[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11659-11667]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with friends and colleagues 
from every corner of our great country to support an American 
institution that, in its 81 years, has created countless jobs here at 
home and supported the export of American-made goods around the world.
  The Export-Import Bank, while first created under Franklin D. 
Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression, is an institution that 
has supported American manufacturers and producers through both good 
times and bad; it has experienced strong support over the years from 
both Republicans and Democrats.
  President Ronald Reagan, praising the Export-Import Bank, declared:

       Exports create and sustain jobs for millions of American 
     workers and contribute to the growth and strength of the 
     United States economy. The Export-Import Bank contributes in 
     a significant way to our Nation's export sales.

  Mr. Speaker, the charter for the Export-Import Bank recently expired 
on June 30 of this year, depriving our Nation of a critical financial 
tool for growing our economy in an age where

[[Page 11660]]

we must stay as competitive as possible in the global economy.
  Today, my colleagues and I will explain the role of the Bank, clear 
up any misconceptions surrounding it, and explain that, like any 
institution, it should be reformed to make it leaner and more 
competitive; this is still a very worthwhile institution that we should 
support and reauthorize as soon as possible.
  I urge House leadership to allow a vote to reauthorize the Export-
Import Bank and let the members of this Chamber weigh the merits of the 
Bank for themselves.
  I would like to extend a special thanks to my colleagues, Congressman 
Collins from New York and Congressman Fincher from Tennessee, who 
helped organize today's Special Order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher) 
for his thoughts on the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding on this important subject and the rest of my colleagues for 
coming tonight to hopefully shed light on why the Export-Import Bank is 
so important.
  I have a few stats I just want to read. My comments will be brief. 
The Bank supports about 200,000 jobs each year at no cost--let me 
repeat--no cost to the U.S. taxpayer, including 8,315 jobs in my home 
State of Tennessee. That is around 1.4 million American jobs in the 
past 5 years.
  In fiscal year 2014, Ex-Im Bank supported $27.5 billion in exports 
and 164,000 U.S. jobs. The Bank returned $675 million to the U.S. 
Treasury in fiscal year 2014, reducing the deficit. In fiscal year 
2013, the Bank sent back more than $1 billion. Small businesses 
accounted for nearly 90 percent of the Bank's transactions in 2014.
  Last year, the Bank had a historically low active default rate of 
less than one-quarter of 1 percent. Its default rate for the past 
quarter was .167 percent.
  We have a very, very serious obligation to our constituents that we 
represent back in our districts. I serve the Eighth Congressional 
District of Tennessee--a wonderful State and a wonderful district--and 
my constituents send me to Washington to make the government more 
accountable, to make it better, to make it smaller, to make it more 
transparent, and to make it work for them back in their districts.
  They don't send me to Washington--I don't go home every week to my 
district, and my constituents come to me and say: Stephen, we wish you 
would shut down the government this week. We wish you would end, 
Stephen, the only good government programs that work. We want you to 
abolish them.
  They send us up here to make these things work. The Export-Import 
Bank is in need of serious reforms, and that is why, a few months ago, 
we started to work on a reform package, our bill to reauthorize with 
reforms, with 31 reforms, to fix the Bank and to make it work better 
and more transparent and more accountable.
  For some reason, some of my colleagues in the House have taken a very 
different approach. They have taken a political approach that this is 
going to be the hill, so to speak, that they are going to die on and 
the facts don't matter; all that matters are the political outside 
groups calling for whatever is in their best interest, not the best 
interest of our districts and our constituents back home.
  Think about this. I go home to my district and my constituents come 
up to me and say: Congressman, have you been able to get rid of Freddie 
Mac and Fannie Mae?
  I will say to them: Well, we are working on it.
  They say: Well, Congressman, have you been able to reform Medicare 
and Social Security and make sure it is solvent for future generations?
  I say: Well, we are working on it.
  They say: Well, Congressman, have you been able to do tax reform?
  I say: Well, we are getting there.
  They say: But, Congressman, let me make sure I understand that the 
only thing that Congress did do was get rid of the only thing that 
worked that helped create my job, and now, I am on the unemployment 
line because I don't have a job.
  Surely, surely, we are better than this and that we can work for our 
constituents all over this great country.
  I look back at history, and I look back a few years ago. In 2006, 
this was voice voted. My chairman, who is on opposite sides with me on 
this issue, was here in 2006. Now, if this was such a big deal, why in 
2006 was this issue not raised? We are doing more in the way of reforms 
probably than Ronald Reagan did many, many years ago.
  Plain and simple, this is about jobs; this is about making sure that 
we are working for our districts; this is a serious reform bill that 
moves this Export-Import Bank in the right direction by making it work.
  I urge my colleagues--hopefully, we get a chance to vote on this in 
the next week to 10 days, but that we pass this, and we do what is 
right for our constituents.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Fincher. I thank you for bringing 
forward the legislation to reauthorize the Bank and for your compelling 
arguments. Those are great strong statistics on the benefits that Ex-Im 
has given our country, the manufacturers, and employees all over the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, next, I yield to the gentleman from the State of New 
York (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from 
Washington for his work organizing this Special Order and certainly 
thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher) for his steadfast work 
to ensure the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, and his 
impassioned speech that he just delivered pretty much sums it up.
  I rise today in support of the Export-Import Bank, which supports 
hundreds of thousands of jobs and returns a profit to the U.S. Treasury 
and ensures that U.S. exporters can compete on a level playing field in 
the global market.
  My chart here says it all. The Ex-Im Bank equals jobs.
  Not too long ago, I said I was befuddled by why the majority of my 
own Conference seemed focused on ending the charter for the Export-
Import Bank--and I got to give them the credit for this--they did that.
  Well, we are here to say that we can reauthorize this Bank, get back 
to supporting small business, and growing jobs because that is what 
this is all about.

                              {time}  1815

  There has been misinformation and, I would say, misguided outside 
influences that have come into play, as Mr. Fincher pointed out. This 
has always been voice voted, and all of a sudden, this became the 
cause, as he said, that someone wanted to die on the Hill for.
  But why do we want to kill jobs in the United States, jobs that 
contribute to a surplus of exports? We have a trade imbalance. These 
jobs are creating exports that are being shipped overseas to reduce 
that trade imbalance.
  In my district alone, the Ex-Im Bank supports over 700 jobs and $100 
million in exports. Reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank is vital for 
manufacturers of all sizes to grow and to prosper in a competitive 
world economy.
  U.S. exporters look to the Ex-Im Bank when they face direct 
competition from foreign export credit agencies when regulatory 
constraints hinder commercial lending, when they are selling in the 
markets with political risks or economic uncertainty, or when a foreign 
customer requires official export credit as part of the bidding 
process.
  Unlike most, I know from experience. Before coming to Congress, I 
started and ran a number of small businesses. One of those small 
businesses that I founded in 2004 was Audubon Machinery Corporation, 
located in North Tonawanda, New York.
  Today Audubon is a diversified manufacturing company that, amongst 
other things, exports oxygen-generating systems around the world. These 
are medical-grade oxygen systems used in hospitals in Nigeria, Vietnam, 
Mainland China, places where the hospitals

[[Page 11661]]

don't have the liquid oxygen tank outside like they do in the U.S. and 
Europe.
  We simply take the nitrogen out of the air we breathe. The air we 
breathe is 22 percent oxygen and 78 percent nitrogen.
  We take that nitrogen out of the air, producing 93 percent medical-
grade oxygen used in these hospitals throughout the developing 
countries in Africa, South America, Asia, and, like I said, there are 
major exports into Mainland China.
  The Export-Import Bank plays a critical role in what we do. We pay a 
fee to the Export-Import Bank to provide a guarantee to our commercial 
bank that guarantees a portion of the line of credit we use to buy the 
inventory we need to make the product.
  I will say it again: In a small business, cash is king. We have to 
buy materials, and we have to pay our vendors. But we probably are not 
going to ship that product for 5 or 6 months, so there is a gap there.
  We collect our money after we ship, but we have 4 or 5 months in 
which we have had to borrow money to buy the inventory to make the 
product. That is how business works.
  The commercial banks in the United States are more than willing to 
loan that money for business done in the United States and perhaps in 
Europe, but in the rest of the world--Africa, Asia, and much of South 
America--the banks will not take that risk.
  So, with the Export-Import Bank, we pay a fee and they loan us the 
money. That is a surplus for the Ex-Im Bank because we are going to 
ultimately, certainly, never default on that loan. That is how those 
jobs are created.
  Without the Export-Import Bank, the commercial banks are saying: I am 
not going to lend you for the inventory you need to ship those hospital 
systems to Mainland China.
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the example. I had a 
constituent, actually, who came in to talk to me. He is a manufacturer 
who manufactures tractors, and tractors cost about $1 million apiece.
  When he said he was shipping his tractor over to France, the local 
bank that he was dealing with said that there was no way in the world 
it would accept the collateral.
  So it is a specific example. I assume that is exactly the type of 
thing that we are seeing in small businesses all across the country.
  Mr. COLLINS of New York. It just comes down to the banks today being 
very risk averse. I know what they are thinking.
  Here are their thoughts: We have taken an order from Vietnam to 
produce a hospital system that costs $250,000. We have to buy the 
inventory. We get the inventory.
  I think what the bank is worried about is that somehow that order is 
canceled. When that order is canceled, its fear would be: We are not 
going to have any recourse to collect cancellation charges, and we are 
going to have this useless inventory in our factory.
  First of all, in our case, that is not true. We send the same systems 
around the world. In fact, in our case, we would be able to use that 
inventory on a future order.
  But you can see where the banks would just have a credit policy that 
they are not going to lend for foreign inventories without some kind of 
backup. Now, the backup is the Export-Import Bank at about an 80 
percent guarantee.
  When I have said I am somewhat befuddled by what we are doing here, I 
have asked my fellow colleagues directly if they support the Small 
Business Administration, the SBA, which makes the very same loan 
guarantees to the very same banks.
  The small businesses pay a fee for those Small Business 
Administration loan guarantees for start-up companies.
  How can you support the SBA, on the one hand, which is helping small 
businesses, and not support the Ex-Im Bank, on the other hand, which is 
supporting small businesses?
  I will make another point.
  The default rate on SBA loans is many multiples of that on the Ex-Im 
loans. Why? Start-up companies fail at a pretty regular pace. I can't 
give you the exact percentage, but we all know that start-up companies 
fail.
  That is why the SBA makes an 80 percent guarantee for those loans. It 
is so the bank will lend them money. Their risk is very small, but you 
have a lot of failures.
  Companies that are producing products and exporting around the world 
have been in business for 5 or 10 years. You don't open your doors and 
immediately start making products and shipping them into Mainland 
China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. No.
  You are going to wait until you are mature enough to enter those 
markets, which is why the default rate is so low. These are small 
businesses that have been around for 5 or 10 years.
  In being around that long, they just need the credit to support the 
inventory for the 4 or 5 months that they are in production. That is 
why the default rate is so low.
  When I have asked fellow Members, ``How can you support the SBA and 
not the Ex-Im Bank?'' I don't get a good answer.
  Now, typically, the answer I get is that they will call it the ``bank 
of Boeing'' or the ``bank of General Electric'' because, in competing 
against Airbus, which has access to European credit, I would say, 
``Sure. That is another piece of it besides small business, but GE and 
Boeing buy from a lot of small businesses as well. You are absolutely 
inconsistent to say you support the SBA, and you can't support the Ex-
Im Bank.''
  I know that the moneys my companies have paid for this insurance, if 
you will, has created that surplus that the Ex-Im Bank returns year in 
and year out.
  I would like to stay around to continue the discussion, but I think 
it comes back to Ex-Im equals jobs.
  Ex-Im is creating jobs that manufacture and ship products overseas, 
reducing our trade deficit and creating a surplus for the U.S. Treasury 
to reduce our financial deficit.
  This should be voice voted like it has been forever. It hasn't been. 
So now we have got to lead this charge, and that is what we are doing 
here.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Collins, your stories of small businesses in your 
State and your district, I think, can be told of virtually every 
district in the country. They are very powerful stories.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), a 
great member of our caucus and, technically, a member of our freshman 
team. I am very happy to have him here this evening.
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my good friend from 
Washington for organizing this Special Order. I want to thank my good 
friend Mr. Fincher for his work on the legislation, and I thank those 
who are really talking about trying to create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, really, what we are talking about here is in terms of 
the Ex-Im Bank. The Export-Import Bank--it is a bipartisan piece of 
legislation that we are looking to reauthorize. We are looking to make 
sure that, again, we are creating jobs.
  As for the reauthorization of the bank, for those who might have 
forgotten and for those who may be tuned in, Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the 
reauthorization passed on a suspension vote of 330-93. It passed in the 
Senate 78-20. This was not three decades ago. This was 3 years ago.
  There is a reason to support the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank, 
and I appreciate my good friend Mr. Collins for talking about how Ex-Im 
equals jobs. I do believe that is the case.
  You have all heard the statistics. I mean, 83 percent of the loans 
nationwide from the Ex-Im Bank are going to small businesses. Small 
businesses create two-thirds of the net new jobs in our Nation.
  I have to tell you, in talking to my colleagues around this very 
body, the number one issue that we encounter is the fact that it is 
jobs and the economy. We want to create and make sure that there is a 
robust number of good, high-paying careers.
  The Ex-Im Bank enables those small businesses to be able to keep 
their doors open, to be able to ship to 96 percent of the world's 
consumers, which

[[Page 11662]]

happen to be outside of the United States.
  It is interesting to me when we talk about this because there are a 
lot of big businesses out there that have the ability and the resources 
to put a plant over in places like Malaysia or Germany or those other 
places. It is the small businesses that oftentimes don't have that 
ability.
  You heard me having a conversation with Mr. Collins earlier about 
someone who came into my office who was talking about the fact that he 
manufactures tractors. The tractors aren't big tractors. They are 
fairly small tractors. But the tractors cost about $1 million apiece.
  If they aren't able to manufacture those tractors here in the United 
States in getting that Export-Import Bank financing, they will go 
somewhere else. They have a facility in France that they will be able 
to use. Those are jobs that are going to leave the United States.
  I do believe that, when we talk about the economic growth in 
manufacturing, my district and, I know, many of the other districts of 
my colleagues here are heavy in manufacturing.
  We are the fourth largest manufacturing district in the 10th District 
of Illinois. We have literally hundreds of jobs--54,000--in the 
district that rely upon exports.
  I recognize that there are a lot of people who want to talk about 
Boeing, but Boeing actually has three dozen suppliers in the 10th 
District of Illinois. These are three dozen businesses and hundreds of 
employees who support making things that go into a Boeing plane.
  You have heard the adage that, when a Boeing plane lands, 21,000 
small businesses land with it. This is important. This is talking about 
good, high-paying jobs, things that the Export-Import Bank absolutely 
helps support.
  The thing that is interesting to me is that, if we choose to not 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, who loses? Our competitors overseas 
have export financing. Our small businesses will be the ones that lose.
  We are going to, in essence, tie one hand behind our back and make us 
less competitive. I can't think of a crazier thing, that of making us 
less competitive.
  We want to be more competitive. We want to give our small businesses 
every advantage possible to be able to go out and compete and win. This 
is what we have an obligation to do. This is what we have an 
opportunity to do.
  I am delighted to be able to stand up here with my friends to talk in 
a bipartisan way, actually, about why it is important that we 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  It is because there are jobs and there are businesses in Vernon 
Hills, in Wheeling, in Lincolnshire, in Northbrook, in Waukegan, in 
Glenview, in Des Plaines, in Gurnee, in Elmhurst, in Lake Villa, in 
Bannockburn, and in Mount Prospect. These are all towns in the 10th 
District that have companies that utilize the Export-Import Bank.
  This is not some random deal. This is something that small businesses 
utilize in order to make sure that they can sell their goods to places 
all over the globe, to places like France, Germany, India, and China.
  It is super important that we give them the opportunity to not only 
make it here in America, but to be able to send it all over the globe.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are looking for an opportunity to end a government 
program, listen, I am all for government accountability and for trying 
to make sure that the government is smaller and more responsive. Let's 
not focus on a government program that brings billions of dollars into 
the Federal Treasury and creates jobs.
  We have heard about the crony capitalism. Frankly, I think that we 
need to be focusing on how we help small businesses because, again, if 
we shut down the Export-Import Bank, who loses? It is our small 
businesses, not the small businesses that they compete against that may 
be overseas, because they will have an export financing arm.
  As my friend Mr. Collins was talking about before, if the private 
sector and the private sector banks would do it, I understand, but 
there are a lot of those private sector banks and a lot of those local 
community banks, even those mid-sized banks, that see the collateral go 
overseas that they can't touch and that they can't get back.
  When they walk in for $1 million of financing to send that tractor 
overseas, the answer is ``no.'' Guess what. They can't hire that next 
individual to create and make that tractor.

                              {time}  1830

  We need export financing. We need to make sure that the Export-Import 
Bank has some restructuring. This bill does some of that in terms of 
the bill that we are looking for, to try to have some changes that go 
into the Export-Import Bank to make sure that we are having that 
appropriate oversight, to make sure that we are holding them 
accountable. But it is absolutely vital, Mr. Speaker, for good, high-
paying careers that the Export-Import Bank is reauthorized, and 
reauthorized with an overwhelming support. If it comes to the floor, 
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that this passes.
  I want to thank my good friend from Washington for bringing this up. 
I want to thank my colleagues for standing up and supporting what we 
all know is going to be absolutely good for small business.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank Mr. Dold for his comments about the small jobs. 
Coming from a State like Washington, as I do, I can certainly relate. 
Fully 40 percent of the jobs in my State are related to exports, so we 
understand the importance of having all the tools we can at our 
disposal to make these small businesses successful in the world 
economy.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a 
colleague of mine who sits on the Committee on Rules, for his comments.
  Mr. STIVERS. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. I 
also thank him for doing this Special Order. This message needs to get 
out. I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Fincher, 
for sponsoring the reform bill that makes 31 meaningful reforms in the 
Export-Import Bank.
  I think it is important to note, we need to reauthorize and reform 
the Ex-Im Bank. Obviously, the Ex-Im Bank is about jobs. You have heard 
that message all evening. The charter did expire on June 30. Today, the 
Export-Import Bank can service existing loans, but they can't make new 
loan guarantees. That is why we need to act now to reform and 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  We are facing competition against 59 countries that have similar 
export credit finance agencies, and it is really important that we 
reauthorize our Export-Import Bank. The worst thing we could do would 
be to unilaterally disarm in a trade war against these 59 other 
countries and put our small businesses and job creators and exporters 
at a competitive disadvantage.
  I want to tell a story about one of the companies in my district 
called Davenport Aviation. It is a small exporter that sends aircraft 
spare parts to sub-Saharan Africa. Only 1 percent of exporters use the 
Export-Import Bank, but Davenport Aviation is one that really needs it 
because in places like Angola and places like Mozambique, there is a 
political risk, there is a credit risk, and only the Export-Import Bank 
can come in and take that risk and make that happen, because, as the 
gentleman from New York said earlier, it is probably pretty hard to get 
a bank loan to sell spare parts into Angola, Mozambique, and other 
places in sub-Saharan Africa. Davenport Aviation has thrived because 
the Export-Import Bank has been there. Now there are 12 jobs in 
Davenport Aviation, a company that started with just one person just 3 
years ago.
  There are companies like that all throughout my district. J D 
Equipment exports tractors, and Showa Aluminum exports a lot of things 
using the Export-Import Bank. This bill that Mr. Fincher has created 
will help make sure those job creators can continue to make and create 
products that they export to other countries and create American jobs 
in the process.
  As you heard, the Fincher bill has 31 reforms that are meaningful. I 
am

[[Page 11663]]

working on amendments that would create four additional reforms. One 
would be a reinsurance pilot that would determine the private sector 
price, an actuarially sound price of this credit insurance just so we 
could have that conversation. The second is a restructuring of the 
appointment process to make sure that minority and majority views are 
heard on the board of the Export-Import Bank. The third would be a 
report on any adverse impacts going on to American companies by loans 
that the Export-Import Bank guarantees. Finally, I have an amendment 
that would end the discrimination of coal and make sure that we can 
fund an all-of-the-above energy policy through our exports because 
export markets are an important place for energy and American-made 
energy. We need to make sure that we create jobs here to export the 
energy where possible.
  As you have heard, this debate is about jobs. The Export-Import Bank 
is about jobs. In fact, if we do nothing, America will lose 164,000 
jobs; in Ohio, we will lose 15,300 jobs; and in my district, we will 
lose almost 1,500 jobs. So we have got to act. We need to act to 
reauthorize and reform the Ex-Im Bank.
  I am working hard to make sure we do that. I appreciate the gentleman 
from Washington. I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee and 
everybody that is participating tonight. It is important to remember 
this debate is about jobs, and, in fact, the Export-Import Bank 
guaranteed $2.4 billion worth of exports in Ohio since 2007 and has 
helped make sure that 15,300 Ohioans had jobs.
  Thank you for this Special Order. Thank you, everyone, for 
participating. I urge my colleagues to support reforming and 
reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Those are powerful, powerful arguments. I appreciate 
Mr. Stivers' contribution here this evening.
  Next, I would like to turn to one of the stars of our freshman class, 
a colleague of mine from New York, Ms. Elise Stefanik.
  Ms. STEFANIK. First, I want to take a moment to thank Congressman 
Newhouse and my colleague from New York, Congressman Collins, for 
spearheading and organizing this Special Order. I also thank 
Congressman Fincher for all of his work and leadership on H.R. 597.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand today to express my support for the 
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and of H.R. 597, of which I 
am a proud original cosponsor. H.R. 597 would reform and reauthorize 
this critical institution.
  For the last 80 years, the Export-Import Bank has helped facilitate 
exports on behalf of thousands of businesses and has created jobs in 
all 50 States. Failing to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank would create a 
stark disadvantage for our country's businesses and cause significant 
job loss. In fact, over 40 other nations have an export credit agency. 
If America's is not reauthorized, our Nation would be the only country 
in the top 20 economies in terms of GDP not to have one.
  As I travel throughout my district, I hear from manufacturers who are 
directly impacted by the Ex-Im Bank. For example, the Plattco 
Corporation out of Plattsburgh, New York, has been in operation since 
1897 and specializes in valve engineering for a wide variety of 
industrial applications. Through innovation and expertise, this small 
business has become the industry standard, and their products are sold 
in over 50 countries around the world. Exports represent 40 percent of 
Plattco's sales, and over half of these are financed by the Export-
Import Bank.
  In addition to financing the overseas sales, the Ex-Im Bank also 
provides due diligence by determining which customers are creditworthy 
enough to receive a loan. Plattco and their 70 employees do not have 
the infrastructure or the resources to do this on their own.
  Another example in my district is New York Air Brake in Watertown, 
which has been serving the rail industry since 1890. Among their many 
products, New York Air Brake develops train brakes and controls which 
are among the most reliable in the world today. New York Air Brake's 
largest customers utilize Ex-Im Bank. These customers use Ex-Im to 
finance their railcar sales and other manufactured products around the 
world.
  Failing to reauthorize Ex-Im Bank would lead to purchases from 
overseas instead of U.S. manufacturers here. If this were to occur, the 
loss isn't just felt by the company making the sale, but it is also 
felt by New York Air Brake and their 575 employees who supply railcar 
assemblers with exceptional products.
  New York Air Brake is truly vital to our economy and our local 
community, and as leaders in Congress, we must continue to support 
these types of companies that provide high-paying manufacturing jobs.
  On behalf of Plattco Corporation, New York Air Brake, their 
employees, and thousands of other small businesses that create jobs in 
New York's north country and across the U.S., I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for underscoring 
the importance of the Ex-Im Bank to small businesses, small businesses 
that employ a huge number of people around this country. That is very 
important to point out.
  Next I would like to turn to the good gentleman from the State of 
Georgia (Mr. Carter), another freshman colleague of mine.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the greatest threat to our 
national security is our national debt. It is the number one issue 
facing our country right now and one of the primary reasons I sought to 
serve in this body. I have often said that the only way that we are 
ever going to balance our budget, the only way that we are ever going 
to retire our national debt is by three things: first of all, we have 
got to cut spending; secondly, we have got to have entitlement reform; 
and, thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we have got to grow our way 
out of this. The Ex-Im Bank helps us to do that.
  As a small-business man, having owned three independent retail 
pharmacies for the last 27 years, I understand the value in business of 
cutting costs and increasing revenues. It is important. You have to 
both cut costs and increase revenues, and you have to grow your 
business.
  The Ex-Im Bank helps us to increase revenues. It helps us to retire 
our national debt. First of all, the Ex-Im Bank has returned money to 
the Treasury in the form of revenues it generates from loan interest 
and fees. Last year alone, the Bank generated a surplus of $675 
million.
  Secondly, and most importantly, the Ex-Im Bank encourages economic 
growth by supporting the purchase of American-made goods around the 
world. These purchases sustain thousands of American companies who rely 
on exports and put food on the table of hard-working men and women 
employed by them.
  In my district alone, there are 19 companies that in recent years 
have utilized the Ex-Im Bank to export goods overseas. These companies 
range from Gulfstream, a leading manufacturer of aircraft, to Strength 
of Nature, a company founded by immigrants who fled the Castro regime 
and started a company that now exports many of their goods to the 
Caribbean and to Africa.
  The Ex-Im Bank helps businesses, big and small, across America to 
compete with the competitors abroad by leveling the playing field. With 
over 60 government export credit agencies currently active around the 
world, including every modern industrialized economy, allowing the Bank 
to expire is tantamount to unilaterally disarming ourselves in the 
competition for big contracts around the globe.
  If a company cannot get financing to buy Gulfstream manufactured in 
Savannah, Georgia, they will go to Canada, which actively promotes 
Bombardier, or Brazil, which does the same for its Embraer jets. If 
they can't get a Caterpillar excavator made in Athens, Georgia, they 
will go to Japan to buy a Komatsu. If they can't get access to an

[[Page 11664]]

AGCO tractor headquartered in Duluth, Georgia, they will go to India to 
buy Mahindra.
  Mr. Speaker, again, as a small-business owner myself, I know that 
American companies can compete when the playing field is level. In a 
perfect world, we wouldn't need an Ex-Im Bank, but we don't live in a 
perfect world. Instead of leveling the playing field for American 
businesses, those who would shutter the Bank are stacking the deck 
against them.
  Mr. Speaker, unilaterally closing the Bank would expose our economy 
to a devastating blow at a time when we can least afford it. It would 
also further erode our global competitiveness and America's influence 
around the globe.
  While we stand here debating the future of the Ex-Im Bank, our 
competitors are leveraging their own versions of their export-import 
banks to increase their market shares abroad. Every minute we wait, 
foreign countries and companies are expanding. If we don't fill the 
market need, countries like Russia and China will, and with it, the 
influence of their regimes is on the rise. They relish in every day 
that we wait.
  Like any Federal agency, the Ex-Im Bank can and should be reformed to 
make it more accountable, more efficient, more transparent. I support 
reforms that would bring interest rates more in line with those found 
in an open private market.
  I support reforms to ensure the Bank is a true lender of last resort 
for all companies by implementing measures to ensure the Bank's 
customers prove that they have exhausted all their options for 
financing by private lenders before seeking assistance from the Bank. 
One way to do that would be to require three letters of denial as part 
of an application. The Bank should also produce a report explaining why 
certain businesses receive assistance by the Bank in order to provide 
taxpayers with more information on exactly what the Bank is doing and 
why.

                              {time}  1845

  Full transparency of the Bank's actions is the only way to hold it 
accountable, while demonstrating the valuable role the Bank plays in 
maintaining our competitiveness in global markets.
  I stand here today ready to work with my colleagues to implement 
these and other necessary reforms to the Ex-Im Bank, but allowing it to 
expire is a disservice to the constituents that we serve.
  The Ex-Im Bank not only supports America's manufacturers and the 
working American families they employ, it helps to promote America's 
national interests abroad. Most importantly, it helps address our 
national debt, both through economic expansion and by returning its 
surplus to the Treasury each year.
  I want to thank my colleagues--Dan Newhouse, Stephen Fincher, and 
Chris Collins--for helping to host this forum and all those working 
with us to restore the Ex-Im Bank to its important function.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I appreciate your powerful words and the importance of 
the Ex-Im Bank to your district, to your State, and to our country.
  Next, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), 
another member of the Agriculture Committee on which I serve.
  I appreciate Mr. Rodney Davis taking the time to come here and with 
helping us make the points on the importance of this authorization.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend 
from Washington for leading this special order. Thank you to all of 
those who are interested in what I think is doing the right thing, 
reauthorizing and reforming the Ex-Im Bank.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of small businesses, American 
manufacturing, and good jobs right here at home.
  The simple reality is that more than 95 percent of the globe's 
consumers live outside of our borders; therefore, our ability to export 
American products around the world has a direct impact on many small, 
medium, and large companies and their ability to create and sustain 
jobs.
  Unfortunately, many potential global customers are not able to secure 
the necessary financing to complete a purchase from an American company 
because of the instability of their region or another circumstance.
  In order to connect these American exporters with their buyers around 
the globe, the Ex-Im Bank can provide vital loans to complete 
transactions with American companies that otherwise may not have 
occurred.
  The economic impacts here at home are significant. Last year, the Ex-
Im Bank provided financing for $27.5 billion in U.S. exports. That 
supports more than 160,000 American jobs; most importantly, 90 percent 
of all of these public-private transactions were with America's small 
businesses.
  Some have called for ending the Ex-Im Bank on the grounds that it 
competes with the private market. That is simply not the case. While we 
do need to reform this agency, we still need to make sure that the Ex-
Im Bank is allowed to level the playing field and fill the gaps that 
exist in the private credit market.
  Additionally, the Ex-Im Bank brings in a surplus of dollars to the 
U.S. Treasury. Last year alone, it was upwards of $700 million. Over 
the past two decades, the surplus has been $7 billion. I ask many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle: What are we going to do to fill 
that hole?
  Ex-Im supports good-paying jobs in Illinois, not only at great 
companies like Caterpillar and John Deere, but also at small- and 
medium-sized businesses, such as the GSI Group in Assumption, Illinois, 
my home county's largest employer, and also Litania Sports Group in 
Champaign.
  Congress has already let the Ex-Im Bank expire, but we cannot afford 
to put more jobs at risk. We must reform and reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank 
now, and I urge a speedy process to do so.
  I thank my colleague, once again, for his time, his energy, and his 
focus on this important issue.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Davis, I am very grateful for you sharing with us 
today.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole)
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my friend from 
Washington and my friend from Tennessee for organizing this 
exceptionally important discussion tonight.
  I think the case, from a national standpoint, in terms of maintaining 
the Ex-Im or the Export-Import Bank, is really almost uncontestable. It 
is not a new institution. It has been around well over 80 years. It is 
not a unique institution.
  As has been mentioned here on the floor several times, literally 
dozens of other countries have a similar tool in their toolbox to 
facilitate exports.
  It has not cost the American taxpayer a dime during the course of its 
existence. It has actually made billions of dollars back, indeed, since 
2007, $2.8 billion last year alone, a billion dollars extra to the 
United States Treasury.
  What it has done and what every American ought to be interested in is 
it creates thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs for our fellow 
Americans competing in the international marketplace.
  Now, I can talk about some big companies that have a presence in my 
State that have been enormously well served by the Ex-Im Bank. Boeing 
aircraft, we have almost 3,000 Boeing jobs in Oklahoma. That is 
important to us, and we are very proud to have them. Halliburton, 
historically founded in California, headquartered now in Texas, but 
their largest machinery production facility is in my district in 
Duncan, Oklahoma--1,500 jobs. Those are real Oklahomans going to work.
  What impresses me the most is the opportunities that the Export-
Import Bank have created for small companies to get into the 
international marketplace. The Export-Import Bank in Oklahoma in recent 
years has helped 129 exporting firms; 87 of those, over two-thirds, are 
small businesses, and that has made a difference in small communities.
  The small business is the bedrock of the American economy, and Ex-Im 
helps them open markets that they

[[Page 11665]]

would never have had an opportunity to participate in, absent that 
particular mechanism. Don't take my word for it.
  Here is a story from a third-generation Oklahoma company about how 
the Export-Import Bank has been able to help them. The Mills Machine 
Company operating in Shawnee, Oklahoma, just outside my district but in 
the district next to it, has been in business since 1908--over 100 
years. It makes drill bits, augers, and other tools for water 
construction in geothermal industries.
  According to the current president, Chuck Mills, who is actually the 
third generation in the family to run the company--his grandfather 
started it; his father maintained it, and he is now operating it. He 
was the first one to think about operating overseas.
  How does a small company in the middle of Oklahoma identify and 
finance overseas sales? He figured out the Export-Import Bank would be 
the way to open the door for him to create jobs for his employees in 
Shawnee, Oklahoma.
  Today, the Export-Import Bank provides credit insurance when his 
company is selling their products abroad, which is awfully necessary 
because some of those individual items, while they sound mundane, cost 
up to $30,000 apiece. That is a lot of risk for a small company.
  Access to the Ex-Im Bank has allowed the Mills Machine Company to 
actually increase their exports overseas by 20 percent. Now, when you 
are a company of 20-30 employees, 20 percent is five or six jobs that 
literally would not have been there absent the services of this Bank.
  The Export-Import Bank actually allows our companies to compete in 
the global marketplace where countries often directly subsidize or own 
the means of productions.
  We don't have a free market today in every way. Our competitors have 
this tool. They use this tool aggressively. We need to have the ability 
to counter them, when necessary, with the Export-Import Bank.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to support this bill to understand 
how essential it is to some of--not just the biggest, but some of the 
smallest exporters in the American economy and how many thousands of 
jobs it creates.
  Remember, it has never cost the taxpayers of the United States of 
America a single dime. It has always put billions of dollars, over 
time, into our Treasury. Most importantly, there are thousands of 
Americans working today thanks to what the Export-Import Bank has done 
to facilitate the export of American products into the international 
marketplace.
  I want to urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of this 
important institution.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Cole, thank you very much for participating tonight 
and pointing out the importance of the Bank to your State and to your 
district.
  I yield now to gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Washington 
organizing this special order in support of Ex-Im.
  I will tell you one of the worst mistakes that Congress could make is 
not acting to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank.
  Unfortunately, few people in Congress have been involved in 
international trade. For some 7 years, I was very active in 
international trade, got into it by accident in other businesses, but I 
have led delegations and represented some very big corporations, some 
of the biggest in Florida and the United States and some of the 
smallest companies trying to compete.
  I have been in every country in South America except the Guianas. I 
have been throughout the entire Caribbean, trying to sell U.S. 
products. I was in Egypt, the Middle East. I took the first trade 
delegations into the Eastern bloc countries--Lithuania, I went into 
Poland and Slovakia.
  I have seen international trade up close. I am telling you, folks, it 
is not a level playing field. It is very rough in the global market.
  Some of our competitors, the Chinese and the Europeans, were doing 
trade across borders, well, when the Americas were still in loincloths. 
These are experienced people. They throw their mother-in-law in to 
close the deal. It is a very tough market out there. To cut the legs 
out from our folks has consequences when it comes to financing.
  In business and international trade, if you can finance the deal, you 
can do the deal. Why would we do this? You just heard the other 
gentleman say that this is one of the least risks of guaranteeing or 
providing a loan, less than 1 percent. Banks are 10 times that.
  There is no cost to the taxpayer; we actually make money from this, 
but what we have out there is competition that is unfair, unlevel.
  It is possible that we can make some reforms. In fact, we should make 
reforms to get us into some areas where we don't have export-import. I 
was the only Member from the House, at least from the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee, to go to the biggest airshow--I hadn't 
been for about 12 years--in Europe recently.
  Our competitors were applauding at the time that America was going to 
let Ex-Im go down the tubes because they, again, are experts in being 
able to finance things. In aviation, aviation is one of our biggest 
areas of exports, huge opportunities; and these people are now being 
asked to fight and struggle.
  We should be expanding. For example, I heard from some of our 
military folks at the airshow that other countries have ex-im for 
military foreign sales and that we are losing part of that market while 
others are getting into it.
  If you want to send jobs overseas, if you want to kill American 
manufacturing, if you want to tie the hands of American companies 
overseas, and if you want to close down some jobs in my district--I 
have a large power generation headquarters, which also manufactures in 
North Carolina.
  Here is a statement from their company. They will lose a $300 million 
contract, lots of jobs in my district in North Carolina, to Japanese 
competitors. There is just one.
  Here is Caterpillar, not in my district. They are going to lose a 
$650 million opportunity in a competition to an Asian competitor. How 
many jobs would that be in Illinois? They are not my district. It is 
for a project in Australia.
  We are not financing any foreign operations. We are financing 
American products and supporting American jobs. We absolutely must 
reauthorize this important program.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. One of the great things about this body is having 
people with so many different kinds of experiences. Mr. Mica, you 
personally know the importance because of your experience in being in 
other countries, of selling American products abroad, how important 
this tool is to the American businesses.
  Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.
  And that is where the markets are, and that is a small area we should 
be supporting, where we are just minor players right now. We should 
actually be expanding.
  But I thank you for bringing this to the attention of the Congress 
and the American people. And you are going to hear about agriculture 
and how important that is in all of this, and jobs and opportunities 
for Americans.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the gentleman.
  And that is a great segue into who I would like to share some of this 
time with next. I yield to the gentleman, also from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Lucas), the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. LUCAS. Congressman Newhouse, I am very appreciative of you 
organizing this Special Order to discuss an issue that perhaps not many 
of our neighbors back home have had time to focus on and to have 
speakers from a variety of perspectives discuss what it really means in 
job creation, economic growth, opportunities in their home

[[Page 11666]]

districts and their communities, the Export-Import Bank.
  I would be remiss if I didn't note to our colleagues, you and I are 
both farmers, and one of the common threads in agriculture throughout 
this great country is, since colonial times, we have always produced 
more than we could consume in this country. We have always had to sell 
our surplus in the world markets. That is the only way that we could 
maintain a healthy production agriculture, to have reasonable job 
opportunities, a reasonable standard of living in our agricultural 
communities.
  Export-Import touches on many of those issues, created in the 1930s 
as a tool to help all parts of the American economy have the credit and 
the ability to sell in the world markets.
  As a matter of fact, the concept is so practical, it has been so 
well-defined, as you and I both know, 50-plus other countries have the 
same type of a system to help their manufacturers, their producers, 
their economic interests do business into the outside world.
  Now, that said, we have been engaged for some time on the Financial 
Services Committee and in this body in a very, at times, heated debate 
about whether not just should Export-Import Bank be reformed to make it 
more efficient, make it more accountable, more responsible to the 
taxpayers, but whether it should even exist at all.
  Now, some of our colleagues believe that, with a lack of action, the 
official expiration of the authorization, it is gone. We have heard our 
friends say here today that until all of the loans that are 
outstanding, all of the guarantees, all of the obligations that have 
been committed to are completed, the institution will continue to 
exist. It simply cannot provide new economic opportunities to do 
business around the world for our people.
  And that brings us to this point, and I think it is the point that I 
want to stress. Can Export-Import Bank, in its present form, be 
reformed? Can it be made better? Can it be made more accountable?
  Of course. There is not an institution in government anywhere that 
can't be made better, more efficient, more effective, more accountable 
to the taxpayers.
  But the real tragedy of what is going on here is we have been 
presented, many of us, with the stark debate of end it all or, through 
circumstances beyond our control, have it reauthorized, most likely in 
its present form, without any of those reforms. That is why many of us 
are on the Fincher bill, because we believe Export-Import serves a 
purpose in helping create better jobs, more economic opportunities for 
many of our citizens, but that it needs to be done in a more 
responsible, accountable fashion.
  I have been highly disappointed that we have not had a debate, a 
markup in committee on this very issue that would have ultimately led, 
I believe, to a debate and consideration on the floor of this United 
States House so that we could potentially have sent a better product 
than we have now to the other body. We have not been allowed to do 
that.
  So now we are faced with a stark contrast. How do we continue this 
very effective effort at moving our products into the world markets, 
creating those jobs here at home for our fellow citizens?
  Either we have to wait for a bill to come from the other body, most 
likely not containing the level of reforms that we would have placed in 
such a reauthorization bill in the House, or, at some point, we will 
have a markup, either in committee or on the floor, of another piece of 
legislation where there will be an effort to attach it. That kind of an 
effort probably won't contain the level of Fincher reforms that we all 
want.
  That is the tragedy, Congressman. We are going to reauthorize Export-
Import. It is just, in what form will it be reauthorized?
  We cannot allow 50-plus of our competitors around the world to have a 
tool, a resource, an ability for their businesses to push their 
products into the American economy that we don't match punch for punch 
economically. We cannot allow that to happen.
  I hope we are going to work on behalf of our fellow workers, our 
fellow citizens, our fellow businesspeople in this country. But it is a 
tragedy, Congressman, that we are not going to have the kind of 
discussion and debate where we could create a dramatically improved, 
refined, or reformed Export-Import Bank.
  We each represent our constituents. I care about mine just as you 
care about every one of yours, and making sure that we have the 
ability--the ability--for all those citizens to have good jobs, good-
paying jobs, good, new economic opportunities, is just too important 
for us to back away--too important for us to back away.
  If we don't get the reforms that our fellow citizens deserve, it 
won't be because you and I didn't try. We have tried for months. It 
will be because the choices thrust upon us by others are either all or 
nothing at all, present or nothing.
  I want to keep selling those products that our hard-working fellow 
citizens make into the world market. I want to keep competing 
economically, blow for blow, with the rest of the world.
  You know, some have said: Let's just do away with Export-Import. We 
will establish the principle, and the rest of the world will follow us.
  Does anybody really believe that, that when we give up our ability to 
sell our products into other markets they will suddenly say: Oh, what a 
great principle. We will stop selling into your markets.
  That is not the way it works, Dan, not the way it works.
  I appreciate the gentleman's time, his effort on this critically 
important issue. Something will happen; it is just how soon and in what 
form.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight we've heard from Representatives from all over 
the country--from my home state of Washington, to Oklahoma, to 
Florida--about the economic importance of the Export-Import Bank to our 
nation. Before we conclude for the evening, there were three other 
topics I wanted to discuss--wine, music stands, and mint oil. As 
unrelated as these three things sound, they have a couple of important 
commonalities. First, these are small businesses in Washington State 
that create all three of these products. L'Ecole Winery in Walla Walla 
makes a fantastic, award-winning Bordeaux blend, and sells their wines 
in over 20 countries. I had the chance to recently tour the Manhasset 
Specialty Company, located in Yakima, Washington, which manufactures 
and sells the gold-standard of music stands the world over. Norwest 
Ingredients, a company located in Royal City, Washington, grows and 
refines mint extract, and sells it around the globe to food and 
pharmaceutical producers for flavoring.
  The other thing these three businesses have in common, besides making 
some of the best products in the world, is that they all use Export-
Import Bank financing to share their products with the world. They are 
great examples of small businesses utilizing the Bank--and for the 
record, they are definitely small businesses, employing a total of 43 
full-time employees between the three of them, and that number is 
growing. In fact, to clear up a common misconception about the Ex-Im 
Bank, in fiscal year 2014, an astounding 89% of the Export-Import 
Bank's loans were to small businesses. When these small businesses are 
seeking to export their product--that is, to grow their businesses and 
create jobs--they often need financing to do that. However, selling 
your product in Sidney or Seoul is not the same thing as selling it in 
St. Louis or San Francisco. When selling overseas, under a different 
set of laws, sometimes there's little recourse if you have issues with 
getting paid for your goods. Or say there's a natural disaster or labor 
dispute--how then can you access your product or the money you're owed? 
When your product spends six weeks on a barge, and your money is locked 
in that product in a crate, sometimes you need capital that's just not 
accessible. In some countries, just to access their markets and sell 
your products you have to have an insurance guarantee from your home 
country. And that's where the Export-Import Bank comes in.
  The Export-Import Bank supplements private financiers, providing 
direct loans, working capital, loan guarantees, and other forms of 
financial insurance, allowing these businesses to reach markets and 
sell goods they would be unable to otherwise.
  Critics on one side argue this simply means these ventures are too 
risky, and shouldn't be entered into if private financing can't handle

[[Page 11667]]

the job. On the other side, they argue the reason private financiers 
can't handle it is because Ex-Im crowds them out of the market, 
offering rates private finance can't compete with. But, if we look at 
the evidence, we can see both of these claims are just not true. If the 
Export-Import Bank backed inherently risky ventures, then how do we 
account for the 0.175% default rate on Ex-Im loans? This rate is far 
below the standard market rate, meaning that the Bank's loans are 
careful, and judicious with taxpayer dollars. As for the Export-Import 
Bank crowding private lenders out of the market, right now Ex-Im 
requires in its charter that the Bank only, and I quote only, 
``supplement and encourage, and not compete with private capital.'' It 
also requires that the Export-Import Bank provide an annual report to 
Congress with a breakdown of all of their loans, demonstrating that 
private lenders were either unable or unwilling to offer these loans.
  However, I would agree with critics that this isn't enough, and we 
should go further. That's one of the reasons I'm a cosponsor of Mr. 
Fincher's Export-Import Reform legislation, H.R. 597, the Reform 
Exports and Expand the American Economy Act. Mr. Fincher's bill 
reiterates that the Export-Import Bank is the ``lender of last resort'' 
to companies, and that companies seeking credit must demonstrate 
they've tried to procure private financing before they can even be 
considered for Ex-Im financing.
  Mr. Fincher's Export-Import reform bill would make other positive 
changes to the Bank as well. It would require the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to regularly audit Ex-Im's fraud control 
measures, as well as their loan, insurance, and guarantee programs. 
This legislation would require that the Bank's Board of Directors 
publish an annual list of countries that loan participants should not 
be doing business with, whether it's because they violate human rights, 
aid our nation's enemies, or for other foreign policy reason. These are 
good, ethical reforms that should be made. The reform legislation would 
also impose capital reserve requirements on Ex-Im so that, while 
unlikely, should a financial crisis affect the Bank, it will have 
strong capital reserves to protect taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I aren't asking for a straight 
reauthorization of Ex-Im--we think there are improvements that can and 
should be made to the Bank. And we would love to work with those who 
are critical of the Export-Import Bank to join us in reforming the Bank 
so that it's more accountable, it's more supportive of the free market, 
and is a better steward of taxpayer dollars.
  Speaking of taxpayer dollars, there's another common myth about the 
Export-Import Bank that I would like to clear up. Critics of the Bank 
claim that it's a huge consumer of taxpayer dollars, and that it 
constantly risks those funds. However, this couldn't be further from 
the truth. When a business takes out a loan, just like everyone else, 
they have to repay that balance with interest--and that's where the 
Export-Import Bank, like any other lender, makes its revenue.
  To quote from a June 17, 2015 Congressional Research Service report, 
``Ex-Im Bank's activities in FY2013 were estimated to reduce the budget 
deficit by $1 billion in FY2013, and are estimated to reduce the budget 
deficit by $570 million in FY2014.''
  Let me repeat that to let it sink in--two years ago, Ex-Im reduced 
our federal deficit by a billion dollars, and last year it reduced it 
by $570 million. Some of the most ardent critics of the Bank are fellow 
conservative friends of mine, who are just as concerned with federal 
spending as I am. That's why I have a hard time understanding how they 
can advocate for ending a program that is helping to curb our deficits 
by half a billion to a billion dollars annually.
  Another misconception I'd like to address is that allowing Export-
Import Bank to permanently expire won't cost our country jobs--it 
certainly will. It's estimated that every year, Ex-Im helps our 
nation's businesses support about 167,000 jobs. To put this into 
perspective, that's more than half the population of St. Louis, 
Missouri. Those are jobs we will be forfeiting if we allow Ex-Im to 
permanently expire.
  Moreover, allowing expiration of the Export-Import Bank will put our 
nation at a permanent trade disadvantage. Currently, every other nation 
in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has 
their own Export-Import Bank to support their country's producers--
Britain, Korea, Mexico, Italy, Estonia--you name it. And some of them 
are enormous. Germany's bank backs $22.6 billion in exports annually--
significantly more than the U.S.'s average of $14.5 billion. And 
China's is off the charts--backing $45.5 billion in exports annually. 
For those of you keeping track, that's over three times the size of our 
Bank.
  In fact, the Chairman of India's Export-Import Bank in a recent 
interview with Business Insider was asked for his thoughts on the U.S. 
Bank expiring. His response? ``With the U.S. Ex-Im Bank closing down, 
we would now have more market, because Indian products were competed by 
U.S. products.'' Right now, these other nations are looking for every 
advantage they can get for their businesses to grow their economies, 
and they see the U.S. willingly retracting from the global stage and 
conceding market share. If we would like to maintain U.S. strength 
abroad, allowing expiration of the Export-Import Bank is a poor 
strategic decision.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, now is the time to reform and reauthorize 
the Export-Import Bank, and I encourage House leadership to allow us to 
vote on its reauthorization as soon as possible. The Export-Import Bank 
helps our nation's small businesses grow and create jobs. It reduces 
our nation's federal deficit, and makes us more competitive on the 
global stage. Could it use reforms? Certainly--there isn't an 
institution out there that couldn't, and I'd love to work with my 
friends who are critical of the Bank to see these reforms put in place. 
But we can't willingly remove tools from our arsenal if we want to keep 
our great nation strong and competitive for decades to come.

                          ____________________