[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3647-3648]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for many years now the Ex-Im Bank, which is 
referred to as the Export-Import Bank, has helped American companies 
grow and sell their products overseas. For those same years the Ex-Im 
Bank has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. It was a good idea when it 
started and it is still a good idea.
  When it was last authorized in 2006, the Ex-Im Bank passed the House 
by voice vote and the Senate by unanimous consent. The unanimous 
consent request was offered by a Republican Senator. So when Senate 
Democrats brought the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank before the 
Senate last week, we hoped the legislation would proceed with 
bipartisan, bicameral support as it did in 2006. After all, the measure 
will support about 300,000 jobs annually and help American exports 
continue to compete in the global economy. It passed the Banking 
Committee here in the Senate unanimously. It had three Republican 
cosponsors and is backed by the National Association of Manufacturers, 
the Business Round Table, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and various 
labor unions, including Machinists. It will actually reduce the deficit 
by $1 billion.
  The Ex-Im Bank is one of the proposals we shouldn't have to argue 
over. This isn't something that deserves a fight. We should reauthorize 
it and move on quickly. But I am sorry to say, true to form, the 
Republican leadership--I am directing that to the House Republican 
leadership--this morning is once again spoiling for a fight where there 
shouldn't be a fight. Yesterday House Majority Leader Cantor called 
this bill that we are dealing with here to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank a 
``partisan amendment.''

[[Page 3648]]

  This bill is cosponsored by the ranking member of the Banking 
Committee, Richard Shelby. Senator Shelby has been the chairman of that 
committee; he is now the ranking member. It is tough to call anything 
Senator Shelby puts his name on with a Democrat as partisan.
  Cantor claimed this noncontroversial, commonsense measure is 
derailing efforts to pass the IPO bill that will expand innovators' 
access to capital. It is simply not true. Leader Cantor should check 
with his Senate colleagues. Many of them understand American exporters 
need access to Federal financing to stay on a level playing field with 
global competitors.
  Yesterday the senior Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, 
said without the Ex-Im Bank, ``Our ability to grow in South Carolina is 
nonexistent.'' In 2011, South Carolina exporters sold more than $130 
million worth of goods abroad, thanks to Ex-Im Bank financing.
  South Carolina is not the only State relying on the bank to keep 
business thriving. Nevada companies exported $33 million of their 
products last year, thanks to financing from the Export-Import Bank. In 
2011, in the Presiding Officer's State of Delaware, the Ex-Im Bank made 
it possible for firms to sell more than $39 million worth of goods 
overseas.
  Last year, the Ex-Im Bank supported 300,000 jobs across 49 States and 
2,000 cities in America.
  China already provides more investment capital to its exporters than 
the United States, Canada, Germany, and Great Britain combined, as 
Senator Graham said during his call yesterday. We had a conference call 
with people concerned about this legislation. So we cannot allow that 
gulf to widen.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says: ``Failure to reauthorize Ex-Im 
would amount to America's unilateral disarmament in the face of other 
nations' aggressive trade finance programs.''
  I don't know if Eric Cantor has looked at this legislation. What is 
he talking about? Why does he want to fight about this? Can't we do 
anything with the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, 
working together?
  The Chamber of Commerce said we do have a choice: We can compete or 
we can cooperate. We can engage in yet another unnecessary, 
unproductive battle--and Cantor is picking a fight, but we are not 
going to. He has challenged us to a fight. We are not going to fight 
because this is bipartisan legislation--or we can work together to help 
American businesses grow and hire. That is what we are going to do. The 
choice should not be difficult. We do not want a fight.
  The Senate will vote on this reasonable proposal today. Almost 
300,000 Americans had jobs last year--I repeat--because of this 
important legislation. I hope those workers come first as Republican 
colleagues cast their votes today.

                          ____________________