Continuing Resolution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and the legislation that we are soon going to be seeing on a continuing resolution that was just voted on by the House of Representatives. While I am happy that there is a CR--a continuing resolution--that keeps our government open, I am very distressed with the fact that the House is sending us a simple 9-month extension of the Export-Import Bank to expire June 30 of next year.

The reason why that is so frustrating to me and many of my colleagues over here is because this is a jobs issue. It is about our economy, and we have heard today at various venues throughout the Capitol how people are actually losing jobs right now because of the uncertainty of the Export-Import Bank. So I know that some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives--Republicans--are proud they have helped to reauthorize the bank for 9 months. Make no mistake about it; this will cost us jobs in the United States of America during that time period.

We had a press conference today. I was proud to be joined by my colleagues Senator Kirk, Senator Graham, Senator Manchin, and various leaders in the energy industry--the Nuclear Energy Institute; Combustion Associates, Inc.; Itron, which is a company in the Northwest; Westinghouse; and FirmGreen--to talk about how many energy jobs are dependent upon the Export-Import Bank. You can see from this chart: 46,000 U.S. energy jobs and $7.7 billion in energy exports.

Just last year these transactions helped these energy jobs in the United States of America by putting investments in projects overseas. That is why we want to see a long-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. While this uncertainty exists in the continuing resolution, all you are going to do is to exclude U.S. companies from closing deals. That is because a credit agency is critical to U.S. companies actually being at the table.

We heard from one firm today, FirmGreen, that they were actually excluded from participating and getting a deal simply because of the uncertainty of the Ex-Im Bank: A credit agency guaranteeing financing the deal was not at the table and we lost out to an Asian competitor. So during these 9 months of uncertainty, that is exactly what is going to happen to more U.S. companies. They are going to lose out on these energy jobs that we are looking for overseas.

I am talking about things that are part of our energy strategy--everything from Sub-Saharan Africa, wind turbines in Central America, and powerplants in Africa to various investments in the nuclear facilities. A short-term 9-month extension doesn't provide a large enough window for companies to build a pipeline, to construct a wind turbine or to develop a nuclear facility. So it will hurt us by slowing down on these energy projects just at a time when we are trying to fund the training of troops to combat ISIS. We are going to be creating uncertainty in places such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq on water projects, construction projects, and road projects that might not get done because U.S. companies won't be able to get the financing of a credit agency. So this is a national security issue, and we are already hearing from exporters about this.

Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record a list of 30 different newspapers with editorials supporting the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CANTWELL. The Roanoke Times was one of those newspapers. It typifies what companies are saying, that ``to really increase manufacturing jobs, you need to increase exports.''

That is why we feel so strongly about this. The Roanoke Times also said:

It's a global economy. Policymakers need to put U.S. manufacturers on an even playing field with foreign competitors in emerging markets, not take them out of the game.

That is exactly what happens when we give a short-term reauthorization for 9 months. No deal of this size and magnitude with energy companies gets done in a 9-month period of time. It takes the bank basically 3 months just for the processing. The discussion of being at the table, closing the deal, and competing with your competitors takes much longer, and no one is going to be interested in closing a deal when they don't know whether the bank is going to continue to exist.

That is why other newspapers such as the Times-Picayune has said that one of their companies--basically a CEO of Reliable Industries of New Orleans--said: ``The Export-Import Bank is a major reason his firm has built an export business with 600 customers in 60 countries.''

I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the other side of the Capitol who don't understand business: The notion that you don't get is that the export opportunities for our economy are the biggest chances to grow GDP in America, and you are foreclosing on that for the next 9 months because you are creating uncertainty and unpredictability.

Well, you know what I say to that? You are basically shipping jobs overseas. That is exactly what you are doing. You are participating in shipping jobs overseas because you don't want to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the United States right now in manufacturing has a supply chain of small businesses all throughout the United States that help in the farm economy in building farm equipment, help in the aerospace industry building airplanes and airplane-related products, and in the energy economy, as we focused on today at our press conference. All of these suppliers, when they cannot get financing for their products, are going to look to overseas suppliers who can get support from the credit agencies in their country, whether that is China, whether that is in France or whether its in Germany or other countries. So people who don't support giving predictability on the Export-Import Bank are supporting shipping jobs overseas.

Our economy is struggling too much and our national security interests are at stake to be shipping jobs overseas and not having the investments in these countries such as Iraq and Egypt and other places where we want to build security. I believe in the long-term interest of fighting our challenges with extremism around the globe with economic power. I know people are going to talk about military power and people are going to talk about soft power. I believe in economic power. Having an Export-Import Bank that is doing business like building roads and building water and building energy facilities actually helps to stabilize these areas of the world.

I am glad to see that General Petraeus also agrees. General Petraeus basically said that the Ex-Im Bank ``is integral to our country's security interests.'' Integral--he has watched this on the ground and he knows and understands what the Export-Import Bank is, and he is asking us to give it more certainty and predictability than what a 9-month extension does, because, as I said, business deals cannot get done in that short a period of time. Here is a person who understands these issues both from a military perspective and an economic perspective. I wish more of my colleagues would understand that they are basically just shipping jobs overseas.

Newspapers around the country are continuing to try to help echo this issue. The Charlotte Business Journal said: ``Executives say the Ex-Im Bank is a key to a competitive U.S. nuclear industry.'' They have been trying to focus on this issue.

The Boston Globe said: ``Billions will be lost unless Congress reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank.'' It also went on to call exactly what this game is that is happening right here and now in Washington, DC. The Boston Globe in their editorial in support of a longer reauthorization said: ``Conservative hardliners rallying to shut down the agency are risking a serious, self-inflicted economic wound.''

That is because we don't have to be at this point. If you want to talk about reforms for the Ex-Im Bank, we have a lot of opportunity to do that, but hardliners don't want to reauthorize the bank.

Having been in business, I am somebody who believes in trend lines. I would ask my colleagues who are going home and thinking they are going to campaign about jobs to ask themselves what kind of message are they sending to the global community about the Export-Import Bank when just a few years ago an agency that should have a 5-year reauthorization was only reauthorized for 2 years--just 2 years. Now you are going to go into the international community and say, wait a minute, we only believe in this bank for 9 months. So the trend line is it used to be 5 years. For basically about 80 years it used to be 5 years, but because the conservative tea party people are having their way--not the majority of the people in the House but the tea party conservatives are having their way--this has gone from a 5-year reauthorization to a 2-year reauthorization to now a 9-month reauthorization. Who knows what they will propose next. We know they don't support the bank. We know they want to get rid of it.

I think the Charlotte Business Journal, again, characterized this issue very well because they know this industry: ``The United States will lose its lead in nuclear technology if it is not involved in the construction boom overseas.''

You are not going to be very involved in the construction boom over the next 9 months because you are not going to be able to get people to close long-term deals when they think the other side of the aisle just wants to kill the Export-Import Bank.

I think the Columbian in my State said it best. They said: ``While complaining about the Ex-Im Bank might make for sound bites that pander to conservatives, in the end it amounts to legislative negligence.''

They are talking in general about those who want to kill the Export-Import Bank, but the very day that the House proposed a 9-month extension, the Republican study group also proposed killing the Export-Import Bank. So make no mistake about it, there are those who are pandering to very conservative views who basically just want to end the Export-Import Bank.

Thank God we have other businesses in this country. The Louisville Courier-Journal said: ``When a small company is attempting to navigate the international marketplace, it can be difficult to manage the risks related to financing and growth and securing payment.''

That is a local company in Louisville, KY, that knows what it takes to compete in an international marketplace. That industry leader also said that the Ex-Im Bank has helped them manage the risk and as a result their export business has grown strong in recent years. That is what is at stake for these small businesses and supply chains to getting this business done.

I think for us right now the challenge is to try to get people to understand that a 9-month extension is not going to solve this problem. It is going to exacerbate the lack of confidence in our ability to get this bank reauthorized for a long period of time.

The Wichita Eagle editorial also added a this great comment: ``Failure of Congress to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank would be a philosophical victory for some--but a badly timed blow to Kansas companies trying to compete in the global marketplace.'' They went on to say to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

So, while I know the House is sending us 9 months, and I know that some people are trying to take comfort that they have dodged this issue instead of taking a really hard vote on it or improving the bank, all they have done is left the marketplace with a great deal of uncertainty.

It will cost us jobs; it will shift jobs overseas, and Congress--here in the Senate we need to act to get a long-term reauthorization for the Ex-Im Bank.

The Wichita paper had it right. Reauthorize this bank--not a short-term Band-Aid, but give the certainty that businesses need to compete in the global economy and help our economy at home by growing jobs.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source