[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 30, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1705-H1710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      EXTENDING AUTHORITY OF EXPORT-IMPORT BANK UNTIL MAY 31, 2002

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 2248) to extend the authority of the Export-Import Bank 
until May 31, 2002.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2248

       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 May 31, 2002.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
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 their 
remarks on S. 2248, 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. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of S. 2248, which is 
being considered today under suspension of the rules. This legislation 
simply extends the authorization for the Export-Import Bank until May 
31, 2002, nothing more. Under current law, the most recent short-term 
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank expires on April 30, 2002. If 
this subsequent short term authorization extension is not signed into 
law, the Export-Import Bank could not engage in new transactions and 
would have to wind down its current operations as of today, April 30.
  Without the passage of this legislation the Export-Import Bank will 
not have the legal authority to issue new financing commitments in 
support of the export of U.S. made goods and U.S. origin services.

                              {time}  1530

  Each year, the bank supports more than 2,300 export transactions. 
Eighty-six percent of those transactions are for small and medium-sized 
businesses. The bank processes a daily flow of export cases and any 
expiration of the bank's charter will jeopardize pending sales and the 
jobs of U.S. workers tied to those transactions.
  Even more important to small business, the Export-Import Bank has a 
Credit Committee which approves small business transactions. This 
Credit Committee meets often each week. If this extension is not 
passed, the Credit Committee will not be able to do their business, and 
small businesses in turn will be hurt the most.

[[Page H1706]]

  Therefore, it is extraordinarily important that we approve this 
legislation today. I say that because tomorrow, in fact, we will be 
debating the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001 under a 
rule. That bill, introduced by this Member, of course, had careful 
attention in subcommittee and committee, and we are prepared to take it 
to the House floor tomorrow under a rule which is expected to be 
prepared this evening for consideration tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, for these reasons and many others, it is 
extraordinarily important that we approve this 1-month authorization 
extension for the Export-Import Bank today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my very good 
friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), I rise as the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and 
Trade in strong opposition to this 30-day extension to the Export-
Import Bank. I think it is time to send this bank a message, and I 
think we should vote down this extension and this bill this afternoon.
  This bill, I should say, is being opposed by 10 of my colleagues who 
have sent a letter to every Member of Congress urging a ``no'' vote on 
this legislation. These Representatives are the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).
  This bill is also opposed by the Paper Allied Chemical and Energy 
Workers International, PACE, a union with over 300,000 members. It is 
opposed by the Independent Steel Workers Union. It is opposed by the 
U.S. Business and Industry Council and by the CATO Institute, a 
conservative think tank.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an example of where progressives, such as 
myself, and conservatives, are coming together to protect the American 
taxpayer and the workers of this country in opposition to an outrageous 
example of corporate welfare.
  While I do not often agree with the conservative columnist Robert 
Novak, I urge Members to read the article he wrote which appeared in 
yesterday's Washington Post which raises some very strong concerns 
about the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. Speaker, many supporters of the Export-Import Bank argue that the 
bank is necessary in order to create jobs. What I want to know, 
therefore, is if this bank is supposed to create jobs, how come the 
major beneficiaries of the Export-Import Bank, the corporations who 
have received the most assistance year after year, have substantially 
reduced their American workforce? In other words, instead of creating 
new jobs, these large corporations have taken money from the Export-
Import Bank and, year after year, they have thrown tens and tens of 
thousands of American workers out on the street.
  I think it is time to tell those folks who are at the trough for 
corporate welfare that if they want money from the taxpayers of this 
country, if they want help from the working people of this country, you 
do not lay off hundreds of thousands of American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, some have talked about how 86 percent of the 
transactions from Ex-Im go to small business. That is correct. But that 
is a bit misleading, because 82 percent of the money, what is really 
important, goes to the Fortune 500 companies, while only 18 percent of 
the dollars and the subsidies go to small business.
  Mr. Speaker, let me give a few examples of the work and the actions 
of some of the major beneficiaries of the Export-Import Bank. General 
Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan 
guarantees from the Export-Import Bank. They are, I believe, the second 
largest major beneficiary. Not exactly a small business. In fact, they 
are one of the largest corporations in the world. So all the taxpayers 
in America who are struggling to keep their heads above water, GE 
thanks you very, very much for your assistance.
  What is this company doing? What do they say. Jack Welch, as 
everybody knows, was the very successful CEO of GE for many years. Let 
me quote Mr. Welch: ``Ideally, you have every plant you own on a 
barge.''
  That is his philosophy. I respect the guy. He is up front. He says 
that the way you make money is to move to China and Mexico, pay workers 
there sub-standard wages, and throw American workers out on the 
streets. That is his business. I do not have a problem with that, but I 
do have a serious problem that American taxpayers' money, American 
workers' money, goes to companies who say, ``Hey, wouldn't it be ideal 
if we could have all of our jobs on a barge and move to any country in 
the world where wages are lower?''
  GE has moved jobs from State to State and country to country in 
search of lower wages. The company's biggest export is, in fact, jobs. 
In 1975, GE had 667,000 American workers. In 1995, they employed 
398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. Now, is that not something? What a 
success story for Ex-Im; the number 2 recipient lays off hundreds of 
thousands of jobs.
  Now, I was a mayor of a city for 8 years and we provided help to the 
business communities. But, you know what? We did not just give them a 
blank check. We said if you want taxpayer money, this is what we want 
from you in return. And I would suggest very strongly that what the 
taxpayers of this country want when they subsidize corporations is they 
want those corporations to reinvest in America, create jobs in America, 
and not run to China, Mexico and every country in the world where they 
can pay workers starvation wages.
  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 gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Financial Service.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the 30-day extension 
of Ex-Im's reauthorization. Let me take a few minutes to outline for my 
colleagues why this extension is so critical.
  Without this 30 day extension, the Ex-Im Bank will not be forced to 
close its doors, but it will be prevented from doing any new business 
transactions. What does that mean? It means many U.S. manufacturers 
will have to sit idle waiting for a full-term authorization, losing 
millions of dollars in business every day. It means that workers whose 
jobs depend on exports financed by the Ex-Im Bank will face an unclear 
future.
  It means that the international export community will view the U.S. 
Congress as unsupportive of U.S. exporters and will seek to capitalize 
by convincing foreign markets that they cannot rely any longer on U.S. 
manufacturers. I have already received a copy of a letter that calls 
into question the ability of Ex-Im to transact future deals. That is 
the international perception. It is critical that we refute that view 
by passing this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House is scheduled to consider a 4-year 
reauthorization of Ex-Im that was approved by the Committee on 
Financial Services in October of last year. That legislation, H.R. 
2871, received broad bipartisan support in the committee and was 
approved by a voice vote.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and 
Trade, who, over the past several months, has worked closely with the 
administration to remedy some of its concerns related to the original 
legislation. Many of those concerns have been addressed and will be 
included in a manager's amendment to the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Ex-Im Bank is a vital tool for the American 
exporting community. The Ex-Im Bank provides loan guarantees, insurance 
and direct loans to U.S. manufacturers that seek

[[Page H1707]]

to reach overseas markets when there is no available commercial 
financing or direct competition from another export credit agency.
  There are over 70 foreign export credit agencies supplying more than 
$500 billion in financing for international exports. In order to remain 
competitive in the international arena, U.S. exporters need the Ex-Im 
Bank to compete on a level playing field. Without Ex-Im, our 
manufacturers would face an international market full of goods 
receiving government sponsored support, making it more difficult for 
them to offer their goods at a competitive price. Additionally, without 
Ex-Im, it will be more difficult for U.S. goods to reach emerging 
markets, effectively closing out the opportunity for U.S. businesses to 
build a customer base in those countries.
  Let me reiterate, Mr. Speaker we will take up the full authorization 
for the Ex-Im Bank tomorrow, but today we must extend the charter of 
the bank for 30 days to ensure that Ex-Im can continue to create new 
business. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to approve this 30-
day extension of the bank and let the world know that we support 
American manufacturers, we support American workers and we support the 
American economy.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in agreement with much of 
what has been said by my friend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter) and my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), so I rise 
in strong support of this 30-day extension of the Ex-Im Bank.
  I think it is imperative that we continue the existence of Ex-Im Bank 
until no other country has the means of subsidizing their exports. 
Otherwise, we would be engaging in unilateral disarmament. We cannot do 
that. I do not foresee the day in the near future when we are going to 
have a multilateral agreement that ends all subsidies of exports.
  So, this is really a necessity for survival. If we did not extend Ex-
Im Bank, basically you would have to shut down its operations. That is 
just untenable.
  Having said that, let me also say I share some of the concerns of my 
good friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), both with 
respect to procedure and with respect to substance. About 30 days ago 
when we had another 30-day extension, I said that it would be difficult 
for me to support another extension unless we had come to the floor or 
would be coming to the floor with the authorization bill.
  I wish we had done it in the past 30 days, but we are doing it 
tomorrow. So that is good enough, we are doing it tomorrow. But also my 
assumption is, and I am supporting the 30-day extension on the 
assumption that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and others who 
have differences of opinion, who want to perfect the bill, will be 
given the opportunity to offer their amendments on the floor of the 
House so they can be voted up or down.
  On the basis of that assumption, I can and do support the bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm the gentleman's 
understanding and expectation. This Member has specifically urged the 
Committee on Rules and our colleagues in the Committee on Financial 
Services to make in order, for example, the Sanders amendment and the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and others 
that were offered in committee but which were not approved.
  I expect and am very assured that we are going to have a structured 
but broadly open bill for discussion tomorrow and that the concerns of 
the distinguished gentleman (Mr. LaFalce) will be addressed tomorrow in 
the debate.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I find that a very 
persuasive reason for supporting today's bill. I thank the gentleman 
from Nebraska.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield such time as he 
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just heard this last colloquy with the gentleman from 
New York. If he still has faith in the Committee on Rules around here, 
that we are going to get a rule that will allow us to offer our 
amendments, I am going to pray tonight, I will burn a candle, I will do 
everything necessary, but let us see what happens about that tonight.
  Now, the Export-Import Bank, I do not get this around here. $673 
million in loans and loan guarantees for projects related to the Enron 
Corporation. Has that corporation been lifted up into this debate? Does 
anybody want to defend that? I will yield to them right now. $673 
million in loans, leaving the taxpayers exposed to $514 million in 
loans.
  Then they approved a $300 million loan for an Enron-related project 
in India, even though the World Bank, for whom I have not always 
praise, has refused to finance the very same project because it was not 
economically viable.

                              {time}  1545

  So what goes on here? This was created in the Depression to create 
jobs, and now they are operating in a totally reverse strategy. Is this 
new information to the committee? And they are providing the money to 
the Fortune 500 corporations, which are nice people and I like them a 
lot, but they are the ones that are contracting the labor force into 
United States as we meet.
  So I come to this debate a little bit confused.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman comes from Detroit where 
General Motors is. How many workers have been laid off by General 
Motors, a major recipient of the Export-Import Bank? Does the gentleman 
have any idea?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Roughly 200,000.
  Mr. SANDERS. Well, they must be doing a good job with the money that 
they are getting. They sure are.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, from 559,000 to 314,000, and that is just 
one of the automobile corporations; they are all contracting. And most 
of the Fortune 500 companies are contracting their workforce. So how do 
we end up thinking that this is very important because this does not 
protect American workers? Why are we here?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a member of 
the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in bipartisan support of the 30-day extension reauthorization 
of the Export-Import Bank. One month ago Congress successfully passed a 
30-day reauthorization by voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to once 
again support keeping the bank in business as we finish the 
reauthorization tomorrow.
  Since 1934, the Ex-Im Bank has helped finance the sale of U.S. 
products around the world by providing loan guarantees, loans, and 
export credit insurance for U.S. businesses. While some opponents of 
the bank argue that it has outlived its use, I believe its mission is 
increasingly relevant in today's competitive global economy, especially 
as new opportunities for U.S. exports increase in emerging markets.
  In politically developing regions like Eastern Europe and the former 
Soviet Union, projects often require the support of an export credit 
agency, and without Ex-Im Bank, they would be more likely to fall to 
foreign competitors.
  Exports are increasingly important to the U.S. economy. The U.S. is 
far more dependent on exports today, which form a larger share of the 
GNP, than in the 1930s. In fiscal year 2000, the bank supported over 
$15.5 billion in U.S. exports, on a subsidy of $759 million.

[[Page H1708]]

  The important point to remember about the bank is that it is a lender 
of last resort. It offers guarantees for loans that otherwise would not 
be made. Mr. Speaker, $15.5 billion may not be a large number in 
relation to the entire U.S. economy, but this $15.5 billion represents 
economic activity and U.S. jobs that, without Ex-Im Bank, support would 
not be available to American workers.
  Across the country, Ex-Im Bank support goes to businesses, both large 
and small. I am frequently visited by constituents who use the Ex-Im 
Bank. In my district in New York, the bank has worked with financial 
institutions, import-exporters and manufacturers, totaling over $1 
billion in exports since 1995. During this period, the bank has 
supported 72 different businesses in my district alone, including 19 
small businesses.
  While today's vote will keep the bank in business for 30 days, the 
House will consider the bank's reauthorization through 2005 tomorrow.
  With the leadership of the ranking member, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce) and the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), this reauthorization builds on the bank's past 
successes. It has strong bipartisan support, and it also includes an 
amendment I offered in the subcommittee giving the bank explicit 
authority to turn down an application for Ex-Im support when a company 
has engaged in fraudulent business practices.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important institution, and I urge its 
continued support, both today and tomorrow.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last summer, I worked with my very good friend, the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter) on issues relating to the Export-Import Bank. In fact, we 
introduced a bill, H.R. 2517, that would have gone a very long way in 
protecting the taxpayers of this country from corporate welfare and in 
protecting American workers, and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Nebraska for his support of that effort. A markup was scheduled to take 
place on that bill but, out of nowhere, the markup was canceled, and my 
suspicion is that the moneyed interests who like the Export-Import Bank 
as it is right now sent down the word from on top that that markup 
never take place. What we have in front of us is an outrageous example 
of corporate welfare.
  Mr. Speaker, my feeling is that the American people who, in many 
instances, are working longer hours for lower wages than was the case 
20 or 30 years ago, many of whom have no health insurance, our seniors 
do not have prescription drugs, we face a housing crisis, a child care 
crisis; in the midst of all of this, people are saying, why are the 
taxpayers of this country providing huge subsidies and loans to the 
largest multinational corporations in the world who pay their CEOs huge 
salaries, give them huge benefits, and companies that take this money 
from the taxpayers say, thank you very much and, oh, by the way, we are 
laying you off because we are going to China and hiring somebody at 20 
cents an hour.
  I think the American people want us to protect their dollars. I think 
they want us to protect American workers.
  What is so bad about saying to a corporation, if you want taxpayers' 
money, then you have to protect American jobs? What a radical idea. But 
it is an idea that has not yet come to the Export-Import Bank.
  There are a number of reasons why we should vote ``no'' and send a 
message to the Export-Import Bank.
  Number 1, major corporations take the money, lay off American 
workers, and run abroad.
  Number 2, the Export-Import Bank, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) indicated, has provided $673 million in financing to 
questionable Enron-related projects, projects, in some instances, that 
the taxpayers of this country may have to pick up the tab for.
  Number 3, the Export-Import Bank is hurting steel workers. The 
Export-Import Bank has provided an $18 million loan to help a Chinese 
steel mill purchase equipment to modernize their plant. This Chinese 
company has been accused of illegally dumping steel into the U.S. 
According to the United Steel Workers of America, ``It is disgraceful 
that the U.S. Government is bankrolling Chinese steel production when 
U.S. steel companies are declaring bankruptcy and American workers are 
being laid off.''
  Number 4, the Export-Import Bank is helping the Chinese military. The 
Export-Import Bank is subsidizing Boeing aircraft sales to the Chinese 
military. According to the President of Machinist Local 751, ``Boeing 
used to make tail sections for the 747s in Wichita, but they moved the 
work to a military factory in Xian, China. Is this Boeing's definition 
of free trade, to have American workers compete with Chinese labor 
making $50 a month under military discipline?''
  Number 5, the Export-Import Bank is helping General Electric ship 
jobs to Mexico.
  Number 6, the Export-Import Bank is helping AT&T ship jobs to China. 
And on and on and on it goes.
  Mr. Speaker, in my view, if we keep the Export-Import Bank, we should 
have firm guarantees from the companies that receive the money that 
they are going to grow American jobs, they are going to hire more and 
more workers, not lay them off. In my view, a much larger percentage of 
money from the Export-Import Bank should go to the small business 
community, the people who are creating jobs in America, not to the big 
corporations who are sending our jobs abroad.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the time is now to send a message to 
the Export-Import Bank who have, for so long, ignored the needs of the 
American taxpayer and have ignored the needs of American workers. Let 
us shut them down. Let them think. Give them some time to think. This 
is going to be a very good reflective time, contemplative time. They 
could take the time off, go home, meditate, and try to understand how 
they can represent American workers and American taxpayers, rather than 
just the multinational corporations.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote. I will insert into the Record at this time a 
statement from the United States Business and Industry Council, which 
opposes the extension; a statement from the Cato Institute that opposes 
the extension; and a statement on behalf of the Paper, Allied-
Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers representing 320,000 American 
workers who want to keep their jobs in this country.
  The statements are as follows:
         United States Business and Industry Council,
                                                   April 29, 2002.

Oppose The 30-Day Extension Of the Export-Import Bank--Require That It 
           Support Jobs and Industry in America, Not Overseas

       On Tuesday, April 30, 2002, a 30-day extension of the 
     Export-Import Bank will be on the House Suspension Calendar. 
     On behalf of our domestic American member companies, we urge 
     that you vote against S. 2248.
       The Export-Import Bank was created in 1934 to increase U.S. 
     jobs through exports. Today, the Export-Import Bank has 
     strayed from this mission. It is now providing billions of 
     dollars to multinational companies that are laying-off 
     hundreds of thousands of American workers and shipping their 
     jobs overseas.
       By opposing the 30-day extension, you will be sending a 
     message to the Export-Import Bank that it should only support 
     companies and projects that increase jobs in the United 
     States.


          Export-Import Bank's Top Clients Cut Their Workforce

       Time Magazine reports the top 5 recipients of Ex-Im 
     subsidies over the past decade have reduced their workforce 
     by 38%--more than a third of a million jobs lost. These five 
     companies, which include giants Boeing and General Electric, 
     have received more than 60% of all Ex-Im subsidies.


         The Export-Import Bank Has Helped Chinese Steelmakers

       The Export-Import Bank has provided an $18 million loan to 
     help a Chinese steel mill purchase equipment to modernize 
     their plant. This Chinese company has been accused of 
     illegally dumping steel into the American market. The U.S. 
     government should not bankroll Chinese steel production when 
     U.S. steel companies are being forced into bankruptcy by 
     imports.


         The Export-Import Bank Is Helping the Chinese Military

       The Export-Import Bank is subsidizing Boeing aircraft sales 
     to China. Yet, Boeing has been increasing the amount of 
     aircraft production it does in China. It used to make tail 
     sections for the 737 in Wichita, but then moved the work to a 
     military factory in

[[Page H1709]]

     Xian, China. Besides being questionable on commercial 
     grounds, such deals amount to the Ex-Im Bank subsidizing 
     Beijing's defense industry at a time when China's military 
     buildup threatens the stability of Asia.
       These practices must end. Oppose the 30-day extension of 
     the Export-Import Bank.
                                  ____



                                           The Cato Institute,

                                                   April 30, 2002.

      Time To Retire the Export-Import Bank, Cato Study Concludes

       Washington.--The House of Representatives faces a vote this 
     week on whether to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States. A recent study published by the Cato 
     Institute, ``Rethinking the Export-Import Bank,'' finds that, 
     ``the Ex-Im Bank is a Great Depression-era agency that has 
     little relevance in a time of increasingly open and 
     sophisticated global markets.''
       According to the study:
       Generous export subsidies don't equal better export 
     performance. The United States exported roughly twice as much 
     in 2000 as it did in 1990. By comparison, Germany's exports 
     increased by 34%, Japan's by 66%, the U.K.'s by 51%, and 
     France's by 36%. Yet according to a 1997 GAO analysis of 
     official export support, the United States subsidized a much 
     smaller share of its exports than any of these other nations. 
     In addition, most (more than 80%) beneficiaries of Ex-Im 
     financing do not face subsidized competition.
       Export subsidies don't increase net employment or 
     ``improve'' the trade balance. By overriding the market, the 
     Bank directs credit to less efficient uses, creating 
     distortions in the national economy, and imposing opportunity 
     costs that are higher than the added value of the Bank's 
     intervention.
       It is neither fair nor constitutional that taxpayer dollars 
     are being used to support particular businesses, including 
     Enron, GE, and numerous other multibillion-dollar 
     beneficiaries. Indeed, in FY2000, the top 10 recipients of 
     the Bank's loans and long-term guarantees were large 
     corporations that got 86% of those services. Private credit 
     markets are far deeper and are more accessible than during 
     the Great Depression when the Bank was founded, and large 
     corporations should have no trouble financing creditworthy 
     projects.
       ``Rethinking the Export-Import Bank'' can be found at 
     http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-015es.html. Daniel 
     Griswold, associate director of Cato's Center for Trade 
     Policy Studies, is available to provide comments and 
     background. He can be reached at (202) 789-5260, or 
     [email protected].
                                  ____



                                                         PACE,

                                                   April 29, 2002.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Paper, Allied-
     Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union 
     (PACE) and our 320,000 members I would like to express our 
     opposition of the bill to provide for a 30-day extension of 
     the Export-Import Bank. The bill will be on the Suspension 
     Calendar for Tuesday, April 30, 2002. We urge that you vote 
     against this legislation.
       The Export-Import Bank was created in 1934, in the midst of 
     the Great Depression, to increase U.S. jobs through exports. 
     Unfortunately, the Export-Import Bank has reversed this 
     strategy and is now providing billions of dollars in 
     corporate welfare to large, multinational companies. In many 
     instances, the companies that receive Export-Import Bank 
     support are precisely the ones that are laying-off hundreds 
     of thousands of American workers and shipping those jobs 
     overseas to China and Mexico.
       By opposing the 30-day extension, we will be sending a 
     message to the Export-Import Bank and its supporters: start 
     protecting American workers, stop financing Enron-related 
     projects, support our struggling steel industry, and only 
     support companies that are working hard to increase jobs in 
     the United States--not the ones that are exporting jobs. If 
     we are successful, the Export-Import Bank may have to close 
     its doors for one day. Hopefully, this 24-hour period will 
     enable the bank to consider changing its policies to help 
     American workers--not the multi-national companies that are 
     shipping jobs overseas.
       Here are the top five reasons to oppose this bill:
       1. The Export-Import Bank Provides Corporate Welfare To 
     Companies That Ship jobs Overseas.
       On August 8, 1996, the director of the AFL-CIO task force 
     on trade said that: ``Ex-Im financing is corporate welfare 
     with a fig leave of U.S. jobs.''
       According to Time Magazine, the top 5 recipients of Ex-Im 
     subsidies over the past decade which include Boeing and 
     General Electric have reduced their workforce by 38%--more 
     than a third of a million jobs down the drain. These same 5 
     companies have received more than 60 percent of all Export-
     Import subsidies.
       2. The Export-Import Bank Has Provided $673 million in 
     Financing to Questionable Enron-related projects.
       Since 1994, the Export-Import Bank has provided $673 
     million in loans and loan guarantees for projects related to 
     the Enron Corporation leaving taxpayers exposed to $514 
     million. The Ex-Im Bank approved a $300 million loan for an 
     Enron-related project in India even though the World Bank 
     repeatedly refused to finance this project because it was 
     ``not economically viable.''
       According to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, 
     Friends of the Earth and the Indian media, ``Enron 
     subsidiaries paid local law enforcement to suppress 
     opposition to its power plant in which they arbitrarily beat 
     and arrested dozens of villagers.''
       3. The Export-Import Bank Is Hurting Steelworkers.
       The Export-Import Bank has provided an $18 million loan to 
     help a Chinese steel mill purchase equipment to modernize 
     their plant. This Chinese company has been accused of 
     illegally dumping steel into the U.S. According to the United 
     Steelworkers of America, ``It's disgraceful that the U.S. 
     government is bankrolling Chinese steel production when U.S. 
     steel companies are declaring bankruptcy and American workers 
     are being laid-off.''
       4. The Export-Import Bank Is Helping Boeing Ship Jobs to 
     China.
       The Export-Import Bank is subsidizing Boeing aircraft sales 
     to China. According to the President of Machinists' Local 
     751: ``Boeing used to make tail sections for the 737 in 
     Wichita, but they moved the work to a military factory in 
     Xian, China. Is this Boeing's definition of free trade, to 
     have American workers compete with Chinese labor making $50 a 
     month under military discipline?''
       5. The Export-Import Bank Is Helping General Electric Ship 
     Jobs to Mexico.
       The Ex-Im Bank insured a $3-million loan to aid General 
     Electric build a factory where Mexican workers will make 
     parts for appliances to export back to the United States. 
     This project is responsible for the loss of 1,500 American 
     jobs in Bloomington, Indiana. Their jobs will now be 
     performed by Mexican workers who are making $2 per hour.
       These practices must end. Oppose the 30-day extension of 
     the Export-Import Bank bill.
           Sincerely,
                                          Lowell ``Pete'' Strader.

  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, in fact, the legislation that we will take up tomorrow 
will be requiring an increase of Ex-Im Bank funds for small business--a 
requirement of not less than 20%. Already, 86 percent of the 
transactions of the Export-Import Bank do involve small business.
  This is not a question about sending a message to the Export-Import 
Bank by failing to approve this 1-month extension today. This is a very 
serious matter for it would not be just a 24-hour hiatus. This, in 
fact, will disturb the Ex-Im transactions now under review. It will be 
particularly damaging to the small business community, as I pointed out 
in my earlier remarks.
  A ``Dear Colleague'' has been sent around to Members of the House. It 
states that, in fact, this is only a small message, a 24-hour period. 
As I said, this is not accurate. If the House does not vote in favor of 
Ex-Im's 30-day reauthorization, the bank will not be able to transact 
any new business until there is agreement between the House and the 
Senate on the terms of Ex-Im's reauthorization. In fact, the 
unfortunate message that would be sent is a real one to American 
exporters that we have no confidence in the Export-Import Bank.
  I would like to address 4 specific points that were made in the 
``Dear Colleague'' letter. First of all, the Export-Import Bank is not 
corporate welfare. As I mentioned, 86 percent of Ex-Im's transactions 
are with small businesses. Ex-Im charges interest on its direct loans 
and premiums for its guarantees and insurance, costs that the U.S. 
exporters usually pass through to the overseas customers. Those charges 
usually range from 5 percent to 17 percent of the financing obtained, 
depending upon the risk.
  Number 2, the Export-Import Bank, like other institutions was, in 
fact, a victim of Enron. The entire U.S. economy was caught off guard 
when Enron folded, including the Ex-Im Bank.

                              {time}  1600

  But Ex-Im is receiving installment payments from Enron for all Enron-
related transactions. Ex-Im is participating fully in the Justice 
Department investigation to determine if Enron made any false 
statements to the government with respect to export-import 
transactions.
  Number three, the Export-Import Bank Extension Act does fight for 
steelworkers. The full reauthorization bill, which will come to the 
floor tomorrow, has a very important provision added at the suggestion 
or at the amendment of our colleague from the committee, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  That legislation addresses the $18 billion guarantee approved by the 
Export-Import Bank in December of 2000 to

[[Page H1710]]

support the sale of computer software by American exporters to Benxi 
Iron and Steel Company in China. The Benxi Company was subject to a 
final determination of steel dumping by the International Trade 
Commission subsequent to that transaction approval.
  The bill conforms Ex-Im lending to current U.S. trade laws now, 
because of the Toomey amendment, by barring any Ex-Im loan or guarantee 
for production of substantially the same product that is the subject of 
a countervailing duty or anti-dumping order or a section 201 
determination by the International Trade Commission.
  The legislation now also requires the Export-Import Bank to develop 
procedures for loans and loan guarantees to a business, which is 
subject to a preliminary countervailing trade duty or an anti-dumping 
determination of material injury. So we have taken very specific action 
in the committee on the Toomey amendment to address the concerns that 
came out of the Benxi steel case.
  Fourth, I would say the Export-Import Bank is critical in maintaining 
U.S. jobs. It creates thousands of jobs every year.
  I would like to give a quote from John J. Sweeney, the President of 
AFL-CIO. He says, ``As far as we're concerned, corporations which 
receive subsidies from the Export-Import Bank are merely vehicles 
through which jobs and income for American workers are created.''
  I might also mention, this legislation is supported by the 
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. They 
strongly support passage of the legislation.
  Now is not the time to take an action that is not responsible. We 
need to approve the 1-month extension today to keep the disruption from 
the Export-Import Bank's customers, the American exporters, from taking 
place.
  We will have a full debate tomorrow. I am confident that the bill 
will give the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), for example, and 
other key members of the committee, as well as certain other Members of 
the House who have important amendments, an opportunity to present such 
amendments to be fully debated, and if necessary, a vote in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important we approve this legislation today under 
suspension. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of S. 2248.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 30-day 
extension of authorization for the Export-Import Bank. Absent this 
extension, the Bank's authorization will expire, forcing Ex-Im to begin 
liquidation of its existing contracts and prohibiting any new 
transactions.
  It is very important to understand that this 30-day extension is 
independent of consideration of H.R. 2871, the 4-year reauthorization 
of the Ex-Im Bank. H.R. 2871 will be considered tomorrow under a rule, 
which will give Members an opportunity to offer and debate amendments 
to the bill. That is the appropriate venue for consideration of more 
substantive issues related to the Bank's authorization. Today's 30-day 
extension is necessary to avert a major disruption of Ex-Im operations 
during the time it takes to consider H.R. 2871 and conference it with 
the Senate.
  Failure to pass the 30-day extension will not only harm the 
reputation of the Ex-Im Bank. It will also cause serious economic harm 
to American businesses, including the thousands of small business 
exporters that account for 90 percent of the Bank's transactions. It 
will be a setback for U.S. credibility in the global economy, 
potentially triggering lack of confidence in the U.S. government as a 
creditor and guarantor in international financial transactions. And it 
will send the wrong message on the foreign policy front at a time when 
we are working hard to engage with other countries in the war on 
terorism.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). 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. 2248.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________