Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the compromise that was outlined by Senator Cantwell.

Basically, 6 years ago the Congress of the United States by voice vote reauthorized the Export-Import Bank. If you are in business, like Boeing and GE, and thousands of other companies out there that are making products in the United States and selling them overseas, the idea that the Congress would, by voice vote, reauthorize the bank had to make you believe that this model of doing business would be made available to you. Here we are, later down the road, a lot of concern about the bank, and some people actually want to do away with it.

I understand free markets pretty well, and I would love to live in a world where no country interfered in the marketplace at all and the best products would win based on a level playing field. But why do we have the Export-Import Bank? It is about 70 years old. There is a long record here. Products made in America and sold overseas--sometimes because of the volatile nature of the region in question traditional banks won't lend money. What happened is about 70 years ago we created a bank to help us export products, and that bank, the Export-Import Bank, as Senator Cantwell said, makes money, doesn't lose money, and it has been a sound way to get American-made products into the international marketplace.

Here is the reality: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, Brazil, China, and India all have export banks of their own. The G 7 countries we competed against between 2006 and 2010 doubled the amount of ex-im financing available in their countries. This is what American businesses are competing against.

Our good friend up North, Canada, is one-tenth our size. The Canadian Ex-Im Bank did $100 billion worth of financing for Canadian-made products last year, compared to $32 billion in support of American manufacturers.

The only area of our economy that has been strong lately is exports. So imagine this: America does away with the Export-Import Bank. All of the countries I just described have their banks available to their manufacturers. Boeing makes planes in Washington and in South Carolina. Eight out of ten planes being manufactured in Charleston, SC, by Boeing, the 787s, are sold based on export-import financing, 8 out of 10. That is why they needed a second line of production. They are competing against Airbus. France has three Export-Import Banks. China's Export-Import Bank is larger than those of the United States, Germany, Canada, and Britain combined.

It is one thing to do reform; it is another to unilaterally surrender. It is one thing to lead the world; it is another to put the people who make products in America at risk unnecessarily. The legislation in the House did compel the President, the Department of Commerce, and Treasury to try to get these Export-Import Banks wound down over time. If we could do that, great, because I think the American workers and the American companies can compete anywhere in the world on a level playing field. At the end of the day, this is about whether we are going to unilaterally surrender. We are weeks away.

Senator Corker has a good amendment, a decent amendment, but it doesn't quite get us to where we need to be at this late hour. One part of this amendment is that you can't make a loan under the Export-Import Bank until the company proves that the other countries in question are not offering loans in that area. That is pretty hard to do when countries such as China are not very transparent.

This amendment is billed as good government, and I know his motivations are sound. He is not ideologically against the bank. But at this late hour, it will bring the legislation down. And, quite frankly, the second prong of what he is proposing I think is a real burden to put on American businesses at a time when it is hard enough already to create jobs in America.

To those who want to end the bank without other countries doing so, I think you would be doing a great disservice to people in this country who are selling products overseas. In my State alone, you would be destroying the ability of Boeing Company to grow in South Carolina. GE makes gas turbines in Greenville, SC. One-third of those turbines made in Greenville are sold through ex-im financing. If you can get the other parts of the world to do this, count me in. Until we do it together, I am going to allow this bank to stay in business because it makes money, it doesn't lose money. There is a difference between leading the world and putting your companies at risk in a world based on reality, and the reality is that export-import financing by our competitive nations is growing, it is not being reduced.

This bill that passed the House was 330 votes. We live in a time in Congress where you can hardly declare Sunday as a holiday, but 330 Members of the House voted to extend this

bank for 3 years with reforms. Count me in the reform camp.

Some people say this bank has kind of gotten out of its lane and is making loans that are not traditionally export-import loans. I agree with that. Some say the bank is not transparent enough. I agree with that. The bottom line is it has been reformed; not as much as some would wish, but it definitely has been reformed.

Sixty-two percent of the Republican Conference in the House voted to reauthorize this, so I want to acknowledge Representative Cantor, Representative Hoyer, Tim Scott, and my delegation, who have tried to bring about reform. At the end of the day, the Senate now is receiving a product that went through the House, a lot of giving and taking. They produced a compromise, as Senator Cantwell said, that would be different than I would have written, but it truly is reform. It allows a 3-year extension of the bank at $140 billion with reforms that are, quite frankly, I think common sense, and 62 percent of the House Republicans supported this. The tea party was split.

At the end of the day we have a decision to make as a Senate: Are we going to allow this bank to fail, or are we going to allow the bank to stay in business under a new way of doing business? I think it would be a travesty and a detrimental event to the economy of this country if this bank were to go out of business and the banks of everybody we compete with are doubling in size. If you want to grow the footprint in America of selling products made in America overseas, this bank has a niche. Where you cannot find traditional financing, this bank allows American products to be sold, and I think it is a very sound business practice. The bank is making money.

The bank has been around for 70 years and there are no subprime mortgages here. This is about selling American products to a willing buyer overseas where you can't find traditional financing. Our friends in China--sometimes they are not our friends; they manipulate their currency, they steal intellectual property--their bank is going like gangbusters. The last thing I am going to do with my vote is take American companies that are struggling to make it, creating jobs in America through selling products overseas, and put them at a disadvantage against the Chinese or any other country that is doing business. We will wind
down these things together or we will stay in business to allow those in America to make products and sell them overseas.

From a South Carolina perspective, this is a very big deal. It was a big deal to get Boeing to come to South Carolina. This is a request by Boeing, and many other small businesses such as Mount Vernon Mills, to keep the program around.

I will end where I started. Six years ago, those people in the manufacturing community had the bank reauthorized by voice vote. They set up a business model assuming the bank was going to be around, because nobody even objected to it enough to get a rollcall. Six years later, we can't make wild, radical changes. We have made reforms. But the worst thing we can do is to have told the community 6 years ago by voice vote this bank will be in place and 6 years later do away with it when no one else is doing away with their banks. That makes no sense to me. That is not good government. That, to me, is unilateral surrender. I didn't want to unilaterally disarm when we were competing against the Soviets in the Cold War, and I sure as heck don't want to unilaterally disarm in a world economy very much interconnected.

These amendments, most of them, are designed to wind down the bank. They are ideologically driven. Senator Corker is trying to make it better, but there is a component of his amendment that I think would make it very difficult for our companies to get a loan. At the end of the day, we need to vote these amendments down and pass the House product.

To the Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, you worked this out among yourselves in a way that I think the Senate should embrace and endorse.

And to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, we are allowing votes on an important piece of legislation. The Senate is operating in the best traditions of the Senate; people have their say, people get to vote.

Here is my say: Bring your amendments to the floor. I respect your ideological position. I respect the idea of the free markets and where we want to go. But I am asking my colleagues not to put American businesses at risk at a time when our economy is on its knees. Do not destroy this bank at a time when competitor nations are doubling the size of theirs.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source