Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the House today takes up H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act, which the Committee on Banking and Financial Services approved by unanimous voice vote last Thursday. The bill is before us today as a result of a ruling by the Supreme Court on February 25, holding that the National Credit Union Administration had improperly interpreted its 1934 act in allowing for mergers between credit unions with different common bonds. Last year, at the time the Court took the case, there were those who advocated congressional action. My view, and that of many others, was that it would have been inappropriate for Congress to act while the case was pending before the Court. However, I made it clear to all affected parties that I was committed to prompt hearings and action if necessary to ensure that no Americans would be kicked out of the financial institution of their choice. Mr. Speaker, we have moved quickly for a deliberative legislative body. Within two weeks of the Supreme Court ruling, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services had a comprehensive hearing on the subject. Two weeks later we marked up a bill, and now it is being brought to the floor. Credit unions represent democracy at work in the marketplace, and this legislation will go a long way towards ensuring they remain an integral part of the American way of life. The legislation before us first and foremost provides for grandfathering all current common bond arrangements and all current credit union members. It ensures the continued safety and soundness of credit unions by permitting certain multiple common bond formations in the future. H.R. 1151 would allow any credit union members jeopardized by the court ruling to retain their membership. It would allow credit unions to accept members from an unrelated group as long as the members from the group do not exceed 3,000. Groups that joined would also have to be located within a reasonable proximity of the credit union itself. The bill would require the Credit Union Administration to move to more specifically define who could join a credit union, based on their status as a member's immediate family or household or living in a certain geographic area. The bill would extend for one year current regulations that allow credit unions to make commercial loans. The bill would require credit unions to serve members of modest means, and require the Credit Union Administration to set up criteria for periodically reviewing credit unions' lending records to ensure compliance with this provision. This provision is similar to the requirements of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which applies to the banking industry. The bill would also require that the Credit Union Administration promulgate regulations that would apply capital requirements to credit unions to ensure safety and soundness. Such requirements deal with such items as reserves and collateral now applied to banks. The bill would allow the Credit Union Administration to increase the funds that credit unions must pay to the National Credit Union Insurance Fund, a Federal fund that insures deposits and makes credit unions safe for the public. Finally, I would like to draw Members' attention to a provision I authored which is designed to protect credit union members in the event a credit union changes to a stock charter. In the S&L industry in recent years, insiders who controlled mutual associations reaped large profits when they changed to a stock structure. Under this bill, in the event any credit union changes its structure, the benefits of the credit union will go to the membership rather than insiders. Mr. Speaker, I ask for Members' support for this bill, and would like to recognize important contributions in its crafting by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the distinguished ranking member of the committee, as well as that of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. In addition to the original cosponsors of H.R. 1151, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) made extraordinary contributions to the legislation before us. I thank all of them and their respective staffs for working days, evenings and weekends in order to bring this to the floor on a timely basis. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. LaFalce asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTOURETTE), original author of this legislation, a very committed and distinguished Member. (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. On behalf of the majority, I would like to speak out of order for a few seconds simply to congratulate the minority in their thoughtfulness in designating the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) as the new ranking member. Speaking personally, he is not only a wonderful friend but his background in all the issues before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services is unparalleled and unmatched. We are very honored to work with him and we look forward to that prospect.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and let me just say that this particular bill, which is a homeless housing consolidation act, was introduced by our distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio). It has received a great deal of partisan input, led by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and a number of refinements from the administration and Mr. Cuomo, Secretary of HUD. I personally think it is a common sense, thoughtful, constructive way to proceed with homeless housing. It represents a commitment of Congress to this arena of public concern, which is one of the most extraordinary in this country at this time. For a country the size of ours to have the depth of our problems is clearly a national embarrassment that takes a great deal of national commitment to overcome. I would just like to suggest to my colleagues that this is one of these kinds of bills that has had the input of lots of parties and certainly the gentleman from Massachusetts, in his support, symbolizes that; but the gentleman from New York, again, this distinguishes him as one of the preeminent subcommittee chairmen of the House, and I am very appreciative of his leadership on this issue.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to include in the Record additional statements and to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3116, the bill just passed.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to conclude by saying this issue is extraordinarily important for consumers. It is important for America's competitive position abroad. To become Year 2000 compliant will involve a multi-billion dollar cost to the economy and success or failure will affect the competitive position of many types of private sector organizations at home and abroad. I am particularly concerned at home with the competitive position of various vendors to financial institutions, some of which are on top of the problem, some of which are less so. Abroad, we could literally see a run to American financial institutions who are on top of the problem, in contrast with foreign competitors. Europe is intertwined with a series of problems related to European Community. In Asia there is a series of very different kinds of problems. Neither in the world is putting as much attention as the United States is. So as there are challenges, there are also potential opportunities for those institutions who are on top of this particular subject matter. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that also from a job sense, we are going to see perhaps the greatest shortage of software engineers and technicians in the history of the country in almost any industry. And it is important for individuals not only in the financial services sector, but in other types of critical industries, to be very sensitive to these issues. Obviously, relating to airlines which is one most in the public mind, but there are many others as well. In any regard, this is a very, very modest bill that the Congress is putting forth. Behind the bill is also the sense that involved is an education process of which the Congress is a part. And while this bill will not be an answer to anything, it is intended to precipitate serious attention to the issue. Mr. Speaker, with that, I have no further requests for time. I would like to thank particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), as well as the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her thoughtful attention.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3116, the Examination Parity and Year 2000 Readiness for Financial Institutions Act. This bill is a product of hearings which the Committee on Banking and Financial Services held in November and February to examine the potential impact of the year 2000 computer problem on the Nation's financial institutions. It was reported from committee on February 5 on a voice vote with broad bipartisan support, and I want to express my appreciation to the minority for their cooperation, particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and assistance in facilitating timely action on this bill. For those of our colleagues who may not yet be aware of this issue, the year 2000 problem, or Y2K problem, as it is sometimes called, arises from the fact that most computers represent the year with only two digits. Hence, 1998 is simply recorded as ``98.'' Unfortunately, that means when the clock rolls over to January 1, 2000, many computers may incorrectly assume that 00 means 1900 rather than 2000. As a result, computers may reject data entries, calculate erroneous results, or simply shut down. As inconsequential as this issue may appear, it is clear from testimony presented at the committee's hearing that the year 2000 problem poses a serious challenge to the banking sector and to the economy as a whole. Thousands of financial institutions in the United States rely on computers for such functions as check clearing, direct deposit, accounting, automated teller machines, ATM networks, credit card processing, and electronic data exchanges with external parties. Even passenger security systems, vaults, phone systems, elevators, and other building systems could malfunction if embedded data-sensitive microchips failed to process the year 2000 date change. Most of the effort to address the year 2000 problem does not require new legislation. The bill before us today is designed to deal with a couple of discrete aspects of the problem as it relates to financial institutions. First, H.R. 3116 requires Federal financial regulatory agencies to hold seminars for financial institutions on the implications of the problem for safe and sound operations, and to provide model approaches for solving common problems. The bill gives the agency broad latitude to work together and with outside industry organizations to accomplish these objectives. Second, H.R. 3116 extends to the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration the authority to examine the operations of service corporations or other entities that perform services under contracts for thrifts and credit unions, thereby giving these two financial regulatory agencies statute parity with the other three, the Fed, the OCC, and the FDIC, which already have such authority. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote aye on this important measure, and I would like to thank in particular the staff for all of their work for what appears to be a very esoteric but surprisingly sophisticated issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3116) to address the year 2000 computer problems with regard to financial institutions, to extend examination parity to the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1564) to provide redress for inadequate restitution of assets seized by the United States Government during World War II which belonged to victims of the Holocaust, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, let me first explain some of the background of this bill to my distinguished friend, with whom I have had talks prior to this session and with whose staff we have consulted. This bill is the result of several extensive hearings in the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services that will be followed up by more hearings in the next several weeks. The bill, as I would repeat again, was introduced after these hearings at the exclusive instigation of the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. And I would say to my distinguished friend, the implication of outside group pressure is not a very appropriate one. I would also say that one of the backgrounds for trying to push the bill at the very end of the last session related, A, to the fact that the Senate passed it in virtual identical form to the bill that my distinguished colleague the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and I introduced with broad bipartisan support, including the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], another gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]; and on the Republican side the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly]. This bill caught the so-called groups that the gentleman implies are behind it by surprise. It was exclusively based upon hearings before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the timing related to the fact that international negotiations were to commence in December to deal with this subject matter calling for international support. And we wanted to make it clear that the United States would be a participant so that our participation could help leverage substantial foreign support. Now, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) indicates that he believes the bill is faultily crafted in a timing sense at this point in time because certain negotiations have occurred. The gentleman is partially but not fully correct. The decision that was made in the negotiations in December opened up the prospect of further international support, but no agreement has been made on what support individual countries will make. So the bill, in its verbiage, is entirely appropriate and entirely accurate. Now let me go back a little bit about what stands behind the bill. This bill was initially introduced in the House of Representatives. It would provide $25 million as a U.S. contribution to the organizations serving survivors of the Holocaust and an additional $5 million for archival research to be managed by the Holocaust Museum. The second aspect, the additional $5 million for the Holocaust Museum, came from the United States Senate, one that I believe is thoroughly appropriate. Our bill only referenced the Holocaust Museum without a designated number. But I believe it is appropriate, as the Senate has done, to put in a precise number. The bill would also declare the sense of Congress that all governments take appropriate actions to ensure that artwork seized or extorted by the Nazis or by the Soviets be returned to their original owners or heirs. I think that is an entirely appropriate position for the United States Government to take and this Congress in particular. After all, the Holocaust was the greatest crime in history; and I believe this bill is something that provides a material redress and is entirely appropriate. But, most of all, this bill is a reminder that the past must never be forgotten. Sometimes issues of the past are more controversial than issues of the present; and sometimes there is nothing more difficult than to judge the past, to establish what might be described as retrospective justice. It must be understood that history doesn't have a statute of limitations. People cannot be allowed to disappear from the earth without tracks, without moral if not monetary restitution. And when one really thinks it through, one has to recognize that one of the impelling aspects of the Holocaust was avarice. This bill says, in effect, that even at a very late moment in time avarice will not be rewarded. Finally, let me indicate to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), because he has raised some questions that I believe are specifically answered in the legislative language, this bill is not a new appropriation. It is a redirection of formerly appropriated funds. There are no ongoing implications of funding. It is entirely designed to assist the Department of State in its current ongoing activities. It has the strong support of the administration; and here I want to tip my hat to the Under Secretary of State, Stuart Eizenstat, for his leadership on this issue, which I think has been thoroughly appropriate. Finally, let me also say as strongly as I can to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), for whom I have no higher respect of anyone in this body, that the hearing record established in the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services is extensive and extraordinary. I had not, in working on the legislation, intended that the resources be derived from the State Department budget. But that is what the administration recommended; and, therefore, that is the way this bill is designed. But I would assure the gentleman that the hearing record is extensive, it is compelling, and it is extraordinary. I recognize that the gentleman has certain concerns. I also recognize that the gentleman is supportive, and for that I am very appreciative.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) for yielding. First, let me say, the gentleman has discussed this issue with me; and I would say the gentleman's leadership is very appreciated. It is the gentleman from Iowa's belief that the insurance issue is much larger than the banking issue, and we will be holding a hearing on February 12 on this issue. I believe it is a very important subject matter of a little different dimension and direction, and we intend to pursue legislation in this arena, and I believe it is very important that we do so. I would only ask the indulgence of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) to make a point, though, that I think has been misunderstood by the other side. That is, not only was this bill introduced at the exclusive direction of the chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services without any prior input from any source, the pressure to bring it to the floor entirely emanates from the chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, partly because of disappointment that it was not brought just as the House came to adjournment because of the timing matters that occurred then. And the leadership agreed that they would bring it up as the first item of this session, which I think is very important, and partly because it is the view of the gentleman from Iowa that, in a negotiating circumstance, it is very important to press forward. I raise this as profoundly as I can because the implications on this House floor that there are pressures from outside groups is inappropriate. This bill is a statement of the moral direction of the House of Representatives as a reflection of the American people, not of any particular group.

Mr. LEACH. I would not be so timorous to ask the gentleman to yield except on a point of fact. This bill was written exclusively by the chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. No outside group presented this bill or suggested the bill prior to its introduction. I state that to the gentleman as a matter of fact and would request a correction.

Mr. LEACH. The gentleman has the time, of course.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 1564, the Senate bill just passed.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the bill would authorize up to $25 million as a U.S. contribution to organizations serving survivors of the Holocaust living in the United States and an additional $5 million for archival research by the U.S. Holocaust Museum to assist in the restitution of assets looted or extorted from Holocaust victims. It would also declare that it is the sense of Congress that all governments take appropriate action to ensure that artworks confiscated by the Nazis--or in the aftermath of World War II by the Soviets--be returned to their original owners or their heirs. The genesis for this proposal dates back to hearings which the Committee on Banking and Financial Services held over the past year, chronicling how the Nazis looted gold from the central banks of Europe, as well as from individual Holocaust victims. Following World War II, the Tripartite Gold Commission, consisting of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, was created to oversee the recovery and return of Nazi-looted gold to the countries from which it was stolen. Most of the gold recovered during that period was long ago returned to claimant countries. However, a small portion of that gold remains to be distributed. The amount of gold in TGC custody, amount to six metric tons, is worth anywhere from $50 million to $70 million depending on the price of gold at a given time. Fifteen nations hold claim to some portion of that gold. The case for speedy final distribution of the remaining gold pool to Holocaust survivors is compelling. The moral case for such a distribution has been increased by the horrific revelation in the recently released report from Under-Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat that Nazi Germany co-mingled victim gold, taken from the personal property of Holocaust victims, including their dental fillings, with monetary gold, resmelting it into gold bars which the Nazis traded for hard currency to finance the war effort. This bill would put the Congress on record in strong support of the State Department's appeal to claimant nations to contribute their TGC gold to Holocaust survivors and strengthen the Department's hand in seeking this goal by authorizing the President to commit the United States to a voluntary donation of up to $25 million for this purpose. A voluntary contribution on our part would go a long way in facilitating a similar gesture of generosity from others who may be claimants of the gold pool or who may have reason to provide redress for actions taken during the dark night of the human soul we call the Holocaust. A contribution of this nature by the United States would also serve as an act of conscience on the part of this nation. As the bill indicates in the findings, there was an unknown quantity of heirless assets of Holocaust victims in the United States after World War II. A 1941 census of foreign assets in the United States identified $198 million in German-owned assets in the United States as well as another $1.2 billion in Swiss assets. Assets inventoried in the census included bank accounts, securities, trusts, and other items. In the years following World War II, Congress recognized that some of these assets held in the United States may have in fact belonged to Jewish victims of the Holocaust who had sent their assets abroad for safekeeping. Given this circumstance, Congress authorized up to $3 million in claims for such heirless assets to be awarded to a successor organization to provide relief and rehabilitation for needy survivors. However, the political difficulties associated with such a commitment led Congress ultimately to settle on a $500,000 contribution. Although the documentary record on asset ownership remains sparse, it is likely that heirless assets in the U.S. were worth much more than the 1962 settlement figure. A precise accounting of claims will remain unknowable, but the fact that the United States committed itself to such a modest amount in settlement for victim claims provides justification for the United States to make an inflation-adjusted contribution today for victim funds mingled with Nazi assets located in and seized by the United States during the war. In testimony before our Committee, Under Secretary Eizenstat urged that a better accounting be made for the fate of heirless assets in banks in the United States, and that the issue of World War II-era insurance policies, securities and art work also be examined. To help answer these questions, the legislation would direct $5 million to the United States Holocaust Museum for archival research to assist in the restitution of assets of all types looted or extorted from Holocaust victims, and activities that would support Holocaust remembrance and education activities. The second title of the bill deals with Nazi-looted art. A witness at our hearings noted that, `The twelve years of the Nazi era mark the greatest displacement of art in history.' Under international legal principles dating back to the Hague Convention of 1907, pillaging during war is forbidden as is the seizure of works of art. In defiance of international standards, the Nazis looted valuable works of art from their own citizens and institutions as well as from people and institutions in France and Holland and other occupied countries. This grand theft of art helped the Nazis finance their war. Avarice served as an incentive to genocide with the ultimate in governmental censorship being reflected in the Aryan supremacist notion that certain modern art was degenerate and thus disposable. The Nazis purged state museums of impressionist, abstract, expressionist, and religious art as well as art they deemed to be politically or racially incorrect. Private Jewish art collections in Germany and Nazi-occupied countries are confiscated while others were extorted from their owners. Still others were exchanged by their owners for exit permits to flee the country. As the Nazis sold works of art for hard currency to finance the war, many artworks disappeared into the international marketplace. Efforts following the war to return the looted art to original owners were successful to a degree, but to this day many items remain lost to their original owners and heirs. It is interesting to note that when the French Vichy government tried to object on international legal grounds to Nazi confiscation of art owned by Jewish citizens in France, the Germans responded that such individuals (including those who were sent to concentration camps) had been declared by French authorities no longer to be citizens. Hence, the Nazis claimed that the 1907 Hague Convention, which prohibits the confiscation of assets from citizens in occupied countries, did not apply. This reasoning cannot be tolerated by civilized people and one purpose of the legislation before us today is to underline that the restitution of these works of art to their rightful owners is required by international law, as spelled out in the 1907 Hague Convention. The return of war booty ought to be a goal of civilized nations even at this late date, long after the end of World War II. For that reason, I have included in the legislation a sense of Congress urging all governments to take appropriate actions to achieve this end. The Holocaust may have been a war within a war--one fought against defined individuals and civilized values--but it was an integral part of the larger world war among states. Hence, the international principles prohibiting the theft of art and private property during wartime should be applied with equal rigor in instances of genocidal war within a country's borders or conquered territory.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Let me say I think his leadership on this issue has been nothing less than estimable, and I intend to support his bill, but I think all of us in this body have to understand that the intricacies of single-issue group politics is bedeviling our foreign policy at this time and jeopardizing the national interests of the United States. If this Congress adjourns without passing fast track, without passing U.N. reform and arrearages, and if we do nothing about the IMF replenishment, there is a distinct possibility that tomorrow will not be the last day of this year's session. The last two issues are of vital significance this week, and we may well be called back into a special session. This Member would support it. The fact of the matter is we need to address the U.N. at this time. We need to address international economic circumstances as implied in the IMF. I am hopeful we will do so.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and say in behalf of the House what a wonderful job he has done in leading this Congress on this issue, and also what a wonderful job the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] has done. I think, speaking for this side, it is pretty self-apparent we are going to miss the gentleman very badly, and we hope in prayerful consultation he will figure out another way to rejoin the public fray at some point in the future. Let me make a couple of process observations and then go to the substance. First, I know of no issue that has been addressed in a more bipartisan, bicameral, biinstitutional way, bipartisan symbolized by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], who has been so thoughtful in his additions to this subject matter, and frankly who, in an amendment that did not prevail and I am hopeful that in the next year will, because it is one of the most thoughtful amendments that I think has come up on this subject matter in recent years. Second, it is interesting, because the time this is being considered is 8 or 10 hours before this Congress is about to be divided, divided philosophically and divided by interest groups. Labor and the business community really have their dukes up on what is called the fast track bill. In this bill, the organized labor community of the United States and the business community is in total concert, with thorough support. I would like to give an example. When I recently spoke at a group in my home area in the Quad Cities in East Moline, Illinois, on the other side of the Mississippi River, the United Auto Workers and the leadership of Deere & Company came together to express their thanks for what the Eximbank had done to be able to provide them the resources to in effect send a large number of combines to the Newly Independent States, the former Soviet Union. If there was a greater example of swords into plough shares, I do not know it, all made possible by the Export-Import Bank. Sometimes it is important to use examples, and let me use a couple of others from my congressional district. In River Dale, Iowa, is the largest Alcoa processing plant for the development of aluminum that goes on the wings of every single Boeing aircraft sold. In Cedar Rapids, also in my congressional district, is the Collins Radio Division of Rockwell, which makes instrument panels of the vast majority of aircraft exported from the United States of America. Without the Export-Import Bank, literally in my congressional district, we would have thousands fewer jobs. What should be stressed is that these are fewer jobs of the highest, best kind in my district. So from a district perspective, this makes good sense. But we have to look at things first from the national perspective. And here I think this country, as we look around the world and look at the export versus import equation, which is running against the United States, not to give the benefit of the doubt to those programs that advance exports would be a major mistake. In terms of cost, there is a modest cost in this bill. On the other hand, over the last several decades, the Export-Import Bank has approximately broken even on the ledger sheet, but more importantly, if one combined the income from the taxes to corporations and individuals based upon jobs that are created, the country is running well ahead of the game. So this is a very cost-effective program. Finally, let me just say with regard to an observation of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], I want to commend the leadership of this Export-Import Bank under the Clinton administration for moving more impressively towards the small business community. And even though, if we take an order for combines that might come from Deere & Company, there might be foundries that are small business, seat manufacturers that are small business and other suppliers that will be small business. There are also small business ventures themselves that are getting increasing attention from the Export-Import Bank, and I think that is a very fine trend. So let me just say in conclusion, I believe this is a good judgment of the Members, a good judgment of the administration, and good policy for the United States.