Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to explain to my colleagues, in asking for their support, that I am going to be asking for a record vote, only because the gentleman from Rhode Island and I offered this same amendment last year and it was dropped in conference, I assume by our colleagues in the other body. So that is the reason I will be having a record vote. I thank my colleagues for their support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to offer an amendment which he is jointly presenting with the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). The Bereuter-Langevin amendment makes a minor change in current law which can reap significant benefits by allowing National Guard units to use already appropriated funds to sponsor competitions and send members to those competitions. Currently only nonappropriated funds from post exchanges and other activities and from competition entry fees can be used to cover operating expenses for the events of all health, pay, and personal expenses for participating National Guard members. Indeed, the existing National Guard competition events program does provide National Guard members with an opportunity to hone their training-related skills such as running, swimming, and marksmanship in a competitive atmosphere. As the National Guard actively recruits new members, this can be another attractive feature in recruitment and retention programs for certain members of the National Guard. Through these competitions, National Guard members can qualify for higher level national and international competitions, including the Pan American games and the Olympics. Also, National Guard members who compete in athletic and small arms competitions can now do so with members of the active duty military. Bringing active reserve and National Guard components together in this fashion builds better appreciation among the various components and overall force cohesiveness. Additionally, some of the National Guard-sponsored competitions are open to participation by the entire civilian community for participation. The high visibility and the community interaction such events provide is key for providing support for local National Guard units. While recruitment and retention and community support have always been important in maintaining the National Guard structure, they have become even more critical as we wage the war on terrorism during which our men and women in the National Guard are more frequently called to duty overseas and to provide security in our homeland. For the National Guard competitive events programs to continue to thrive, greater funding flexibility, which this amendment provides, must be granted to the National Guard units sponsoring competition and sending members to those competitions. Now, unlike active duty military personnel who have all health, pay and personal expenses covered while competing, National Guard members are not on duty while competing and, thus, are not covered. For example, if National Guard members suffer injuries while competing at the National Marksman Competition in Little Rock, Arkansas, they must pay for the incurred health care costs, even though they were competing with their National Guard unit. Unfortunately, placing National Guard members on orders, as occurs with military reservists participating in these competitions, is not a solution to the coverage issue. Why? Because National Guard members placed on active duty cannot compete with their National Guard units team. Mr. Chairman, it should be emphasized that the amendment does not create participation incentives for the National Guard members which are greater than those incentives for active duty military personnel, nor does it allow the National Guard to seek excessive funds for these activities. Indeed, the amendment limits the National Guard's use of appropriated funds for athletic and small arms competition to a very modest $2.5 million annually. Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to vote for this amendment as an important way not only to recruit or retain motivated men and women for the National Guard, but also to show support for the men and women currently serving our country in our National Guard during this challenging time. I ask for Members' support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on May 7, 2002, official business on the other side of Capitol Hill caused this Member to unavoidably miss roll call vote 128 (H. Con. Res. 271, expressing the sense of the Congress supporting the National Importance of Health Care Coverage Month). Had this Member been present he would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises to express his support for H. Res. 412, a bill expressing the House's regret and sympathy to the families of the four Canadian soldiers who lost their lives and the eight Canadian soldiers who were wounded on April 17, 2002, in a ``friendly-fire'' mistake in southern Afghanistan. Additionally, this Member would like to express his appreciation for the efforts of the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) in drafting this legislation. Madam Speaker, Canada is a steadfast ally and true friend of the United States. In October 2001, less than one month after the horrific and unspeakable terrorist attacks of September 11th, Ottawa, Canada, served as the host city for the fall meetings of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA). As leader of the House Delegation to the NATO PA, this Member was very grateful for the unwavering support offered by the Canadian parliamentarians to the U.S. for the war on terrorism. Despite their recognition of the dangers involved in sending their armed forces to assist with the war, the Canadians were the strongest supporters of the assembly's endorsement of the use of force against the terrorists and were willing to contribute troops for missions in Afghanistan. Indeed, the loss of four Canadian soldiers who were killed by a bomb from an American F-16 aircraft in a friendly-fire mistake is a tragic loss which the U.S. and Canada, as steadfast neighbors and true allies, mourn together. Last week, this Member and many of his colleagues were able to express their personal condolences to the Honorable Peter Milliken, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada. It is fitting that this body, through this resolution, expresses its condolences to the families of the Canadian families who lost their loved ones in the tragic incident. Madam Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for H. Res. 412.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, America is blessed to have in Canada not only a neighbor but also a steadfast ally and true friend. While our geographic bonds are obvious, it is our deep cultural, political, and economic ties that will forever bind us. Therefore, it is my distinct honor to welcome to Washington today the Honorable Peter Milliken, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I remind Members that this past October, only 1 month after the fateful September day, parliamentarians from all NATO nations met in Ottawa, Canada, for the fall meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. At that meeting, the assembly endorsed the use of force responsible for the horrific attacks on America. Our Canadian hosts that day, as all parliamentarians, knew the significant risk associated with the endeavor. So it is with great sadness that we stand here today following the deaths of four Canadian soldiers, killed while on a mission to fight terror in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I say to Speaker Milliken and to all Canadians, we remain deeply saddened by their loss and America thanks them for their steadfast partnership.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the April 26, 2002, editorial from the Norfolk Daily News entitled ``Good reason to cooperate.'' Mr. Speaker, Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to enter into a written agreement with local and state law enforcement agencies for the purpose of permitting qualified state and local law enforcement officers to carry out the functions of an immigration office. (This section is also known as the ``Latham provision'' in honor of our colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), who introduced the provision as an amendment to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996. These activities would include the investigation, apprehension, detention, and transportation of aliens in the United States. In areas where there are too few INS resources to effectively confront the problem of illegal immigration, it would seem logical and extremely beneficial for the U.S. Attorney General to enforce Section 287 of the INA. Unfortunately, the previous Attorney General never took that logical step. This editorial (and certainly this Member) commends the current Attorney General for indicating that he is willing to revisit the issue. Indeed, deputizing state and local law enforcement officials would provide much needed support to the limited resources available for enforcement of immigration laws in this country's interior. [From the Norfolk Daily News, Apr. 26, 2002] Good Reason to Cooperate Critics of the U.S. Justice Department are quick to condemn any real or perceived lack of federal cooperation with state or local law enforcement authorities. A different attitude is evident when federal authorities themselves seek cooperation. It was evident in the special federal effort to get assistance in questioning--not arresting-- several thousands of individuals who it was thought might be helpful in tracking members of the terrorist network believed responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on America. That could involve unjust ``profiling,'' it was alleged--as if the law conferred the special privilege to visitors, legal or not, of refusing to cooperate with legitimate law enforcers. A new controversy arises, with criticism from similar sources, because the attorney general hopes to be able to deputize state and local law enforcers to help deal with the flood of illegal immigrants. There are good reasons for seeking such cooperation. One is that some immigrants have been involved in crime--here and elsewhere. Local authorities necessarily have to deal with it. They help law enforcement in their own jurisdictions by seeing that illegal aliens are turned over to immigration officers. Another reason is that despite the porous borders and larger numbers of both legal and illegal immigrants, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has not been staffed to deal with the flood. It needs help, obvious from the fact that there are estimated to be some 8 million people in America without valid papers, living and often working here illegally. The numbers of INS agents available for internal enforcement are not sufficient for the task. It is no favor to the millions of legal immigrants America invites to be soft on enforcement. For the illegals to be treated equally rewards noncompliance with the law. ``Softness'' becomes a blatant error when it prompts acceptance of the idea that it is improper to ask for help which local police departments, sheriffs and deputies could provide in enforcing laws.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, America is blessed to have in Canada not only a neighbor but also a steadfast ally and true friend. While our geographic bonds are obvious, it is our deep cultural, political, and economic ties that will forever bind us. Therefore, it is my distinct honor to welcome to Washington today the Honorable Peter Milliken, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I remind Members that this past October, only 1 month after the fateful September day, parliamentarians from all NATO nations met in Ottawa, Canada, for the fall meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. At that meeting, the assembly endorsed the use of force responsible for the horrific attacks on America. Our Canadian hosts that day, as all parliamentarians, knew the significant risk associated with the endeavor. So it is with great sadness that we stand here today following the deaths of four Canadian soldiers, killed while on a mission to fight terror in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I say to Speaker Milliken and to all Canadians, we remain deeply saddened by their loss and America thanks them for their steadfast partnership.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member carefully reviewed the provisions in the conference report for H.R. 2646. Although it contains numerous positive features, in many ways the conference report is disappointing and unimaginative. This Member is also concerned that it will lead to dramatic increases in production, lower farm prices, and thereby will lead to an early exhaustion of the $73.5 billion increase in funding called for over the next decade. In making a judgment on the conference report, this Member considered the following positive and negative features of the legislation. Specifically, this Member is pleased that the conference report for H.R. 2646 includes these positive aspects: Provides a counter-cyclical approach which will establish a greater safety net for farmers and should eliminate the need for annual emergency assistance. This provision is an especially important and positive feature of this legislation. Retains the planting flexibility, a feature of the current farm program which has been extremely popular with producers. Although the bill is far from perfect, it does provide additional income assurances for producers. To the benefit of the sorghum producers of the Great Plains region, the sorghum loan rate is raised to the level of corn. Gives producers the option to update base acres and yields. Increases funding for conservation programs by 80 percent. Included in the increase are these positive provisions: The Conservation Reserve Program acreage is increased from 36.4 million to 39.2 million. The Wetlands Reserve Program acreage cap is increased to 2.275 million acres. The Conservation Security Program is established which will provide incentives to maintain and improve stewardship practices. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program receives an increase from $200 million to $1.3 billion annually over the next six years. This program is especially important help for livestock producers in a national effort to protect our environment. The program for the rehabilitation of aging small watershed structures that have been constructed over the past 50 years is provided $275 million in funding. Funding for the Market Access Program is increased to $200 million annually by 2006. Funding for the Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program is increased from $27.5 million to $35 million per year. An energy title is included and funding is provided to promote ethanol and biodiesel. Funding is provided for broadband service in rural areas and rural local TV broadcast signal loan guarantees. Funding is included for value-added agricultural market development grants. Funding is provided for the Rural Business Investment Program. The Global Food for Education Initiative (McGovern-Dole) is continued as a pilot program for FY2003. Commercial airlines are required to carry baby chicks as ordinary mail. While this might seem like a small item, it is very important to a number of Americans, a part of the American farm heritage, and a personal interest of this Member. However, Mr. Speaker, there are also some very significant deficiencies in this conference report. Among them are the following: The conferees failed to address the concerns related to increased concentration in the agriculture sector. There is a growing concern which has been consistently expressed to me by constituents in recent years that there is too much concentration of economic power and too little competition on the input, production, and marketing sides of agriculture. Unfortunately, the conference report dropped initiatives designed to address these concerns. The conferees allowed a disproportionate amount of the funding to go to very large farm operations. There is no real reform of payment limitations and large producers will continue to reap most of the benefits. In the past 5 years, 10 percent of the producers received two-thirds of the payments. This conference report does little to change that situation. The incentives are in this conference report to cause the big farm operations to get bigger to the detriment of most Nebraska and American family farmers. The conference report dropped the ban on packer ownership of livestock which the Senate approved, a ban which is also overwhelmingly supported by the great majority of Nebraska farmers and livestock producers. After balancing the beneficial aspects and deficiencies of this legislation, the conference report for H.R. 2646, this Member has decided to vote ``aye'' since the measure is an improvement over the status quo.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's points. Our corporations are involved in producing very different types of exports. One of their operations in the United States may face the fact that a product is obsolete or the whole sector has deteriorated, and we are not exporting anything in that product area, and resultantly we have large layoffs. But the other kinds of products or services that they produce which may need export credit financing for moving our exports abroad to keep those jobs safe in that sector. Mr. Chairman, that is the point that needs to be made. Our industries are very diverse in what they produce. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. BEREUTER. The International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers, of course, supports the legislation, and that is very current. The Sanders amendment is really contrary to the rest of U.S. trade policy which seeks to open foreign markets to U.S. firms for increased trade investment. A U.S. company that receives less Ex-Im financing may be inclined to move those operations abroad. The requirement for an applicant to provide the information sought by the Sanders amendment is overly burdensome, and would make applying for Ex-Im financing too costly for many companies. I think their alternative is to simply take those export jobs abroad, and then try to penetrate those third-country markets. Mr. Richard Christman, the president of Case N/H, an agricultural business, stated in a hearing before the Committee on Financial Services that one of the factors in deciding to maintain combine production in the U.S. and not to move it to Brazil was the potential availability of Export-Import Bank financing. Those are real jobs maintained by the existence of the Export-Import Bank. I will come back to that in a few minutes, but I remind Members that really we are talking about the subsidy of U.S. worker jobs here--it is not corporate welfare. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), a member of the committee. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentlewoman is doing and if there is anything we could do in report language to facilitate stronger encouragement to use those State Department country reports, we should do that, and I would be committed to that end. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the bipartisan opposition to the Sanders amendment as voiced, for example, by the senior Democrat on the Committee on Financial Services. We can all agree on a few things. We can all agree that we hate to see American jobs lost, whether it is because of decline in the industry or because of the fact that those jobs are moved abroad. We do not want to see layoffs. The fact of the matter is, however, that sometimes one sector of a company's production simply becomes obsolete, or because of the fact that it is a labor-intensive or very low-skilled job that for economic reasons, the corporation feels it must move abroad. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, do not penalize those parts of the company that are exporting products abroad. Vote ``no'' on the Sanders amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), chairman of the Committee on Small Business and a member of the Committee on Financial Services, very much committed and interested in trade issues.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), who has taken an issue, a controversial issue, addressed it by amendment, and dramatically improved this bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a member of the committee. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), a small businesswoman herself.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Export- Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001. Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking minority member, for their assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor. It has not been easy, but we have, of course, attempted to do something that is not always done around here, and that is to make some basic reforms in the authorizing legislation. It is oftentimes resisted by the executive branch. But I think it is true that the members of the subcommittee and committee have worked together in trying to bring the necessary reforms to that agency in order to help our business sector and, particularly, to help the employees of our business sectors that are involved in exports. We have done that with this bill. Both Members, the chairman and ranking member, are quite familiar with this program. They have outlined very, very well and in excellent fashion the provisions of the bill, particularly those that are new or which are reform measures. I would say, thinking back about the comments of the gentleman from New York about the title of the agency, that he is absolutely right. We would be better off to call it the Export Agency, because that is the only part of the trade subject for which they have authorization. It is easy to make the statutory change of the agency's name, but not so easy to make all the legal changes necessary to change the name. He and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), are probably the 2 Members that, along with me, have worked the longest on legislation on this bank over the years. But to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the ranking member of the subcommittee, I want to particularly thank him for his role in crafting this legislation, as we have worked together from the beginning on it. I am also appreciative of all of the members of the subcommittee, and the committee as well, who have offered their ideas about how to make this legislation better. I would reiterate that the Export-Import 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. For example, with respect to small business, already 86 percent of the transactions of the Ex-Im Bank in FY 2000 are with small or medium-sized American export firms. This bill pushes the envelope even farther for even more assistance to small business exporters through the efforts of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), this Member, the chairman, and ranking minority member of the committee, and others. The bill has been well explained already, particularly the new parts of it, but I would just briefly summarize six provisions of this legislation. First, of course, it reauthorizes the program and administrative budgets and it moves them along towards implementing greater information and office technology in the Export Import Bank, and that would be a particular benefit to small businesses as they do not always have the capability to take advantage of the programs of the Export Import Bank without improved information access. Secondly, it reauthorizes the Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee and provides additional emphasis on our businesses' interest in exporting to Africa. Third, it provides for small business increases, pushing them to require at least 20 percent of the financial resources to go to small and medium-sized businesses. Fourth, it increases the Ex-Im Bank's statutory ceiling for loans, grants and insurance assistance. Fifth, it addresses the Tied Aid War Chest, and this is, of course, the most contentious part of the bill as far as the administration was concerned. In this bill we have made necessary changes so that ideologues in Treasury, Ex-Im or OMB, regardless of what administration is in office, do not misuse the fund, but to instead focus it on really helping our exporters and consistently doing that. Sixth, it addresses the Ex-Im Bank transaction with Benxi Iron and Steel Company in China. American exporters provided exports to that company which undoubtedly increased that Chinese firm's efficiency in making steel. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) has given us an amendment for part of the bill that is a very important advance. This bill, of course, reauthorizes the bank through September 30 of 2005. As a result of this provision, the program budget which supports loans, guarantees and insurance products of Ex-Im Bank, is effectively authorized for such sums as are appropriated through fiscal year 2005. During the subcommittee's first hearing on the subject, the Ex-Im Bank personnel testified that they were in desperate need of technology upgrades which would particularly benefit small business users of the Ex-Im Bank. As a result, this legislation authorizes $80 million for the administrative budget, which includes funding for information technology for fiscal year 2002, and indexes this authorization level for inflation between fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005. Also, as I mentioned, among other changes, we make important changes to focus the Ex-Im Bank even more on exports to Africa. More detail on that will come out in the ensuing debate on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is reform legislation. It moves us in the right direction.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, just one clarification or point for emphasis. The credit instruments of the Export-Import Bank can only go to American exporters in any case; but in the case of the Benxi Steel, the kind of assistance that went to an American exporter ended up helping Benxi Steel. That is something the gentleman's amendment has stopped for all time. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a distinguished member of the House who may have a different view on this.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 402, which is a rule under which the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001 will be debated, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and for the effort of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) as well. And the whole Rules Committee and especially the chairman and ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and their staff are owed great credit and appreciation for their assistance in crafting the rule. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is exactly right, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) also recognized, that the legislation covered by this Rule comes to the House through a bipartisan effort, with substantial input from numerous members. In fact, I think the very complete input from both sides of the aisle, and the democratic process certainly had its positive impact at both the subcommittee and the committee level. The Export-Import 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. The Export-Import Bank finances exports such as civilian aircraft, electronics, engineering services, vehicles, agricultural equipment, and so on. It is also important to note that the Export-Import Bank charges risk-based interest and fees on the users of its credit products. As a result, last year, the Export-Import Bank generated $1 billion of net income to the U.S. Government. To illustrate the importance of the bank, in fiscal year 2000, they supported $15.5 billion in U.S. exports through an appropriation of $759 million. Moreover, in the past 60 years, the Export-Import Bank has supported more than $300 billion in U.S. exports. It also needs to be noted that the Ex-Im Bank is only intended to be the lender of last resort, and the Bank is not intended to compete with private lenders. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not simply a reauthorization. While the executive branch, regardless of who is in the White House, always seems simply to want a straightforward reauthorization of everything, this committee has taken the time and made the effort to give us some basic reforms. For example, we provide in greater detail how the following subjects will be addressed, to enhance the role of small and medium-sized businesses in using the bank, to have a dramatic outreach program, and to increase the percentage of the total resources that go to small and medium-sized businesses. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has mentioned our special effort with respect to Africa, both the reauthorization of the advisory committee for Sub-Saharan Africa, and the creation of an Office of Africa within the bank, and the latter comes from one of our Member's initiatives. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) has taken the controversial Ex-Im Bank transaction for American exporters to Benxi Iron and Steel firm, and he has given us some very important reform legislation which is a part of the bill today. It relates to American exports to those businesses abroad that are parts of sectors for which a 201 case has been made under the International Trade Commission or where dumping is formally ruled to be taking place. Finally, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) made one point about the initiative of the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of the subcommittee and committee. The only disagreement this Member has had with her approach is that she would mandate a special human rights report to be made by the Export-Import Bank. In fact, the State Department issues such country human rights reports, and we have in this legislation recognized it the key agency to provide human rights information to all of the agencies of the Federal Government. The gentlewoman's alternative amendment, which is made in order, certainly is one I can support. And, in fact, we can strengthen it by insisting that the State Department's human rights country report for the particular country that would be the destination for an American export be considered by the Export-Import Bank by report language during a House-Senate Conference. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means and a person very much involved in exports.