[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1792-H1795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. ____. REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICANTS FOR ASSISTANCE 
                   DISCLOSE WHETHER THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE FOREIGN 
                   CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT; MAINTENANCE OF LIST OF 
                   VIOLATORS.

       Section 2(b)(1) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635(b)(1)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(M) The Bank shall require an applicant for assistance 
     from the Bank to disclose whether the applicant has been 
     found by a court of the United States to have violated the 
     Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and shall maintain a list of 
     persons so found to have violated such Act.''.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 402, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will require the Ex-Im Bank to gather 
information relating to compliance by applicants with the Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act, as amended.
  The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 makes it unlawful for any 
domestic corporation to corruptly bribe a foreign official in order to 
obtain or retain business. It also requires those companies that are 
required to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission to 
keep detailed and accurate books, records, and accounts of corporate 
payments and transactions.
  Under my amendment, Ex-Im would request that applicants report 
whether or not they had been found guilty by a U.S. court to be in 
violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and importantly, the 
Ex-Im Bank would also independently keep a list of companies that had 
violated the Act.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based upon the following premise: 
That taxpayers should not subsidize the venture of companies that use 
corrupt methods to obtain business or deceive taxpayers with false 
financial reports.
  Recently, a large multinational energy corporation based in the 
United States was revealed to have intentionally misled the public 
about its finances and its profits, leading to drastic consequences for 
shareholders and its employees. In part, Enron accomplished this 
deception by concealing the complex corporate transactions that allowed 
it to inflate its profits.

                              {time}  1200

  Now, what if a company like this one used similar practices in order 
to cover up its bribery of a foreign official? How would this affect 
its application for financing from the Ex-Im Bank?
  Under current practice, applicants for Ex-Im financing are required 
to certify they have not violated and will not violate the Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act. That is good, and this amendment is not meant to 
stop the Ex-Im Bank from doing this. But the Ex-Im Bank is not required 
on its own to compile a list of FCPA violators. So a company that lied 
about its Foreign Corrupt

[[Page H1793]]

Practices Act history on its application would not be in danger of 
discovery by the Ex-Im Bank.
  Is such a scenario out of the realm of possibility? Our experience 
with Enron should make it clear that it is not. A recent Enron loan 
application to the Ex-Im Bank for a natural gas plant in Venezuela 
included the company's 1998 annual report, which Enron admitted was 
falsified. Did Ex-Im discover this? No. Has the Ex-Im taken any action 
against Enron for submitting falsified materials? Not that I know of. 
In a recent column by Bob Novak this matter is detailed.
  In fact, Ex-Im loaned Enron nearly $200 million for this project, 
according to this report by the Institute for Policy Studies. Overall, 
Ex-Im has financed Enron projects to the tune of $826 million.
  Now, ideally, this amendment should be passed in conjunction with 
another amendment I submitted to the Committee on Rules. The second 
amendment would have barred Ex-Im from providing financing to any 
company that violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Unfortunately, 
the rule for this bill did not make the second amendment in order. 
Nevertheless, the current amendment makes an important contribution by 
codifying Ex-Im's current practice of requiring applicants to certify 
their compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and, further, 
by requiring the Ex-Im Bank to independently compile a list of 
companies that are in violation of this act. I encourage my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter) is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I do not intend to oppose the gentleman's amendment. 
Actually, I think it is quite appropriate.
  The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act does regulate the practices of 
American businesses doing business abroad. It requires them to keep 
accurate books, records and accounts. It requires issuers to register 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission to maintain a responsible 
and internal accounting control system, and it prohibits bribery by 
American corporations of foreign officials.
  In the way of background, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was a 
U.S. initiative and we have tried very hard, through the Organization 
for Economic Cooperation and Development in Europe, OECD, to have other 
countries adopt similar kinds of national legislation. Until recently, 
many of our west European export competitors have actually permitted 
their corporations to have their bribes as tax deductible, incredible 
as that may seem. We have recently had positive action by many of these 
countries in that respect, but now the proof is in the pudding. That is 
to say, will they, in fact, have enforcement to make sure that no such 
bribery is not encouraged or permitted under their tax codes.
  In any case, the gentleman's amendment, I think, is highly 
appropriate. This kind of information should be made available and, in 
fact, generated, if necessary, within the Export-Import Bank. And it is 
my expectation that as a result of having that information and being 
encouraged to give it careful consideration the Ex-Im Bank will be able 
to avoid providing any kind of transaction assistance to an American 
firm that would be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
  Mr Chairman, my hope is that in fact something like the Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act can be applied internationally by actions of 
national legislative bodies. So I do speak in support of the 
gentleman's amendment, and I thank him for his initiative in offering 
it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the gentleman for his expression of support for transparency 
and integrity in international transactions.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the article by Bob Novak I 
referred to earlier:

              [From the Chicago Sun-Times, Apr. 29, 2002]

                       Enron's Corporate Welfare

                           (By Robert Novak)

       A bipartisan Senate Finance Committee investigation has 
     found that Enron Corp., no paragon of free-market 
     deregulation, gorged itself on corporate welfare. The Clinton 
     administration gave more than $650 million in Export-Import 
     Bank loans to Enron-related companies. While the Senate now 
     probes whether the bankrupt energy company falsified loan 
     requests, the bigger question is why Enron was subsidized at 
     all.
       Export-Import officials early this year, expressing 
     confidence in the accuracy of information provided by Enron 
     in its loan applications, were not interested in an 
     investigation. However, Ex-Im Vice Chairman Eduardo Aguirre 
     sang a different tune in his April 23 letter to Sen. Chuck 
     Grassley of Iowa, the Finance Committee's senior Republican. 
     ``Please let me assure you that Ex-Im Bank takes very 
     seriously potential violations of law . . . and works very 
     closely with the Department of Justice,'' Aguirre wrote.
       Finance staffers have found that Ex-Im, as well as the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corp., in a Democratic 
     administration routinely approved loan requests from a 
     supposedly Republican company. Lavish bipartisan political 
     contributions may have helped, as well as a top Enron 
     executive sitting on Ex-Im's Advisory Committee.
       Actually, one official of the agency informed a Senate 
     investigator that all Ex-Im really monitors is loan 
     repayment. Ironically, it is unclear whether Enron loans will 
     be defaulted at American taxpayer expense. While the 
     rationale for the Export-Import Bank's existence is to give 
     U.S. businesses a level playing field against government-
     subsidized foreign competition, the Enron loans merely 
     buttressed questionable projects where the company often was 
     both producer and exporter.
       The classic case is a September 1994 Ex-Im direct loan of 
     $302 million ($175 million of which remains unpaid) to Dabhol 
     Power Co. in India, then 80 percent owned by Enron. In this 
     deal, Enron was the ``foreign'' company, and its allies, 
     Bechtel Group and General Electric, were the exporters. With 
     an Indian utility that could not pay its bills (and was 
     pressured by the Bush administration to do so) as its only 
     customer, Dabhol went bankrupt even before Enron.
       A less-publicized loan scrutinized by Senate investigators 
     provided $135 million (only $4 million of which has repaid) 
     to the Accroven partnership for a natural gas plant in 
     Venezuela. Nearly half the company's stock was owned by Enron 
     while Enron also was the exporter. Thus, the U.S. taxpayer 
     was paying Enron money so that Enron could buy gas from 
     Enron.
       Enron's loan application for the Accroven project included 
     the company's 1998 annual report, which the company has 
     admitted was falsified. ``I'm troubled by the Ex-Im's seeming 
     lack of interest in this matter,'' Grassley wrote Aguirre on 
     April 2.
       Ex-Im lent $250 million to Trakya Elektrik of Turkey, owned 
     50 percent by Enron, which was buying goods and services from 
     Enron. Ex-Im insured a $3.6 million Citibank loan to Promigas 
     in Colombia, owned 42.3 percent by Enron. Whether or not 
     these loans were based on misleading information, it is 
     difficult to see how any of these deals fulfills the Export-
     Import Bank's avowed purpose of promoting American 
     competition against the world.
       While Democratic Sen. Ernest F. Hollings delivered his 
     memorable judgment that Enron benefitted from the Bush 
     presidency on a cash-and-carry basis, the symbiosis between 
     big business and the purveyors of corporate welfare is 
     bipartisan. Just as Enron gave to both parties, Bechtel has 
     contributed $820,000 to Republicans and $730,000 to Democrats 
     since the 1992 elections. Rebecca A. McDonald, CEO of Enron 
     Global Assets, was on Ex-Im's Advisory Committee under 
     President Clinton in 2000 and remained there under President 
     Bush in 2001. How can it be that a major recipient of 
     government largess is advising the agency handing it out?
       Except for a fitful effort to trim it down in the early 
     months of the Reagan administration in 1981 and some by the 
     current Bush administration, the Export-Import Bank has 
     sailed through governments of both parties--hardly noticed 
     and never critically examined. A broader scrutiny of the 
     agency's global pursuits is still wanting.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 4 printed in House Report 107-423.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Sanders:
         At the end of the bill, add the following:


[[Page H1794]]



     SEC. ____. INFORMATION AND CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED FROM 
                   COMPANIES SEEKING OR RECEIVING NEW ASSISTANCE.

         Section 2 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
         ``(g)(1) As a condition of providing assistance to a 
     company in connection with a transaction entered into on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Bank 
     shall require the company to submit to the Bank the following 
     information on an annual basis:
         ``(A) The number of individuals employed by the company 
     in the United States and its territories.
         ``(B) The number of individuals employed by the company 
     outside the United States and its territories.
         ``(C) A description of the wages and benefits being 
     provided to the employees of the company in the United States 
     and its territories.
         ``(2)(A) Beginning 1 year after the Bank provides 
     assistance to a company in connection with a transaction 
     entered into on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, the company shall, on an annual basis, provide 
     the Bank with a written certification of--
         ``(i) the percentage of the workforce of the company 
     employed in the United States or its territories that has 
     been laid off or induced to resign from the company during 
     the preceding year; and
         ``(ii) the percentage of the total workforce of the 
     company that has been laid off or induced to resign from the 
     company during the preceding year.
         ``(B)(i) If, in the certification provided by the 
     company, the percentage described in subparagraph (A)(i) is 
     greater than the percentage described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), then the company shall be ineligible for further 
     assistance from the Bank until the company provides to the 
     Bank a new written certification in which, for the year 
     covered by the new certification, the percentage described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) is not greater than the percentage 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
         ``(ii) If the company does not provide a certification 
     required by subparagraph (A), or provides a false 
     certification under this paragraph, then 60 days thereafter 
     the Bank shall withdraw all assistance from the company, and 
     the company shall thereafter be ineligible for assistance 
     from the Bank.''.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 402, the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I hereby submit for the Record a letter sent to the 
Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), by 
every large multinational corporate trade organization in the country, 
people who contribute hundreds of millions of dollars into the 
political process, because they are opposed to the amendment.

         Aerospace Industries Association, American Business 
           Council of the Gulf Countries, AMT--The Association for 
           Manufacturing Technology, Bankers Association for 
           Finance and Trade, Coalition for Employment Through 
           Exports, Emergency Committee for American Trade, 
           International Energy Development Council, National 
           Association of Manufacturers, National Foreign Trade 
           Council, Small Business Exporters Association, U.S. 
           Chamber of Commerce, U.S.-China Business Council, U.S 
           Council for International Business,
                                                   April 16, 2002.
     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: As the House Republican leadership 
     considers scheduling floor action on H.R. 2871, to 
     reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, we write to reiterate our 
     strong support for the Bank. Our collective members include 
     many of the U.S. exporters and financial institutions that 
     rely on the Bank as the lender of last resort in meeting the 
     fierce competition for export opportunities in world markets. 
     In FY 2001 alone, the Bank financed some 2,300 export 
     transactions, 90 percent of which were for small and medium-
     sized firms.
       Ex-Im Bank plays a crucial role in supporting the export of 
     American-made goods and American-provided services in markets 
     where commercial financing is difficult to obtain and when 
     foreign competitors have the active support of their 
     governments' export credit agencies. In 2000 alone, the most-
     active export credit agencies worldwide financed more than 
     $500 billion in exports. Ex-Im Bank financed $15.5 billion in 
     U.S. exports that year.
       To deal with this increasingly aggressive foreign 
     competition, H.R. 2871 would authorize the Bank to respond to 
     new export financing programs offered by foreign governments, 
     including so-called ``market windows''. The bill also 
     provides the Bank with clear authority to use the tied-aid 
     war chest to respond aggressively to foreign governments' use 
     of foreign assistance to supplement their export credit 
     activities (so-called ``tied-aid'').
       It is important to note that Ex-Im charges risk-based 
     interest, premiums and other fees for its loans, loan 
     guarantees and insurance. These fees are paid by exporters, 
     banks and overseas customers. Last year, the Bank's revenues 
     generated a $1 billion net income for the U.S. government. 
     Moreover, the Bank maintains some $10 billion in reserves to 
     protect against the risk of loss. The Bank's conservative 
     lending policies and aggressively loss-recovery efforts have 
     resulted in a very low 1.9 percent historical loss rate.

                         Amendments of Concern

       Two amendments may be offered which, in our judgment, would 
     impede the ability of U.S. exporters to effectively utilize 
     the Bank, thus weakening the Bank's programs and causing a 
     loss of U.S. exports and the jobs of American workers. We 
     urge you to oppose these amendments if offered during House 
     floor action:
       (1) Rep. Sanders may offer an amendment to deny Ex-Im Bank 
     financing for U.S. companies that are growing 
     internationally. It would make the Bank completely unusable 
     for any U.S. exporter that is succeeding in world markets. 
     The proposal runs contrary to U.S. trade policy and market-
     based economic growth. It would make no sense for the 
     Congress to seek open world markets, but then deny U.S. firms 
     access to one of the key tools to take advantage of these new 
     opportunities. Since Ex-Im Bank only finances U.S.-origin 
     goods and services, shutting off the Bank would only result 
     in making the Bank less effective in creating and keeping 
     U.S. jobs here at home.
       Rep. Schakowsky may offer an amendment to require a human 
     rights assessment of about 600 export transactions supported 
     by the Bank annually. This proposal is unnecessary because 
     the Export-Import Bank Act already includes a procedure under 
     which the Bank relies on the U.S. State Department for human 
     rights analysis. The amendment would require the Bank to 
     establish an unnecessary new bureaucracy that would duplicate 
     the long-established State Department human rights office. 
     The amendment would require U.S. exporters to submit any 
     proposed transaction over $10 million to a costly and time-
     consuming notice and comment period, which inevitably would 
     lead to the loss of export sales to our foreign competitors. 
     The current, long-established, process works well to ensure 
     that human rights issues are analyzed by the State 
     Department's experts and included in the Bank's consideration 
     of export transactions.
       We urge the House to approve H.R. 2871 and to oppose 
     amendments that would weaken the Bank and impede U.S. 
     exports.
           Sincerely,
         Don Carlson, President, AMT-The Association For 
           Manufacturing Technology; Calman J. Cohen, President, 
           Emergency Committee For American Trade; Timothy E. 
           Deal, Senior Vice President, U.S. Council for 
           International Business; John W. Douglass, President, 
           and CEO, Aerospace Industries Association; John Hardy, 
           Chairman, Standing Committee, International Energy 
           Development Council; Robert Kapp, President, U.S.-China 
           Business Council; James Morrison, President, Small 
           Business Exporters Association; John Pratt, Chairman, 
           American Business Council of the Gulf Countries; 
           William Reinsch, President, National Foreign Trade 
           Council; Edmund B. Rice, President, Coalition For 
           Employment Through Exports; Consider W. Ross, Executive 
           Director, Bankers Association for Finance and Trade; 
           Franklin J. Vargo, Vice President, National Association 
           of Manufacturers; Willard A. Workman, Senior Vice 
           President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. Chairman, these gentlemen, representing the largest multinational 
corporations in this country, are opposed to this amendment. And why 
not? They are receiving huge amounts of corporate welfare. They think 
it is a good deal. So, yes, they will be opposed to the amendment. And 
I would hope that gives Members a good reason why they should think 
about voting for this amendment.
  I am very proud that this amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and 
we are united, along with many other Members here, to protect American 
workers and to fight corporate welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues will say that the Ex-Im Bank has 
helped businesses and workers throughout the United States. They are 
right. But that should not be a great surprise for an agency that has a 
budget of some $1 billion and has the capability

[[Page H1795]]

of guaranteeing some $15 billion in loans a year. If we stood outside 
on street corners all over America and gave out money, we would do some 
good. We would help people. We would create jobs.
  The question that we want to ask is: Given the amount of money that 
we are spending, are American taxpayers and are American workers 
getting good value for their dollars? And I think any objective 
analysis of Ex-Im would suggest that we are not.
  At the present moment, Ex-Im is wasteful, it is inefficient, and it 
is a major example of corporate welfare. If we cannot make fundamental 
changes in the way that program is run, it should be killed.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about who the major beneficiaries of 
Ex-Im are. My colleagues have heard a lot about how small businesses 
are benefiting. The reality, however, is that 80 percent of the real 
dollars goes to the Fortune 500, some of the largest corporations in 
America. Now, let us hear who those tiny small businesses are who 
receive this corporate welfare from the American people.
  Well, they are Boeing, General Electric, Caterpillar, and Mobile Oil. 
They are a struggling small company. Westinghouse and AT&T. Another 
little tiny mom and pop company. Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Enron, 
IBM, FedEx, General Motors, Haliburton, Siemens, Raytheon, and United 
Technologies. The list goes on and on.
  Workers in this country, working 50, 60 hours a week to keep their 
heads above water, veterans not getting the benefits they are entitled 
to, but, hey, all these little tiny companies they are on the welfare 
line. Name the largest multinational corporation in America, many of 
whom make substantial campaign contributions, and there they are 
getting their money from Ex-Im.
  Further, many of these companies pay exorbitant salaries and benefits 
to their CEOs. One example, which I have experience with, IBM, on the 
welfare line, gave their former CEO Lou Gerstner, over $260 million in 
stock options, while they cut back on pensions and retirement health 
benefits of their workers and retirees and they are opening plants in 
China. No doubt, no doubt that the American taxpayers should be giving 
them their welfare check.
  Now, even more importantly, what else do these companies have in 
common? What they have in common is that company after company that 
receive Ex-Im money are some of the largest job cutters in America. In 
the name of job creation, we are giving huge amounts of money to large 
corporations who are laying off hundreds of thousands of American 
workers, and they are moving their plants to China, where they are 
paying desperate people there 20 cents an hour; moving to Mexico, 
moving to Vietnam, moving anyplace in the world where they can get 
cheap labor. Well, that is a smart public-policy move on our part.
  Let me give a couple of examples. General Electric has received over 
$2.5 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees from Ex-Im Bank. And 
what was the result? From 1985 to 1995, GE reduced its workforce from 
243,000 to 150,000. A real success story for the Ex-Im Bank.
  General Motors. They received $500 million in direct loans and loan 
guarantees from Ex-Im. The result, GM has shrunk its U.S. workforce 
from 559,000 to 314,000. Congratulations Ex-Im.
  Motorola. They have reduced their workforce; only 56 percent of their 
workers are from the United States.
  Now, if a company wants to receive taxpayer support, fine. But what 
that company has got to do is say we pledge to protect American jobs. 
And the amendment that I am offering is very, very simple. What it says 
is that if a company is going to lay off workers, then they cannot lay 
off more American workers than they lay off people abroad. Now, I do 
not think that is too much to ask for companies that receive subsidies 
from the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and would 
be glad to allow the gentleman from Vermont to continue to yield.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has been one of the strongest fighters in the 
U.S. Congress for American workers.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this Sanders 
amendment. It is eminently reasonable and aims to protect the jobs of 
American workers and strike a blow against the corporate welfare state.
  This amendment is beautifully simple. It says no more Export-Import 
Bank help for corporations that lay off a greater percentage of workers 
in America than in other countries where they employ workers, including 
Mexico or China and other low-wage platforms. No more Export-Import 
Bank help for General Electric when it cans workers in Bloomington, 
Indiana, and exports all their jobs to Mexico.
  Why cut workers' throats in our country with their own taxpayer 
dollars? Eighty percent of Ex-Im subsidies go to the biggest boys on 
the block, the Fortune 500 countries with global reach. And how do they 
return the favor to the American taxpayer? Well, General Motors gets 
more than $.5 billion from Ex-Im and then shrinks its U.S. workforce 
from 559,000 to 314,000 workers. That is almost a quarter million lost 
jobs in America. Motorola took $.5 billion from the taxpayers in the 
form of Export-Import Bank help and then slashed the American 
percentage of its workforce down to 56 percent.
  Here is how I see it: if we cannot have the Ex-Im Bank for American 
workers, then at least we should stop cutting our own throats with this 
giveaway to the runaway multinational companies that export jobs and 
leave American workers, American families, and American communities 
holding the bag.
  Say ``no'' to this abuse of taxpayer dollars and this betrayal of 
American communities. Stand up for the Sanders amendment. Vote ``yes'' 
on the Sanders amendment, which actually says, ``Do not hurt America 
first.'' If we have to take cuts, at least make those cuts equal 
globally to other countries. It does not say only serve America, it 
only says be fair to all concerned.
  Support the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bereuter) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2871) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________