Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. 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. 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. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in fact, the legislation that we will take up tomorrow will be requiring an increase of Ex-Im Bank funds for small business--a requirement of not less than 20%. Already, 86 percent of the transactions of the Export-Import Bank do involve small business. This is not a question about sending a message to the Export-Import Bank by failing to approve this 1-month extension today. This is a very serious matter for it would not be just a 24-hour hiatus. This, in fact, will disturb the Ex-Im transactions now under review. It will be particularly damaging to the small business community, as I pointed out in my earlier remarks. A ``Dear Colleague'' has been sent around to Members of the House. It states that, in fact, this is only a small message, a 24-hour period. As I said, this is not accurate. If the House does not vote in favor of Ex-Im's 30-day reauthorization, the bank will not be able to transact any new business until there is agreement between the House and the Senate on the terms of Ex-Im's reauthorization. In fact, the unfortunate message that would be sent is a real one to American exporters that we have no confidence in the Export-Import Bank. I would like to address 4 specific points that were made in the ``Dear Colleague'' letter. First of all, the Export-Import Bank is not corporate welfare. As I mentioned, 86 percent of Ex-Im's transactions are with small businesses. Ex-Im charges interest on its direct loans and premiums for its guarantees and insurance, costs that the U.S. exporters usually pass through to the overseas customers. Those charges usually range from 5 percent to 17 percent of the financing obtained, depending upon the risk. Number 2, the Export-Import Bank, like other institutions was, in fact, a victim of Enron. The entire U.S. economy was caught off guard when Enron folded, including the Ex-Im Bank. But Ex-Im is receiving installment payments from Enron for all Enron- related transactions. Ex-Im is participating fully in the Justice Department investigation to determine if Enron made any false statements to the government with respect to export-import transactions. Number three, the Export-Import Bank Extension Act does fight for steelworkers. The full reauthorization bill, which will come to the floor tomorrow, has a very important provision added at the suggestion or at the amendment of our colleague from the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). That legislation addresses the $18 billion guarantee approved by the Export-Import Bank in December of 2000 to support the sale of computer software by American exporters to Benxi Iron and Steel Company in China. The Benxi Company was subject to a final determination of steel dumping by the International Trade Commission subsequent to that transaction approval. The bill conforms Ex-Im lending to current U.S. trade laws now, because of the Toomey amendment, by barring any Ex-Im loan or guarantee for 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. The legislation now also requires the Export-Import Bank to develop procedures for loans and loan guarantees to a business, which is subject to a preliminary countervailing trade duty or an anti-dumping determination of material injury. So we have taken very specific action in the committee on the Toomey amendment to address the concerns that came out of the Benxi steel case. Fourth, I would say the Export-Import Bank is critical in maintaining U.S. jobs. It creates thousands of jobs every year. I would like to give a quote from John J. Sweeney, the President of AFL-CIO. He says, ``As far as we're concerned, corporations which receive subsidies from the Export-Import Bank are merely vehicles through which jobs and income for American workers are created.'' I might also mention, this legislation is supported by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. They strongly support passage of the legislation. Now is not the time to take an action that is not responsible. We need to approve the 1-month extension today to keep the disruption from the Export-Import Bank's customers, the American exporters, from taking place. We will have a full debate tomorrow. I am confident that the bill will give the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), for example, and other key members of the committee, as well as certain other Members of the House who have important amendments, an opportunity to present such amendments to be fully debated, and if necessary, a vote in the House. Mr. Speaker, it is important we approve this legislation today under suspension. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of S. 2248.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm the gentleman's understanding and expectation. This Member has specifically urged the Committee on Rules and our colleagues in the Committee on Financial Services to make in order, for example, the Sanders amendment and the amendment of the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and others that were offered in committee but which were not approved. I expect and am very assured that we are going to have a structured but broadly open bill for discussion tomorrow and that the concerns of the distinguished gentleman (Mr. LaFalce) will be addressed tomorrow in the debate.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of S. 2248, which is being considered today under suspension of the rules. This legislation simply extends the authorization for the Export-Import Bank until May 31, 2002, nothing more. Under current law, the most recent short-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank expires on April 30, 2002. If this subsequent short term authorization extension is not signed into law, the Export-Import Bank could not engage in new transactions and would have to wind down its current operations as of today, April 30. Without the passage of this legislation the Export-Import Bank will not have the legal authority to issue new financing commitments in support of the export of U.S. made goods and U.S. origin services. Each year, the bank supports more than 2,300 export transactions. Eighty-six percent of those transactions are for small and medium-sized businesses. The bank processes a daily flow of export cases and any expiration of the bank's charter will jeopardize pending sales and the jobs of U.S. workers tied to those transactions. Even more important to small business, the Export-Import Bank has a Credit Committee which approves small business transactions. This Credit Committee meets often each week. If this extension is not passed, the Credit Committee will not be able to do their business, and small businesses in turn will be hurt the most. Therefore, it is extraordinarily important that we approve this legislation today. I say that because tomorrow, in fact, we will be debating the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001 under a rule. That bill, introduced by this Member, of course, had careful attention in subcommittee and committee, and we are prepared to take it to the House floor tomorrow under a rule which is expected to be prepared this evening for consideration tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, for these reasons and many others, it is extraordinarily important that we approve this 1-month authorization extension for the Export-Import Bank today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Service. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 2248, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2248) to extend the authority of the Export-Import Bank until May 31, 2002.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 3231, the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act. Therefore, this Member would like to thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the Ranking Member of the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their efforts in crafting the bipartisan bill before the House today. Certainly, this Member certainly supports efforts to restructure the system through which critical immigration functions which are executed as provided in H.R. 3231. For many years, this Member has argued that strong immigration policies and well-functioning infrastructure are necessary to protect U.S. citizens from outbreaks of infectious disease and from crime, certainly including terrorism. As more information becomes available about the terrorists who conducted the unspeakable and horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there is increasing momentum to revamp the current immigration process. Despite this Member's support for restructuring, this Member would like to register his concerns about how immigration resources have been allocated in the past and how they might be allocated in the future as restructuring plans are implemented. Mr. Chairman, despite the efforts of the Nebraska and Iowa congressional delegation, the changing immigration patterns in this country's heartland often go unexamined by Federal and congressional authorities. As a result, interior states such as Nebraska do not receive the resources they need to provide the necessary legal immigration services and to combat illegal immigration. Therefore, this Member is concerned that throughout the restructuring process, immigration resources for both services and enforcement will continue to be allocated, as some Federal agencies have done, on the basis of the overall population of a given region and without regard to geographic circumstances, including the vast regions of some of our more sparsely settled states. Indeed, this Member requests that the House apply very careful oversight to any immigration restructuring measures so that all legal immigrants, regardless of where they live in the U.S., can access the immigration services they need without having to travel extraordinary distances. Additionally, this Member request similar oversight with regard to immigration enforcement resources so that the tools to enforce immigration policies are available in interior states, including Nebraska where alien smuggling along Interstate 80 and other national highways has become far too routine. Mr. Chairman, this Member also wants to register his very strong support for the Nebraska Service Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. Currently, the center efficiently and effectively processes over 1.5 million immigration applications and documents each year. In fact, the center is often called upon to handle special, out-of-region projects due to its fine record and well-earned reputation for efficiency. Additionally, due to a well-educated and professional workforce located in Lincoln, it is able to recruit and retain good employees. (Indeed, the retention of good employees will be the key to success for the overall restructuring efforts!) For these reasons, this Member believes it is critical that, as any immigration restructuring efforts are implemented, the Nebraska Service Center to remain in Lincoln, Nebraska. Again, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3231.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 3763, the Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility and Transparency Act of 2002. This bill, of which I am an original cosponsor, is necessary to protect investors by ensuring auditor independence in the accounting of publicly traded companies. This Member would express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, for introducing H.R. 3763. In addition, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Baker, the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, for his efforts in getting this measure to the House floor for consideration. In large part, H.R. 3763 is a response to the grossly negligent activities by Arthur Andersen in their accounting audit of the Enron Corporation. For example, Arthur Andersen provided both consulting and auditing services to Enron, which certainly would appear to be an obvious conflict of interest. In addition, after the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, began investigating the Enron matter, Arthur Andersen nonetheless allegedly continued to destroy documents and e- mails related to its audit of Enron. Therefore, H.R. 3763, among many things, would do the following: First, prohibit firms from offering the consulting services of financial information system design and internal audit services to companies that are externally auditing. Second, establish a new public regulatory board, the Public Regulatory Organizations PROs, to conduct oversight over the accounting industry. The PROs would be under the direct authority of the SEC. Currently, accountants are subject to partial oversight by their professional organization, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants; the Federal Accounting Standards Board; and the State Boards of Accountancy, which license accountants. Under H.R. 3763, the power of these State boards is not diminished. Third, prohibit corporate executives from buying or selling company stock during any period where 401(k) plan participants are unable to buy or sell securities. This provision would address the particular actions of Enron corporate executives who sold their stock when 401(k) participants were prohibited from selling their shares of stock. Fourth, make it a crime for a corporate official to fraudulently influence, coerce, manipulate, or mislead an accountant performing an audit of a company. Fifth, require companies to make real-time disclosures of financial information that is important to investors, such as material changes in a company's financial condition. Sixth, require corporate executives to disclose when they sell securities they own in the company immediately. Current regulations allow corporate executives up to 40 days to make such disclosures. This Member would also like to note that while H.R. 3763 is certainly a step towards protecting investors in the future, he also hopes that the corporate executives at Enron and the relevant auditors at Arthur Andersen are punished in the proper manner for their grossly irresponsible, probably illegal, corporate behavior. In closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3763.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as stated on the record many times, this Member continues his strong opposition to the total elimination of the estate tax on the super-rich. The reasons for this opposition to this terrible idea have been publicly explained on numerous occasions, including statements in the Congressional Record. This Member has every expectation that this legislation in total is going nowhere in the other body. Furthermore, this Member has every reasonable assurance, in this unpredictable place, that there will be a straight up-and-down vote specifically on the elimination of the inheritance tax. At that time, this Member will most assuredly vote ``no'' and do everything in his power to defeat the total repeal of the inheritance tax for the wealthiest Americans. However, this Member is strongly in favor of substantially raising the estate tax exemption level and reducing the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates and introduced legislation, H.R. 42, to this effect. This Member believes that the only way to ensure that his Nebraska and all American small business, farm and ranch families benefit from estate tax reform is to dramatically and immediately increase the Federal inheritance tax exemption level, such as provided in H.R. 42. This Member's bill (H.R. 42) would provide immediate, essential Federal estate tax relief by immediately increasing the Federal estate tax exclusion to $10 million effective upon enactment. (With some estate planning, a married couple could double the value of this exclusion to $20 million. As a comparison, under the current law for year 2001, the estate tax exclusion is only $675,000.) In addition, H.R. 42 would adjust this $10 million exclusion for inflation thereafter. The legislation would decrease the highest Federal estate tax rate from 55% to 39.6% effective upon enactment, as 39.6% is currently the highest Federal income tax rate. Under the bill, the value of an estate over $10 million would be taxed at the 39.6% rate. Under current law, the 55% estate tax bracket begins for estates over $3 million. Finally, H.R. 42 would continue to apply the stepped-up capital gains basis to the estate, which is provided in current law. In fact, this Member would be willing to raise the estate tax exclusion level to $15 million. Since this Member believes that H.R. 42 or similar legislation is the only way to provide true estate tax reduction for our nation's small business, farm and ranch families, this Member must use this opportunity to reiterate the following reasons for his opposition to the total elimination of the Federal estate tax. First, to totally eliminate the estate tax on billionaires and mega-millionaires would be very much contrary to the national interest. Second, the elimination of the estate tax also would have a very negative impact upon the continuance of very large charitable contributions for colleges and universities and other worthy institutions in our country. Finally, and fortunately, this Member believes it will never be eliminated in the year 2010. At this point it should be noted that under the previously enacted estate tax legislation (e.g., the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act), beginning in 2011, the ``stepped-up basis'' is eliminated (with two exceptions) such that the value of inherited assets would be ``carried-over'' from the deceased. Therefore, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act could result in unfortunate tax consequences for some heirs as the heirs would have to pay capital gains taxes on any increase in the value of the property from the time the asset was acquired by the deceased until it was sold by the heirs--resulting in a higher capital gain and larger tax liability for the heirs than under the current ``stepped-up'' basis law. Unfortunately, the bill before us today (H.R. 586) apparently would also make the stepped-up basis elimination permanent resulting in a continuation of the problems just noted by this Member--higher capital gains and larger tax liability for heirs. In closing, Mr. Speaker, while this Member is strongly supportive of provisions in this bill making most of the earlier tax cuts permanent, he cannot in good conscience support the total elimination of the inheritance tax.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees on the issue of payment limitations which the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has offered. It is clear that strong payment limitation language would improve the integrity of the farm program payments and help to retain public support for these programs essential to rural areas. Making this change will also help prevent the overwhelming consolidation of farms that has resulted in a decrease in small- and medium-sized family farm operations. The savings achieved from this provision could then be directed to other worthwhile agricultural programs. A survey conducted by 27 land grant universities found that 81 percent of the agricultural producers across the country supported placing limits on support payments thereby directing dollars to where they are actually intended. Furthermore, a 2001 General Accounting Office report found that in recent years, more than 80 percent of farm payments were made to large- and medium-size farms. In 1999, for instance, 7 percent of the nation's farms--those with gross agricultural sales of $250,000 or more--received about 45 percent of the payments. With Congress facing so many spending priorities, we must demonstrate to our constituents that we are using taxpayers' money more efficiently. It is important to note that this motion to instruct expresses support for redirecting these funds to agricultural research and conservation. Our choice is clear--we can continue to funnel millions of dollars to some of the wealthiest farms or we can make an investment in the future of agriculture which will benefit all producers and all Americans. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly supports the motion to instruct and encourages his colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 4167, which retroactively extends Chapter 12 bankruptcy for family farms and ranches to June 1, 2002. Chapter 12 bankruptcy expired on October 1, 2001. This legislation is very important to the nation's agriculture sector. This Member would express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, for introducing H.R. 4167. In addition, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for his efforts in getting this measure to the House Floor for consideration. This extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy is supported by this Member as it allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets. The use of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy provision has been an important and necessary option for family farmers throughout the nation. It has allowed family farmers to reorganize their assets in a manner which balances the interests of creditors and the future success of the involved farmer. If Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions are not extended for family farmers, it will be another very painful blow to an agricultural sector already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only will many family farmers have no viable option other than to end their operations, but it will also cause land values to likely plunge. Such a decrease in value of farmland will negatively affect the ability of family farmers to earn a living. In addition, the resulting decrease in farmland value will impact the manner in which banks conduct their agricultural lending activities. Furthermore, this Member has received many contacts from his constituents supporting extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy because of the situation now being faced by our nation's farm families--it is clear that the agricultural sector is hurting. I closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 4167.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), who represents an area with a wide and important export base.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This Member rises today in support of S. 2019, which is being considered under the suspension of the rules. This legislation extends the authorization of the Export-Import Bank until April 30, 2002. This Member would also note that he introduced identical House companion legislation, H.R. 3987. Under current law, the authorization of the Export-Import Bank expires on March 31, 2002. If this short-term authorization extension is not signed into law, the Export-Import Bank could engage in no new transactions and would have to wind down its current operations as of the expiration date. On March 14, 2002, the Senate passed this Ex-Im extension bill and a separate Ex-Im authorization bill. It is important that the House debate and approve the Senate extension bill today so that the President can sign this into law before the March 31 expiration date. At the outset, this Member would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his leadership on Ex-Im Bank issues and for that of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for their help and assistance and for their support of this legislation in general. This Member has, of course, a special interest since he chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, which has jurisdiction over the Ex-Im Bank. The Export-Import Bank is an independent U.S. Government agency that provides 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. To illustrate the importance of the Ex-Im Bank, in fiscal year 2000 the Bank invested over $15 billion in exports through loans, guarantees and insurance by which the Ex-Im Bank financed exports such as civilian aircraft, electronics, engineering services, vehicles, agricultural products, et cetera, for businesses of all sizes. The Export-Import Bank, I stress, is intended to be only the lender of last resort and is not intended to compete with private lenders. On October 31, 2001, the House Committee on Financial Services passed H.R. 2871, a more comprehensive and 4-year authorization bill, by voice vote. That legislation, among other things, would require that the Export-Import 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. This authorization bill also would require the Export-Import Bank to continue to increase its investment in Africa. Moreover, an amendment was accepted at the full committee markup, which was offered by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), that would address Ex-Im Bank's transaction with a Chinese steel producer. This legislation would also make a clarification in the administration of the Tied Aid War Chest which finances tied aid transactions. However, a veto threat by the Treasury Department over the relationships and disputed powers of the Treasury and the Export- Import Bank and lost time in sporadic negotiations between the committee and the executive branch have delayed the committee in bringing H.R. 2871 to the House floor for action. Thus, the need for this extension. In conclusion, this Member urges his colleagues to support this short-term extension for the Export-Import Bank until April 30, 2002. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2509) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to produce currency, postage stamps, and other security documents at the request of foreign governments, and security documents at the request of the individual States of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, on a reimbursable basis, as amended.