[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1978-H1984]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Pursuant to House Resolution
402 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2871.
{time} 1215
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2871) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the
United States, and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson (Chairman pro
tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose
earlier today, pending was the amendment numbered 4 printed in House
Report 107-423 offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). The
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
[[Page H1979]]
had 7\1/2\ minutes of debate remaining, and the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Bereuter) has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) has deceptive appeal. One would think it seems quite
reasonable, and I have gone through this process with the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and initially did not recognize some of the
very real problems with the amendment; but they are real. Therefore, I
rise in strenuous opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The goal of protecting U.S. jobs is highly commendable. However, this
amendment may actually result in U.S. jobs being lost or sent overseas.
As I pointed out in general debate, corporations, American and others,
are generally footloose these days. If in fact they cannot export
successfully against competitor exporters from other countries, they
may well have encouragement to move those jobs abroad. But by the use
of the Export-Import Bank, we are encouraging the continued production
of products and services in this country for export abroad.
Now, the adoption of this amendment would limit the ability of U.S.
companies to compete in the global marketplace. If we reduce the number
of firms eligible for Ex-Im financing through this amendment, we will
also reduce the number of U.S. workers who manufacture U.S. goods or
provide services for export. We simply cannot look at it and say if
they have actually moved this many jobs by their action in the past,
that is inappropriate. We hate to see any jobs exported, and one of the
reasons we try to negotiate under multilateral terms better
arrangements for trade in this country is to keep those jobs in this
country and to reduce the disincentives for American firms to have
their manufacturing and services produced in this country.
Without Ex-Im financing, in short, U.S. jobs will be forced to move
abroad. It is not surprising when we think about it that this
legislation is actually supported by John J. Sweeney, the president of
AFL-CIO who says, ``As far as we are concerned, corporations which
receive subsidies from the Export-Import Bank are merely vehicles
through which jobs and income for American workers are created.''
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. When did Mr. Sweeney make that statement?
Mr. BEREUTER. In 1997 with respect to Export-Import Bank.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, that was 1997. We are in the year 2002.
Mr. BEREUTER. The International Association of Machinist and
Aerospace Workers, of course, supports the legislation, and that is
very current.
The Sanders amendment is really contrary to the rest of U.S. trade
policy which seeks to open foreign markets to U.S. firms for increased
trade investment. A U.S. company that receives less Ex-Im financing may
be inclined to move those operations abroad. The requirement for an
applicant to provide the information sought by the Sanders amendment is
overly burdensome, and would make applying for Ex-Im financing too
costly for many companies. I think their alternative is to simply take
those export jobs abroad, and then try to penetrate those third-country
markets.
Mr. Richard Christman, the president of Case N/H, an agricultural
business, stated in a hearing before the Committee on Financial
Services that one of the factors in deciding to maintain combine
production in the U.S. and not to move it to Brazil was the potential
availability of Export-Import Bank financing. Those are real jobs
maintained by the existence of the Export-Import Bank. I will come back
to that in a few minutes, but I remind Members that really we are
talking about the subsidy of U.S. worker jobs here--it is not corporate
welfare.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to dialogue with the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). Jack Welch is the former CEO of General
Electric, and this is what he said. ``Ideally what you want is to have
every company on a barge.'' This is a man who advertised to the world
that he is taking American jobs all over the world, laying off American
workers. Why would we give a company like that Export-Import Bank
money?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, certainly I am not enthused about it, but
to the extent that GE can keep jobs here because of export, those are
jobs that are left in New York State.
Mr. SANDERS. But, Mr. Chairman, they have laid off hundreds of
thousands of workers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, being a
cosponsor of this amendment. I am opposed to the Export-Import Bank
because I see there is no benefit to it, it has nothing to do with
capitalism and freedom. It has a lot to do with special interests, and
I am opposed to that.
One thing I am convinced of over the years from looking at bad
agencies of government, tinkering on the edges does not do a lot of
good. Members might ask why am I tinkering here? Why do I want to tell
corporations what to do? I am a capitalist. I believe in capitalism. I
do not want to tell the corporations what to do at all as long as they
do not commit fraud and live up to their promises, but this is
different because they are getting taxpayer money. That is different
than if they were just a corporation making it on their own.
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) said if we do not give
them these loans, the companies will not get any money and they will
have to go overseas. This is a fallacy to believe if all of a sudden we
took all of the Export-Import Bank money away from corporations, that
they would have no funding. That is not true at all. There is a lot of
funding available. It is just that they do not get the benefit, they do
not get the subsidy.
What we are trying to do is make it fair to everyone so that the
little guy who is competing for these same funds can compete on a level
playing field and not give the advantage to the big guys.
What happens so often when government gets involved is there are
unintended consequences. The original intent was to boost exports and
jobs. After 70 years, there are unintended consequences. The world is a
more world market. I am not opposed to that. I believe in free trade;
but I think this is more protectionism. This is so minor and so modest
that anybody who wants to be on record for fairness into curtailing the
political power of the Export-Import Bank, has to vote for this. This
will be a little bit of help to a few people in order to say to these
corporations that if they are going to get tax subsidies for their
loans, and they start laying off people, they better lay them off
someplace else other than here. That is pretty modest. I have no
interest in ever telling a corporation to do this if they were not
getting the special benefits from government. That makes the big
difference.
Mr. Chairman, there is a market allocation of credit and there is
credit allocation by politicians, and that is what we are talking about
here. We have credit allocation, and we have mal-investment and over
capacity which causes the conditions to exist for the recession. Of
course, a lot of this comes from what the Federal Reserve does in
artificially lowering interest rates; but this is a compounding problem
when government gets in and allocates credit at lower rates. It causes
more distortions. This is why allocations to companies like Enron
contributes to the bubble that ends up in a major correction.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
[[Page H1980]]
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It
should be defeated for two reasons. First, the amendment makes the U.S.
Government support for U.S. products conditional on determinations made
about legitimate business activities regardless of the situation.
Say we have the Sanders widget company with plants in the Midwest,
Vermont and offices in Brazil where there is a real demand for Sanders
widgets. If the Midwest plant is destroyed by a tornado and they are
forced to lay off the workers, they would be in violation of the
standards set by this amendment and would be unable to access Export-
Import Bank support until they get the factory rebuilt and operational.
The amendment would effectively damage the company a second time when
they are not at fault in the first place. What disturbs me most about
the amendment is the apparent belief if these companies must lay off
U.S. workers, there would be no understandable circumstances in which
that might happen.
Second, this amendment represents a large administrative burden on
U.S. businesses which have operations overseas. Even when a
manufacturer has not let go a single employee, they would be required
to assemble and certify all of the information required by the
amendment for each application for support for their U.S. made
products.
What if a U.S. business with foreign operations asked for the
resignation of one U.S. employee during the year because of a sexual
harassment charge, but it kept all of the other employees? As I
understand this amendment, that company would be prohibited from
Export-Import Bank assistance. That is neither fair nor is it right.
This amendment presents a different philosophy of how the government
should ensure the creation of more U.S. jobs. It comes down to carrot
or a stick. Do we use incentives for companies to create more jobs in
the United States, or do we enforce penalties against companies that
increase foreign operations. It has been my experience that one can
only drive business away with sticks, and we should provide more
carrots for companies that do the right thing and keep U.S. jobs going.
I ask my colleagues to do the right thing here today, and join me in
opposition to the Sanders amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's points. Our
corporations are involved in producing very different types of exports.
One of their operations in the United States may face the fact that a
product is obsolete or the whole sector has deteriorated, and we are
not exporting anything in that product area, and resultantly we have
large layoffs. But the other kinds of products or services that they
produce which may need export credit financing for moving our exports
abroad to keep those jobs safe in that sector. Mr. Chairman, that is
the point that needs to be made. Our industries are very diverse in
what they produce.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to elaborate on what the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) just mentioned. We talked
earlier about the need for this legislation to prohibit the stark
choice between moving activities overseas and being able to continue in
this country.
I had mentioned a specific example that is relevant to my district.
Less than a mile from where I live, there is a unionized factory,
Freight Liner, owned by Chrysler Daimler-Benz which has used this
program to export heavy, high-value trucks to Chile, sales that would
not have occurred otherwise.
Now, Daimler-Benz is involved with not just owning a subsidiary that
produces these huge, high-end, very expensive trucks, it also is
involved with luxury automobiles. Now if we were to adopt the
gentleman's amendment that requires that all activities be treated
exactly the same, we could be in an ominous situation where there might
be layoffs that were warranted because there has been a reduction in
the luxury car business that might result in a rational business
decision, but we would not necessarily want to be holding to the same
standard a requirement that there be reductions in the heavy truck
manufacturing. They are two entirely different product lines subjected
to different market forces, and they are located in different parts of
the world.
Mr. Chairman, I think that attempts to micromanage this can have some
very serious unintended consequences. I think it is not rational to
assume that everybody is doing the same in these large enterprises
today, and to subject on top of it rather extensive reporting and
paperwork requirements. I would strongly urge that we set this
amendment aside, reject it, support the underlying bill and allow the
process to work.
{time} 1230
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), a member of the
committee.
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of
the underlying bill. We considered this amendment in the subcommittee,
and I think we may have considered it in the full committee. While I
think the gentleman and the cosponsors of the amendment are well-
meaning, I think, as the gentleman from Oregon who just spoke noted,
this amendment is overly broad and will not accomplish the goal that it
sets out to do, and, in effect, creates a one-size-fits-all approach to
American companies that most likely are producing multiple types of
products, which the underlying goal of this bill and the underlying
goal of the Congress since the creation of the Export-Import Bank is to
expand the access of foreign markets for products that are produced in
the United States and for companies that are based in the United
States.
While the gentleman seeks to try to address a concern that many of us
have that in some cases we are losing our manufacturing base in the
United States because of reasons of economics, the effect of the
amendment, I believe, would be completely counter to what he is trying
to achieve, because what you would be doing is penalizing those
companies in the United States which are trying to maintain a
manufacturing base and trying to export products abroad, as opposed to
those companies who seek to just pack it in and move completely abroad
or cede the field to foreign companies without having any manufacturing
here in the United States.
So I would hope that the House will reject the gentleman's well-
meaning, but an amendment with I think great unintended consequences,
and support the underlying bill.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters.)
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Sanders amendment to the Export-
Import Bank Reauthorization Act. The Sanders amendment would prevent
companies from receiving assistance from the Export-Import Bank if they
lay off a greater percentage of workers in the United States than they
lay off in other countries.
The purpose of the Export-Import Bank is to create American jobs for
American workers. Unfortunately, the bank has a history of providing
assistance to companies that have been exporting American jobs and
hiring cheap foreign labor. For example, the Export-Import Bank insured
a $3 million loan to help General Electric build a factory where
Mexican workers will make parts for appliances that will be exported
back to the United States. As a result, 1,500 American workers will
lose their jobs to Mexican workers, who will be paid only $2 per hour.
The Sanders amendment would ensure that the Export-Import Bank does not
subsidize companies that are exporting American jobs instead of
American-made products.
I urge my colleagues to support the Sanders amendment.
Mr. Chairman, many of us worked very hard on plant closure
legislation
[[Page H1981]]
just a few years ago because we found that after we gave great tax cuts
right here in the United States under the Reagan administration that
our companies were exporting jobs to third-world countries for cheap
labor. That is after we had given big tax breaks. They took the money
and put it in their pockets and exported the labor. We can stop that
with this simple amendment. This will help out. I would ask my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a member of
the committee.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanders
amendment. The goal of protecting U.S. jobs is a good goal; but this
amendment, if implemented, would actually result in a reduction in U.S.
jobs over the long term, jobs that would be sent overseas or lost
altogether. The fact is that every transaction that the Ex-Im Bank is
involved with helps to maintain U.S. jobs.
Now, I understand that the author of this amendment is opposed to the
Ex-Im Bank. My friend, the gentleman from Vermont, has never been a fan
of the Ex-Im Bank; and I have a sneaking suspicion, I have not been
here very long, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this amendment is
actually a poison pill that is targeted at trying to kill the
underlying bill rather than trying to be helpful.
If this amendment were to be accepted, it would frustrate the main
mission of the Ex-Im Bank in general and severely hinder the ability of
the bank to support U.S. exports and U.S. jobs. The adoption of this
amendment would limit the ability of U.S. companies to compete in the
global marketplace. If we reduce the number of U.S. firms eligible for
Ex-Im Bank financing, the number of firms that would be available for
financing through this amendment, we are also going to reduce the
number of U.S. workers who manufacture U.S. goods for export.
Now, I represent a district in a State, New Jersey, where we have
seen a tremendous hemorrhaging of high-tech jobs from some of our
companies in the high-tech sector and telecom sector. These are
companies whose lifeline in many ways is the work of the Ex-Im Bank.
Some people talk about corporate welfare. This is not corporate
welfare. This is investing in American companies and giving them the
opportunity to be able to provide jobs and to provide manufacturing for
goods all around the world, particularly at a time when we are trying
to expand our economy, to expand job creation.
Some on the other side of the aisle have been talking about raising
taxes. We are not going to tax our way to economic prosperity and job
creation, and certainly by trying to kill or hinder the Export-Import
Bank from doing the great work they do, we are not going to be creating
jobs or helping our economy to grow either.
I stand in opposition to this amendment. I am a strong supporter of
the Ex-Im Bank and the good work of this bill. It is so important
during a time of economic recovery. If we are going to get Americans
back to work, continue to be able to create the manufacturing and jobs
that are so vital to this recovery, we are going to need to be able to
continue to support the work of the Ex-Im Bank. Defeat this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think the issue here is so clear-cut that it is
almost laughable. I was a mayor of a city for 8 years, and when someone
from the business community came in and said they wanted something, I
said, Let's talk about it. What are you going to do for the people?
What the Export-Import Bank does is they say to General Electric, You
told the whole world your policy is to move jobs to China; we have no
problem with that. You can help us with 200 jobs? That is fine. You are
laying off 10,000 workers tomorrow? We are ignoring that.
People who have discussed this have used the word ``carrot.'' I
believe in carrots. Use the carrot. What is the carrot? The carrot is
if you come in and want taxpayer support, radical idea though it may
be, you have got to protect American jobs.
It is beyond comprehension to me that we would provide huge amounts
of funding to a company where the leadership says, like General
Electric, This is our policy: Our policy is to lay off American workers
and go to China. And the Ex-Im Bank says, Can we give you any more
money? Thank you.
Eighty percent of the loans and subsidies given to the Export-Import
Bank go to the Fortune 500 companies. Check their record. It is not
just General Electric, it is not just General Motors, it is not just
Motorola. Company after company are laying off American workers and
going abroad.
It seems to me that if you want to use taxpayer money, if they want
to take taxpayer money, the very least they can do is to work very,
very hard to give us commitments to protect jobs in this country. We
have a $360 billion trade deficit. The Ex-Im is a small part of that,
but it is part of a failed policy which is selling out American
workers; and I urge the Members of the body, finally, stand up to the
campaign contributors and all these big companies that pour millions
into the political process.
Stand with American workers. Let us reverse our trade policy. Let us
demand that these companies, radical idea though it may be, invest in
the United States of America. My word, what a radical idea. Create jobs
in America, so that high school kids do not have to work at Burger
King, but they can have a decent job. The Ex-Im can play a role in
that.
Let us say ``yes'' to the Sanders amendment and work for the ordinary
people of this country for a change, rather than the multinationals.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. LaFalce), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly share the gentleman from Vermont's desire
to enhance jobs within the United States, and there are so many issues
and areas where we are aligned in that effort. We are aligned in that
effort in the areas of housing and community development, in public
sector jobs, in private sector jobs, in infrastructure, in countless
ways. I certainly share his desire to protect and promote workers'
rights, not only domestically, but internationally, globally.
But one of the ways we do that is to enhance the ability of the
United States companies to export products abroad, products that are
made in the United States of America by workers in the United States of
America. That is what Ex-Im is all about.
The amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
counterproductive to that purpose. The Sanders amendment, in my
judgment, as it is presently worded, would be impractical, impossible
to effectuate. I may be wrong, but most everybody who favors Ex-Im Bank
believes that this amendment would be harmful to the promotion of Ex-Im
Bank's mission, goals and United States jobs; and I would encourage all
allies of Ex-Im Bank to oppose the amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the bipartisan opposition to the
Sanders amendment as voiced, for example, by the senior Democrat on the
Committee on Financial Services.
We can all agree on a few things. We can all agree that we hate to
see American jobs lost, whether it is because of decline in the
industry or because of the fact that those jobs are moved abroad. We do
not want to see layoffs.
The fact of the matter is, however, that sometimes one sector of a
company's production simply becomes obsolete, or because of the fact
that it is a labor-intensive or very low-skilled job that for economic
reasons, the corporation feels it must move abroad.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, do not penalize those parts of the
company that are exporting products abroad. Vote ``no'' on the Sanders
amendment.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Sander's Amendment.
Washington State has the second highest unemployment rate in the
nation. Many companies in the Northwest have suffered directly and
indirectly because of September 11, including Boeing that announced the
layoffs of
[[Page H1982]]
approximately 30,000 workers. I represent over 25,000 commercial Boeing
workers and understand the impact of unemployment in my communities.
This amendment will not preserve jobs domestically, but actually lead
to more unemployment in Washington State. At a time when domestic
airlines are struggling, Boeing's only option is to expand commercial
aircraft sales overseas. If companies in the Northwest do not have
access to the financing resources provided by the Ex-Im Bank, we lose
more jobs in the Northwest.
Boeing will not only be affected, but the impact will be felt
throughout the region. Over 60 percent of the supplies and parts used
to manufacture a commercial aircraft are made outside of Boeing.
Denying Boeing Ex-Im Bank financing will result in greater unemployment
for small companies and their workers that depend on business with
Boeing.
If we want to protect jobs and stimulate our economy, we must make it
easier to sell American products overseas. Simply denying U.S.
businesses access to Ex-Im Bank financing because they are laying off
workers in unfair. This amendment does not help our workers, but the
workers of foreign competitors. Without Ex-Im Bank financing for
Boeing, Airbus will be able to gain greater market shares by providing
a much more effective financing package through their export credit
agencies.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 5 printed in House Report 107-423.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. 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. 5 offered by Ms. Schakowsky:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that, when considering a
proposal for assistance for a project that is worth
$10,000,000 or more, the management of the Export-Import Bank
of the United States should have available for review a
detailed assessment of the potential human rights impact of
the proposed project.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 402, the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and a Member opposed each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start by commending the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on Financial Services and the chairman and
ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and
Trade for their work on this important bill, and I want to particularly
express my gratitude to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and
Trade, and his staff for working with me so that human rights concerns
and protections would be included in this debate and be part of this
legislation.
Our ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders), has been a leader throughout this process, and I commend
him for his tireless efforts on behalf of working people, small
businesses, human rights, and the environment.
This is a modest amendment to the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization
Act. My amendment states the sense of the Congress that detailed
information on the potential impact on human rights of proposed Export-
Import Bank projects should be more available to the management of the
bank for all projects that are worth $10 million or more.
{time} 1245
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for
yielding me this time, and for her leadership and her persistence on
this issue.
I rise in strong support of the Schakowsky amendment which requires
the Export-Import Bank to consider the human rights implications of
major projects that it funds. Now, in the last week, the United States
has regained its seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. We
now have another opportunity and an obligation to reassert our
leadership on human rights issues and to really, in essence, practice
what we preach. The entire world is watching.
At each and every juncture, human rights concerns must enter into our
policy decisionmaking and our policy initiatives. The world needs the
United States' leadership on human rights issues. Here we have a
chance, thanks to the gentlewoman from Illinois, to exercise this
leadership.
The Export-Import Bank deals with projects that reach into the
millions of dollars. These projects have major repercussions on the
ground and human rights analysis must be a part of this fair equation.
This amendment just provides accurate information on these projects so
that economic development would not come at the cost of further erosion
of basic human rights. Under current policy, cancellation is the only
option. We need a more precise instrument. This is a very modest
measure in the right direction.
So I urge my colleagues to stand up for human rights today by
supporting the Schakowsky amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of any known opposition to
the Schakowsky amendment, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will say to the gentlewoman that during the debate on
the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I had a
discussion about the gentlewoman's amendment. The only concern we have
had about the gentlewoman's amendment at any time in this whole process
is that the State Department is that entity we have selected at this
point within our government to prepare the country reports on human
rights. The view of this Member and others was that the State
Department should continue to be the agency responsible for conducting
that kind of review for our entire government.
But the gentlewoman has an amendment before us which is in no way
inconsistent with that concept. I think what she is proposing to do is
very important. We hope that human rights considerations are a factor
in the deliberations of the Export-Import Bank, and so I would say we
are prepared to accept enthusiastically the gentlewoman's amendment,
and I yield to her if she might wish to respond.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his
support of this amendment. We have taken into serious consideration the
gentleman's concern in raising the issue that it is the State
Department, in fact, that authorizes on human rights grounds the
commencement of a project and would make decisions as to whether or not
a project should be canceled on the basis of human rights. We have been
talking with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor within the
State Department, and I have spoken with senior officials there who
agree that more scrutiny should be placed on major Ex-Im projects that
are proposed.
So while I am very pleased and grateful about the prospects of the
amendment today and for the gentleman's support, we are going to
continue those discussions to see if we cannot further this agenda of
more inquiry into human rights.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentlewoman is
doing and if there is anything we could do in report language to
facilitate stronger encouragement to use those State Department country
reports, we should do that, and I would be committed to that end.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce),
the ranking member of the full committee.
[[Page H1983]]
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of the amendment,
but I also want to make some complimentary comments about the fine work
of the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
When she initially surfaced the idea, I think the specific words of
the proposed bill or amendment might have been unworkable and perhaps
counterproductive, but she worked with everyone in a very collegial
fashion. She worked with the State Department, she worked with Ex-Im,
the Republicans, the Democrats, and we have an excellent amendment now
that is workable, that is productive, that should be passed and should
be implemented aggressively by Ex-Im and Treasury. I thank the
gentlewoman for her great collegial work.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the tenor of
this discussion, and I would like to continue it just for a bit.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to say to my colleague,
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), that I am appreciative for
his willingness to try and work out support for amendments that may not
have a lot of support, but the gentleman understands the importance of
a particular amendment and has worked with the author to try and get it
done. So let me thank the gentleman.
In addition, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky) for being there always on these kinds of issues.
This is so important. I came up to support the amendment because I
was concerned about a project that was approved by the Export-Import
Bank for $92 million for diamond mine processing equipment and services
to Alrosa, a Russian diamond company, that operates in countries such
as Angola where conflict diamonds are sold by paramilitary groups that
propagate internal conflicts and engage in gross violations of human
rights. So it is so important that we know what they are doing, or at
least we have an assessment.
Most Americans do not understand that we put $1 billion into this
Export-Import Bank. Many would see this as simply corporate welfare.
And while we have increasing problems with our own budget, while we are
trying to fund education, while we are trying to secure Social
Security, it is very important that we look at projects such as this
one and begin to raise the questions about who is really benefiting
from the Export-Import Bank. While this will do an assessment on human
rights, which we need to do, I think we are going to have to go deeper.
While I thank my colleague for supporting this amendment, we are going
to have to go deeper to look at the Export-Import Bank and see if this
is something we want to continue to do.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I do have a few additional remarks, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It seems to me that additional information on human rights is
necessary, because current policy provides really only one remedy, and
that is to deny a project on human rights grounds. But those denials
are made on the basis of an assessment by the State Department of human
rights for an entire country in which the project will be located, and
not an assessment of the project itself. There should be more tools
available to Ex-Im Bank to assess human rights.
In reality, there are very few projects that would warrant
cancellation or total denial of Ex-Im funding because of severe human
rights impacts, but many more projects may have human rights concerns
that, if adequately identified beforehand, could be mitigated during
project design. Ex-Im Bank needs detailed assessments on a project-by-
project basis of the potential impact proposed projects may have on
human rights.
Again, this is a modest amendment. It is not the total solution to
what I believe to be the legitimate and serious concerns of human
rights experts like Human Rights Watch and Members of Congress and
numerous other human rights experts and advocates throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an acknowledgment that we have much
more to do to improve the human rights record of the Ex-Im Bank,
prevent human rights abuses, and ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent
responsibly, without compromising the project financing portfolio of
the bank. The key to achieving those goals is information.
Had such information existed during consideration of the Enron power
project in India, for example, Ex-Im staff would have identified
previous human rights problems and could have consulted with local
national or international human rights organizations for further
information. This would have allowed for recommendations that Enron
make certain commitments to corporate responsibility, for example, that
would have mitigated the problems that occurred later in the project
and after Ex-Im funding was approved. Yet another lesson of the Enron
collapse has been the clear need for greater oversight of projects
financed with taxpayer dollars.
The Dahbol power project is partially owned and operated by Enron.
The project received approximately $290 million in Ex-Im Bank
guarantees despite the World Bank's refusal to fund it and serious
human rights problems related to its construction.
According to Human Rights Watch, ``Enron subsidiaries paid local law
enforcement to suppress opposition to its power plant. They broke down
the door and window of one of the protestor's bathrooms and dragged her
naked into the street, beating her with batons. The protestor was 3
months pregnant at the time.''
It seems to me that especially now, in a world where we are trying to
build international coalitions to fight terrorism, as we should, that
the United States should lead the world in the struggle for human
rights, fairness, and equality for all in every way we can. We must
never send a message to our neighbors in the international community or
to the American corporate community that we are willing to compromise
human needs for corporate greed.
Ex-Im Bank has a responsibility to U.S. taxpayers to ensure our money
is well spent, and the Congress has a responsibility to place human
rights on an equal footing with all other considerations in our
international economic agenda. Passage of this amendment would be a
measured step in that direction.
Again, I want to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Financial
Services, particularly the chairman and ranking Democratic members of
the full committee and the Subcommittee on International Monetary
Policy for their work and leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this modest
amendment and put the Congress on record in support of human rights and
responsible behavior when we conduct business abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, to reiterate, we support and can accept
the gentlewoman's amendment. I urge support for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on Amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Sanders
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
[[Page H1984]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135,
noes 283, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 120]
AYES--135
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chabot
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeGette
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Goode
Graham
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Luther
Lynch
Matheson
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Platts
Rahall
Regula
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--283
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Clement
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--16
Cannon
Clayton
Condit
Cox
Crane
Doolittle
Ehrlich
Green (TX)
Honda
Mascara
Millender-McDonald
Murtha
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Weldon (PA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1322
Messrs. ROTHMAN, TIBERI, FLAKE, BLUNT, ROYCE, and RANGEL changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TANCREDO and Mr. GRAHAM changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 120, I was unavoidably
detained by important matters involving my district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained
earlier this afternoon and consequently was unable to vote on the floor
of the House on pending business. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Charles,
Dorchester, and Calvert Counties in Maryland recently experienced
devastating tornadoes resulting in the loss of three lives and costing
over $100 million in damage. In an effort to aid in the procurement of
federal disaster assistance, I responded to a request from local
officials to visit the site of the storms.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 120.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments in order
under the rule, the question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 402, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
a third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________