important emerging markets without any competition from U.S. business.
  Mr. Speaker, by opening foreign markets to U.S. products, the U.S. 
economy improves and more American workers have good paying 
manufacturing jobs. I encourage all Members to vote in favor of this 30 
day extension, which will help maintain U.S. based jobs and drive our 
economic recovery.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2019.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________