[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 16681]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 597, THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK REFORM AND 
                      REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 27, 2015

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 597, as amended. It 
is mystifying to me why there is such vociferous opposition to the 
Export-Import Bank among a majority of our Republican colleagues. For 
decades, a solid majority of Republicans have joined with Democrats to 
support the Bank and its vital role in creating and sustaining jobs for 
American workers.
  But not now. Why? The Export-Import Bank should appeal to all 
Republicans, as it does to us Democrats.
  The Bank supports the American private sector, both exporters and 
lenders. It steps in only when needed to level the playing field in 
international competition. Virtually all of its financing is issued as 
guarantees and insurance of loans by commercial lenders. It finances 
only American-made goods and American-provided services. Some 90 
percent of its financing is for exports by American small businesses, 
last year some 3,300 firms. The result last year was 164,000 jobs for 
American workers, 6,500 in New York. What could be more business-
friendly?
  The Bank should appeal to fiscal conservatives as well. It is 
operated on a business-like basis. It charges fees, premiums and 
interest, at full market rates. Those receipts fully cover all the 
Bank's expenses. It even generates a surplus that goes to the U.S. 
Treasury to reduce the federal deficit. Last year, that deficit 
reduction was $675 million. What could be more fiscally prudent?
  The Bank is a careful lender. Its loss rate is below 2 percent, far 
lower than any commercial bank. The Bank maintains cash reserves 
against the risk of loss, currently amounting to $5 billion. All of 
those reserves are generated from its user fees, not the taxpayer. Why 
doesn't that record appeal to Republicans, as it does to Democrats?
  The Bank is a fiscally-prudent solution to a real-world problem: 
foreign competition that has its own financial support. Some 60 foreign 
governments operate export finance programs. Some, like China's, 
Japan's, Germany's and even Canada's, are much larger than Ex-Im. 
Financing is a crucial element of trade competition: a company that can 
bring customer financing to the table often wins the transaction. When 
foreign governments back their exporters, American exporters and their 
workers lose. Ex-Im Bank is our answer.
  So I simply cannot understand why a majority of Republicans in this 
House forced the Bank to close its financing window in July. It can't 
be due to subsidy, because there isn't any. It can't be due to 
government competition with the private sector, because the Bank 
doesn't do that. It can't be for any budgetary reason, because the Bank 
is self-financing.
  For those of us who support Ex-Im Bank and the American firms and 
workers that the Bank sustains, the only conclusion we can draw is that 
the excessive campaign against Ex-Im Bank is another example of hard-
bitten, intransigent ideology eclipsing the need to embrace a business-
friendly, budget-conscious, prudent program for America.

                          ____________________