[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 28, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7554-S7557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, we are on the floor in celebration of
the American democracy, that occasionally things can work, and that we
can overcome extremes in our country and actually pull together to do
something for American manufacturers, to do something for American
businesses, and to do what is right.
I know my colleague, the senior Senator from the great State of
Washington, is on a short timeframe, so before I proceed with my
remarks I would like to yield the floor to Senator Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here with my
colleague, and I thank the Senator from North Dakota for her
exhilaration we all share because of the vote last night in the House
overwhelmingly in support of Ex-Im.
I am here to reiterate my strong support for reauthorization of the
Export-Import Bank, and I applaud the Members of the House who easily
passed the reauthorization bill last night. It is actually easy to see
why the bill got so much support. It is good for American jobs, it is
good for small businesses, and it reduces our national debt. The fact
that Republican leadership has let this program go dark for so long,
held hostage by political pandering, is outrageous.
The longer Ex-Im is shuttered, the more it hurts American
competitiveness. In my home State of Washington, nearly 100
businesses--the majority of them medium or small businesses--used the
Bank services last year to help sell their products overseas. We are
talking about everything from Apple and airplane parts to beer and
wine, to software and medical training supplies. In fact, I actually
recently visited one of these small businesses--a brewery in Seattle.
In 2011, Hilliard's Brewery started with three employees dedicated to
making good beer. Thanks to a loan from the Ex-Im Bank, Hilliard's
tapped into foreign markets and developed a following. Fast forward to
2015. They have dramatically increased their production, they continue
to grow, and they built a business that thrives today.
The reality is that people in other countries want American-made
products. That is great because these businesses support tens of
thousands of jobs around the country and they keep our economy moving.
The Export-Import Bank is the right investment because it expands
American businesses' access to emerging foreign markets, creating jobs
right here at home. Do you know what it costs taxpayers? Not a single
penny. In fact, the Export-Import Bank puts money back into our
country.
Here is the bottom line: Republican leaders allowed partisan
pandering to put the brakes on a program that creates jobs, strengthens
our small businesses, and helps our economy grow. I believe--and I am
joining my colleagues today--it is time to put this ideology aside.
Let's restart this proven program. It is critical the Ex-Im Bank
continues to receive the strong bipartisan support we have seen in the
past as we work to reauthorize this bill that is a success. I am proud
to join my colleagues to say let's get this done.
Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, yesterday was a great day, and it was a
great day not just because something we have worked so long and hard on
actually was advanced, and that we care about, reopening the Ex-Im
Bank, but it was when a majority of people in the U.S. Congress stood
up, led by a Republican from Tennessee, Representative Fincher, and
actually said: We are not going to let hard rightwing politics get in
the way of American jobs, American manufacturing opportunities, and get
in the way of moving our country forward. I think that speaks volumes,
and I hope it becomes an opportunity to move other broad bipartisan
pieces of legislation forward.
The frustration the American people have with the U.S. Congress is
that things that seem to be no-brainers--legislation that seems to be
so obvious in terms of the right kind of policy--do not get done in the
U.S. Congress. So I am elated with what happened over in the House.
Now the ball is back in our court. We have been waiting for a number
of months to see House movement on this. Because of the discharge
petition, because of this big vote, we now see House movement. The
House has done their job. It is now time for us to do our job.
I want to point out a couple of things about that vote. It ended up
being over 70 percent of the House of Representatives. Think about
that. In this time of hard partisan fighting, we have 70 percent of a
body agreeing to an important public policy. What also is significant
about that vote is 127 Republicans--in fact, a majority of Republicans
in the House--voted to support the Ex-Im Bank, reauthorize it, open it
up, and open up this opportunity for American manufacturers.
There can be no debate. Along with my colleague from Washington, we
have been saying all along that we believed there was broad support in
the House of Representatives to do this. I think they hadn't had a test
vote in the past. Now we know, and we can say it with great certainty,
not only is there majority support, there is supermajority support for
the Ex-Im Bank.
Now it is our turn. Now it is our job once again. A few short months
ago I stood in this body, working with my two great colleagues who have
joined me on the floor, to push back and say: Look, if we believe in a
trade agenda, we believe as the three of us have voted, to support TPA.
We are now evaluating and analyzing TPP. What sense does it make to
take one of the most significant and important trade tools such as the
Ex-Im Bank--something that levels the playing field and creates huge
opportunities for us to be competitive against a world where these kind
of private agencies are supported by every major economy and every
major government, including some of the developing nations right now--
what sense does it make to shut down or restrict that tool? In what
world does that make sense? We have been making this commonsense
argument and fighting against things that make absolutely no sense and,
quite honestly, in many ways seems almost idiotic.
Unfortunately, there are casualties to this failure in America today.
American jobs have been lost, American economic opportunity has been
lost, and
[[Page S7555]]
America's position as a leading manufacturer and exporter of quality
goods has been challenged because we have sent a message that we are
not open for business. We have sent the message that we no longer are
going to engage with the rest of the world in terms of developing and
supporting exports. That is the wrong message.
I think the House yesterday sent a huge message to those foreign
nationals in those countries who think we were willing to basically
abrogate the ground--give the ground away to other companies from other
countries. We sent a loud-and-clear message that is not going to happen
on our watch.
I rise to make one final point before I ask my colleagues to join me.
I will make one final point, which is this bill is going to come over
from the House of Representatives. We have been having this discussion
about what can we attach it to. We need to attach it to something
because the House will not take it independently. Isn't that what we
have been hearing; that the House couldn't possibly move this without
being on a so called must-have piece of legislation. That argument is
way gone. It has been blown up by the vote yesterday in the House of
Representatives.
Now that we no longer have that argument and we know we have a
supermajority here--at least 64 votes and probably likely 67 votes for
the Kirk-Heitkamp bill--we need to move this bill now. Let's open the
Ex-Im Bank. Let's tell American small businesses that we are on their
side. Let's tell American manufacturers that we hear you. We hear that
we can't put you in a challenging and competitive global economy and
then weigh you down with 100 pounds of inactivity on the Ex-Im Bank.
We are going to be talking a lot about this in the next 2 or 3 weeks
because it is not enough to wait for the next must-pass vehicle to pass
through. I jokingly tell my staff I am going to introduce a bill called
the vehicle and say: Here it is. The bill is ready to go right now. We
are ready to make this happen. I am very excited for the Ex-Im Bank but
more excited for so many of our workers, so many of our small
businesses that have struggled and that have wondered why Washington
cannot listen to their concerns. I think that question was answered
yesterday, so I am very excited to call on my colleague from the great
State of New Hampshire to also talk about the importance of the Ex-Im
Bank at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleagues on
the floor, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Murray, and Senator Cantwell. I
thank them for their leadership in keeping the issue of reauthorizing
the Export-Import Bank front and center in this Congress. We are here
to celebrate what the House did yesterday in voting overwhelmingly with
a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. The House did what
many people have been predicting for months they would do if they could
actually get this bill to the floor; that is, pass it with an
overwhelmingly bipartisan majority, including a majority of House
Republicans.
Why are we so concerned about reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank? It is
because--as Senator Heitkamp said so well--exporting has become
increasingly important throughout the country, especially in my home
State of New Hampshire and for so many of our small businesses that are
looking to stay competitive in this global economy. Ex-Im levels the
playing field, and when American companies have a level playing field
they can compete and win.
Unfortunately, it has been a small ideological minority of Members of
Congress in both the Senate and the House who have kept this
legislation from coming to the floor and have kept the Ex-Im Bank shut
down. The vote yesterday shows it is time to change that.
Ex-Im provides billions of dollars of money to help American
manufacturers reach foreign markets. It has been 4 months now since the
Bank's charter expired and we are already starting to see the
consequences. Some companies have discussed moving manufacturing from
the United States, which means we will lose manufacturing jobs. We are
going to start seeing consequences for small businesses as they start
losing out on new sales because they are operating at a disadvantage.
Businesses such as Boyle Energy in New Hampshire have gotten support
from the Ex-Im Bank. The Bank has supported $314 million in export
sales from New Hampshire businesses since 2009. It is time for the
Senate to take up this legislation, to pass it, to come together and
get this done for our small businesses, for our economy, and for our
jobs.
I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I thank my great colleague from New
Hampshire, who has done so much in her State to raise awareness about
the importance of the Ex-Im Bank and who has also stood firm with the
two great Senators from Washington, the Senator from Missouri, and the
Senator from Delaware to basically say: You cannot just look at trade
agreements and think you got every piece of important trade legislation
passed.
So she has been a champion. But we all have to admit that none of us
have been as diligent, none of us have been as eloquent, and none of us
have been as tenacious as the great Senator from the great State of
Washington, who understands this issue so well and has been fighting
for this issue for a number of years. So I yield the floor to the
Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for
coming to the Senate floor this morning to give an important message to
our colleagues--that it is now time to take up the Export-Import Bank
issue and pass that legislation today.
I thank my colleague from North Dakota, who has had this legislation
in the Senate and has worked hard on the banking committee to make sure
this legislation is moving forward and has been there at every step in
the process. Being from a State that knows exports matter, she knows
that having a finance regime that allows banks to take advantage of the
fact that they need credit insurance has been a good thing for the
American economy. It has helped us grow jobs in the United States, as
we are selling exports to overseas markets. So she has been a stalwart.
My colleague from New Hampshire who just left the floor, Senator
Shaheen--I have visited her State and facilities and manufacturers
involved in aerospace and other types of manufacturing that are trying
to win in the international marketplace with their products by selling
them overseas.
When we cancel a program that actually helps us pay down the
deficit--those individuals who get financing through a bank and a
credit agency like the Export-Import Bank actually have to pay a fee.
That has actually helped us reduce the deficit. It is money paid every
year, and it helps us reduce the deficit. My colleague Senator Shaheen
has been a great advocate for reauthorization of the Export-Import
Bank.
As my colleagues have talked about, the dirty little secret is out in
Washington; that is, you cannot pass the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization
because there is not enough support in the Congress to do so. Well, the
answer is, that was a bunch of hooey promulgated by some very
conservative think tanks that wanted to hold conservative Republicans
hostage, and then they tried to hold all of us hostage. That is right--
they tried to hold all of us hostage, saying that we cannot pass this.
We know the House of Representatives, with 313 votes--a majority of
the Republicans in the House--voted for the reauthorization of the
Export-Import Bank. They now join 67 people here who want to go to and
move that legislation in the Senate. So the majority of people in both
the House and Senate have supported the reauthorization of the Export-
Import Bank and have done so for more than a year, but we let it
expire. What happened? We let down the American economy because the end
result has been a loss of jobs.
I will give one example of 850 jobs that went from U.S. companies
over to these countries instead because without the Export-Import Bank,
they lost deals that went to other places because other countries also
have credit agencies that help small and regional banks
[[Page S7556]]
finance the sale of U.S.-made products. As they are being sold to say
South Africa or an Asian country or someplace else, the companies
cannot find the financing--a lot of agricultural products--and so they
come to a bank in their community and say: Help finance my sales
overseas.
In fact, Senator Murray and I met with a great--my colleague from
North Dakota will like this--microbrew manufacturer in Ballard, WA, and
they said: You know, we are trying to sell into the Scandinavian
market. They like our products, but we are not big enough as a
distributor to finance the sale of our products into those markets. So
we either have to take that on our books ourselves or find a way to
take our company and leverage it with some capital to increase our
market exports.
So what did they do? They tried to minimize that. Otherwise, do you
know what that company would have to do? They would have to take all
their capital and put it aside to leverage that money to expand the
market. Instead, they said: Well, let's go to a bank and get them to
loan us the money so we can expand our products into Scandinavia, where
people love drinking this Ballard beer.
The bank says: Well, we like that idea. We like you. You are doing
well. But we are a little afraid of your selling into that distribution
market in Scandinavia. We want you to have some credit insurance.
That is what the Export-Import Bank does. It says to that banker in
Ballard: We will provide you a little credit insurance.
Do you have to pay a fee for that? Yes, you have to pay a fee for
that. What does that fee do? It helps the Federal Government pay down
the deficit. Who wins? We all win because that Ballard company now gets
to grow. I would say that over in Scandinavia, they get to drink great
beer that is made in Washington State. As one of the largest hops
producers in the United States, my colleague from an agricultural State
understands this. So everybody wins. Then the Ballard company gets to
expand jobs. So that is what this is all about.
In this instance, we lost 850 jobs.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Will the Senator from Washington yield?
Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
Ms. HEITKAMP. One of the issues we heard so often during this debate
has been that the private sector will step in, that the private sector
will take on this responsibility, that we don't need to have the
Export-Import Bank, that the private sector will fill the gap. Were
there any cases where the private sector stepped up and filled the gap
of the Ex-Im Bank?
Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for that question
because that is the issue. What people don't understand is that there
are so many of these deals that--basically there was a U.S. company
that wanted to sell its ability to build bridges to an African country.
Yet, because the Export-Import Bank expired, that African country ended
up basically going with a competitor, an Asian competitor. Same thing
here. When we don't finance these deals--I know of a deal that GE lost
to Rolls-Royce. Why? Because the credit agency in Europe could finance
the deal, so they just bought a different product.
The issue is not that somehow the private sector is going to step in
here and basically help in a capital market. It is the same way the
Small Business Administration works. The Small Business Administration
has 7(a) loans to help finance the sales that basically go through Main
Street banking, but the Small Business Administration provides a little
certainty and predictability to the process so that we are not seeing
huge losses. Basically, the Small Business Administration has not seen
large defaults, and neither has the Export-Import Bank.
So these are tools that basically people try to say to us will be
picked up somehow, that the private sector will respond to this. Well,
in developing markets around the world, when U.S. manufacturers are
trying to compete and build a great product, all you are doing by
killing the Export-Import Bank is enabling some other manufacturer in
Europe or Asia or South America to compete with our manufacturers on an
uneven playing field. You are giving them an advantage our
manufacturers don't have.
So, literally, people on the other side of the aisle have shipped
jobs overseas by saying they don't want to support the Export-Import
Bank, and they have held it up for so many months now that we have lost
jobs. This is only one example.
There have been tens of thousands of jobs lost since the Export
Import-Bank failed to get reauthorized. Now the question is, Why are we
going to wait 1 more day? Now that the House has passed the bill, with
a majority of Republicans supporting it, why would we wait 1 more day
to pass a key tool that is instrumental in supporting jobs in the
United States of America?
I hope my colleagues--I appreciate so much my colleague from North
Dakota talking about this because, you know, being--I don't if it is
that we are ag States, that we see how much the global economy means to
our States, but we know this: that 95 percent of consumers are outside
of our borders and that if we want to increase our economic activity in
the United States and grow jobs, we better be selling to those 95
percent of consumers outside of the United States.
If you want to sell to those 95 percent of consumers outside of the
United States, first you have to build a great product or develop a
great agricultural product, but then you have to be able to have the
competitive tools to reach them from a financing and banking system.
So the funny thing is that all of those people on the other side who
basically act as though they are against the Export-Import Bank because
they think it is some sort of mysterious organization, those are the
people who basically wanted to bail out Wall Street. They are the ones
who are behind the big banks. They are the ones who are trying to
basically disassemble all of the banking reforms we passed to protect
the American consumers. So they are not for some sort of great, good
government; they basically are just looking for a trophy to put on
their mantle to say that, oh, we killed this government program, which,
as I have said, is wrong because it actually helps us create jobs in
the United States of America, it helps U.S. manufacturers win in the
United States of America, it helps us get our products to places they
would not already go, and it helps pay down the Federal deficit. So it
is a win-win situation for all of us.
What we have to do now is to get this reauthorized. We should not
wait another minute. The notion that all of my colleagues should take
away from this is that a minority of people holding up voting on this
has also been wrongheaded. To allow a minority to thwart what is such
an essential tool has been a mistake. What we need to do is right that
mistake immediately by passing this legislation here in the Senate, get
the Bank back operating, let our U.S. manufacturers and agricultural
producers win again in the international marketplace, and help our
economy grow with these important jobs that are related to exports.
I again thank my colleague for being down here on the Senate floor.
We are not going to give up. We are going to be down here. That is
because, as you know, we are having all of these budget discussions,
and people should remember that over the last 20 years, the Export-
Import Bank has generated $7 billion to the Treasury--$7 billion over
20 years. So not only does it help us grow jobs, it actually has helped
us pay down the deficit.
I hear a lot of discussion about budget deals and transportation
packages and things of that nature. So, to me, if you want to put more
revenue back into our coffers, then support the Export-Import Bank
immediately and you will be recognizing immediate revenue for any of
these budget discussions that we are having and that we need to move
forward on.
I am not under the impression that somehow all of the people in the
Senate are now going to support this legislation and that it is going
to move quickly, because there will still be some on the other side of
the aisle who don't support moving forward. But I would say that
number--$7 billion over 20 years--I think it is worth a few procedural
60-vote thresholds to get that money and to give Americans the
certainty that this particular program will be reinstated and that we
will be
[[Page S7557]]
back to letting hard-working Americans who build a great product get
the credit assurances they need to sell their products on a global
basis and to win in the international marketplace. That is what America
is all about. Don't hold these people down. They are the people who
created, with great ingenuity and great sweat, the great products that
have made our country great. So let them export their products. Don't
make it harder for them just because you want to win a trophy from the
Heritage Foundation.
Let's get back to making sure we are making this place operate. We
know the majority both in the House and Senate supports the Export-
Import Bank and the jobs it creates. Let's get this bill reauthorized
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, we have been promised repeatedly since
the end of June that we would be given an opportunity to reopen the Ex-
Im Bank, that we would be given the tools to get the Ex-Im Bank
operating and providing credit to American manufacturers.
If you had told me that the end of July would come and go without
putting the Bank back in business, I would have said: That won't
happen.
If you had told me that we would go through all of August and all of
September without putting the Bank back in business, I would not have
thought that could happen.
We are now at the end of October and, quite frankly, we are at the
end of our patience--and so are American manufacturers and so are
American workers. The time to deal with reopening the Bank, the time to
move this legislation is right now.
The patience has run thin. The promises have never materialized in
terms of moving this forward.
We were told in the very early stages, back when we began to move
this issue, that the only way we could possibly get it through the
House of Representatives was if it were put on a must-pass piece of
legislation, something such as the reauthorization of the surface
transportation bill--whether we are going to have highway bills or
whether we are going to put it on the debt limit or whatever it is--
because the House couldn't possibly move this legislation forward
without any opportunity to put it on something else.
That myth has disappeared. That theory is no longer available. That
argument is no longer available to anyone in this Chamber. So the
question becomes this: Now that we know the will of the Congress,
reflecting the needs of the American people, the needs of the
manufacturers in this country, and now that we know what the vote count
is, why can't we get this done? Why would we tell the American public
that in the face of an overwhelming majority in support of a critical
piece of trade infrastructure and legislation that we can't get it
done, that we have to wait even more months to see the Ex-Im Bank back
in business?
We will be back. We will continue to talk about this issue. We will
continue to raise the concerns that we have about further delay and
what that further delay is costing. But we also are extremely grateful
for the work that was done in the House of Representatives against
great odds to move this forward, to send a message to American
manufacturers: Yes, this place can function, and we will listen to you,
and we are moving forward on getting you this critical tool to keep
people once again employed in your shops, to keep people once again
working to export the great American products to the global economy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.
____________________