[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.
____________________