[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S585-S587]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Reta Jo Lewis

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of 
Reta Jo Lewis to serve as the President and Chair of the Ex-Im Bank of 
the United States. It is my understanding that we are likely to have a 
vote later today on her confirmation, and I want to address this.
  And let me start by underscoring why, frankly, I don't think we 
should have an Ex-Im Bank, and let me explain why. First of all, let's 
start with the Ex-Im's claim about how it does business. The Ex-Im Bank 
maintains that, when it provides financing for these transactions that 
it engages in, it only takes risks that private lenders are either 
unable or unwilling to take.
  Now, we ought to stop ourselves right there and say: Well, wait a 
minute. If the private sector is not willing to take these risks, why 
should we force taxpayers to take these risks--because the Ex-Im Bank 
is, of course, backed by American taxpayers. So that is question No. 1.
  But it actually gets worse than that. The Ex-Im Bank also insists 
that it only makes safe bets; it only engages in very low-risk, safe 
transactions. But, of course, it is impossible to do both, right? Ex-Im 
can't only take transactions so risky that no one else will do them but 
at the same time only do safe transactions. That is an obvious 
contradiction, and that is a contradiction that is at the heart of Ex-
Im's business model.
  So how do they do business? The reason they do business is they 
systematically underprice the risk. That is why Ex-Im gets the 
transaction instead of the private sector. That is why borrowers go to 
Ex-Im instead of any number of private financial institutions that are 
happy to offer the deal but only under terms that generate an adequate 
return on the risk.
  This is why, for instance, the largest, most successful, most 
profitable banks in America go to Ex-Im for loan guarantees--because 
Ex-Im's terms are too good to be true, at least too good to be true in 
the private sector.
  Let me just give a very recent example of just how egregious this is. 
In 2021, the Ex-Im Bank financed a deal in which they guaranteed an $82 
million loan made by JPMorgan, the bank, to Qantas, the Australian 
airline, for the purpose of buying jet engines from General Electric. 
Now, let's think about this. We have JPMorgan, the largest bank in 
America--extremely profitable, enormously successful, all the capital 
in the world. We have Qantas, which is one of the most successful and 
profitable airlines in the world. They are the largest airline in 
Australia. And, of course, General Electric is one of the largest 
industrial companies in the world.
  Can anybody actually, with a straight face, suggest that any of these 
companies can't borrow money privately? Seriously? All three of them 
access the capital markets every day. They have access to all the 
financing in the world. Yet taxpayers guaranteed this transaction 
because it was available. They don't need any subsidy from American 
taxpayers, none whatsoever. Yet this is what Ex-Im does.
  Now, one of the claims that we hear from Ex-Im and from some 
supporters of Ex-Im is that Ex-Im plays an essential role; without 
them, we just wouldn't have the exports that we have; we depend on Ex-
Im to export products.
  Well, the problem with that argument is the vast, overwhelming 
majority of American exports are done without Ex-Im. Now, we went back 
and looked at the annual export data from 2007 through 2020. In that 
period of time, the highest percentage of U.S. exports that were 
financed with Ex-Im financing happened to be in 2012. Do you know what 
that percentage was? It was 2.3 percent. That is the value of the 
exports that were financed by Ex-Im Bank.
  And that was, by the way, when Ex-Im had everything going for it. It 
was fully operational. It had a quorum on the Board. It had not reached 
its lending limit. So it was doing business without constraints. Yet it 
does this little, tiny sliver of American exports.

  The fact is, we are the second biggest exporting economy in the world 
behind China. The United States is No. 2 in total exports of goods. We 
are No. 1 in the world in terms of value added, and we do it almost 
entirely without Ex-Im financing--at least 97.7 percent in Ex-Im's best 
year. So the argument that somehow American exporters need Ex-Im to 
survive is patently false.
  It gets worse, though. Now Ex-Im wants to expand into domestic 
financing. Ex-Im has been tasked by the Biden administration with 
developing a new domestic financing program to expand the reach of the 
Bank. The proposed domestic financing program would support creating or 
expanding domestic manufacturing businesses and infrastructure projects 
as long as there is the expectation that some arbitrary portion of the 
goods will ultimately be exported.
  Can you imagine? So now the Ex-Im Bank is going to provide domestic 
financing. Gee, if only we had banks in America. If only we had capital 
markets in America so that we could provide financing for these 
transactions. No, we need the Ex-Im Bank to do it. We need taxpayers to 
go into the domestic banking business, on top of everything else.
  It is unbelievable. This isn't just mission creep. This is like 
mission sprint. Of course, it completely subverts the congressional 
intent. The intent was to match financing that is provided for exports 
around the world. This has nothing to do with that. There is no reason 
in the world that Ex-Im should be providing domestic financing--none. 
We live in the most developed capital markets of the world. We have a 
huge, enormously successful banking system. There is absolutely no need 
for this. And the only way they will get business is to, once again, 
underprice the risk so that taxpayers do not get properly compensated 
for the risks that they take.
  Now, let me get to the specifics of our nominee. I am concerned that 
Ms. Lewis is not going to protect the U.S. taxpayers from this 
inherently risky construct. For one example, the Biden administration 
has suggested doubling Ex-Im's statutory default cap from 2 percent to 
4 percent. So what does this mean? So under current statute, Ex-Im has 
got a limit of how much of its balance sheet can be in default. It is 2 
percent.
  Well, lately, the default rate has been creeping up. In fact, it has 
tripled, and it is very close to 2 percent. So the obvious solution is 
to do something about the credit quality of the balance sheet, but that 
is not the Biden administration's solution. They just want to double 
the permissible amount of losses. Well, I have no reason to believe 
that Ms. Lewis would object to that at all.

[[Page S586]]

In fact, I suspect she would embrace that.
  I am also concerned about the background she brings to this job. Ms. 
Lewis does have some experience in international policy, but she does 
not have the financial background that should be a prerequisite for 
serving as the President of a big bank. And without such a background, 
she is going to inevitably rely heavily on Ex-Im's staff. As I said, I 
am very concerned that she is going to support this domestic financing 
program of the administration.
  So for these reasons and others, I am urging my colleagues to vote 
against the confirmation of Ms. Lewis as President of the Ex-Im Bank.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Murray and I be allowed to complete our remarks before the scheduled 
rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3604

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, for the past 2 years, our Nation's kids 
have suffered. They have suffered socially, academically, and 
psychologically at the hands of Democratic politicians, the Biden 
administration, and their political bosses in the teachers unions.
  Although kids are at the lowest risk of hospitalization and death 
from the Wuhan coronavirus, they have endured and they continue to 
endure some of the most excessive, extreme, and suffocating COVID 
restrictions of any population in our country. This treatment has been 
nothing short of cruel. The politicians and the neurotic public health 
obsessives who enforce these policies should all hang their heads in 
shame.
  There are few things in a kid's life, outside of family and church, 
that are more important to them than their school. For them, open and 
happy schools are precious. But for teachers union bosses like Randi 
Weingarten, they are just useful hostages.
  For the better part of a year, teachers unions shut down our schools 
while they shook down politicians for more funding and benefits that 
they promised would allow them to reopen safely. Yet they kept schools 
closed. They kept kids masked.
  Desperate parents watched their socially isolated kids fall behind 
while they engaged in Zoom schools, but the unions still dragged their 
feet.
  When schools finally reopened, our kids faced insane coronavirus 
protocols. They weren't allowed to sit with friends at lunch. They 
weren't allowed to play at recess. They had to eat outside on freezing-
cold days. And every moment of every day at every school, they were 
forced to wear a mask.
  Confused and hyper kids naturally often rebelled, and they have been 
reprimanded and they have been punished for simply trying to play, 
trying to make friends, trying to breathe a little easier.
  Some parents may think that masks work for their kids, and that is 
fine. If they want to, they can put their kids in a mask. They should 
be able to choose. But under Democratic-forced masking policies, 
parents have no choice at all. Tragically, but predictably--not just 
predictably--predicted--these absurd policies have had severe 
psychological effects on our kids. Suicide and mental health problems 
have skyrocketed in the past 2 years. Grades have plummeted, while 
depression has surged. And as is so often the case, those with the 
least have suffered the most.
  But when parents dared to complain on behalf of their kids, they were 
condemned by teachers union bosses and by Democratic politicians as 
anti-science and extremists. They were investigated when Attorney 
General Merrick Garland sicced the Feds on parents who were simply 
going to school boards to protest these stupid policies. The Secretary 
of Education threatened to withdraw Federal funding from States and 
schools who did not have mask mandates.
  Thankfully, the tide has begun to turn. Sometimes I hear the phrase 
``the science changed.'' The science hasn't changed. What has changed 
is that there is an election coming and Democrats have seen the polling 
on this question. Now they are running scared, and they want to pretend 
that they didn't force your kid to wear a mask for 2 years.
  You see it in States that are run entirely by Democrats: California, 
New Jersey, New York, the President's own Delaware. Just yesterday, 
across the river in Virginia, the State senate, to include many 
Democrats, voted not just to allow parents a choice but to prohibit 
mask mandates by local schools.
  Yet, in many places, forced masking remains. Kids as young as 2, 3, 4 
are still being forced to wear hot, restrictive, and ineffective masks 
for hours on end. Yes, ineffective because almost all those kids are 
wearing cloth masks, which don't even work. And that is not me 
speaking; that is the CDC speaking. These masks don't even work. Yet 
the kids are forced to wear them all day long.

  I can tell you that most Democratic politicians don't think they work 
either. How do we know that? Look at the candidate for Governor in 
Georgia, Stacey Abrams--or maybe I should say the Governor of Georgia, 
since she still refuses to concede the 2018 election and many of my 
Democratic colleagues have endorsed her view that she is somehow the 
shadow Governor of Georgia. Just last week, photos emerged of her 
sitting in classrooms with masked kids grinning ear to ear, the only 
person not wearing a mask in the classroom.
  Also, Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, was yucking it up at 
SoFi Stadium when the Rams played the 49ers, taking pictures--without a 
mask--with Magic Johnson and a bunch of other celebrities, while he 
enforced one of the most onerous mask mandates in the country.
  What about Eric Garcetti, whose nomination to be the Ambassador to 
India is in front of the Senate right now, who said that pictures of 
him without a mask on are fine because he was holding his breath--I 
guess like Bill Clinton, who didn't inhale.
  Barack Obama, pictures recently emerged of him standing outside--
outside--on the beach, without a mask, while all the peons who are 
building his multimillion-dollar beach compound were forced to wear a 
mask in front of him.
  And I will let you in on something. The same goes for Democratic 
Senators. I was in a hearing this week. It was in a small, closed room. 
Not a single Democratic Senator wore a mask in that hearing in that 
room. The catch is, the TV cameras weren't on, so there wouldn't be 
video of them sitting in that closed room without a mask on.
  But masks in school have become symbols of control and fear. They are 
not instruments of public health. It is past time for the mask mandates 
to end and for parents across this country to have a choice. That is 
why I am asking the Senate to pass my legislation today to require 
schools that receive Federal funding to give parents a simple choice on 
whether their kids should wear a mask.
  If my Democratic colleagues will join me, we can get this done now, 
today. That is why I urge them to support this bill. And I ask, as if 
in legislative session, unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of S. 3604, which is at the desk; further, 
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have 
said before that we all want to make sure our schools can stay safely 
open for in-person learning. But based on this legislation, it is not 
clear that is true for all of my Republican colleagues.
  Look, this is straightforward. If you want education decisions to 
happen at the local level, you do not tie the hands of State and local 
officials when they are trying to keep their students and educators 
safe. And if you want schools to be able to stay safely open and bring 
some stability and certainty back to our classrooms, you don't cut 
schools off from the resources they need just because you think you 
know better than the parents and local officials about how this 
pandemic is progressing in their community or how they should use tools 
like masks.

[[Page S587]]

  I am a former preschool teacher, parent advocate, and school board 
member. But let's be honest, you don't need classroom experience to see 
that right now the very last thing we should be doing is denying 
schools the tools and resources to help kids learn safely. The data is 
clear. We have real work to do to help our students make up for an 
incredibly tough 2 years.
  Now, Democrats actually passed legislation--the American Rescue 
Plan--which invests specifically in helping our students recover 
academically and mentally. The proposal from the Senator from Arkansas 
would put our students' recovery and safe in-person learning in 
jeopardy. It would take those important public health decisions, which 
should be based on local conditions, away from those communities and 
slash funding for students and schools right when they need us the 
most.
  Now is not the time to pull the rug out from under students in 
schools. Parents, educators, and, most of all, kids have been through 
enough. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I would simply reply to the remarks of the 
Senator from Washington, she asserted that I or others who oppose these 
mask mandates think that we know better. That is the whole point, 
though. It is not that we think we know better; I think that you, as a 
parent, know better. You know what is best for your child--not some 
Democratic politician, not some liberal superintendent, not some 
neurotic public health obsessive.
  And, apparently, the Democrats have no problem using these Federal 
funds when it suits their neurotic policies. After all, the Department 
of Education last year threatened Federal funding for States and 
schools that did not permit mask mandates. The whole point of this 
exercise is this: the Democrats who think they know better than parents 
to make the choices for the parents' kids.
  I am disappointed today that my Democratic colleagues want to 
continue to see kids forced to wear masks in schools across America, 
but, trust me, change is coming one way or another. It will be because 
Democratic politicians, like Gavin Newsom, run for the hills or because 
the American people repudiate them all in November.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________