[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.
____________________