Date: 1981-06-24
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. each new week finds this Congress under more pressure to submit to the regal dictates of the OMB computers. and their master programer. David Stockman. Attempts will almost certainly be made during consideration of the reconciliation bill to replace cuts made by authorizing committees with cuts made by the OMB computers. Currently administration criticism singles out action taken by the Banking Committee on the ExportImport Bank and describes the results as "unrealistic and unwarranted." OMB asserts that the committees 1982 cut of $2.4 billion "would be catastrophic for U.S. exports." But is it really credible that the $2 billion cut suggested by President Reagan is perfectly acceptable. while an additional $400 million taken away is a catastrophe. I suggest that this is not a major policy difference but a prime example of David Stockmans monumental hubris. which turns the slightest deviation from the OMB computer printouts into a disaster for our Nation. This is not to say that the Banking Committee believed the funding for Eximbank as passed. was acceptable. The Members recognized a need for continued funding of this valuable program. but it was faced with the brick wall of reconciliation targets and had no choice. In our report to the Budget Committee we wrote that our authorization was "inadequate and Insufficient. in absolute terms. but quite generous in relative terms. that is. relative to the severe cutbacks it isforced to make in other programs within its jurisdiction." The Members of this Congress must never forget. as the OMB computers present their heartbreaking story of how Congress asserted its constitutional mandate and made decisions. that. taken individually. most cuts are cruel. unnecessary. and harmful to the national interest. Unfortunately. under administration pressure and Republican guidance. this Congress had to make the specific cuts. The money for these reductions must come out of Individual programs. and no one will be pleased with each cut. The committee chose to take a little more money from big business subsidies. to help the lowincome and elderly people of this country weatherize their homes against the onslaughts of winter and the administrations oil price decontrols. The Eximbank direct loan level established by Banking Committee action would allow the bank to meet all of its preliminary loan commitments for fiscal year 1982. and was determined by the committee to be minimally sufficient for Eximbank to continue its support of our countrys exporting industries and their job production efforts. Even with all the cuts taken during the committees meetings. the members recognized that we must assure our exporters of continued access to foreign markets. Thus. the committee. earlier this year. passed H.R. 3228. the "competitive export subsidy fund." This bill would create a fund which would provide interest subsidies for our exports if negotiations with world trading partners do not produce real progress in eliminating their subsidized export promotion programs. These. as we know. create competitive inequalities for our exporters. The committee has also reconwacnded to the House Committee on Appropriations that the level of guarantees and Insurance provided by the Eximbank be increased for fiscal year 1982. This would allow the Bank to leverage its leaner direct loan program by offering packages of assistance to exporters including direct loans and guarantees. But the OMB criticism does not stop with savings from 1982. The OMB computers allege that the committee provides no new funding for Eximbank in fiscal year 1983 and 1984. and technically this is true. But it is a mere technicality. The committee chose to change the expiration date of the ExportImport Act from September 30. 1983. to September 30. 1982. We did not do this because no new funding for the bank and its job producing activities was desired. We made that change because the committee is determined to realistically assess the direct lending needs of this bank In the international climate prevailing next year. not to lock us in to specific funding through 1984. If the last year and onehalf has taught us anything about world affairs. it should have taught us that crystalball gazing is an unsatisfactory way to make policy with respect to other nations. actions. Who would have predicted in December 1979 that Poland would have an independent trade union. that France would elect its first socialist government since World War II. or that there would be an oil glut sufficient to make prices edge downward? Yet each of those conditions has had a substantial influence on our financial. political and economic dealings with the rest of the world. The crystalball of Eximbanks future role is more clouded by ongoing trade policy negotiations with major exporting countries. While the OMB propogandists argue that Banking Committee action would "completely destroy U.S. efforts to negotiate international export credit restraints." the committees action actually provides the best atmosphere for such negotiations. If the committee had followed OMB wishes and lockedin funding for Eximbank for the next 3 years. until the end of fiscal year 1984. what negotiating position would our Government have? Would our promises to step up export aid be credible if other governments read in the New York Times that we have already set the funding levels for these programsmany years into the future? The Banking Committees report to the Budget Committee explicitly recognizes the need to hold out the carrot as well as the stick to trading competitors in these negotiations. saying that the early expirition of the Eximbank Act was designed to give the committee "an opportunity to examine the need for a higher direct loan limit after fiscal year 1982." Of course. in taking action in the future that would affect the Eximbank finding levels. the Banking Committee recognizes its responsibilites under GrammLatta to keep spending at mandated levels. so that relative adjustments in program levels may have to be made. The Banking Committee will not violate its responsibilities. but we ask the House to allow us to make -those decisions when the needs of the ExportImport Bank become clear. and proper adjustments between the requirements of our international trading sector and our domestic responsibilities can be made. We should not force the hands of our negotiators by locking them in to certain funding levels before the negotiations get underway.e