[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 72 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3167-H3182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1372, EXPORT-IMPORT BANK REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
                                  2002

  Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 433 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 433

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 1372) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States. All points of order against the conference 
     report and against its consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
normal conference report rule for the Senate bill, S. 1372, the Export-
Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2002. The rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration.
  In addition, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided 
and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Financial Services.
  Madam Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the 
type of rule we grant every time for every conference report we 
consider in this House. The conference report itself is a strong step 
forward to help American manufacturers, American workers, and the 
American economy.
  Madam Speaker, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2002 
reauthorizes the bank for 4 years. The Ex-Im Bank plays a key role of 
promoting U.S. exports overseas and levelling the playing field of 
international trade, which is especially important to my area in North 
Carolina. The bank is an important tool for American manufacturers, 
enabling them to reach markets in which they would otherwise be closed 
out.
  By reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank, we demonstrate our commitment to 
promoting U.S. goods throughout the world and the U.S. economy at home. 
It has important provisions that encourage small business transactions 
by increasing the small business mandate for Ex-Im from the current 
statutory minimum of 10 percent to a minimum of 20 percent of total Ex-
Im financing, and that will help small business. It gives them a bigger 
share of the pie.
  It also requires Ex-Im to conduct outreach and increase loans to 
socially-disadvantaged individuals, our women, and to businesses which 
employ fewer than 100 employees; again, a big help, especially when so 
many corporations and small businesses in our country are starting to 
do more export.
  That is especially true in my area. We have a lot of small businesses 
that are exporting in the last couple of years North Carolina products 
that had never done that before, so we are always looking for ways to 
encourage that.

[[Page H3168]]

  S. 1372 also contains strong provisions relating to the U.S. trade 
laws that will ensure Ex-Im does not contribute to the overcapacity or 
dumping of goods on U.S. markets. Again, that is an area that we have 
had a lot of problems with, with steel and with textiles, which is 
very, very important in my area of North Carolina, in South Carolina, 
and some of the other southern States.
  I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey), for his leadership in crafting this important provision.
  Finally, I am pleased that this legislation requires that the bank, 
when considering whether to guarantee, ensure, or extend credit, will 
take into account the extent to which a nation has been helpful or not 
in efforts to eradicate terrorism. We must stop the flow of money from 
going to countries which support terrorism, and specifically those 
identified by the President as comprising the axis of evil.
  To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support 
the commonsense legislation it underlies.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased this conference report is on the floor 
today. It has strong bipartisan support, and I expect that it will pass 
overwhelmingly.
  Since 1934, the Export-Import Bank has played a vital role in 
creating and sustaining millions of high-paying American jobs by 
supporting more than $400 billion in U.S. exports. As American business 
and jobs have become more dependent on trade over the years, the 
importance of the Ex-Im Bank has only increased.
  In today's world of global trade, the Export-Import Bank serves as an 
indispensable lender of last resort, filling financial gaps that would 
otherwise hurt many American businesses and their employees. Perhaps 
most importantly, the bank levels the playing field for many U.S. 
companies, allowing them to compete with foreign companies that have 
significant support from their own governments.
  But Ex-Im Bank financing does more than support jobs at exporting 
companies. It helps sustain and create jobs at tens of thousands of 
U.S. suppliers around the country who participate indirectly in Export-
Import Bank-financed exports. These indirect exporters, many of which 
are small businesses, supply components, services, and technology to 
U.S. exporters of a wide range of products and services as diverse as 
environmental technology, construction and agricultural equipment, 
amusement park rides, aircraft, furniture, and computer and 
telecommunications technology.
  Export-Import Bank financing has a ripple effect. It sustains jobs at 
companies large and small throughout the U.S. economy in almost every 
State and the great majority of congressional districts. Moreover, the 
bank makes good, sound investments for America. In fiscal year 2000, 
for example, the Ex-Im Bank used $759 million as leverage to support 
more than $15.5 billion in U.S. exporters. That has a tremendous bang 
for the buck.
  In my north Texas district, where tens of thousands of jobs are 
directly dependent on exporting quality American products, we have seen 
firsthand just how important the Ex-Im Bank is to America's economy. 
For all these reasons, I am pleased that this conference report 
reauthorizes the bank for 5 years. That will provide U.S. companies and 
their workers with the certainty they need.
  I urge the passage of this rule and of the underlying conference 
report.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the conferees, 
particularly my subcommittee chairman and friend, the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), for coming up with a good bill that will 
support our Nation's small manufacturing exporters.
  Ex-Im is one of the few government programs that actually serves 
small businesses. Last year, 90 percent of Ex-Im's transactions and 18 
percent of the dollar volume went to small exporters. As chairman of 
the Committee on Small Business, I am proud of what the conferees have 
done to further enhance exports from small firms. Many of our markets 
are saturated in this country. Ninety-six percent of the world's 
consumers live outside the U.S. This conference report recognizes this 
reality by helping provide small business exporters access to these 
tough but critical markets.
  The conference report agreed with the House to double Ex-Im's set-
aside for small businesses from 10 percent to 20 percent. This 
conference report directs more of Ex-Im's resources to small business 
outreach, including the very small businesses, those employing 100 
workers or less, and women and minority-owned firms.
  Finally, this conference report focuses on the importance of 
technology for small businesses, and directs Ex-Im to put out more of 
its applications process online and track its documents electronically 
to speed up its work.
  This 5-year reauthorization bill is one piece of the puzzle to help 
manufacturers in the district I am proud to represent recover from the 
economic downturn. We are suffering immensely with an unemployment rate 
higher than the national average. Manufacturing has lost over 2 million 
jobs in the past 3 years, and northern Illinois has not been immune.
  Compounding an already weak economy is the high value of the American 
dollar, stiff foreign competition, high prices for steel, and 
tightening of credit, particularly for export finance. This conference 
report provides one tool to help offset the effect of the difficulty of 
obtaining trade finance for small business exporters.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this conference 
report. It will help ensure that quality and price, not the lack of 
adequate export financing, is the key for a small business exporter to 
win a sale abroad.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
Export-Import Bank, and I do that as the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade.
  Madam Speaker, there is growing anger and frustration in this country 
at the increasing greed and illegal activities in corporate America. 
The American people are sick and tired of CEO salaries in the tens of 
millions of dollars, in the hundreds of millions of dollars that are 
now on average 500 times greater than what the average American worker 
receives. The American people and workers are sick and tired of CEOs 
slashing pension programs and health benefits for their retirees while 
corporate profits are soaring. The workers of this country are sick and 
tired of corporate America shutting down American plants, throwing 
American workers out of the street and taking our jobs to China, to 
Mexico where desperate people are forced to work for 20 cents an hour.
  The American people are sick and tired of accounting gimmicks that 
cheat investors and employees. They are tired of CEOs setting up phony 
post office box companies in Bermuda so while the middle class pays 
more and more in taxes, CEOs and their corporations avoid their 
responsibilities in terms of taxes. And basically the American people 
are tired of corporate welfare. We are going to hear a whole lot in 
this body about making poor people responsible when it comes to 
corporate welfare. What about the CEOs and the major multinational 
corporations who get tens and tens of billions of dollars from the 
working families of this country? Some of my colleagues are going to 
tell us Export-Import Bank creates jobs, it does some good. Sure, it 
does. We give them a billion dollars a year, and we put at risk through 
loan guarantees some $15 billion a year; and if one sat out on a street 
corner and one gave away a billion dollars a year, he would also do 
some good.
  But the issue is are we getting value for the amount of money that we 
are spending, and the answer is obviously no. Madam Speaker, the 
outrage of the Export-Import Bank is that we are giving billions of 
dollars to the major job cutters in America. Yes, that is true.

[[Page H3169]]

The largest corporations who come into Export-Import to get their 
corporate welfare laugh all the way to the bank because these are 
precisely the people who lay off American workers and then say, thank 
you, workers, for subsidizing our efforts.
  Let us look at these desperate companies that are getting the 
corporate welfare from Export-Import. It is Boeing, General Electric, 
Caterpillar, Mobil Oil, certainly in need of taxpayer support, 
Westinghouse, AT&T, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, IBM, Enron. Enron 
getting helped from Export-Import. The irony here is that not only 
should the taxpayers of this country not be supporting profitable 
multinational corporations but the irony is we give them money and they 
say thanks, we are moving to China, we are moving to Mexico. General 
Electric, a major recipient of export import, we give them a lot of 
money. What is the result? From 1975 to 1995, GE reduced its workforce 
from 667,000 American workers to 398,000. Boeing, the same thing, huge 
job layoffs.
  Jack Welch, interestingly enough, the former CEO of GE, when he gets 
on the welfare line he said, ``Ideally what you would have is to put 
every company on a barge.'' In other words, what he says is thank you 
for the money; but we are going to go anyplace in the world where we 
can get cheap labor.
  In addition to its being corporate welfare, in addition to our, 
through Ex-Im, giving money to companies who have contempt for American 
workers, what also must be understood is that Export-Import is part of 
a failed trade policy. The United States trade deficit was $346 billion 
in 2001, and the trade deficit in goods was $426 billion. Let us wake 
up and understand that the permanent normalized trade relations with 
China is a failure. Yes, we gained some export jobs; but we are losing 
far, far more in terms of jobs being lost because companies have taken 
our jobs to China.
  Over the past 4 years we have lost a total of 2 million factory jobs, 
representing 10 percent of our manufacturing workforce.
  So the point here is Export-Import is part and parcel of a failed 
trade policy. Whether it is the most favored nation status with China, 
permanent normalized trade relations with China, NAFTA, that policy is 
failing. And it is time that we say we cannot continue to hemorrhage 
American jobs. Let me repeat. Under this great trade policy which 
Republican leaders talk about, some Democratic leaders talk about, 
corporate America and editorial boards say it is great; if it is so 
great, why between 1994 and 2000 have more than 3 million decent-paying 
manufacturing jobs been lost?
  In 2001, the manufacturing sector lost 1.3 million jobs. In my own 
State of Vermont, a small rural State, small plant after small plant 
after small plant is closing down because they cannot compete against 
imports coming in from China where workers are being paid 20 or 25 
cents an hour. And it is time that this body finally said enough is 
enough. Yes, we get millions and millions of dollars from corporate 
America for our campaigns; yes, that is great that they come to 
$25,000-a-plate fund-raising dinners. But what about the workers in 
rural Vermont, in California, in Illinois, in Ohio, who have lost their 
jobs? Maybe somebody should stand up for them. What about the high 
school graduates who used to be able to go out in the workforce and get 
a manufacturing job and make a living wage who today flip hamburgers at 
Burger King or McDonald's. Maybe they need a decent job even if they 
cannot contribute huge sums of money to this institution in terms of 
campaign contributions.
  Our trade policy is a failure. Ex-Im is part of that trade policy. 
Let us defeat it for that reason. Let us end corporate welfare. Where 
are all of my conservative friends who want a balanced budget? Do you 
really want to give a billion dollars a year to some of the largest, 
most profitable corporations in America?
  There are many reasons to defeat Ex-Im, but it is time that we stood 
up for the American taxpayer. It is time we stood up for the American 
worker. And it is time we told corporate America get off the welfare 
train. Start respecting American workers. Start respecting the United 
States of America. Do not sell our country out. Do not sell our workers 
out. Let us defeat Ex-Im.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). He is the chair of the 
Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade of the 
Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H. 
Res. 433, the rule under which the conference report of the Export-
Import Bank or Ex-Im Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001, S. 1372, will be 
considered.
  As is customary for conference reports under this privileged rule, 
there will be an hour of debate divided between the majority and 
minority with no amendments being made in order, of course.
  As the chairman of the House Subcommittee on International Monetary 
Policy and Trade of the Committee on Financial Services, which has 
jurisdiction over this effort, the Member, of course, has a special 
interest in the Ex-Im Bank legislation. And, therefore, this Member 
would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the chairman of the House Committee on Rules; the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of 
the House Committee on Rules; and the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick), who is managing the time on our side of the aisle, for 
their efforts in bringing this rule before the House floor. In 
addition, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley), the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, for 
his leadership on the Ex-Im issues, and the distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the House Committee 
on Financial Services, and the distinguished gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders), who he and I worked together on this legislation in 
compatible fashion, for their efforts on the reauthorization of the 
Export-Import Bank.
  In contrast to what we have just heard, this is legislation which 
actually creates jobs in America, a great number of jobs.
  The Ex-Im Bank is an independent U.S. Government agency that creates 
and sustains American jobs by providing direct loans to buyers of U.S. 
exports, guarantees to commercial loans to buyers of U.S. products and 
insurance products which greatly benefit short-term small business 
sales. So we are talking about American exports going abroad, things 
that are produced here by our American workers or farmers.
  The Ex-Im Bank finances exports such as civilian aircraft, 
electronics, engineering services, vehicles, agricultural products; and 
the list is just as broad as you can possibly imagine.
  To illustrate the importance of the Ex-Im Bank, in fiscal year 2000 
the bank supported over $15.5 billion in U.S. exports through an 
appropriation of $759 million. It is important, however, to remember 
that the loans and loan guarantees that the bank issues, the 
transactions, are risk-based costs and insurance fees, so no Export-
Import Bank is charging for the money loaned or loans guaranteed. And 
in almost every year in its 60-year existence, Ex-Im has produced a net 
profit for the Treasury over the appropriations given. Last year that 
net profit was over $1 billion.
  Madam Speaker, in the past 60 years, the Ex-Im Bank has supported 
more than $300 billion in U.S. exports. Of course the Export-Import 
Bank is only intended to be a lender of last resort and not intended to 
compete with private lenders. Therefore, only about 2 percent of our 
exports use Ex-Im Bank transactions. For example, the Ex-Im Bank 
supports U.S. exporters in risky markets, and private financial 
institutions sometimes are unwilling or unable to do that. Yet the net 
default rate is less than 2 percent.
  In fact, over the last 20 years, the Ex-Im Bank has an average loan 
default rate, as I said, of less than 2 percent of its total 
authorization. This bank was last reauthorized in 1997 for a 4-year 
period that initially expired on September 30. By extension, it will 
now expire on June 14 of this year. And the legislation which will be 
brought to this floor under the rule will be for a 5-year 
reauthorization.

[[Page H3170]]

  When drafting the Export-Import Bank, the Member utilized the 
suggestions and recommendations of the distinguished chairman of the 
full committee and the ranking members of the committee and 
subcommittee and those of other members of the committee. We had a very 
democratic process in the subcommittee which extended into the 
committee deliberations. And many items in this important reform 
legislation, in many respects, came from the Members on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Madam Speaker, on May 1, we passed this House legislation by voice 
vote; but we are now at the point where we are prepared to take up the 
conference report. After a conference of only about 4\1/2\ hours, we 
reached numerous important decisions to bring the Congress this 
conference report. Importantly, we also clarified and resolved the 
dispute between the Export-Import Bank and the Treasury Department. I 
have every indication that the President will sign this legislation, 
and I thank the Committee on Rules and the House leadership for 
bringing this important legislation to the floor today.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Speaker, foreign trade has long been a 
critical component of our economy. So long, in fact, that it predates 
the founding of our Nation. And despite the ups and downs of the local 
global market, there is absolutely no doubt that the American economy 
is dependent on trade. Yes, we import far more goods than any other 
nation; and, yes, we have a trade deficit. I do not like it. No one 
likes it. But the only way to remedy it is to enhance our export 
sector. But when we examine the trade deficit, let us remember that we 
already export more goods and services than any other nation.
  Those exports represent 10 percent of the United States' GDP; and 
they support 12 million jobs, including one in five manufacturing jobs. 
They are not all huge multinational conglomerates like a General 
Motors. The overwhelming majority, 97 percent, are small- and medium-
sized businesses. In Oregon, these businesses and family farms are the 
backbone of our economy. They provide good paying and rewarding jobs, 
and it is my goal to make sure that there are a lot more of them.
  If there is a company that wants to sell its goods to a new market, 
particularly one that poses some degree of risk as well as 
profitability, then all too often the only financing for them is from 
the Export-Import Bank.

                              {time}  1130

  Furthermore, Ex-Im financing does more than support jobs at exporting 
companies. It creates an enormous ripple effect in the supply chain.
  For many companies that export, tens of thousands of U.S. suppliers 
around the country are indirect exporters, many of which are small 
businesses, supply component services and technology providers.
  Madam Speaker, the evidence is clear. Overseas sales are no longer 
optional for most U.S. companies. To compete and succeed, they must 
play on a global stage, and Ex-Im Bank can provide the U.S. companies 
with the financing tools they need to accomplish this.
  While not perfect, it is the best tool for the job at hand, and I ask 
my colleagues to support the conference agreement.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me the time. I thank the 
proponents of this legislation and those who have brought this 
compromise or conference report to the floor, I thank them for their 
work.
  Madam Speaker, the business of America is creating jobs and it is 
business, and frankly I think it is realistic to understand the global 
markets that we now live in. When we think of countries like Germany 
and France and England, there is a large proponent or a large part of 
their economic framework that is supported by the government, companies 
owned by the particular nation, giving them the upper hand. That is the 
global market or the global business world of which many of our 
companies compete with.
  Although I may have some concerns about the whole issue of trade 
without regulation, I believe the Export-Import Bank is a good balance 
because what it does is it gives an even playing field or maybe even a 
leg up, a reasonable leg up to the businesses of America who are trying 
to compete internationally, competing against the major discounts and 
the major waivers that are given to corporations owned by the 
particular country of which they have to compete with.
  I am very glad that in this legislation we have the tied aid credit 
fund which then requires those donor countries who are receiving 
benefit from the Export-Import Bank to buy resources from the United 
States. That creates jobs.
  I am also pleased how this impacts our agricultural community, giving 
them the opportunity to have a two-way street.
  The Advisory Committee for Sub-Sahara Africa, having been a supporter 
of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and listening now to 
ambassadors from Africa and presidents from Africa, in the sub-Sahara 
continent they are saying that it is working, but they are also looking 
for added enhancement, and this advisory committee should get busy by 
creating opportunities for businesses in the United States to do more 
business in sub-Sahara Africa. This will generate these countries from 
being dependent to independent, along with, of course, the balance of 
debt relief which I so strongly support.
  We also are very pleased that there is an anti-dumping order in this 
legislation; that the legislation includes issues on human rights, 
anti-terrorism, renewable energy and, of course, anti-fraud and 
corruption. That is key because we have seen over the last couple of 
months and the last year a falling from grace of many of our 
corporations that have not been following the rule of law or the ethics 
of which we would expect for them to do.
  This should not be a wasteful legislative initiative. This should not 
be where we are taken advantage, but it should open the doors of 
opportunity.
  My last point, however, Madam Speaker, is my concern. Yes, it is good 
that we move from 10 percent to 20 percent in assisting small 
businesses, but I believe we should move to 30 and 40 percent. Small 
businesses are the backbone of America. I would like to see them engage 
in international activities and trade and business. They can do so with 
the Export-Import Bank at a higher percentage of participation for 
them.
  I would encourage my colleagues respectfully to consider that, and 
finally, Madam Speaker, I would simply say we must create businesses 
and lessen corruption. We can do that by supporting international 
businesses and jobs in America with supporting this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, the Export-Import Bank has a very specific mission 
related to the promotion of American exports. This mission is to create 
and sustain American jobs by helping to finance American exports that 
would otherwise not be available in over 150 countries.
  The Bank is required to not compete with the private sector, but 
rather steps in where commercial bank financing is insufficient or 
unavailable. They support exports that, due to the absence of 
competitive financing, otherwise would not take place--meaning loss of 
a sale and an impact on American jobs.
  The Ex-Im Bank operates in a very competitive international 
environment, in which export credit agencies in other countries are 
increasingly aggressive in supporting the exports of our competitors. 
The Bank is critical in countering these transactions, by providing 
leverage for the U.S. to negotiate a gradual reduction in export 
subsidy activities among OECD members.
  In a word, absent the Export-Import Bank, American exporters would 
find themselves competing against foreign exporters who receive 
government subsidies. Consequently, with the loss of key export 
markets, American exporters would lose export-oriented jobs. These jobs 
pay 18% more on average than non-export jobs.
  The Ex-Im Bank does more than just provide a level playing field for 
American exports. The Bank has the charge of providing critical export 
financing in cases where there is a market failure in private lending. 
Frequently, these failures relate to the nature of the exporter. For 
example, small businesses often face problems attaining private credit 
for export transactions. For this, the Ex-Im Bank has

[[Page H3171]]

been a critical source of support for small business exporters 
nationwide.
  The Export-Import Bank does not exist to promote exports by 
subsidizing American companies who are engaged in fair and open 
practices for business. The Ex-Im Bank does exist to defend American 
companies engaged in non-competitive markets. Therefore, the Bank's 
ultimate goal is to discourage these non-competitive practices.
  In fiscal year 2001, the Ex-Im Bank supported $12.5 billion of 
American exports to emerging markets around the world, enabling many 
American companies to maintain and even expand their workforces. And 90 
percent of the total number of Ex-Im Bank-supported transactions in 
fiscal year 2001 were in direct support of small business. Ex-Im Bank 
financing has a ripple effect that sustains jobs at companies large and 
small throughout the American economy, in almost every state and the 
great majority of congressional districts.
  Ex-Im Bank steps in where the competition is toughest for American 
exporters, where they must compete to win export sales against foreign 
companies backed by their government's official export credit agencies.
  Market failures are related to the nature and location of the export 
market. Markets in Sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere in the developing 
world are frequently overlooked by private export credit. Ex-Im goes 
where private lenders are unwilling to go, to the ultimate benefit of 
these developing countries, the United States, and the global economy.

  Ex-Im's charge to go into under-served markets is particularly 
relevant today, when economic engagement with other countries is an 
essential element of foreign policy and national security. In the 
months since last September, we have had to move very quickly to 
determine how best to reach out to countries and people who were 
previously of too little interest to the United States and other 
wealthy countries. Certainly, much has been achieved already in the war 
on terrorism by high-level engagement between the Bush Administration 
and foreign leaders. But top-level diplomacy will ultimately fail if it 
is not supported by bottom-up engagement in the political, social and 
economic spheres.
  Here is where institutions like the Ex-Im Bank have a critical role 
to play. With each export transaction supported by the Bank, we have 
made a new connection and developed a new familiarity with a market, a 
people, and a country that had previously been slightly more foreign to 
us. With thousands of these transactions, we take a thousand steps 
forward toward a world of interdependence and prosperity--in short, a 
world in which terrorism finds it hard to exist.
  S. 1372 emphasizes the need to expand outreach to small businesses. 
There are barriers to the Ex-Im Bank assistance for small business. 
Technology enhancements are critical to any meaningful effort to expand 
services for small businesses. However, for small businesses, working 
with the Ex-Im Bank may be a daunting prospect. This legislation can go 
a long way toward bringing in new small businesses and serving them 
better by expanding the use of technology throughout the transaction 
process. As a result, the legislation expands the budget authority for 
technology upgrades and provides guidance to the Ex-Im Bank on the 
implementation of new technologies.
  The Ex-Im Bank has supported $1 billion in American exports to sub-
Saharan Africa during the last two years, covering products and 
services ranging from bread-making equipment and agricultural machinery 
to commercial aircraft and construction equipment.
  The Ex-Im Bank is an integral part of the American government's 
initiative to expand our country's economic engagement with sub-Saharan 
Africa.
  In 2001, the Ex-Im Bank expanded its Sub-Saharan Africa pilot program 
to 16 countries in the region, allowing the Bank to support exports to 
certain markets in which the Bank would not otherwise be open for 
business. The program provides short-term insurance coverage to help 
businesses in the region buy American goods such as spare parts, raw 
materials, and agricultural commodities.
  The Ex-Im Bank is working hard with African banks such as the PTA 
Bank in Nairobi and African regional development banks such as the 
ECOWAS Fund in Togo, pursuing agreements and partnerships to encourage 
these financial institutions to lend to customers purchasing American 
goods and services.
  There is probably no market in the world where the the Ex-Im Bank has 
worked harder during the last two years than Nigeria. The Bank has 
financed exports ranging from solar-powered billboards and printing 
equipment to cement bagging equipment, a metal frame warehouse and 
dredging equipment for the Port of Lagos.
  By providing guarantees for South African rand and CFA franc-
denominated loans, the Ex-Im Bank has made it easier for American 
exporters to sell their products to Southern and West Africa.
  As we require the Ex-Im Bank to expand its assistance and outreach to 
small businesses in developing societies, we should provide more, not 
less, funding for the administrative expenses that will come with this 
effort.
  I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support as well.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) for her statement. She has described some of the very 
important new reforms in the legislation, and I would just say to the 
gentlewoman that I, too, and the whole subcommittee and committee and 
the conferees of both Houses would like to see more small business 
involvement in the Ex-Im Bank.
  I would say this. Over half the transactions of the Export-Import 
Bank do involve small business. We would like to see more than 18 
percent of total resources going to small business, and that is why we 
are pushing them a little higher to a figure of 20 percent.
  We started out, at the gentleman from Vermont's (Mr. Sanders) 
initiative, aiming for an even higher level. I would like to see that 
at a higher level, but over half the transactions do involve small 
businesses.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
his work and I appreciate that.
  Whenever I have gone into the district, as my colleague well knows, 
all of us probably have a higher percentage of small businesses in our 
respective communities than maybe our large corporations, so we 
appreciate them both, and I have always sought to encourage them to see 
the world in a larger viewpoint. I think these kinds of very valuable 
resources should help them.
  I am glad to know that a large percentage are participating, and I 
hope that as we work through that increase, 20 percent can go up higher 
as well, and I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments.
  One more thing I might say. We found that the technology in the 
office of the Export-Import Bank was very obsolete. They recognized 
that fact but they have not spent enough money to improve it. If we 
make that situation better, small business is going to have better 
access to the Bank. Currently small businesses do not have the capacity 
to work the Ex-Im Bank process as easily as some of the larger firms. 
So we think by mandating improvement in this area, setting aside a 
separate budget category for updating the technology in the office, the 
Ex-Im Bank will be more accessible to small business. That, too, I 
think is an advance.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would simply say, as my 
colleague well knows, the vice chair of the Export-Import Bank is 
Eduardo Aguirre who hails from Texas and knows that he has a balancing 
concern about small businesses. I applaud the technology issue, and I 
would encourage, I do not know how many times they have done this, I 
would encourage the Export-Import Bank to get out on the road as well, 
do a little bit more of that and do some educational outreach to our 
small business community around the Nation.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, that is good advice, and I thank the 
gentlewoman for her comments.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time. I 
urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 433, I call up

[[Page H3172]]

the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1372) to reauthorize the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
May 24, 2002 at page H3064.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, under clause 8 of rule XXII, I seek to 
control one-third of the time in opposition to the conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
LaFalce) favor the conference report?
  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, I favor the conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the time will be divided 
three ways. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).


                             General Leave

  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of the conference report 
to accompany S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 
2002. This is a sound piece of legislation that will help U.S. 
exporters reach markets overseas, will maintain U.S. manufacturing jobs 
and will help the economy grow.
  We have worked in a bipartisan manner throughout this process, and 
the House measure passed the Committee on Financial Services by voice 
vote and also passed on the floor of the House on May 1 by a voice 
vote, also. It is important to note that this support carried through 
to the conference report which was signed by every conferee, save one.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade 
of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter); the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Financial Services; the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), my esteemed colleague; and the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for their hard work on 
the conference committee. Without the dedication and hard work of these 
Members, this reauthorization would not have reached the floor today.
  Madam Speaker, our manufacturers face stiff competition from foreign 
companies seeking to expand the sale of their goods overseas. There is 
little argument that goods made in the U.S. are the highest quality and 
are in great demand. However, foreign companies receive significant 
assistance from their export credit agencies in finding markets and 
negotiating prices for their goods.
  Without the Ex-Im Bank, U.S. exporters would be forced to compete in 
this international marketplace with one hand tied behind their backs. 
Ex-Im levels the playing field of international trade by allowing U.S. 
companies to compete on the quality of their products.
  In a perfect world, we would not need export credit agencies, and the 
free market would operate without distortions. Because foreign 
manufacturers receive aid through export credit agencies, the United 
States must have a strong Ex-Im Bank in order to fight fire with fire.
  Currently, some 70 governments around the world have export credit 
agencies like Ex-Im providing more than $500 billion a year in 
government-backed financing. Madam Speaker, as long as foreign 
governments are financing export credit agencies, we must support Ex-Im 
to ensure that our manufacturers and workers remain competitive in the 
global marketplace.

  This conference report is about U.S. jobs. Without the Ex-Im Bank, 
many companies would lose bids to supply U.S. manufactured goods 
overseas or would simply move their production operation to other 
countries where they could receive export credit financing.
  In testimony before the Committee on Financial Services last year, 
the president of a division of Case New Holland, Richard Christman, 
stated that when the company was deciding whether to construct a 
combine assembly plant in the U.S. or in Brazil, one of the primary 
factors they took into consideration was whether export credit 
financing would be available to sell their goods overseas. Because 
there was the possibility of Ex-Im Bank financing for the goods 
produced in the plant in the United States, Case decided to build their 
plants in the U.S.
  This one decision created hundreds of jobs in our country and ensured 
that suppliers and other businesses affected by the operation of a 
major assembly plant would continue to benefit as a result of the Ex-Im 
Bank. These are real jobs and real exports that directly affect our 
economy.
  Critics of Ex-Im claim that it is corporate welfare for the largest 
companies in the United States. That charge is simply not accurate for 
several reasons. First, approximately 90 percent of Ex-Im's 
transactions are with small businesses. Those businesses rely on Ex-Im 
to help them access overseas markets that they would otherwise not be 
able to reach. This conference report seeks to continue to increase the 
exposure of small businesses to Ex-Im Bank products by doubling the 
minimum dollar value of small business financing that the bank must 
pursue.
  Second, while many of Ex-Im Bank's higher dollar transactions do go 
to larger companies, we should remember that those large companies 
utilize supplies from many small- and medium-sized businesses in order 
to create those products.
  Third, Ex-Im serves as the lender of last resort for U.S. exports 
when commercial financing is not available for export sales. Without 
the Ex-Im Bank supplying this kind of high risk financing, many sales 
would not be made, and many U.S. workers would be without jobs.
  Finally, let me make it clear that Ex-Im financing is not free. Ex-Im 
charges interest on its direct loans and premiums for its guarantees 
and insurance costs that the U.S. exporter usually passes through to 
its overseas customer. From the exporter's and customer's point of 
view, the bank does not subsidize the cost of financing an export 
transaction. Ex-Im is no less expensive to use than a commercial bank 
or other financial intermediary.
  The opponents of this conference report have been trying to paint 
this as a giveaway for U.S. corporations, and it is most certainly not. 
This conference report goes a long way to protect workers, to encourage 
more small business transactions, to aid the environment and to protect 
human rights. I encourage my colleagues who may instinctively be 
opposed to this measure to take a good hard look at this conference 
report, think about how it will benefit U.S. business and the economy, 
and then support it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to rise in support of the conference report authorizing 
the Export-Import Bank through 2006. I want to commend the full 
committee chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley), most especially the chairman of the relevant subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who has worked on these issues 
so arduously over the years, but also very especially my friend, the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), for his diligence in focusing 
attention on workers' issues and the role that the bank should play in 
job creation. Especially as a result of his efforts, this legislation 
clearly establishes that the bank's objective in all of its 
transactions shall be to contribute to maintaining or increasing the 
employment of workers in the United States.

[[Page H3173]]

  The conference report contains many strong provisions, and I would 
like to highlight just a few. The legislation doubles the share of 
small business transactions that must be undertaken by the bank. It 
also emphasizes outreach to women and minority-owned businesses as well 
as businesses employing 100 or fewer workers. The bank will be required 
to report on progress toward increasing transactions and expanding 
outreach in each of these areas on an annual basis.
  With the active participation of members of the steel caucus, we were 
able to strengthen language that prohibits Ex-Im transactions in areas 
where there has been a violation of our trade laws. The language also 
raises the bar for consideration of transactions when preliminary 
determinations of economic injury have been made. As a whole, this 
language will ensure that Ex-Im does not support projects, steel-
related or otherwise, that would contribute to the oversupply of a good 
in a way that would cause harm to our domestic economy.
  The legislation also establishes new requirements and guidelines on 
renewable energy, human rights and efforts to combat terrorism, fraud 
and corruption in foreign markets. I would like to recognize a handful 
of Democratic Members for the role they played in helping to craft many 
of these provisions: the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for their work on the fraud and 
corruption provisions; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for 
her efforts on outreach to women and minority-owned businesses; the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for his efforts on 
antiterrorism measures; and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) for her work on improving human rights assessments in Ex-Im 
transactions.
  In sum, though it is long overdue, this is a strong reauthorization 
bill that benefited from substantial input from Democratic Members, and 
I believe it will enable the Ex-Im Bank to fulfill its mission in the 
years ahead.
  Finally, let me respond directly to the charges of corporate welfare 
that are often leveled against the Ex-Im Bank. First, it is a simple 
fact that each export transaction supported by the bank either supports 
existing American jobs or creates new American jobs. Absent Ex-Im 
support, thousands of export transactions would go unfunded each year, 
transactions involving big companies and small businesses, as well as 
those involving large export markets, like Mexico, and small export 
markets like that of Namibia.
  As much as we hear about Ex-Im support for very large companies, the 
fact is that fully 90 percent of the bank's transactions last year 
directly supported small businesses and, as a result, helped to support 
thousands of small businesses and their workers in communities both 
urban and rural across the entire United States.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Our current trade policy is an absolute disaster. Export-Import Bank 
is an inherent part of that disastrous trade policy. The gentleman I am 
going to ask to speak in a moment comes from the State of Ohio, as does 
the chairman of the full committee, and they should know that between 
1994 and 2000, under our disastrous trade policy, in Ohio alone 135,000 
jobs were lost because of our disastrous trade policy.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), who has been a strong fighter for the working people of his 
State and his country.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  Madam Speaker, when the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act was 
considered on the House floor on May 1, I offered an amendment that 
requires this bank to have applicants for financing disclose whether 
they have been found to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices 
Act. Critically, the amendment also requires Ex-Im to maintain its own 
list of entities that have violated this act.
  Under my amendment, I stated on the floor of the House that Ex-Im 
would request that applicants report whether or not they have been 
found guilty by a U.S. court to have been in violation of the Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act. Ex-Im would also independently keep a list of 
companies that have violated the act.
  This independent list is crucial in order to deter applicants from 
withholding information about prior violations of the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act. Now, upon offering this amendment, the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade 
of the Committee on Financial Services expressed his support for the 
measure. From the Congressional Record of May 1, 2002, his words were, 
and I quote, ``The gentleman's amendment, I think, is highly 
appropriate. This kind of information should be made available and, in 
fact, generated, if necessary, within the Export-Import Bank.''
  Clearly, then, the distinguished chairman understood the intent of my 
amendment, information on Foreign Corrupt Practice Act violators would 
be gathered both by requiring applicants to disclose prior violations 
and by requiring the Export-Import Bank itself to independently and 
internally compile a list of violators.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the report has come out of the House-
Senate conference on this bill, and it thoroughly guts this critical 
provision. Rather than require the Ex-Im Bank to independently search 
court records and compile a list of FCPA violators, the report only 
requires the bank to maintain a record of all applicants that have 
volunteered information on their Foreign Corrupt Practices Act history. 
Moreover, an applicant for Ex-Im financing only need disclose the 
violations that have occurred in the prior 12 months.
  Consider what this means. The only way the Export- Import Bank can 
find out whether an applicant has violated the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act is if the company volunteers this information. And if the 
violation occurred more than a year before a company seeks Ex-Im 
funding, the company does not even have to mention it. So if a company 
lies about prior violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, if 
they lie about it, the Export-Import Bank would never know it.
  Madam Speaker, the Enron debacle should make it clear to all of us 
that certain corporations will do absolutely anything to increase their 
profits. So what is the net result of the amendment that I offered and 
that the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on International 
Monetary Policy and Trade supported on May 1? Nothing.
  I urge my colleagues to take a stand against allowing the Enrons of 
the world to continue to bilk the American taxpayer for enormous sums 
of money; and perhaps more importantly, I urge my colleagues to take a 
stand in favor of the rules of this hallowed House. I offered an 
amendment, the intent of which was made perfectly clear in my floor 
statement, was clearly understood and supported by the chairman of the 
relevant committee, and approved by the Members of this body. And the 
result, after conference, is the wholesale gutting of the provision's 
intent.
  Conferees do not have the authority to read duly passed legislative 
provisions any which way they please, in gross contradiction of the 
duly established legislative history of the measure.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the conference report.
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, who has been a 
force throughout this whole process.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time.
  This is important legislation. Furthermore, the conference report 
makes very important, very substantial, highly desirable changes and 
reforms to the transaction ability of the Export-Import Bank. I am 
pleased to see that so many Members have made contributions.
  The gentleman from New York has mentioned a number, appropriately, on 
his side of the aisle that have specific provisions which resulted in 
this legislation being advanced and improved;

[[Page H3174]]

and I would like to also mention, of course, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), who will be speaking shortly about his 
provisions that are extremely important and make sure that we are not 
helping by providing assistance to American exporters to increase steel 
production abroad, for example. He will enlarge on that issue. I also 
want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for his effort 
on behalf of small business.
  If we have problems for our workers because of what some people deem 
to be inadequacies in our trade law, or because of the competition we 
face from foreign export credit agencies, well, we should not cut off 
the hand of one of our workers in the process and expect we are going 
to do better. If we would defeat this legislation to disarm the Export-
Import Bank, that is exactly what we would do.
  This legislation, indeed, as the chairman said, is about jobs. It has 
created an extraordinary number of jobs; and it turns a profit for the 
American Treasury on top of it, last year over $1 billion of net income 
to the United States. Why? Because not only did we expand our exports, 
and that results in revenue, but this bank charges risk-based 
transaction fees and costs. Overall, of course, we want the private 
sector to provide the credit, and they have. Only 2 percent of our 
exports are financed with the loans or loan guarantees of this entity.
  We have made important reforms and clarifications in the relationship 
between the Treasury and the Export-Import Bank that will assure that 
in those small number of cases, but very important cases, where we face 
unfair competition, subsidies from export credit agencies of other 
major exporting companies, that we have a chance to assist our 
exporters. That is about 2 percent of the total provisions. Actually, 
we have only used it two or three times a year and probably 
underutilized the so-called ``war chest.''
  I would like to address specifically the comments of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). I remember well that colloquy, and in fact 
section 19 addresses important information to be considered by the 
Export-Import Bank in considering their transactions. While it is true 
that we rely to some extent upon the information provided to the 
Export-Import Bank for their determinations, section 21 also enlarges 
the Chafee amendment to ensure that we have enforcement of the Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Export Administration Act. All 
of these are new reforms, additions to the Chafee language.
  And I will say there are a very small number of violations of the 
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that are pursued in our country, and we 
know which ones they are. So it is not just that we are relying on the 
information provided by the applicant for a transaction. That 
information is readily available. There are not that many, fortunately, 
violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I wish we could say 
the same for other countries whose export credit agencies we face in 
competition.
  I would say that the resources we make available focus to a major 
extent on small businesses, and we are trying to improve that, are 
really very inadequate compared to our gross national product. In fact, 
in absolute terms, six countries, major export countries, including our 
neighbor Canada, provide much more in the way of resources for 
assistance to their exporters than we do. But this is a step forward, a 
big step forward.
  The advisory committee on sub-Saharan Africa is reauthorized. We 
provided additional assistance to try to make sure American exporters 
do focus on exports to Africa. We have made a number of other 
initiatives that make sure that minority-owned businesses are given 
special consideration. And those things are due to a bipartisan effort 
on the part of the subcommittee and committee members.
  So Members of the House, this is good legislation. We have worked out 
our difficulties in a conference with the Senate. It creates an IG at 
the insistence of the Senate. We welcome that kind of addition. We want 
to make sure that the resources of the Federal Government, even though 
they are repaid and redoubled, are spent well and in a manner that 
Members can feel good about. And that is what this legislation does.
  Madam Speaker, this Member rises today in support of the conference 
report for S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization (Ex-Im Bank) 
Act of 2001, which is being considered under a Rule. This important 
legislation extends the authorization of the Ex-Im Bank until September 
30, 2006, and makes other appropriate changes to the charter of the Ex-
Im Bank. The authorization of the Ex-Im Bank is set to expire on June 
14, 2002. This Member, as the Chairman of the House Financial Services 
Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, has a special 
interest in the Ex-Im Bank, which has jurisdiction over this subject.
  This Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, (Mr. 
Oxley) for his leadership on Ex-Im Bank issues. This Member would also 
like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from New York, the 
Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, (Mr. LaFalce) 
and the distinguished gentleman from New York, the Ranking Member of 
the House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary 
Policy and Trade, (Mr. Sanders) for their efforts in bringing this 
conference report to the House Floor.
  This Member would also like to thank all the other conferees of this 
legislation, including the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, the 
Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, (Mr. Sarbanes) and the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas, the Ranking Member of the Senate 
Banking Committee (Mr. Gramm).
  As this Member mentioned earlier during the discussion of the rule 
for this conference report, the Ex-Im Bank is an independent U.S. 
Government agency that creates and sustains American jobs by providing 
direct loans to buyers of U.S. exports, guarantees to commercial loans 
to buyers of U.S. products, and insurance products which greatly 
benefit short-term small business sales. It is also important to note 
that the Ex-Im Bank charges risk-based interest and fees on the users 
of its products. As a result, last year, the Ex-Im Bank generated $1 
billion of net income to the Treasury of the U.S. Government.
  On September 10, 2001, this Member introduced the Export-Import Bank 
Reauthorization Act of 2001 (H.R. 2871). On October 31, 2002, the House 
Financial Services Committee passed this legislation by a voice vote. 
Thereafter, on May 1, 2002, this legislation was passed by the House 
Floor by voice vote. Furthermore, a conference committee was then 
convened with the Senate on their version of the Ex-Im Bank 
legislation. On May 21, 2002, the conferees met and resolved the 
remaining outstanding issues in the conference report. On May 24, 2002, 
the conference report for the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 
2001 was filed with the signatures of 15 of the 16 conferees.
  This Member would like to briefly summarize the following seven 
provisions of this conference report:
  1. Reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank;
  2. Reauthorization of Sub-Saharan Africa-Advisory Committee and added 
emphasis on Africa;
  3. Small business;
  4. Increase in statutory Ex-Im Bank statutory ceiling for loans, 
grants, and insurance;
  5. The Ex-Im Bank/Treasury relationship over the Tied Aid War Chest 
becoming explicit;
  6. The $18 million guarantee approved by the Ex-Im Bank to support 
the sale of computer software by American exporters to Benxi Iron and 
Steel Co. in China; and
  7. The inspector general.
  First, the conference report of S. 1372 reauthorizes the Ex-Im Bank 
until September 30, 2006. As a result of this provision, the program 
budget, which supports the loans, guarantees, and insurance products of 
the Ex-Im Bank, and the administrative budget, which pays for all 
salary and overhead expenses, are both effectively authorized for such 
sums as are appropriated through FY2006.
  Moreover, during the Subcommittee's first hearing on this subject, 
the Ex-Im Bank personnel testified that they were in desperate need of 
a technology upgrade which would particularly benefit small business 
users of the Ex-Im Bank. As a result, this conference report creates a 
technology budget subcategory within the Administrative budget.
  Second, this conference report focuses on the efforts of the Ex-Im 
Bank in Sub-Saharan Africa. For example, the 1997 Ex-Im Authorization 
Act required the expansion of its financial commitments in Sub-Saharan 
Africa and reauthorized an advisory committee on this subject to make 
recommendations to the Board of Directors on how the Ex-Im Bank can 
encourage and facilitate greater support for American trade with 
Africa. This conference report would reauthorize the Sub-Saharan Africa 
Advisory Committee until September 30, 2006.

[[Page H3175]]

  Third, this conference report makes very important changes which will 
encourage additional small business transactions with the Ex-Im Bank. 
It would require that the Ex-Im Bank earmark at least 20 percent of its 
total financing for small businesses. Under current law, the Ex-Im Bank 
is required to use only 10 percent of its total financing for small 
businesses. As of FY2000, the Ex-Im Bank provided about 18 percent of 
its total financing for small business. In addition, this conference 
report requires the Ex-Im Bank to focus on technology improvements, 
including allowing customers to use the Internet to apply for the Ex-Im 
Bank's small business programs. These efforts will greatly improve 
small business outreach.
  Fourth, the Ex-Im Bank has a current $75 billion statutory ceiling on 
its portfolio of loans, guarantees, and insurance that are outstanding 
at any one time. Under this conference report, this statutory ceiling 
would be increased to $100 billion by FY2006. Increasing the Ex-Im 
statutory portfolio ceiling is one of the remedies needed to authorize 
the financial resources for the Ex-Im Bank to enable it to protect 
American exporters against unfair competition from the much more 
generous resources of our major export competitors. For example, 
according to the latest available data, the U.S. Export-Import Bank has 
a substantially lower level of export credit resources than the 
following seven countries: Japan, France, Korea, Canada, Germany, and 
the Netherlands.
  Fifth, you will be interested to know that this legislation also 
would make very important clarifications in the administration of the 
Tied Aid War Chest which finances tied aid transactions. The Tied Aid 
War Chest was intended to be used by the Ex-Im Bank to protect American 
exporters by matching the concessionary financing of foreign export 
credit agencies. Unfortunately, the Tied Aid War Chest has been grossly 
under-utilized, which is due in part to the disagreements between the 
Ex-Im Bank and the Department of Treasury on how to use the Fund. In 
recent applications for the Tied Aid War Chest, there has been an 
obvious communication and organizational breakdown between the Ex-Im 
Bank and the Treasury Department. Moreover, the Ex-Im Bank and the 
Department of Treasury have had different legal interpretations as to 
their current statutory role over the use of the Tied Aid War Chest. 
The Conference Report resolves that issue.
  Therefore, this legislation would address these past problems by 
creating a new definitive step-by-step process to be followed by the 
Ex-Im Bank and the Treasury Department regarding how the Tied Aid War 
Chest is to be administered. This conference report requires the 
Department of Treasury and the Ex-Im Bank to set the principles, 
process and standards on how the Tied Aid War Chest is used. It 
requires Ex-Im Bank, not the Treasury Department, to make case-by-
decisions on the use of the Tied Aid War Chest. This conference report 
strikes the current language in the Ex-Im charter which states that the 
use of the Tied Aid War Chest ``must be in accordance with the 
Secretary of the Treasury's recommendations . . .''
  It is important to note that an addition was made to the Tied Aid War 
Chest section. The conference report explicitly states that the Ex-Im 
Bank will not approve a use of the Tied Aid War Chest if the President 
determines, after consulting with the Ex-Im Bank and the Secretary of 
the Treasury, that the extension of tied aid would materially impede 
the enforcement of existing Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD) arrangements or future negotiations within the OECD. 
Giving the President an opportunity to stop any transaction is entirely 
appropriate and only makes explicit powers the President already has. 
This Member was pleased to endorse this change as were the House and 
Senate conferees who accepted it. The legislative language in the 
conference report is clear that such presidential power is not 
transferable to the Treasury Department or any other agency.
  The industry groups continue to be in strong support of this tied aid 
clarification. U.S. exporters have a vested interest in the tied war 
chest becoming a viable tool in fighting and deterring concessionary 
financing by foreign export credit agencies.
  Sixth, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) 
successfully offered an amendment at the House full Committee markup of 
the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001, which passed by 
voice vote, that addressed the $18 million guarantee approved by the 
Ex-Im Bank on December 19, 2000, to support the sale of computer 
software by American exporters to Benxi Iron & Steel Co. in Benxi, 
Liaoning, China. The Toomey amendment conforms Ex-Im lending to current 
U.S. trade laws by barring any Ex-Im loan or guarantee to an entity for 
the production of substantially the same product that is the subject of 
a countervailing duty or anti-dumping order or a Section 201 
determination by the International Trade Commission. In addition, this 
conference report also requires the Ex-Im Bank to develop procedures 
and set up a comment period for loans or loan guarantees to a business 
which is subject to a preliminary countervailing trade duty or anti-
dumping determination of material injury.
  The conference report includes the exact language of the Toomey 
amendment with one addition which was offered by the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania and accepted by the conferees. This 
addition requires the Ex-Im Bank to consider, for transactions over $10 
million, Section 201 investigations that have been initiated at the 
request of the President, the USTR, the Senate Committee on Finance, 
the House Committee on Ways and Means, or by the International Trade 
Commission. Also, the conference agreement requires the Ex-Im Bank to 
conduct a comment period for these types of transactions.
  Lastly, it is important to note that the House conferees did accept 
the provision from the Senate Ex-Im bill which creates a Presidentially 
appointed inspector general for the Ex-Im Bank. According to a General 
Accounting Office (GAO) report on this subject dated September 6, 2001, 
the Ex-Im Bank has the largest budget authority of any Federal entity 
currently that does not have an inspector general.
  Madam Speaker, in conclusion, over the last sixty years, the Ex-Im 
Bank has supported more than $300 billion in U.S. exports. Because the 
Ex-Im Bank creates and sustains American jobs, it needs to be 
reauthorized. Moreover, this Member fully expects the President to sign 
this conference report into law when it is presented to him.
  For the reasons stated and many others, this Member urges his 
colleagues to pass the conference report to the Export-Import Bank 
Reauthorization Act of 2001.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York City (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank our ranking member, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), for yielding me this time 
and for his leadership on this important bill.
  I am pleased to rise today in support of the conference report for 
the Export-Import Bank through 2005. Today's vote has been a very long 
time in coming. Over the past year, Congress has passed a 6-month 
extension and a series of 30-day extensions to keep the bank in 
business as work on the conference report moved forward.

                              {time}  1200

  Madam Speaker, this final conference report represents the sum of all 
that work, and I believe it sets the bank on a strong course for the 
next couple of years. As some of my colleagues have stated, the Ex-Im 
Bank is a successful government entity that facilitates and supports 
American businesses and worker interests by making exports possible to 
areas of the world that would otherwise be closed to U.S. companies.
  The conference report builds on the past successes of the bank which 
supported $12.5 billion of U.S. exports in 2001, and has supported a 
total of over $400 billion of U.S. exports in its 68-year history. It 
is very important to the district that I represent. Since 1995, the 
Export-Import Bank has supported over $1 billion in exports out of my 
district alone.
  While outreach to small businesses has been an increasing emphasis 
for the bank in recent years, the conference report strengthens this 
program. It directs the bank to improve its customer service and 
technology interface with small businesses, and doubles the value of 
bank support that must go to small businesses from 10 to 20 percent of 
the bank's total. Having recently met with a group of small business 
leaders and exporters in my district, I can tell Members this is a 
positive step and I would certainly support, as some of my colleagues 
have mentioned, a greater proportion going to small businesses.
  Members concerned about small businesses should also be aware that 
this language in the conference report coincides with the signing of a 
memorandum of cooperation between the bank and the Small Business 
Association last month. Under this agreement, a new joint marketing 
campaign will be launched to attract small businesses to the bank. The 
report also builds on the bank's existing mandate to support

[[Page H3176]]

exports to Africa, and it imposes new safeguards on transactions that 
may fall under an existing countervailing duty, antidumping or section 
201 ruling.
  Finally, the conference report retains an amendment I offered in 
committee giving the bank explicit authority to turn down an 
application for Ex-Im Bank support for companies that have a history of 
engaging in fraudulent business practices. One of the main reasons that 
I believe the bank is important to the U.S. is that it allows us to 
compete with foreign export credit agencies such as those in Japan, 
Germany, France, Canada, and other countries. There are over 70 
different ECAs that we must compete with. I believe in this global 
economy, the U.S. must not fall behind our international competitors. I 
praise the bipartisan leadership in getting to the point we are today, 
and I support the conference report and urge a yes vote.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, opposition to the Export-Import Bank is not a 
progressive idea, it is not a conservative idea, it is an idea that 
should be supported with today's vote by any Member of Congress who 
wants to protect our taxpayers and protect American workers.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul), who occasionally has different philosophical points of view from 
me, but I am pleased to have him speak in opposition to the Export-
Import Bank.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill 
is nothing more than subsidies for big corporations. If one were to 
look at the Constitution and look for authority for legislation of this 
sort in article I, section 8, it would not be found. That in itself 
should be reason to stop and think about this, but we do not look at 
that particular article too often any more.
  Also for moral reasons, I object to this. Even if we accepted the 
idea that we should interfere and be involved in this type of activity, 
it is unfair because the little guy gets squeezed and the big guy gets 
all of the money. It is not morally fair because it cannot be.
  One thing that annoys me the most is when Members come to the floor 
and in the name of free trade say we have to support the Export-Import 
Bank. This is the opposite of free trade. Free trade is good. Low 
tariffs are good, which lead to lower prices; but subsidies to our 
competitors is not free trade. We should call it for what it is. We 
have Members who claim they are free traders, and yet support managed 
trade through NAFTA and WTO and all these special interest management 
schemes, as well as competitive devaluation of currencies with the 
notion that we might increase exports. This has nothing to do with free 
trade.
  I am a strong advocate for free trade, and for that reason I think 
this bill should not be passed. There are good economic reasons not to 
support this. Because some who favor this bill argue that some of these 
companies are doing risky things and they do not qualify in the 
ordinary banking system for these loans and, therefore, they need a 
little bit of help. That is precisely when we should not be helping. If 
there is a risk, it is telling us there is something wrong and we 
should not do it. It is transferring the liability from the company to 
the taxpayer. So the risk argument does not hold water at all.
  The other reason why economically it is unsound, is that this is a 
form of credit allocation. If a bank has money and they can get a 
guarantee from the Export-Import Bank, they will always choose the 
guarantee over the nonguarantee, so who gets squeezed. The funds are 
taken out of the investment pool. The little people get squeezed. They 
do not get the loan, but they are totally unknown. Nobody sees those 
who did not get a loan. All we see is the loan that benefits somebody 
on the short run. But really on the long run, it benefits the big 
corporations. Many times it doesn't even do that.
  Take a look at Enron. We have mentioned Enron quite a few times 
already. If we add up all of the subsidies to Enron, it adds up to $1.9 
billion. That is if we add up the subsidies from OPIC as well. And look 
at what Enron did. They ran a ``few'' risks, and then they lost it. Who 
was left holding the bag? The taxpayers.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge a no vote on this bill. If Members are 
for free trade, they will vote against this bill, and will vote for 
true free trade.
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the conference committee.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for crafting a good bill, which I believe is 
going to make the Ex-Im Bank more accountable to the taxpayers. 
Specifically I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for 
working closely with me to ensure that the Ex-Im Bank is not in a 
position to reward foreign countries or industries that are in 
violation of U.S. trade law, and thank the gentleman for including me 
as a conferee on this report.
  This is an important bill which reauthorizes the bank through 2006. 
There are several significant changes, one I would like to focus on in 
particular. To illustrate this provision that I wanted to focus on, I 
want to review very briefly the crisis that is facing the American 
steel industry. I think we are aware that the American steel industry 
has been devastated by a flood of imports. Foreign governments 
subsidize steel production, which creates a glut of steel, and prices 
in turn are depressed. The result has been devastating.
  Over 33 American steel companies have been forced into bankruptcy. 
Bethlehem Steel, headquartered in my district, filed Chapter 11 last 
year. This is having a devastating impact on steel workers, their 
families, their communities and retirees who depend on these steel 
companies for their health care benefits.
  In the face of this huge, global overcapacity, shockingly to me in 
late 2000, the Ex-Im Bank unfortunately provided financing for a 
project which would actually increase global capacity, specifically 
financing an $18 million project to increase by 1.5 metric tons the 
steel-making capacity at a Chinese steel company. This action was taken 
despite the recommendations to the contrary by the Treasury, the 
Secretary of Commerce, the Congressional Steel Caucus and others.
  The good news is in this conference report we have a provision for 
the first time which would prevent a similar situation from ever 
recurring. There is a provision which prohibits the Ex-Im Bank from 
extending any loan or guarantee to any foreign company found in 
violation of U.S. trade law. Specifically, it would prohibit the Ex-Im 
Bank from providing a transaction to an entity for the resulting 
production of a product which is already subject to a countervailing 
duty or antidumping order, and prevent any loan or guarantee for an 
entity which is subject to an affirmative injury determination by the 
ITC under section 201. The bottom line is that we would not grant loans 
to companies that are already proven to be violating U.S. trade laws, 
and taxpayer funds could not be used to assist foreign corporations in 
aggravating an existing American economic problem.
  While this provision was inspired by this Chinese steel company 
transaction, it is not specific to any industry or product; rather it 
would apply to any product or commodity for which there are violations 
of U.S. trade laws.
  Again, I commend the leadership of this committee on both sides of 
the aisle for the hard work they have done in crafting a good bill. I 
would also like to thank the American Iron and Steel Institute, the 
American Steelworkers of America and the Congressional Steel Caucus for 
their support, and urge my colleagues to vote yes on this conference 
report.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report, and I commend the chairman and ranking member of the 
full committee as well as the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee for putting together what I think is a very well-balanced 
bill.

[[Page H3177]]

  The bill has been through a number of iterations from the 
subcommittee to the full committee, and then through the conference. A 
number of the proposals, such as what the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
just discussed with respect to funding of industries where we have 
either dumping or countervailing duty issues at play have been 
addressed in the underlying bill. I think it shows that the Congress is 
willing to respond to criticisms which have been raised with respect to 
our various aid programs, including export finance programs.
  A lot of critics will get up and argue that this bill is either 
unnecessary for libertarian reasons and that we ought to allow for free 
market to rule in worldwide trade; and others will argue that this does 
nothing other than really export U.S. jobs.
  I would argue that both of those arguments are flawed. With respect 
to the free market aspect, over the years we have found that the United 
States, when compared to other export-oriented nations, funds export 
finance at a much smaller margin than most of our competitors do. So 
all we are doing in this instance through the Export-Import Bank is 
providing a modest amount of support when compared to other competing 
nations. I think it is something that we should not cede the field.
  With respect to my colleague from Vermont and others, and I think the 
gentleman from Vermont is very well meaning in his approach, but I 
think his approach is unworkable. I think it takes the viewpoint that 
this is a zero sum game. Either we have jobs domestically or jobs 
abroad; whereas I think in the economy and what we are trying to 
accomplish through export finance is to expand the base of jobs that we 
have in the United States and abroad. I hope my colleagues support this 
bill. I think it is well drafted, and I rise in strong support of it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, if we are going to extend a Federal tax 
benefit, if we are going to take the money of the American working 
people and give it to corporations, should we ask something in return? 
Just a little something? The answer in this legislation is, no. We 
should not. Here is the subsidy, do whatever is desired.
  Let us take a no-brainer here which was knocked out. Should companies 
that set these new triangular tax scams to avoid both taxes on their 
overseas production and on their U.S.-based production by doing the 
Bermuda Triangle, should they be prohibited from receiving this 
subsidy? That is, they are not paying any taxes any more in the United 
States of America. They have set up a scam which the wonderful 
accounting companies have figured out. Should they receive these 
subsidies? The answer in this report is, yes. There was language in 
there to prohibit this that was taken out. These companies are not 
paying any U.S. taxes, but we will give them a subsidy.
  We hear a lot about small businesses. Yes, a large number of the 
transactions do involve small businesses. That is true. But the real 
measure is what percentage of the U.S. taxpayers' dollars in subsidies 
are going to the small businesses. It is less than 10 percent.
  So what we are saying here is a large number of transactions and a 
tiny amount of the money are going to help small businesses, and the 
largest amount of the money, more than 80 percent, is going to the 
largest corporations in the world. All Fortune 500. Could we have just 
a little bit more of a restriction there and a real direction towards 
small business? This conference report says no.

                              {time}  1215

  Then we just heard, we have prohibited in this bill a repeat of the 
Benxi Steel Company. Well, guess what? No, this bill does not prohibit 
that. The original version might have prohibited it, but the language 
that has now been adopted in the conference report is so watered down 
that, indeed, I would challenge either the ranking member or the Chair 
to stand up and say definitively that the language in this bill would 
prohibit a repeat of that travesty, U.S. taxpayer money going to fund a 
corporation in China to steal jobs from United States workers. It will 
not.
  Then finally, we can go to the issue of future here. AT&T, they are 
going to get an $87.6 million loan under the condition of the Chinese 
Government that they can begin to sell telecommunications products in 
China. Good news for U.S. workers? Well, it might have been, except 
that the Chinese Government also said that within 5 years, all of the 
production for all the equipment sold in China must be based in China. 
We are going to subsidize that. United States workers, taxpayers, are 
going to subsidize this.
  A colleague stood up before me and said this should not be about the 
measure of where the jobs are, U.S. or overseas, that it does not 
matter. It matters a hell of a lot to me and the people I represent and 
to the U.S. taxpayers. Yes, the jobs should be based here in the United 
States of America.
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), also a member of the conference 
committee.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to 
commend Chairmen Oxley and Bereuter for their leadership in crafting a 
very reasonable bill, and I rise in support of H.R. 2871.
  California is the fifth largest economy in the world, but it benefits 
from the strategic role of the Export-Import Bank.
  During fiscal years 1996 to 2000, 722 companies from California 
benefited from the assistance; 225 communities benefited; total value 
of exports were $8.3 billion; and 120,403 jobs were sustained. Most 
importantly, regardless of the rhetoric we have heard on the floor 
today, 72 percent of the transactions assisted small businesses; and 
that is most important, for small businesses are the engine that keeps 
this economy moving.
  Far too often when we talk about numbers and figures, we do not apply 
it to a name and a face. Services provided by the Export-Import Bank to 
small businesses are overlooked, really; and that is a big issue today. 
But there are a lot of success stories, including ZMG Enterprises in 
Walnut, California, owned by Mr. Joe Gomez. ZMG Enterprises is a long-
standing user of the bank's short-term, multibuyer insurance policy to 
cover the sale of nearly $11 million in annual sales of canned 
vegetables, fruits and table sauces, primarily to Mexico. For a small 
company, a family-owned business, $11 million is a lot of revenue to 
generate for a company. Mexico has traditionally been a COD country. 
This insurance policy backed by the bank enables Mr. Gomez to offer 
short-term credit to Mexican supermarkets so that the grocers can 
purchase more of his product in a single sale and there are reasonable 
guarantees. There is no money being lost. It is benefiting 
entrepreneurs in this country, specifically in California, the State 
and the district I represent. This is a good bill. I would encourage 
any individuals who have questions to take time to read the bill before 
they listen to some of the rhetoric on this floor.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I would like to preface and 
qualify my remarks by saying that I am not at all opposed to the 
comments that emanated from the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) because losing jobs 
overseas is indeed an acute problem, especially in my district where 
Indiana alone has lost over 90,000 jobs to foreign corporations.
  I am going to speak in favor of this legislation in terms of 
reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. If it passes today, of course it 
reauthorizes the sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee until September 
30, 2006. It requires the bank to continue to report to Congress 
annually for each of the 4 years on steps taken in sub-Saharan Africa 
to increase U.S. exports and to consult with the Commerce Department 
and the Trade Promotion Coordinating Council on the bank's Africa 
activities.
  In the year 2000, trade with sub-Saharan Africa was 2 percent of 
total U.S. exports and 1 percent of total U.S. imports. Three-fourths 
of total U.S. trade with sub-Saharan Africa is with just three 
countries: Nigeria, South Africa, and Angola.
  When the 106th Congress passed major legislation to improve economic

[[Page H3178]]

relations between the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa, known as the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act, I supported that enthusiastically and 
thought that this country was taking a major step forward in terms of 
the enhancement of our partnership with Africa and African business.
  So I think that this bill for Indianapolis where we just celebrated a 
major exporter of businesses, the George F. Cram Global Company in 
Indianapolis just received a major award for outpacing others in terms 
of exporting this globe.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, under our disastrous trade policy from 
1994 to 2000, we lost over 3 million jobs due to our trade policies. 
The State and the country which has suffered the most is California, 
which lost over 300,000 jobs due to our trade policy.
  I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
5-year reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. First and foremost, 
let us recognize that this Congress has been very forceful in welfare 
reform aimed at getting poor Americans off of government subsidies and 
off of government handouts and into their self-sufficiency. Why is it 
that we cannot do for big American corporations what we have been doing 
to America's poorer people, insisting that they be self-sufficient? No, 
let us get America's biggest corporations off the dole. If we are going 
to focus on poorer Americans, let us make sure we also get these big 
American corporations off the dole.
  According to the supporters of this bill, the Export-Import Bank 
sustains free trade. That, of course, pulls that definition way beyond 
any of the boundaries of logic. The reality is that the bank allows for 
privileged trade. Certain corporations are given the privilege of 
taxpayer-guaranteed investments so that they will have the privilege of 
moving their production out of the United States, making deals with 
another company in another country in order to set up a manufacturing 
unit in the other country, financed by the U.S. taxpayers no doubt.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), who suggested in his 
remarks that he will now vote for the Export-Import Bank, during the 
last debate on this issue, went into excruciating detail how thousands, 
72,000 steelworkers' jobs had been lost and in the middle of this 
overproduction of steel there was, yes, an Export-Import Bank guarantee 
for a Chinese company to add even more, 1.5 million metric tons more of 
steel production in China, and how he is going to vote for the Export-
Import Bank because there has been a guarantee in this bill that no 
more money will go to foreign companies that violate U.S. trade laws.
  The question we must ask ourselves is, Why is any U.S. money, our 
taxpayer money, going to set up corporations in foreign countries in 
the first place? What is going on here? Oh, yeah, it is not going to go 
to companies now that violate U.S. trade laws that are setting up 
manufacturing units overseas. Why are we spending American tax dollars 
to build up manufacturing units in other countries when our own people 
need the jobs? What is going on here? As I say, we are too interested 
instead of getting poorer people off of welfare than we are to look at 
something like that.
  Yes, and the fact is that if we have all those jobs going overseas 
that we are subsidizing, there will be more people on welfare. Who are 
the companies that will actually benefit from this? The companies that 
are being helped, yes, Boeing Corporation is being helped and a few 
other major companies that we have heard about, AT&T. But the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) pointed out that quite often what happens in 
these companies, it is not just that they are selling their product and 
then we have jobs here; but instead China and these other countries are 
insisting that they set up manufacturing units in those countries in 
order to get the deal. Yes, we have just about created an aerospace 
industry in China that will now be competing with our aerospace workers 
in my district. AT&T has created an electronics industry in order to 
make that sale. And part of the sale, of course, is a guarantee by the 
taxpayers that that manufacturing unit is going to be financed so that 
we can set up that job-producing company in China.
  This makes no sense whatsoever. It makes no sense for us to subsidize 
these large companies in order to set up manufacturing units. That is 
what is going on with the Export-Import Bank. Do not let anybody kid 
you. I would vote against reauthorization and ask my colleagues to join 
me.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. This 
report must be passed for one simple reason and that is the support for 
U.S. jobs. It is really easy to characterize this as a handout for big 
businesses. Well, those businesses mean jobs. They are the people who 
hire. In our global economy, U.S. companies must constantly be seeking 
new markets for our products. Our government needs to support these 
efforts because it supports U.S. jobs. Unfortunately, we do not live in 
a world in which our trading partners play fair. Our businesses must 
compete with businesses which are directly subsidized by the nations in 
which they operate. To add some level of fairness to this competitive 
disadvantage, the U.S. created the Export-Import Bank. In my area of 
New York, this has translated into over $70 million which has benefited 
both large and small businesses involving thousands of jobs in my 
district alone and tens of thousands of jobs in New York State.
  The international market presents many problems for United States 
businesses seeking new opportunities. We must work to alleviate these 
problems for U.S. employers so the incentive to move jobs overseas will 
not be there. In this present economy, every one of us has to make a 
commitment to ensure more products bearing the ``Made in the USA'' 
label get to the markets abroad by supporting this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
conference report.
  In this committee's review of the Ex-Im's performance we determined 
that a greater effort must be made to increase the amount of funds 
which go to small businesses. This Conference Report requires a ten 
percent increase in the volume of funds going to small businesses.
  Ex-Im provides an invaluable service for U.S. workers. Many U.S. 
products and services would never have been able to find new buyers in 
the global market place without the assistance of Ex-Im.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join with the gentleman from Vermont in 
opposing the disastrous trade policies that the United States has 
employed over the last decade. They have led to the largest trade 
deficit in the history of mammalian life.
  The trade deficit affects people; $300 billion and more of trade 
deficit with a rough approximation of 40,000 jobs lost for every $1 
billion of deficit.
  We do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world in which Europe 
and Japan subsidize their exporters, and the only thing worse than us 
subsidizing ours through the Export-Import Bank, would be our failure 
to do so to partially balance what Japan and Europe do for theirs.
  I also want to commend the conference committee for leaving a 
provision that was added by amendment in the House bill to require that 
when the Export-Import Bank makes its decisions, it include as an 
important criteria: whether the country involved is one that is 
cooperating with us in the war on terror. I think increasingly in all 
of our trade and foreign aid, we ought to ask that question.
  I might add that the Export-Import Bank has to be contrasted with the 
World Bank, which is planning right now to loan $755 million to Iran. 
Iran was branded just two week ago by the State Department as the 
number one sponsor of terrorism among all the governments in the world.

                              {time}  1230

  So let us support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, and 
let us be wary when the World Bank appropriation comes to this floor.

[[Page H3179]]

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), one of the outstanding fighters in 
this Congress for American workers.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I have watched this Import-Export Bank for 
years, and the idea when it was set up in 1934 was to promote U.S. 
exports. I have even been questioning the name Export-Import Bank 
because it seems to me it has been much more successful at increasing 
imports into this country, displacing our manufacturing base year after 
year after year, than promoting exports. Look back to the loan that was 
made in the 1970s in Brazil to mine ore and help to create a Latin 
American steel industry that has contributed to the global steel 
overcapacity that her now swamped this Nation's industry. Not only is 
something fundamentally wrong with the way this organization functions 
but with our trade policy in general. America's trade deficits have 
never been larger. Why should we approve a bill for an organization for 
5 more years that has helped to spawn our competitors? They are not 
creating export markets for us. They are creating export platforms 
where steel and electronics and apparel and aerospace products are U-
turned back into this country displacing U.S. jobs. We should reject 
the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on its final reauthorization today.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney), a valuable member of our committee.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the Export-
Import Bank conference report. We are considering legislation necessary 
to help level the playing field for American exporters by guaranteeing 
that the Export-Import Bank will be there to help our Nation's 
companies compete against exporters subsidized by foreign governments. 
As our Nation has become a leader in advanced technologies, exports 
have become an increasingly important part, of course, to our economy. 
The Ex-Im Bank is critical in making sure that our companies are able 
to compete effectively in global markets. This institution levels what 
would otherwise be a tilted playing field and make sure that the debate 
is over the quality of the products of services, not who has the most 
subsidized prices.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that in the past I have always been 
critical of the Ex-Im Bank. Past actions have cast doubt over whether 
it was truly taking into consideration the needs of America's workers 
and our national security. For example, just a couple of years ago, Ex-
Im made a loan for Benxi Steel in China to expand its steel-producing 
capacity when at the same time China was being investigated for dumping 
steel.
  But the bottom line is that I am pleased to have had the opportunity 
to work with Chairman Oxley, who has done a wonderful job, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). There are guarantees in here 
that make sure that our businesses are not hurt, and I would urge 
support of the conference report.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to rise today in support of the conference committee 
report. I think we have heard already on the floor of this Chamber that 
the Ex-Im Bank is good for American business and it is not free money. 
It charges interest and it is overwhelmingly a net benefit to the 
United States Treasury. I have had the pleasure previously to talk 
about how it is good for my State, which is definitely an export-
dependent State, in Oregon.
  We have seen in the last 5 years Ex-Im finance a quarter billion 
dollars in Oregon exports, supporting 59 businesses, 44 of which are 
small businesses: in my community, Danner Boot, a small high-quality 
boot product; Calbag Metals Company, an outstanding family-owned 
environmentally sensitive metals and recycling company. I talked 
previously about the freightliner company that pays union family wages 
to machinists and painters that help create high-quality trucks. 
Without Ex-Im they would not have had an opportunity to sell these 
high-end units in Latin America.
  But my special interest as a Member of Congress deals with protection 
of the environment, and I have been pleased to watch the work that has 
been done here demonstrating the evolution of the Ex-Im Bank in 
environmental exports programs. Last year Ex-Im supported $12.5 billion 
dollars of United States exports, almost a half billion of which were 
environmentally-beneficial goods and services. Environmental technology 
in this country is a $200 billion industry, but only 11 percent of that 
is currently exported.
  Our competitors export almost twice as much of that. I have seen in 
my own community and around the country that this is an emerging 
market. With the help of the Ex-Im Bank, we will be able to help 
American business with critical environmental services that will 
improve the quality of life around the world. I urge support for the 
conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) has 4\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) 
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) 
has 2 minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, there are at least three good reasons to oppose the 
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
  First, the Export-Import Bank is an integral part of a failed trade 
policy. If you like the fact that between 1994 and 2000 the U.S. has 
lost more than 3 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs in Ohio, in 
Indiana, in New York State, all over the country, in my small State of 
Vermont, if you like and want to continue a failed trade policy, vote 
for the Export-Import Bank.
  The second reason to oppose the reauthorization is corporate welfare. 
This country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit. We 
cannot take care of our veterans, we cannot take care of education, we 
cannot take care of affordable housing. But, yes, we do have hundreds 
of millions and billions of dollars available to subsidize the largest, 
most profitable corporations in America, corporations which shut down 
plants in this country and move to China and Mexico, corporations which 
pay their CEOs huge salaries while they lay off their employees.
  Lastly, I think it is time to tell the CEOs of America they have to 
get off of the corporate welfare line; they have to produce jobs in 
America, not in China; they have to protect the taxpayers of this 
country.
  Those are at least some of the reasons to oppose the Export-Import 
Bank.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, indeed there is a basic trade policy issue 
involved in this debate, and that is whether we want to shape trade 
policy, whether we want to shape the terms of competition, or we do 
not. Do we believe that trade as it expands is always better, 
regardless of its nature and its terms? I do not think it is. I think 
we have to shape trade policy.
  Ex-Im is part of that picture. In competing with other nations who 
help their companies in terms of their exports, those other nations do 
so, and the question is, are we going to effectively compete with those 
nations? We are not going to help keep jobs in the United States by 
destroying the Ex-Im Bank. That is just not the way to do it.
  There is talk about downsizing, for example, at Boeing. Ask the 
machinists who work at Boeing whether they want us to end the Ex-Im 
Bank. Their answer is no. Ex-Im Bank helps Boeing. It helps them 
produce goods in the United States that are exported to other places.
  There have been problems with Ex-Im in terms of small business. There 
has been an effort to address those. We can probably still do better.
  There has been a problem in terms of companies that violate U.S. 
trade laws. There is an effort to address this in this bill. We can 
probably still do better.
  But the answer in terms of an effective shaped American trade policy,

[[Page H3180]]

which I believe in, is not to eliminate the Ex-Im Bank. We can do 
better, surely, in terms of shaping our trade policy, and I have been 
active in the efforts to do that. But it is misguided to say, those of 
us who believe you shape American trade policy, that you eliminate the 
Ex-Im Bank. I rise in support of the conference report.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as you may recall, when this Ex-Im Bank was debated on 
the floor of the House, I offered an amendment that received 135 votes, 
including a majority of the Democrats and 22 Republicans, and that very 
simple amendment said that a company receiving Ex-Im funds must not lay 
off a greater percentage of U.S. workers than workers abroad. Frankly, 
during the conference committee, I was not surprised that that 
amendment was rejected. We did not win it on the floor of the House.
  But let me tell you about another amendment that I offered. I offered 
an amendment that would simply require companies that receive 
assistance, now, we are talking about billions of dollars for corporate 
America, that those companies that receive this assistance sign a 
pledge, a nonbinding pledge, that they believe in employing U.S. 
workers at livable wages.
  Now, imagine that: corporate America comes in, they get billions of 
dollars, and we want them to sign a nonbinding pledge that does no more 
than says they believe in employing American workers at a livable wage. 
I could not even get that amendment past the conference committee. I do 
want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for that 
amendment, but we could not get the majority to support it.
  So the issue comes down to the fact that when you give billions of 
dollars to the largest corporations in America, what do the working 
families of this country have a right to expect? I think at a minimum 
when you are giving money to Boeing, when you are giving money to 
General Electric, when you are giving money to AT&T, you simply cannot 
have them accept this money from American taxpayers and say, Thank you 
very much. By the way, I am on my way to China because we just shut 
down a plant in your district, throwing American workers out on the 
street, and we are opening a factory in China. Thank you very much, 
suckers, in the United States for that taxpayer support.
  I think the time is long overdue for the American people to be able 
to say that, corporate America, you finally have got to have some 
responsibility to the workers of this country, to the taxpayers of this 
country, and we should oppose the Ex-Im Bank.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me just say little evidence 
exists that the Ex-Im Bank's credit assistance creates jobs. The Ex-Im 
Bank is a prime example of corporate welfare. The majority of the Ex-Im 
subsidies go to Fortune 500 companies. It is time to derail this kind 
of effort that selects favorites and distorts free trade.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the issue of corporate welfare. As we 
eliminate the fat from the federal budget, we should recommit ourselves 
to making sure all projects and programs are closely examined--not just 
the politically easy ones.
  The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) subsidizes loans and loan 
guarantees to American exporters. The experts agree; Eximbank should be 
abolished.
  The Congressional Budget Office makes the following observation: 
Eximbank has lost $8 billion on its operations, practically all in the 
last 15 years; and little evidence exists that the Eximbank's credit 
assistance creates jobs.
  The Congressional Research Service writes that: Most economists doubt 
that a nation can improve its welfare over the long run by subsidizing 
exports; and at the national level, subsidized export financing merely 
shifts production among sectors within the economy, rather than adding 
to the overall level of economic activity; export financing subsidizes 
foreign consumption at the expense of the domestic economy; and 
subsidizing financing will not raise permanently the level of 
employment in the economy. The Heritage Foundation recommends Congress 
``close down the Export-Import Bank.''
  Heritage further states: Subsidized exports promote the business 
interest of certain American businesses at the expense of other 
Americans; and little evidence exists to demonstrate that subsidized 
export promotion creates jobs--at least net of the jobs lost due to 
taxpayer financing and the diversion of U.S. resources into government-
favored export activities at the expense of non-subsidized businesses. 
According to Heritage, phasing out subsidies will save 2.3 billion over 
5 years.

  The former Director of Regulatory studies at the Cato Institute calls 
the subsidy activity of Eximbank ``corporate pork.'' He stated, ``Even 
in the face of unfair international competition, the U.S. government 
doesn't have a right to use tax dollars to match equally stupid 
subsidies.''
  Export financed by Eximbank actually hurt competitive U.S. exporters 
not selected for subsidies. The bank chooses winners and losers in the 
economy. The winners are selected foreign consumers and selected U.S. 
corporations.
  The Eximbank is a prime example of corporate welfare. The majority of 
Eximbank subsidies go to Fortune 500 companies that could easily afford 
financing from commercial banks: Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, 
Westinghouse Electric, General Electric, and AT&T.
  To raise funds for its lending and guarantee programs, Eximbank puts 
additional pressure on Treasury borrowing, driving up interest rates 
for private borrowers. That's all of us. From a corner barbershop 
wanting to expand to a young family trying to finance their first home. 
We all pay the price. Sadly, there's more.
  Eximbank appears to have wasted money on frivolous items as well. 
After 50 years with the same agency logo, Eximbank decided it needed a 
new one. Designing a new logo--including creation, copyright search, 
and the redesign of bank brochures and literature--cost nearly $100,000 
last year. And in 1993, Eximbank spent $30,000 to train 20 employees 
how to speak in public--including chairman Kenneth Brody. An outside 
consultant was paid $3,000 a day for this task.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe government shouldn't choose winners in the 
economy. With Eximbank the big winners are foreign consumers, large 
corporations and professional speech coaches. The loosers are the 
American taxpayers.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that in a theoretical world that we 
might develop, there should be no need for an Ex-Im Bank, because no 
country should be engaging in subsidies of its exports. But we do not 
live within that theoretical world, we live within the real world; and 
within the real world, virtually every country in the world, most 
especially our major trading competitors, engage in the subsidization 
of their exports. That being the case, were we not to reauthorize Ex-Im 
Bank, we would be engaging in unilateral disarmament; and I, for one, 
do not favor unilateral disarmament.
  Having said that, let me also say that it has always been my hope 
that administrations, both Democrat and Republican, would have been 
much more aggressive in negotiating a reduction or an elimination of 
export subsidies.

                              {time}  1245

  This is difficult to do with other countries, and it is difficult to 
do domestically. Other countries have been quite critical of our own 
Congress because of the recent agricultural bill that we passed saying 
that we have raised the bar considerably through the exports of our 
crops and agricultural products in a manner that they believe violates 
international law.
  So we have to look to ourselves, too, but we should be negotiating a 
reduction or elimination so we could have multilateral disarmament 
rather than unilateral disarmament.
  One more point, too. The Ex-Im Bank is a misnomer. Some individuals 
will say, well, they do more to help imports than they do exports. The 
fact is they do zero, nothing, to enhance imports; they do everything, 
100 percent of all their programs, all their products, all of their 
services, all of their assistance, to promote exports of goods, 
products, and services made in the United States of America and sold 
abroad.
  So one of the things we always should have done and I always favored 
is to simply strike the word ``import'' because of the misleading 
impressions that could be created. One Member got up on the floor and 
gave evidence of the misleading impression that has been created.
  Having said that, in order for the United States to compete 
internationally within the trading arena, passage

[[Page H3181]]

of today's reauthorization bill, a very good one, a balanced one, one 
with Democratic and Republican input, is imperative. I would commend 
all Members to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. LaFalce), for his stellar efforts throughout this 
process; and also particularly the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter). He would perhaps deflate a couple of rather incongruous 
statements made during the course of the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Yes, indeed, this agency focuses exclusively on exports, despite the 
name. I want to say definitively that now, when we have a 201 
determination or a final order under Title VII, no American exporters 
may export products to those sectors abroad that are in violation of 
those two parts of our trade law. That is a major advance offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). There was no retreat from 
that; in fact, in conference it was actually strengthened. We traded a 
very important procedure for a report; a very big advance.
  Another point here: Ten percent of the resources of the Export-Import 
Bank do not go to small business, as suggested; 18 percent. Over 90 
percent of all the tax credits are for small business, and we are 
pushing them to go even much further by the mandate here.
  I do not like American exports of jobs, jobs going abroad; but this 
legislation actually keeps American exporters producing products here, 
products, manufactured goods and services, and helps our exporters 
compete, sometimes against subsidized tax credits transactions, by 
other foreign export credit agencies. Yet, only 2 percent of all of the 
loans ever go into default.
  The Export-Import Bank has a net return of resources year after year 
after year to the U.S. Treasury. Why? Because we charge risk-based 
insurance and fees. So the idea of this being a large corporate 
giveaway or a huge subsidy is just not the case.
  I would say to the gentleman from California, for example, or the 
gentleman from Texas, California is number two in terms of exports 
abroad coming out of that State because of the Export-Import Bank, and 
Texas is number three. Think about those aerospace workers and what it 
means to California, Washington State, and other States involved.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the conference report.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1372, the 
Export-Import Bank Conference Report. The Export-Import Bank has, as 
its main goal, the focus of helping businesses compete in the global 
arena. Since its creation in 1934, the Export-Import Bank has been 
successful in supporting U.S. businesses by providing needed assistance 
that allows these businesses to expand and promote their goods in other 
countries. Without this assistance, many of these businesses would not 
see this goal realized. Furthermore, as many countries provide higher 
levels of export financing subsidies to their companies than the U.S., 
the Export-Import Bank plays a crucial role in helping to even out this 
imbalance for U.S. firms in the international market.
  The Export-Import Bank has to its credit many positive outcomes. It 
has not only been able to sustain vital U.S. jobs in both small and 
large companies, but it has also created many jobs around the country. 
In FY 2001 alone, the bank supported over $12.5 billion in U.S. exports 
to markets all over the world. Companies across the country see the 
benefits of working with the bank, as more than 2,000 American 
companies of all sizes utilize its services each year. In my home state 
of Michigan, the value of exports supported by the bank since October 
1997 is well over $500 million.
  The conference report strengthens the ability of the Export-Import 
Bank to continue its commitment to assisting U.S. companies. The report 
increases the loan ceiling for the bank each year, culminating in $100 
billion in FY 2006. It also contains other important provisions, 
including anti-dumping, antiterrorism, and human rights provisions that 
are important factors when considering possible transactions with other 
countries. The conference report also requires the Export-Import Bank 
to improve its technical capacity that will strengthen its ability to 
touch more small businesses and will facilitate the usage of the bank's 
services for all companies.
  The conference report increases the bank's small business requirement 
to 20 percent from its current level of 10 percent. While this 
represents a positive step forward, I join with my colleagues in urging 
a higher percentage level of support in years to come and encourage the 
bank to do all it can to expand its outreach effort to small 
businesses, specifically minority and women-owned businesses. The 
report also strengthens U.S. export efforts in Africa, which I strongly 
support.
  I thank my colleagues, particularly Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member 
LaFalce, for their hard work and commitment in putting forth a strong 
bill that will enhance the Export-Import Bank's ability to assist U.S. 
companies of all sizes as they look to expand and compete in the global 
market.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong supporter of the Ex-
Im Bank since coming to Congress in 1981. The Bank plays a very 
significant role in US trade policy. It ensures that US businesses will 
not be denied access to overseas markets because of market 
imperfections that prevent them from obtaining financing from the 
private sector or because of unfair competition from foreign export 
agencies. Ex-Im has initiated thousands of transactions in foreign 
markets that commercial banks deem too risky to enter. Because of the 
Ex-Im, U.S. businesses export more goods and develop new and stronger 
trading relationships abroad.
  The world of finance and the international trading system are 
changing fast. Other countries are finding more sophisticated ways of 
assisting their exporters and new financing mechanisms are being 
developed. Instead of placing restrictions on the Ex-Im and cutting its 
funding, we should be working to enhance the banks capabilities to 
assist business abroad my making sure they have the tools necessary to 
assist US exporters in this changing global economy.
  If fiscal year 2001 Ex-Im Bank financed nearly $12.5 billion of US 
exports world wide which supported millions of US jobs. Nearly 90 
percent of Ex-Im Bank's transaction in fiscal year 2001 was on behalf 
of small businesses.
  In New Jersey alone, the Ex-Im Bank has supported over 214 companies 
and 138 communities. It is estimated that over 44,974 jobs are 
sustained by Ex-Im efforts. For example, JB Williams Company located in 
Glen Rock, New Jersey, is a small, 45-employee manufacturer of 
specialty soaps and bath products that has been using Ex-Im Bank's 
short-term export credit insurance since 1998 to expand its exports to 
Saudi Arabia, Poland, Korea, Colombia, and other counties.
  This legislation extends the charter of the U.S. Export-Import Bank 
for 4 years and creates offices on Small Business Exporters within the 
Bank. It also increases the value of transactions that the Bank can 
hold in its portfolio at any time, raises the percentage of small 
business transactions the Bank should pursue, and improves the 
operation of the Tied Aid Credit Program. This measure further mandates 
that the Bank take into consideration U.S. trade laws when considering 
a transaction, examine whether a recipient company has been involved in 
any corrupt practices prior to a transaction's approval. And, in the 
context of our need to fight a war on terrorism, this bill requires the 
Bank to assess whether a country has been helpful in U.S. efforts to 
combat terrorism.
  This bill raises the level of total Ex-Im portfolio (loans, 
guarantees, and insurance) outstanding at any one time from the current 
level of $75 billion to $100 billion by FY 2006. The mandate for small 
business activity will be raised from 10 percent to 20 percent of the 
total value of Ex-Im transactions, with 8 percent of the total going to 
businesses with less than 100 employees.
  The Ex-Im Bank improves America's competitiveness overseas, promotes 
small business and creates and sustains U.S. jobs. I urge my colleagues 
to support this Conference Report.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Export-
Import Bank, and in support of this conference report.
  For nearly eight years, I've been a member of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. This Subcommittee provides the 
funding for Ex-Im's program budget. During this time I've become very 
familiar with the Bank's operations and the important role it plays in 
supporting U.S. jobs, assisting small U.S. businesses, and helping to 
finance development in emerging markets around the world.
  Support for Ex-Im means real jobs for real people. In its 68-year 
history, Ex-Im Bank has supported over $400 billion of U.S. exports, 
sustaining and creating millions of high-paying U.S. jobs. In fiscal 
year 2001 alone, Ex-Im Bank supported $12.5 billion of U.S. exports to 
developing countries, enabling many U.S. companies to maintain and even 
expand their workforces.

[[Page H3182]]

  Ex-Im's impact is felt throughout America and affects companies of 
every size, but the Bank's positive impact is particularly strong on 
small businesses. Ninety percent of the total number of Ex-Im Bank 
supported transactions in fiscal year 2001 was in direct support of 
small businesses.
  Ex-Im Bank aggressively reaches out to small businesses through a 
variety of partnerships with lenders, city and state trade offices, 
small business associations, Congressional offices, and other federal 
agencies such as the Small Business Administration. I commend Ex-Im for 
this effort.
  Exports are crucial to the U.S. economy. Overseas sales are no longer 
optional for most U.S. companies. Exports accounted for over one-
quarter of U.S. economic growth over the last decade and support an 
estimated 12 million American jobs. In order to grow the U.S. economy 
and increase the number of jobs, export opportunities need to grow as 
well. The Export-Import Bank has a critical role to play in this 
effort.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Export-Import Bank 
and supporting this conference report.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report on S. 
1372, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.
  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 two 
dollars per hour.
  When the House of Representatives considered its version of the 
Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act, an amendment was offered to 
ensure that the Bank does not subsidize companies that are exporting 
American jobs instead of American-made products. Unfortunately, this 
amendment was not adopted.
  I am especially concerned by the fact that the Conference Committee 
deleted the Office on Africa provision from the Export-Import Bank 
Reauthorization Act. The House version of this legislation included a 
requirement that the Export-Import Bank establish an Office on Africa 
to monitor Export-Import Bank lending for projects in African 
countries. This provision was supported by both the Financial Services 
Committee and the full House of Representatives, and there was no 
reason for the Conference Committee to delete it.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank 
Reauthorization Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 344, 
nays 78, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 210]

                               YEAS--344

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--78

     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilirakis
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Chabot
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Everett
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Goode
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kerns
     Kucinich
     Matheson
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sanders
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Wamp
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachus
     Bentsen
     Blagojevich
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Hilliard
     Miller, Dan
     Peterson (PA)
     Riley
     Roukema
     Slaughter
     Traficant

                              {time}  1313

  Messrs. KERNS, BARTLETT of Maryland, CRANE, HEFLEY, SULLIVAN and Mrs. 
CUBIN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GEKAS and Mr. HERGER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________