[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16686-16689]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, we are on the floor in celebration of 
the American democracy, that occasionally things can work, and that we 
can overcome extremes in our country and actually pull together to do 
something for American manufacturers, to do something for American 
businesses, and to do what is right.
  I know my colleague, the senior Senator from the great State of 
Washington, is on a short timeframe, so before I proceed with my 
remarks I would like to yield the floor to Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here with my 
colleague, and I thank the Senator from North Dakota for her 
exhilaration we all share because of the vote last night in the House 
overwhelmingly in support of Ex-Im.
  I am here to reiterate my strong support for reauthorization of the 
Export-Import Bank, and I applaud the Members of the House who easily 
passed the reauthorization bill last night. It is actually easy to see 
why the bill got so much support. It is good for American jobs, it is 
good for small businesses, and it reduces our national debt. The fact 
that Republican leadership has let this program go dark for so long, 
held hostage by political pandering, is outrageous.
  The longer Ex-Im is shuttered, the more it hurts American 
competitiveness. In my home State of Washington, nearly 100 
businesses--the majority of them medium or small businesses--used the 
Bank services last year to help sell their products overseas. We are 
talking about everything from Apple and airplane parts to beer and 
wine, to software and medical training supplies. In fact, I actually 
recently visited one of these small businesses--a brewery in Seattle.
  In 2011, Hilliard's Brewery started with three employees dedicated to 
making good beer. Thanks to a loan from the Ex-Im Bank, Hilliard's 
tapped into foreign markets and developed a following. Fast forward to 
2015. They have dramatically increased their production, they continue 
to grow, and they built a business that thrives today.
  The reality is that people in other countries want American-made 
products. That is great because these businesses support tens of 
thousands of jobs around the country and they keep our economy moving. 
The Export-Import Bank is the right investment because it expands 
American businesses' access to emerging foreign markets, creating jobs 
right here at home. Do you know what it costs taxpayers? Not a single 
penny. In fact, the Export-Import Bank puts money back into our 
country.
  Here is the bottom line: Republican leaders allowed partisan 
pandering to put the brakes on a program that creates jobs, strengthens 
our small businesses, and helps our economy grow. I believe--and I am 
joining my colleagues today--it is time to put this ideology aside. 
Let's restart this proven program. It is critical the Ex-Im Bank 
continues to receive the strong bipartisan support we have seen in the 
past as we work to reauthorize this bill that is a success. I am proud 
to join my colleagues to say let's get this done.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, yesterday was a great day, and it was a 
great day not just because something we have worked so long and hard on 
actually was advanced, and that we care about, reopening the Ex-Im 
Bank, but it was when a majority of people in the U.S. Congress stood 
up, led by a Republican from Tennessee, Representative Fincher, and 
actually said: We are not going to let hard rightwing politics get in 
the way of American jobs, American manufacturing opportunities, and get 
in the way of moving our country forward. I think that speaks volumes, 
and I hope it becomes an opportunity to move other broad bipartisan 
pieces of legislation forward.
  The frustration the American people have with the U.S. Congress is 
that things that seem to be no-brainers--legislation that seems to be 
so obvious in terms of the right kind of policy--do not get done in the 
U.S. Congress. So I am elated with what happened over in the House.
  Now the ball is back in our court. We have been waiting for a number 
of months to see House movement on this. Because of the discharge 
petition, because of this big vote, we now see House movement. The 
House has done their job. It is now time for us to do our job.
  I want to point out a couple of things about that vote. It ended up 
being over 70 percent of the House of Representatives. Think about 
that. In this time of hard partisan fighting, we have 70 percent of a 
body agreeing to an important public policy. What also is significant 
about that vote is 127 Republicans--in fact, a majority of Republicans 
in the House--voted to support the Ex-Im Bank, reauthorize it, open it 
up, and open up this opportunity for American manufacturers.
  There can be no debate. Along with my colleague from Washington, we 
have been saying all along that we believed there was broad support in 
the House of Representatives to do this. I think they hadn't had a test 
vote in the past. Now we know, and we can say it with great certainty, 
not only is there majority support, there is supermajority support for 
the Ex-Im Bank.
  Now it is our turn. Now it is our job once again. A few short months 
ago I stood in this body, working with my two great colleagues who have 
joined me on the floor, to push back and say: Look, if we believe in a 
trade agenda, we believe as the three of us have voted, to support TPA. 
We are now evaluating and analyzing TPP. What sense does it make to 
take one of the most significant and important trade tools such as the 
Ex-Im Bank--something that levels the playing field and creates huge 
opportunities for us to be competitive against a world where these kind 
of private agencies are supported by every major economy and every 
major government, including some of the developing nations right now--
what sense does it make to shut down or restrict that tool? In what 
world does that make sense? We have been making this commonsense 
argument and fighting against things that make absolutely no sense and, 
quite honestly, in many ways seems almost idiotic.
  Unfortunately, there are casualties to this failure in America today. 
American jobs have been lost, American economic opportunity has been 
lost, and America's position as a leading manufacturer and exporter of 
quality goods has been challenged because we have sent a message that 
we are not open for business. We have sent the message that we no 
longer are going to engage with the rest of the world in terms of 
developing and supporting exports. That is the wrong message.
  I think the House yesterday sent a huge message to those foreign 
nationals in those countries who think we were willing to basically 
abrogate the ground--give the ground away to other companies from other 
countries. We sent a loud-and-clear message that is not going to happen 
on our watch.
  I rise to make one final point before I ask my colleagues to join me. 
I will make one final point, which is this bill is going to come over 
from the House of Representatives. We have been having this discussion 
about what can we

[[Page 16687]]

attach it to. We need to attach it to something because the House will 
not take it independently. Isn't that what we have been hearing; that 
the House couldn't possibly move this without being on a so called 
must-have piece of legislation. That argument is way gone. It has been 
blown up by the vote yesterday in the House of Representatives.
  Now that we no longer have that argument and we know we have a 
supermajority here--at least 64 votes and probably likely 67 votes for 
the Kirk-Heitkamp bill--we need to move this bill now. Let's open the 
Ex-Im Bank. Let's tell American small businesses that we are on their 
side. Let's tell American manufacturers that we hear you. We hear that 
we can't put you in a challenging and competitive global economy and 
then weigh you down with 100 pounds of inactivity on the Ex-Im Bank.
  We are going to be talking a lot about this in the next 2 or 3 weeks 
because it is not enough to wait for the next must-pass vehicle to pass 
through. I jokingly tell my staff I am going to introduce a bill called 
the vehicle and say: Here it is. The bill is ready to go right now. We 
are ready to make this happen. I am very excited for the Ex-Im Bank but 
more excited for so many of our workers, so many of our small 
businesses that have struggled and that have wondered why Washington 
cannot listen to their concerns. I think that question was answered 
yesterday, so I am very excited to call on my colleague from the great 
State of New Hampshire to also talk about the importance of the Ex-Im 
Bank at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleagues on 
the floor, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Murray, and Senator Cantwell. I 
thank them for their leadership in keeping the issue of reauthorizing 
the Export-Import Bank front and center in this Congress. We are here 
to celebrate what the House did yesterday in voting overwhelmingly with 
a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. The House did what 
many people have been predicting for months they would do if they could 
actually get this bill to the floor; that is, pass it with an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan majority, including a majority of House 
Republicans.
  Why are we so concerned about reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank? It is 
because--as Senator Heitkamp said so well--exporting has become 
increasingly important throughout the country, especially in my home 
State of New Hampshire and for so many of our small businesses that are 
looking to stay competitive in this global economy. Ex-Im levels the 
playing field, and when American companies have a level playing field 
they can compete and win.
  Unfortunately, it has been a small ideological minority of Members of 
Congress in both the Senate and the House who have kept this 
legislation from coming to the floor and have kept the Ex-Im Bank shut 
down. The vote yesterday shows it is time to change that.
  Ex-Im provides billions of dollars of money to help American 
manufacturers reach foreign markets. It has been 4 months now since the 
Bank's charter expired and we are already starting to see the 
consequences. Some companies have discussed moving manufacturing from 
the United States, which means we will lose manufacturing jobs. We are 
going to start seeing consequences for small businesses as they start 
losing out on new sales because they are operating at a disadvantage.
  Businesses such as Boyle Energy in New Hampshire have gotten support 
from the Ex-Im Bank. The Bank has supported $314 million in export 
sales from New Hampshire businesses since 2009. It is time for the 
Senate to take up this legislation, to pass it, to come together and 
get this done for our small businesses, for our economy, and for our 
jobs.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I thank my great colleague from New 
Hampshire, who has done so much in her State to raise awareness about 
the importance of the Ex-Im Bank and who has also stood firm with the 
two great Senators from Washington, the Senator from Missouri, and the 
Senator from Delaware to basically say: You cannot just look at trade 
agreements and think you got every piece of important trade legislation 
passed.
  So she has been a champion. But we all have to admit that none of us 
have been as diligent, none of us have been as eloquent, and none of us 
have been as tenacious as the great Senator from the great State of 
Washington, who understands this issue so well and has been fighting 
for this issue for a number of years. So I yield the floor to the 
Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for 
coming to the Senate floor this morning to give an important message to 
our colleagues--that it is now time to take up the Export-Import Bank 
issue and pass that legislation today.
  I thank my colleague from North Dakota, who has had this legislation 
in the Senate and has worked hard on the banking committee to make sure 
this legislation is moving forward and has been there at every step in 
the process. Being from a State that knows exports matter, she knows 
that having a finance regime that allows banks to take advantage of the 
fact that they need credit insurance has been a good thing for the 
American economy. It has helped us grow jobs in the United States, as 
we are selling exports to overseas markets. So she has been a stalwart.
  My colleague from New Hampshire who just left the floor, Senator 
Shaheen--I have visited her State and facilities and manufacturers 
involved in aerospace and other types of manufacturing that are trying 
to win in the international marketplace with their products by selling 
them overseas.
  When we cancel a program that actually helps us pay down the 
deficit--those individuals who get financing through a bank and a 
credit agency like the Export-Import Bank actually have to pay a fee. 
That has actually helped us reduce the deficit. It is money paid every 
year, and it helps us reduce the deficit. My colleague Senator Shaheen 
has been a great advocate for reauthorization of the Export-Import 
Bank.
  As my colleagues have talked about, the dirty little secret is out in 
Washington; that is, you cannot pass the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization 
because there is not enough support in the Congress to do so. Well, the 
answer is, that was a bunch of hooey promulgated by some very 
conservative think tanks that wanted to hold conservative Republicans 
hostage, and then they tried to hold all of us hostage. That is right--
they tried to hold all of us hostage, saying that we cannot pass this.
  We know the House of Representatives, with 313 votes--a majority of 
the Republicans in the House--voted for the reauthorization of the 
Export-Import Bank. They now join 67 people here who want to go to and 
move that legislation in the Senate. So the majority of people in both 
the House and Senate have supported the reauthorization of the Export-
Import Bank and have done so for more than a year, but we let it 
expire. What happened? We let down the American economy because the end 
result has been a loss of jobs.
  I will give one example of 850 jobs that went from U.S. companies 
over to these countries instead because without the Export-Import Bank, 
they lost deals that went to other places because other countries also 
have credit agencies that help small and regional banks finance the 
sale of U.S.-made products. As they are being sold to say South Africa 
or an Asian country or someplace else, the companies cannot find the 
financing--a lot of agricultural products--and so they come to a bank 
in their community and say: Help finance my sales overseas.
  In fact, Senator Murray and I met with a great--my colleague from 
North Dakota will like this--microbrew manufacturer in Ballard, WA, and 
they

[[Page 16688]]

said: You know, we are trying to sell into the Scandinavian market. 
They like our products, but we are not big enough as a distributor to 
finance the sale of our products into those markets. So we either have 
to take that on our books ourselves or find a way to take our company 
and leverage it with some capital to increase our market exports.
  So what did they do? They tried to minimize that. Otherwise, do you 
know what that company would have to do? They would have to take all 
their capital and put it aside to leverage that money to expand the 
market. Instead, they said: Well, let's go to a bank and get them to 
loan us the money so we can expand our products into Scandinavia, where 
people love drinking this Ballard beer.
  The bank says: Well, we like that idea. We like you. You are doing 
well. But we are a little afraid of your selling into that distribution 
market in Scandinavia. We want you to have some credit insurance.
  That is what the Export-Import Bank does. It says to that banker in 
Ballard: We will provide you a little credit insurance.
  Do you have to pay a fee for that? Yes, you have to pay a fee for 
that. What does that fee do? It helps the Federal Government pay down 
the deficit. Who wins? We all win because that Ballard company now gets 
to grow. I would say that over in Scandinavia, they get to drink great 
beer that is made in Washington State. As one of the largest hops 
producers in the United States, my colleague from an agricultural State 
understands this. So everybody wins. Then the Ballard company gets to 
expand jobs. So that is what this is all about.
  In this instance, we lost 850 jobs.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Will the Senator from Washington yield?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. One of the issues we heard so often during this debate 
has been that the private sector will step in, that the private sector 
will take on this responsibility, that we don't need to have the 
Export-Import Bank, that the private sector will fill the gap. Were 
there any cases where the private sector stepped up and filled the gap 
of the Ex-Im Bank?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for that question 
because that is the issue. What people don't understand is that there 
are so many of these deals that--basically there was a U.S. company 
that wanted to sell its ability to build bridges to an African country. 
Yet, because the Export-Import Bank expired, that African country ended 
up basically going with a competitor, an Asian competitor. Same thing 
here. When we don't finance these deals--I know of a deal that GE lost 
to Rolls-Royce. Why? Because the credit agency in Europe could finance 
the deal, so they just bought a different product.
  The issue is not that somehow the private sector is going to step in 
here and basically help in a capital market. It is the same way the 
Small Business Administration works. The Small Business Administration 
has 7(a) loans to help finance the sales that basically go through Main 
Street banking, but the Small Business Administration provides a little 
certainty and predictability to the process so that we are not seeing 
huge losses. Basically, the Small Business Administration has not seen 
large defaults, and neither has the Export-Import Bank.
  So these are tools that basically people try to say to us will be 
picked up somehow, that the private sector will respond to this. Well, 
in developing markets around the world, when U.S. manufacturers are 
trying to compete and build a great product, all you are doing by 
killing the Export-Import Bank is enabling some other manufacturer in 
Europe or Asia or South America to compete with our manufacturers on an 
uneven playing field. You are giving them an advantage our 
manufacturers don't have.
  So, literally, people on the other side of the aisle have shipped 
jobs overseas by saying they don't want to support the Export-Import 
Bank, and they have held it up for so many months now that we have lost 
jobs. This is only one example.
  There have been tens of thousands of jobs lost since the Export 
Import-Bank failed to get reauthorized. Now the question is, Why are we 
going to wait 1 more day? Now that the House has passed the bill, with 
a majority of Republicans supporting it, why would we wait 1 more day 
to pass a key tool that is instrumental in supporting jobs in the 
United States of America?
  I hope my colleagues--I appreciate so much my colleague from North 
Dakota talking about this because, you know, being--I don't if it is 
that we are ag States, that we see how much the global economy means to 
our States, but we know this: that 95 percent of consumers are outside 
of our borders and that if we want to increase our economic activity in 
the United States and grow jobs, we better be selling to those 95 
percent of consumers outside of the United States.
  If you want to sell to those 95 percent of consumers outside of the 
United States, first you have to build a great product or develop a 
great agricultural product, but then you have to be able to have the 
competitive tools to reach them from a financing and banking system.
  So the funny thing is that all of those people on the other side who 
basically act as though they are against the Export-Import Bank because 
they think it is some sort of mysterious organization, those are the 
people who basically wanted to bail out Wall Street. They are the ones 
who are behind the big banks. They are the ones who are trying to 
basically disassemble all of the banking reforms we passed to protect 
the American consumers. So they are not for some sort of great, good 
government; they basically are just looking for a trophy to put on 
their mantle to say that, oh, we killed this government program, which, 
as I have said, is wrong because it actually helps us create jobs in 
the United States of America, it helps U.S. manufacturers win in the 
United States of America, it helps us get our products to places they 
would not already go, and it helps pay down the Federal deficit. So it 
is a win-win situation for all of us.
  What we have to do now is to get this reauthorized. We should not 
wait another minute. The notion that all of my colleagues should take 
away from this is that a minority of people holding up voting on this 
has also been wrongheaded. To allow a minority to thwart what is such 
an essential tool has been a mistake. What we need to do is right that 
mistake immediately by passing this legislation here in the Senate, get 
the Bank back operating, let our U.S. manufacturers and agricultural 
producers win again in the international marketplace, and help our 
economy grow with these important jobs that are related to exports.
  I again thank my colleague for being down here on the Senate floor. 
We are not going to give up. We are going to be down here. That is 
because, as you know, we are having all of these budget discussions, 
and people should remember that over the last 20 years, the Export-
Import Bank has generated $7 billion to the Treasury--$7 billion over 
20 years. So not only does it help us grow jobs, it actually has helped 
us pay down the deficit.
  I hear a lot of discussion about budget deals and transportation 
packages and things of that nature. So, to me, if you want to put more 
revenue back into our coffers, then support the Export-Import Bank 
immediately and you will be recognizing immediate revenue for any of 
these budget discussions that we are having and that we need to move 
forward on.
  I am not under the impression that somehow all of the people in the 
Senate are now going to support this legislation and that it is going 
to move quickly, because there will still be some on the other side of 
the aisle who don't support moving forward. But I would say that 
number--$7 billion over 20 years--I think it is worth a few procedural 
60-vote thresholds to get that money and to give Americans the 
certainty that this particular program will be reinstated and that we 
will be back to letting hard-working Americans who build a great 
product get the credit assurances they need to sell

[[Page 16689]]

their products on a global basis and to win in the international 
marketplace. That is what America is all about. Don't hold these people 
down. They are the people who created, with great ingenuity and great 
sweat, the great products that have made our country great. So let them 
export their products. Don't make it harder for them just because you 
want to win a trophy from the Heritage Foundation.
  Let's get back to making sure we are making this place operate. We 
know the majority both in the House and Senate supports the Export-
Import Bank and the jobs it creates. Let's get this bill reauthorized 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, we have been promised repeatedly since 
the end of June that we would be given an opportunity to reopen the Ex-
Im Bank, that we would be given the tools to get the Ex-Im Bank 
operating and providing credit to American manufacturers.
  If you had told me that the end of July would come and go without 
putting the Bank back in business, I would have said: That won't 
happen.
  If you had told me that we would go through all of August and all of 
September without putting the Bank back in business, I would not have 
thought that could happen.
  We are now at the end of October and, quite frankly, we are at the 
end of our patience--and so are American manufacturers and so are 
American workers. The time to deal with reopening the Bank, the time to 
move this legislation is right now.
  The patience has run thin. The promises have never materialized in 
terms of moving this forward.
  We were told in the very early stages, back when we began to move 
this issue, that the only way we could possibly get it through the 
House of Representatives was if it were put on a must-pass piece of 
legislation, something such as the reauthorization of the surface 
transportation bill--whether we are going to have highway bills or 
whether we are going to put it on the debt limit or whatever it is--
because the House couldn't possibly move this legislation forward 
without any opportunity to put it on something else.
  That myth has disappeared. That theory is no longer available. That 
argument is no longer available to anyone in this Chamber. So the 
question becomes this: Now that we know the will of the Congress, 
reflecting the needs of the American people, the needs of the 
manufacturers in this country, and now that we know what the vote count 
is, why can't we get this done? Why would we tell the American public 
that in the face of an overwhelming majority in support of a critical 
piece of trade infrastructure and legislation that we can't get it 
done, that we have to wait even more months to see the Ex-Im Bank back 
in business?
  We will be back. We will continue to talk about this issue. We will 
continue to raise the concerns that we have about further delay and 
what that further delay is costing. But we also are extremely grateful 
for the work that was done in the House of Representatives against 
great odds to move this forward, to send a message to American 
manufacturers: Yes, this place can function, and we will listen to you, 
and we are moving forward on getting you this critical tool to keep 
people once again employed in your shops, to keep people once again 
working to export the great American products to the global economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.

                          ____________________