United States Export Finance Agency Act of 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HECK. I thank Chair Waters for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I also am not going to spend much time rebutting the arguments of the previous speaker, indeed, given that he has opposed every single reauthorization of the Ex-Im since he began service in this Chamber--especially since he supported every amendment that would have been harmful in past reauthorization legislation; especially since he had the audacity, frankly, to use Huawei as an example, which he cannot cite a single line in the draft to which he refers that would have prohibited export financing to Huawei, and the bill before you does.
No. I am going to use my time to do as I have in the past: to support and defend the bank, one of the most important, least understood elements of our national manufacturing strategy, the Export-Import Bank.
It is vital to our national and local economies, especially manufacturers, farmers, and small businesses, but it has suffered badly under misguided attacks, such as that to which you were just treated. I have seen this damage firsthand, despite our ongoing attempts to fight them.
This year, I am pleased and proud that we finally have an opportunity to reverse that damage and reinvigorate and expand the Ex-Im.
I support the Export-Import Bank because we want to see more U.S. exports. The international market for goods and services is three times as large as our domestic economy, and that gap, by the way, is widening.
The American economy has not historically been export oriented, so targeting foreign markets and increasing exports holds untapped promise to raise living standards.
As I like to say, if we want to keep our middle class, we better sell into the world's growing middle class.
Maximizing exports will require a strong Export-Import Bank. Over the last many years, the committee has heard testimony and seen analysis that the private market will not maximize exports if left to its own devices.
Trade financing markets fail in predictable and repeated ways. The scale is too large for new exporters to access; the timeframes are too short for the largest, most expensive products; and there are some countries that private lenders simply will not lend into.
So without a robust official export credit agency to fill these gaps, we simply lose out on overseas sales, especially for small businesses and capital equipment makers and farmers.
Every country recognizes this fact, but the U.S. alone among major economies has failed to fully act on this knowledge.
If we want to maximize our exports, we need to stop the sabotage of our credit agency, the Ex-Im Bank, and enhance it. This is what this reauthorization bill does.
It does make several critical changes. It sets the bill up to succeed by increasing the spending cap and expanding the ability to use reinsurance to lay off risk, and setting up new authorities for the bank to go out and search for foreign buyers who it can match with U.S. suppliers, American jobs.
It attempts to move past some of the misinformation about the agency's purpose that has dogged the reauthorization fight the last many years by renaming it to focus on its sole purpose: financing and expanding exports of U.S.-made goods.
It preserves the requirement that goods must be made in the United States by U.S. workers in order to qualify for assistance from the agency. This is the strongest domestic content requirement in the world, and it reinforces that the core of Ex-Im's mission is supporting U.S. manufacturing jobs.
It continues Ex-Im's historical role in leading export credit agencies around the world toward higher environmental standards, stricter pollution controls, and more concern for the effects of infrastructure projects in developing countries.
This is a legacy to be proud of and to build on, and I am glad to see that our environmental advocates and our export sector have come together to agree on the importance of this language.
It aligns Ex-Im more closely with U.S. foreign policy and anticorruption efforts. Ex-Im financing will now be barred if a foreign customer appears on any one of several bad actor lists maintained by various agencies of the U.S. Government.
No, Mr. Chair, it is not a restatement of current policy. It is an expansion of it, and they full well know it.
These targeted provisions allow Ex-Im to focus on maximizing U.S. sales to good customers while also increasing the leverage that our foreign policymakers have in encouraging foreign countries and corporations to clean up their act.
Finally, it makes it much faster and easier for Ex-Im to match financing terms with those foreign export credit agencies that subsidize financing in their country's exporters.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HECK. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Waters for yielding.
Mr. Chair, China, in particular, has used this tactic to crowd out U.S. manufacturers, and Ex-Im will finally have the tool it needs to counter this tactic.
I am proud of the work we have done on this bill. Building a stronger Export-Import Bank, if I may be personal for just one second, is one of the main reasons why I was asked and honored to become a member of the Financial Services Committee 7 years ago.
This is a bill that would achieve that mission for a decade to come, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HECK. Mr. Chair, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and nobody is ever going to accuse the other side of having a small mind, because I have been here just long enough to remember when they railed with righteous indignation to pass legislation even though the Obama administration had issued an SAP. Evidently, that is not a standard that applies today, but it applied then.
What mostly I have heard is that we had a deal that fell apart and it is all our fault. That is pretty good revisionist history. It fell apart because it didn't have the votes.
And it wasn't just a question of what happened on the majority side. They know full well there were minority party Members who were not going to vote for it. There was bipartisan opposition, frankly, because of all the external stakeholder opposition, because it does not work.
What are the differences, the major differences? Basically, that other deal would have prohibited sale into countries--China, in particular--with state-owned enterprises.
What are those? All railroads, all utilities, all airlines. That is not the way we engage other countries and change their behavior.
Materially, factually wrong that we would subsidize the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, in the last 30 years, the Export-Import Bank has transferred up to $10 billion into the U.S. Treasury.
Listen, I just wish people would have the courage of their convictions. The argument seems to be made, and I think it is a debate worth having, is should we kick China out of the World Trade Organization. That is really what is being said here. Let's have that debate.
Looking back, I think it is questionable that they were admitted without stronger accountability, and I think we need stronger accountability.
Mr. Chair, great irony, the bill before you has incredible advance progress over current law in terms of accountability with China. So, at the end of the day, here it is: revenue generating, job generating, American jobs. Vote ``yes.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, I understand the temptation to dabble in foreign affairs when it comes to Ex-Im reauthorization. We have seen a lot of that here today. But there is a reason why we have separate committees in the House: so that Members can develop expertise and apply that expertise. Financial services, simply put, is not the main repository of that kind of expertise, and it shows in this approach.
But let me be clear: No one here wants to support the trafficking of synthetic opioids, of course not. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. This is the wrong way to do it.
And, in fact, if my friend, the author of this amendment, and I do consider him a friend--if you want to ensure that those who are sanctioned for dealing illegal opioids cannot use this Bank, vote in support; indeed, vote in support of the McAdams amendment. It is not theater. It is not cover. It is a strong amendment that is targeted and substantive and, in fact, is going to get at the very underlying problem without costing American jobs and without hurting American businesses.
So I urge you to join the Foreign Affairs Committee or support the efforts of the McAdams amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source