[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.

                          ____________________