[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18363-18365]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       INCREASING AMERICAN JOBS THROUGH GREATER EXPORTS TO AFRICA

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise with the intention of asking 
consent for the immediate consideration of passage of S. 2215, the 
Increasing American Jobs Through Greater Exports to Africa Act that I 
have introduced in the Senate with Senators Boozman, Coons, Cardin, and 
Landrieu. It is being sponsored and led in the House of Representatives 
by Congressman Chris Smith and Congresswoman Karen Bass.
  It is a straightforward and bipartisan bill that tackles a very 
serious problem by specifically making sure that American companies 
have the ability to compete in the growing African market. Economists 
have called this the next frontier, and it is hungry for American goods 
and services. It is also a market that others are competing for too 
often at the expense of American businesses, American employees, 
American products, and American values.
  China, in particular, has an aggressive strategy to help its 
companies invest in Africa, leaving a troubling footprint across the 
continent of its economic, labor, environmental, and governance values 
and standards. The loss to American workers and American influence on 
the continent is enormous and inexcusable. That is why we introduced 
this bill to make sure a senior administration official brings 
desperately needed coordination and leadership to the U.S. export 
strategies in Africa. It also makes sure the various agencies, such as 
the Department of Commerce, the Export-Import Bank, the Department of 
State, and others are fully engaged in helping foster U.S. investment 
in Africa.
  For months we have been working with various committees of the House 
and Senate on this effort. I want to notably thank John Kerry of 
Massachusetts and Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana for seeing its 
unanimous support

[[Page 18364]]

through the Foreign Relations Subcommittee was secure--as well as the 
Banking and Financing Committees for their help in allowing us to go 
forward.
  The bill cleared the hotline on the Democratic side some time ago, 
and we worked with a number of our Republican colleagues to address 
many legitimate concerns. So imagine my disappointment at this closing 
hour when I learned that there is a new Republican hold blocking this 
bill at the very last minute.
  Mr. President, you have been to Africa. You know what we are facing. 
This is a continent which is emerging in the 21st century in a way that 
we never imagined. It is surprising to some to learn that when they try 
to project forward where the economic growth in the world will occur in 
the next 10 or 20 years, 60 percent of that growth will be in Africa. 
Many people still view it in a stereotypical context of some backward 
continent of people with limited resources and limited ability. Nothing 
could be further from the truth.
  Africa is going to emerge in the 21st century. The question is, Will 
the United States be there as a trading partner sharing not only our 
goods and services but our values? We ought to take heed to the fact 
that the Chinese are there, and their role is growing. If we step back 
and allow the Chinese to master this continent at our expense, we will 
pay for it for generations. They will literally have ensconced 
themselves in this economy in so many different ways.
  Currently, they are making what they call concessional loans, which 
means discount loans. If they want to build a stadium in Addis Ababa, 
Ethiopia, go see the Chinese. If they need to borrow $100,000 or $100 
million, whatever it happens to be, they will give it to them. They 
just need to pay them back 70 percent of what they borrowed--only 70 
percent. How could the Ethiopians say no?
  Then the Chinese say: On one condition; the contractor is going to be 
from China and at least half of the employees will be Chinese 
employees, as will the engineering firm, the agricultural firm, and all 
of the different agencies of the private sector that come in to build 
this stadium. Then when it is finished, they don't leave. They stick 
around to bid on the next project. They become an integral part of the 
economy of that nation at the expense of the United States.
  What should we do about it? Nothing? After hearing this story in 
Ethiopia, I came back and gathered the American agencies that promote 
exports to Africa. It turned out there were a half dozen of them. They 
were glad to see one another. They don't get together that often. I 
asked them what they were doing. They said they each have concerns, and 
they are doing a little of this and a little of that but no 
coordination.
  How many speeches have we heard about the waste of government and 
taxpayer dollars because of the fumbling and uncoordinated effort by 
our government. That is why I introduced this bill to avoid that.
  The purpose of this bill is to dramatically increase exports to 
Africa, to use existing resources at existing agencies to achieve it, 
and to make sure that at the end of the day we create more jobs in 
America and more businesses successfully exporting goods and services 
to that great continent. At the end of the day, the Africans will have 
quality products, goods, and services, and there will be more jobs in 
the United States. What is wrong with that equation? Obviously, there 
is at least one Senator who thinks it is a bad idea, and he has put a 
hold on this bill after I spent months working to clear it through all 
of the committees in the hopes that we could have this bipartisan bill.
  This is a bill that is supported and sponsored by Republican 
subcommittee chairman Chris Smith over in the House of Representatives. 
This is supposed to be what we are about--to come up with a bipartisan 
effort, an effort that will create jobs in America, coordinate existing 
agencies, and open new markets for America's goods and services that 
will benefit every State in the Union. That is what I set out to do.
  I am so close to getting it done. One Senator is going to object. It 
is unfortunate after all of the work we put into this that they would 
stop this bill. I hope the Senator will reconsider his position. I have 
an official request that I am going to make at this point.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 536, S. 2215; that the committee-reported 
substitute amendment be withdrawn; the Durbin substitute amendment 
which is at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a 
third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements 
relating to this measure be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to 
make just a couple observations and explain why I am going to object.
  First, for the record to be clear, it is my understanding this 
measure--and there is no question the Senator from Illinois has put a 
great deal of work into this. All his motives are absolutely 
commendable and legitimate. The measure itself, I believe, has not gone 
through a markup in the Banking Committee. There are many Members who 
have serious concerns about this particular bill for which the 
unanimous consent request is being made.
  More broadly, about the Ex-Im Bank--in fact, I would argue this bill 
and this unanimous consent request puts a light on one of the concerns 
many of us have with the Ex-Im Bank in the first place. Let's remember 
what the Ex-Im Bank is. This is a taxpayer subsidy for large 
corporations to export products. I am a big fan of trade. I am a big 
fan of exports. I am not a fan of taxpayers having to subsidize the 
activity, and some of us, myself very much included, believe it ought 
to be a very high priority of this and any other administration to work 
for the mutual end of these taxpayer-subsidized export vehicles all 
around the world. They exist in other places as well, and that is the 
excuse that is usually given for why we have to also subsidize our 
corporations on their exports. I don't think that is a very good 
argument. I would certainly prefer to see a broad curtailment and 
eventually the end of this process; whereby, Europeans and Asians and 
Americans all engage in this flawed policy of subsidizing their 
respective corporations' export efforts.
  Here is what happens with this bill, and this is exactly the kind of 
thing that happens when the government sets up a political venture to 
engage in economic activity. It gets politicized. Someone comes along 
with perfectly good motives and good intentions and decides there is 
some category of activity that is more important than other categories 
of activity. In this case, it is a geographical prioritization that the 
Senator from Illinois wishes to make by requiring a certain amount of 
business be transacted in Africa. I suspect there are people in this 
body and in other places who would make similarly persuasive arguments 
that there are places in Asia that ought to get this special treatment 
which the Senator from Illinois is recommending, and there are other 
people who would suggest maybe it shouldn't be a geographically based 
preference, but it ought to be a product line-based preference or it 
ought to be driven by the number of American workers who are involved 
in whatever it is that is being exported.
  I can imagine all kinds of export criteria by which political forces 
could decide that the Ex-Im Bank ought to have special treatment in 
special categories, all of which simply distorts the normal market 
activities that would actually optimize exports, economic growth, and 
job creation.
  So despite all the good intentions and the hard work done by the 
Senator from Illinois, I think this specific policy would be a mistake. 
More broadly, I think we are not yet on the right path of curtailing 
the taxpayer obligation for these export subsidies.
  For that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to clarify a few things. The 
Parliamentarian referred the bill to the Senate

[[Page 18365]]

Foreign Relations Committee. It was reported favorably by that 
committee. It was referred to the Senate Banking Committee, but I made 
a point with Senator Boozman, our colleague on the Republican side, of 
taking this bill to the Banking Committee, which clearly shows this is 
not an attempt to go around this committee. I have the greatest respect 
for the Members of the Banking Committee on both sides and we have done 
our best to work with them.
  Secondly, this argument that we have to get out of the business of 
having government support for business activity is a naive argument. 
Let me give just a couple numbers to reflect on, when it comes to the 
future of our chances of American businesses working successfully to 
export to Africa.
  Right now, the Export-Import Bank of the United States has supplied 
the support of about $1 trillion in 2011 for all exports to Africa. 
Some of these are guarantees on loans. Some of them allow for lower 
interest rates because the guarantees do exist. But let me tell my 
colleagues what is happening with the Chinese at the same time. While 
we are putting in $1 trillion in Africa, the Chinese are putting in $12 
trillion. Who is going to win that competition? When it is all over, 
who will win that competition? By a margin of 12 to 1 the Chinese will 
win it. Many of those who say they support business and new jobs for 
America basically want to abandon the field and walk away from it. They 
want to let the Chinese take it away: We are going to play free market, 
that is all; no government involvement. We are just going to have a 
flatout arms' length transaction with these countries--and we will end 
up with fewer jobs in America, fewer exports to Africa, fewer 
businesses working on that continent.
  Some people say: Why did you pick Africa? Of all the places, we could 
have picked Asia or all these different places. When we take a look at 
the indicators, the African Continent is undergoing a period of rapid 
growth and middle-class development that most Americans aren't even 
aware of. In the year 2000, 6.7 percent of the population of Africa had 
access to the Internet. Talk about the Dark Ages: 6.7 percent, in 2000. 
By 2009, it had grown from 6.7 percent to 27.1 percent of the 
population with access to the Internet. Seventy-eight percent of 
Africa's rural population now has access to clean water. Our images of 
a backward continent are just plain wrong. Our opportunities are 
unlimited but not if we ignore the reality. The Chinese are going to 
outthink us and outwork us and we are going to lose and we will 
ultimately say: We are pure of heart. We are not going to have our 
government in this. The Chinese may want to do it. We will just give up 
the jobs that could have come to America. We will give up the 
opportunity for businesses to export to Africa from the United States. 
What a terrible outcome that is. It truly is shortsighted. It argues 
for a good economic theory but one that doesn't reflect the reality of 
the world we live in today.
  After all these months of hard work by a bipartisan group of Senators 
and Congressmen, we come down to one objection. That is how the Senate 
works. I know it and I respect it. Each Senator has a right to make an 
objection. I wish to applaud my colleague from Pennsylvania for coming 
to the floor and saying it in his own words. Many times this is done in 
secrecy without any disclosure of who is behind a hold or an objection, 
and I salute the Senator from Pennsylvania for his honesty in coming to 
the floor, even though we obviously disagree on this important issue.

                          ____________________