[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 8, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Page S2737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Ex-Im Bank

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we had three extremely well-qualified 
people come before this body this week who were nominated to the Board 
of the Ex-Im Bank, the Export-Import Bank. It is an entity that most 
individuals across the country don't even know about. They don't even 
know what the Ex-Im Bank does. But it gets caught up in a lot of 
politics here.
  These extremely well-qualified people were confirmed, and they are 
now on their way to serve our Nation in that area. I had to vote 
against them, not because of who they are and their qualifications--
they are clearly qualified--but because of my own frustration that this 
body has not been willing to take on the most basic element of reform 
of the Ex-Im Bank.
  The charter of the Ex-Im Bank requires the Bank ``to seek to reach 
international agreement to reduce government subsidized export 
financing.'' That is in their charter. The problem is, that is not 
being fulfilled. There has been a push for a while to try to reform the 
Ex-Im Bank. That push to reform it has failed so far.
  My encouragement to the new quorum that is in the leadership role at 
the Ex-Im Bank is to push to fulfill their requirements to reduce 
government-subsidized export financing, not expand it, and to take the 
actions necessary to do that--not only with our Ex-Im structure but 
working with other countries to reduce theirs. The common phrase is 
``We have an ex-im bank because other countries have an ex-im bank.'' 
Well, you know what, other countries have a Communist structure--like 
China. We are not trying to model that either. Should we take on every 
single subsidy other governments do? Let's try to find a way for them 
to fulfill their charter.
  In the meantime, I have proposed a set of reforms that can be done to 
the Ex-Im Bank to make it better. Some are fairly obvious.
  One of them is reducing taxpayer exposure by prohibiting the Bank 
from issuing direct loans.
  I have also pushed very hard to have this basic statement: a sense of 
the Senate that the Bank is a lender of last resort, not the first 
place to go to. That, again, should be a no-brainer for them.
  Here is the clearest and easiest reform. Ex-Im Bank brags about how 
many small businesses use the Ex-Im Bank services, but the next 
question is not asked. How does Ex-Im Bank define a small business? 
With chagrin, they will say that their definition of a small business 
is any business with 1,500 employees or fewer. That is not a small 
business. So 1,500 employees or fewer is a small business, according to 
Ex-Im Bank. There are very few companies in America with 1,500 
employees.
  The most basic thing we can do is have Ex-Im Bank use the same 
definition the Small Business Administration uses for what a small 
business is and then put the same requirement on Ex-Im to also use 
small businesses and engage with them.
  We should also prohibit the Bank from providing financing services to 
foreign and state-owned entities. Why are we financing another 
government in what they are doing? Why are we actually providing 
competition for our own companies, as Ex-Im does? They give loans and 
subsidies to countries and companies that compete against American 
companies.
  All of these ideas are basic reforms.
  My push is not to abolish Ex-Im; it is for Ex-Im to fulfill its 
charter and to do its basic responsibility and to have the most simple 
reforms that I think are needed.
  This is not just talk for us; we have this legislation. We have 
pushed for this before, and we will continue to push for basic reforms 
at Ex-Im in the days ahead.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.