Businesses fume as Congress lets Export-Import Bank stay dead

“We’re at a loss how Congress can literally go on vacation and just say, ‘Good luck, guys.’”

By VICTORIA GUIDA, POLITICO.com 

Boeing President Jim McNerney is pictured. | Getty

A small crop-duster manufacturer and a Texas company that exports oil equipment fret about losing 25 percent to 40 percent of their sales. The president of a trade-financing firm says many of his 1,000 clients could see their Christmas season business plummet. And Boeing said Wednesday that it is considering moving portions of its sprawling operations overseas, reversing past efforts to keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

That’s all a result of the demise of the Export-Import Bank, which is forcing companies large and small to ponder potentially wrenching changes as Congress prepares to leave town without acting on efforts to resurrect it. The August recess means that any rescue is at least a month away, if not longer, leaving export-dependent businesses to get by without the array of assistance the New Deal-era agency offers.

“We’re really frustrated,” said Tyler Schroeder, a financial analyst at the 265-employee company Air Tractor, which makes firefighting and agricultural aircraft and is based in the 3,000-person town of Olney, Texas. “We’re at a loss how Congress can literally go on vacation and just say, ‘Good luck, guys.’”

Gary Mendell, president of trade financier Meridian Finance Group, said export credit agencies in other countries are already taking advantage of Ex-Im’s expiration to lure away business from U.S. companies. “They’re gleeful about it, and I don’t blame them,” Mendell said. “Those foreign competitors are going to customers in other countries and saying, ‘Hey, you don’t know if your U.S. supplier is even going to be able to ship to you and give you the payment terms they’re promising in their quote, because look what’s happening with Ex-Im Bank.’”

Ex-Im’s federal authorization expired July 1, to the cheers of conservative lawmakers who view it as a tool for crony capitalism. Already, credit insurance policies are starting to run out for a number of the roughly 3,000 small businesses that rely on them to be able to export.

Still, some U.S. companies are continuing to compete for overseas bids that will ultimately require Ex-Im backing, in the hopes that the agency will be renewed before the deals fall through, National Association of Manufacturers Vice President Linda Dempsey said in an interview.

That revival won’t happen anytime soon, though. Ex-Im backers had been hoping that Congress would resurrect the bank as part of this Friday’s drop-dead deadline for extending the life of the Highway Trust Fund. But the House left town Wednesday for the August recess after passing a three-month highway extension that includes no rescue for the bank.

The fight is far from over, but lawmakers won’t be able to act on Ex-Im until September at the earliest, or possibly as late as December.

Some big companies may choose not to wait. Boeing Chairman Jim McNerney said during an appearance Wednesday that the giant plane manufacturer and defense contractor is considering moving parts of its operations to other countries, where they could take advantage of those nations’ equivalents to Ex-Im to continue selling products overseas.

“We’re actively considering now moving key pieces of our company to other countries, and we would’ve never considered that before this craziness on Ex-Im,” McNerney said.

McNerney added that he might have “made the wrong decision” years ago in trying to keep production in the U.S., given the newly uncertain politics surrounding export financing in Washington. “People just playing politics — they’re not connected to the real world anymore,” he said.

The Exporters for Ex-Im Coalition put out yet another plea for renewal this week, noting that deals approved only on July 27 for the past five years amounted to $30.2 million for 34 businesses — deals that could no longer happen today.

The agency’s supporters in Congress expressed frustration too. “What we’re asking for is a vote,” Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.) said during a Rules Committee markup Tuesday where an attempt to attach Ex-Im language to the transportation bill failed in an unusually close 6-7 vote. “Bad things will happen if we don’t get to this. It will start first with small businesses.”

Heck also argued that “two major manufacturers in this country” will move production offshore without the agency, the other being an apparent reference to General Electric.

But Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a leading conservative critic of the bank, sees even a prolonged expiration for the bank as a victory.

“This is great news for families and taxpayers,” he told POLITICO in a statement. “Every day that goes by without the Ex-Im Bank being resurrected means it is more likely that it permanently ends. … This is the kind of example of good governance that I am excited to tell my constituents about during the August recess.”

Heritage Action Chief Executive Officer Michael Needham similarly hailed Ex-Im’s expiration as “the culmination of a three-year effort waged by conservatives against a vast, well-funded network of consultants, lobbyists and big-government interest groups.” In a statement, he also praised House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in particular for his efforts.

“If the Republican Party hopes to attract voters who gravitate to a message built around opportunity for all and favoritism to none, GOP leaders must follow his lead and preserve this historic policy victory,” Needham said.

The Export-Import Bank guarantees loans for foreign companies interested in buying U.S. exports, and also runs programs such as providing insurance and credit to help small businesses secure new customers and working capital.

Critics like Jordan argue that Ex-Im doesn’t create jobs, it merely shifts jobs to export-related sectors. They also emphasize that the private sector could step in to fill the void the bank’s death creates, pointing to statements by Boeing executives admitting as much.

But Rami Touma, president of Houston-based oil equipment exporter CECA Supply & Services, said Ex-Im’s services are critical to his business’s ability to sell products to Algeria, its major source of income.

The national Algerian oil company requires exporters to post a 10 percent performance bond, which is held until the job is done. And in the past year, Touma’s 30-employee company had its best year ever, with $60 million in sales.

“We do not have the ability to just not have $6 million accessible to us,” Touma said. “So Ex-Im, they put the money in for us, and we pay a fee.” He said Ex-Im can facilitate this because it has the expertise and access to State Department information to allow it to judge the reliability of a foreign buyer, something a traditional bank might not be able to do.

For smaller companies, “in any given year, our projects in North Africa represent 30 to 50 percent of their yearly sales,” he said. His policy with Ex-Im is locked in for roughly the next year, but if the agency stays dead, CECA would lose 30 to 40 percent of its sales “right off the bat.”

Similarly, Schroeder’s Texas crop-dusting manufacturer could lose up to one-fourth of its sales after losing the bank’s credit insurance, he said Wednesday.

“We’re scrambling now, trying to find a way to facilitate our sales throughout the rest of this year,” he said. “That’s going to take a lot of risk on our part of the company, and it’s going to take — it’s going to be a big expense for us.”

Schroeder added: “We can only do this for so long. … When it comes to next year’s export season, we don’t know. We don’t have an answer for how we’re going to fill the gap that’s been left by Congress’ blatant disrespect for business, in my opinion.”

BCH Trading, a lumber shipper from Arkansas whose working capital guarantee with Ex-Im expires in April, would have to find an investor to help it access money needed as collateral for business deals, President Randy Barsalou told POLITICO. Private banks won’t lend against the promise of money by a foreign buyer, which leaves small businesses with few options, such as putting up their own assets as collateral.

“It’s almost like going out on the street and finding someone [to invest in us],” he said. “I’ve been an Ex-Im user since 2002, and when we first started it was ’98. … We met with people to look at the possibilities of what would be available, and that issue was always there. ‘Oh, you’re an exporter.’”

Mendell said small companies looking to export don’t have other options for replacing many of Ex-Im’s services. That’s because the volume of their exports is too small or the market risk is too great for so meager a transaction.

“We don’t have any alternative in the private sector to bring them to,” said Mendell, whose company provides export credit insurance for around 1,000 companies, of which 550 have insurance policies through Ex-Im. “It doesn’t exist.”

For almost all of Mendell’s clients, he was able to ensure the renewal of Ex-Im-backed insurance policies that were expiring in July and August, but those whose policies are up in September are already facing problems. The insurance allows the U.S. exporter to give the foreign buyer payment terms, so it can take 30, 60 or 90 days to pay for the shipment. But if the exporter is selling something like medical equipment that will take 90 days to manufacture, Mendell said, then the insurance wouldn’t be available when it’s ready to ship.

“If you’ve got a customers for Christmas season, you’re shipping in September/October,” he said, so many of his clients are having to cut back sales.

Still, Heritage Action emphasizes in its publications that just 0.52 percent of small-business exporters, not even getting to small businesses overall, used the agency’s services in 2012.

Also in the balance are the jobs of roughly 430 Ex-Im employees, none of whom have yet been furloughed because the bank still has funding and work to do.

Ex-Im Chairman Fred Hochberg told POLITICO last week that his agency is keeping busy — including processing $25 billion in loans. “That’s almost a year’s worth of work,” he said, in response to a question about whether the agency would try to put off furloughs as long as possible.

“We’re trying to accelerate our work on [Freedom of Information Act] requests, which have doubled this year,” as well as reports for the inspector general, he said. “I actually have more people to work on that right now than I would otherwise, so I want to try to get that done.”

But if Congress ultimately doesn’t renew the bank, it’s clear that Ex-Im intends to stick around until the end of the longest loan guarantee, which could be as long as 18 years.

So, expired or not, the bank will likely be around for a while. But Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) warned that if the agency’s expiration continues into December or January, the bank could be hard to ever revive.

“That’s why this has got to happen now,” he said. “It should’ve already happened.”

Kathryn A. Wolfe contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/businesses-fume-as-congress-lets-ex-im-stay-dead-120798.html#ixzz3hSn7tWzB

Congressional path to re-chartering U.S. EXIM: Mismanagement, or Crime?

“Trade Bank Likely to Live – Only After it Lapses” read the headline in Friday’s edition of the  Wall Street Journal (see full reprint of the article, below). It was a subtle and interesting summary of the irresponsible, politically charged fight in both U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, with respect to reauthorization of the Export Import Bank of the United States.

As someone who over the last 15 years has been intimately involved with Government backed Export and Project financing programs, and whose company works with the US EXIM and other export credit agencies (ECA’s) on the daily basis, I have been very closely following the process and listened to hours of Congressional hearings on the subject.

Frankly, the hearings scared me, as they clearly demonstrated to what extent our nation’s lawmakers will advance their political agendas and in the process be willing to inflict damage on ordinary Americans, often even on their own constituents.

The hearings followed a clear pattern – Pro EXIM Congressmen/women sending soft lobs at the Chairman and at other members testifying on behalf of the bank. Questions were repeatedly focused around highlighting EXIM’s  positives such as: US jobs support, small business support, surplus returned to the US Treasury, bank’s extremely low default rate, bank’s role in financing foreign receivables for exporters (something US banks cannot do)

On the other side of the isle, the vial Con set spoke in half truths, took a number of things out of context and spewed venom. Their ammunition consisted of absolutely flawed risk assessment arguments; insular and inward, rather than global view of the export credit agency’s roles in the global marketplace; flawed arguments on picking winners and losers; and bank’s role in financing only between 1 and 2% of the US exports. The latter argument trying to drive home a point that the bank is insignificant to begin with and thus something our country could live without.  The Cons  presented expert testimony from some seriously dubious sources. I wonder how much experience, a well educated economist and a respected researcher has in exports and international business, when his top job was as the administrator of the NY Census Bureau?

Then you had some Senators trying to ascertain preposterous concept of the damage, which has been caused to US Economy, when EXIM financed US exports to foreign buyers, while competing against other countries’ ECA offerings. Although the bank’s Chairman several times pointed out the fact that when US companies compete abroad, if their potential exports will not be financed by the US EXIM, the goods and services needed, will be purchased in other countries and will be financed by ECAs of those countries, thus causing double damage to the US economy.

Yet, despite hours of hearings, certain crucial information was completely overlooked. The very fact that US must have a stong ECA, since certain major public and private international projects involve non-payment risk for all American suppliers, and that such risk could only be mitigated by the US government and its potent economic, diplomatic, military and geopolitical levers, seemed completely lost on all involved.

Also completely under the radar, slipped the fact of building the exporter credibility and buyer confidence, while developing export sales into infrastructure projects abroad. Just an indicative availability of financing from a government Agency like EXIM goes a very long way to help US companies secure supply into multimillion dollar contracts for such projects, at early stages of their development

EXIM proponents also deployed a bit of their own sleight of hand.

The fact that US banks are not allowed to insure foreign receivables thus handicapping US exporters was discussed ad naseum, but no mentioned was made of the fact that an entire private insurance industry exists to take up a lot of slack in this segment.

A distinguished Senator from NJ practically perjured himself when he told the world a story of a NJ firm, which has no options financing a $300 million Ukrainian contract and would lose that business without EXIM. What he failed to mention was that EXIM stopped financing projects in Ukraine over a year ago and thus, even if reauthorized, would not consider financing this firm until the bank returns to financing projects in that country. True EXIM would have been an excellent option, but the contract has been signed, NJ firm has begun to export and another financing arrangement, with another US government agency, is now being put in place.

And so on these hearings went for hours and hours of spending taxpayers’ funds and valuable management and adinistrative resources.

Yet, at no time the esteemed members of Congress undertook to examine the damage they themselves were causing to the US economy by dragging what should be a routine reauthorization process through the mud, wasting taxpayers’ time and money and distracting the Bank’s Chairman and others at the bank from focusing on their jobs.  This reauthorization “process” also allows foreign competing ECAs gain competitive ground and creates costlu uncertainly among exporters, foreign buyers and bankers. The Conservative Republicans are sabotaging the process just simply because they can and are letting their partisan political agenda, personal feelings about the Bank’s leadership and lack of true understanding of the real world situation wreck havoc with the lives of ordinary Americans.  Yet now, when there finally seem to be enough votes to reauthorize the EXIM bank, the Congress is considering letting the bank’s charter lapse for technical reasons,  In the private sector world this type of irresponsible behaviour would border on criminal.

At no time, our nation’s lawmakers considered what needs to be done to really reform this American Export Credit ​Agency to better serve the US manufacturers and exporters. All that was discussed were the recommendations of the compliance oversight bodies on the incremental reforms of the existing Agency. A Senator for Massachusetts tried to use a stick approach to bracket the bank into asinine compliance measures of requiring 25% of Banks reauthorizations to come from small business. A noble goal, which breaks down when trying to add up all $100K – $1mil small business transactions as percentage against financing $150 mil satellite, a $250 mil aircraft, or a $10 billion power plant.  Today, small business transactions by number account for something like 80% of the Bank’s total. To continue to force a 25% increase by volume is short sighted and politically charged.

I have written about the US EXIM for years and will be the first to suggest that the Agency could use substantial reform and improvement (Heck, the entire US Government could be made smaller, more streamlined and could use reform and improvement). The US EXIM is by far the one of the more siloed and insular of all the US Trade and Development agencies, which I have dealt with. On one hand it is largely unknown by the US exporter community, but on the other hand is is very small and overburdened, as it is demand driven and has no way to adjust its personnel to handle peak demand.  Civil Service protections, as wonderful ad they are, (two of my immediate family members work for the USG, including one for the Bank), sometimes work negatively and do not allow to effectively fire weak performers, Of the 450 employes at EXIM, probably about 20% need to be pruned and replaced.  If Congress really wanted to help US Exporters, rather than annihilate a perfectly good Agency in a politically charge bombardement, it would have conducted a series of round table discussions calling for constructive reform at the bank. Such discussions would involve all stakeholders who actually know exports and understand international business, rather than ivory tower theorists.

At the time when our nation is saddled with the largest debt and budget deficit in history, when we have problems with Iran, ISIS, Ukraine, Syria, health care, unemployment, falling exports, global warming and the list goes on and on. When we need congressional leadership and votes on really important legislature such as TPP, repeal of Obamacare etc., our lawmakers find all the time in the world to debate the need to reauthorize a tiny 80-year old SELF SUSTAINING US Government agency. They conveniently ignored the facts that EXIM sent $7 billion dollars back to the Treasury in the last decade to help reduce our dreaded budget deficit and that it is part of a global export ecosystem of about 80 such agencies world wide and closing it would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament of our export sector.

Whether we like it or not, international trade (certainly exports) will always be an issue deeply influenced and affected by our national foreign policy. To make an argument that markets must take care of themselves (and I am among the biggest proponents of a free market theory) in case of international trade is preposterous. Thus our government’s trade and development agencies, including US EXIM, are a vital part of our nation’s global economic tool set.  EXIM’s  mission has been to support US job creation by helping American companies compete globally and expand their exports, while mitigating risk. The bank has been true to its mission and should be reauthorized before expiration of its charter at teh end of June, while the lawmakers who irresponsibly stood in the way of the reauthorization process should at the very least be severly censured and certainly voted out of office at the next possible opportunity.

 Trade Bank Likely to Live—Only After It Lapses

Backers believe they have votes to renew export-finance agency, but legislative calendar complicates path

The Export-Import Bank seems to have enough legislative support to pass, but the legislative calendar poses an obstacle to passage before its charter lapses. Companies from General Electric to Air Tractor, whose facility in Texas is pictured here, say passage is important for their business. PHOTO: JUSTIN CLEMONS FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By NICK TIMIRAOS and KRISTINA PETERSON, WSJ.com

WASHINGTON—Supporters of the Export-Import Bank say they are poised to beat back a drive to kill the institution, but the victory may come only after a June 30 expiration of the bank’s charter causes a lapse in the bank’s ability to underwrite new loans.

For now, the legislative calendar looms as the largest obstacle for supporters of the agency, which provides financing for U.S. exports. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) promised Senate Democrats last month to hold a vote on the bank in June.

But with no other major legislative deadlines before July, bank supporters are struggling to find a must-pass bill on which to attach a reauthorization, a move that would help garner approval in both chambers. Lawmakers and lobbyists said a measure to extend funding for highways, needed by late July, may be the best bill to carry an extension of the bank.

Backers believe they have enough votes to pass a reauthorization in both chambers. Until recently, the biggest question has been whether House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) would bring a bill to the House floor amid GOP resistance. Mr. Boehner recently said that if the Senate passes legislation extending the bank’s operations, the House would consider it under a process that allows critics to try to overhaul or extinguish the agency through amendments.

“Whether it is 14 days or 14 weeks or 14 months, this institution will be reauthorized,” said Rep. Frank Lucas (R., Okla.) one of nearly 60 House Republicans that supports a bill to reauthorize the bank.

“If the charter lapses,“ he said, “it may take a number of occasions where U.S. companies lose substantial business around the world—to help us focus.”

Created in 1934, the bank provides financing for American companies to sell exports overseas through a wide range of programs, including guaranteeing loans to foreign buyers and providing credit insurance. It provided $20.5 billion in credit assistance to support an estimated $27.5 billion in exports for the year ended last October, and sent $675 million to the U.S. Treasury that it earned from interest and fees. A large share of its guarantees go to corporate titans like Boeing Co. and General Electric Co. because it backs big-ticket exports of aircraft and industrial equipment.

If the bank’s charter does expire, it would honor existing guarantees but it wouldn’t be able to underwrite new loans or renew other financial tools aiding exporters. Already, the threat of a shutdown has led to fewer applications for certain guarantees, said Fred Hochberg, the bank’s chairman.

Republican divisions over the agency are likely to put Mr. Boehner in an uncomfortable but familiar position: Having to pick between upsetting conservative lawmakers who already distrust him or the business establishment that has long supported him and other GOP lawmakers.

With the two other top House Republicans—Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise—opposed to reauthorizing the bank, “if it comes to the floor, it’s going to be because Mr. Boehner wants it to come to the floor,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R., S.C.), a bank opponent.

Conservatives, led by Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), are pushing for expiration of the bank, which they believe interferes in the market and creates taxpayer risk. Mr. Hensarling hasn’t attempted to pass legislation winding down the bank out of his committee because the bank’s charter will expire on its own, but that has left GOP leaders without their own bill to bring to the House floor.

Mr. Hensarling said Wednesday that he recognized that Republicans were divided on the issue, and that he hadn’t yet decided how to move forward. “I do understand that one person’s corporate welfare and politically driven capital allocation is another person’s vital export support program and level playing field,” he said.

Many lawmakers expect a bill reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank would pass, if brought up in the House, where nearly all 188 Democrats support it. Close to 60 Republicans back a bill from Rep. Stephen Fincher (R., Tenn.) that would reauthorize its charter with some minor changes.

The bank’s critics have been optimistic because they prevail if “we get Congress to do what they’ve been so good at in the past—absolutely nothing,” said Brent Gardner,government affairs director for Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group backed by industrialists Charles and David Koch.

Business groups have ratcheted up their lobbying in recent days to secure a long-term extension, particularly in the Senate, where supporters hope a lopsided vote for the bank would ease its path in the House. “The votes are there. At least let us have our vote,” saidDanny Roderick, chief executive of Westinghouse Electric Co., who met with lawmakers on Tuesday.

Some firms have said that, while they could manage a short-term lapse, the brinkmanship and any failure to provide a long-term reauthorization is damaging the bank’s credibility in foreign countries when U.S. manufacturers compete against Chinese, South Korean or European firms that offer their own export-credit backing.

“These are 10-year, 15-year projects that we work on, and we can’t even decide month to month whether we’re going to have the Export-Import Bank,” said Mr. Roderick.

Some conservatives, meanwhile, are trying to pressure Mr. Boehner to pledge not to bring Ex-Im reauthorization up for a floor vote in exchange for conservatives’ support of upcoming trade legislation.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said Thursday that the fight over the bank would not be tied to the trade bill.

“It’s just not going to happen,” said Mr. Ryan, who supports the bank’s expiration. He also said he anticipated that the charter will expire as scheduled on June 30.

Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com and Kristina Peterson atkristina.peterson@wsj.com

Make your vote count at the Ex-Im Bank Fly-In and America’s Small Business Summit

So, let’s recap: of all the huge, super-bloated and inefficiently run US Government agencies, which are financed with taxpayers’ money and could certainly use lots of reform, our brilliant lawmakers (you know who you are) are picking on a tiny 400 person agency – US Ex-Im Bank, which returns hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the US Treasury (in the real world we say, it is profitable) and has an 80-year track record of successful support of US exports.

Meanwhile, the amount of taxpayers’ money expended on various congressional hearings debating Ex-Im’s reauthorization and pro/con Ex-Im political campaigns has been in the tens of millions of dollars. Add to this with Congressmen’ and bank management’s wasted time, damage to our country’s image, reduced morale of the bank staff staff, as well as negative impact on our nation’s export trade, and the damage from this egregious process quickly moves into billions of dollars . All because of someone’s obtuse political agenda…

Time to put a stop to this and make our voices heard. YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED TO ATTEND:

You’re Invited!    Ex-Im Bank Fly-In and America’s Small Business Summit   Washington, DC June 9 -10, 2015   Will your business be hurt if the Export-Import Bank isn’t reauthorized? It’s charter expires in less than 50 days!   You are invited to participate in the U.S. Chamber’s America’s Small Business Summit and Ex-Im Bank Fly-In and Hill Day to help secure long-term reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank.   The Small Business Summit attracts hundreds of small business owners from all over the U.S. every year. The conference will include a session on Ex-Im Bank and the state-of-play to ensure its reauthorization. As a “Main Street Ambassador” during the Summit, you will have the opportunity to meet with Members of Congress and advocate for reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. With the June 30 deadline fast approaching, we need your help to secure a long-term reauthorization so that businesses can continue to provide jobs and economic growth in communities across the country.   This will be a critical time for Members of Congress to hear your personal stories about the integral role the Bank plays in growing and supporting jobs in your local community.     We hope you can join us at this important event. There is no cost to attend. A hotel block is available at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. Book a room here. For further information, please contact Director of International Policy for the Chamber Stefanie Holland (sholland@uschamber.com).    Register HERE Schedule Of Events   Tuesday, June 9  America’s Small Business Summit  Time: 7:00 am – 6:00 pm Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert St NW, Washington, DC   Wednesday, June 10 Main Street Ambassadors Hill Day on Ex-Im Bank 8:30 a.m. Hill Day Kickoff at U.S. Chamber Hill Office – 430 1st Street SE, Washington DC 10:00 Meetings with Members of Congress and staff on Capitol Hill

Politics of Exports

Yesterday’s WSJ article titled“Exporters Fear Credit Crunch” (reprinted here in a previous post) once again highlighted the debate on Ex-Im’s reauthorization and listed the pro and con issues from both sides of the political isle. As half of my immediate family is involved in financing international trade, the topic of the Bank’s reauthorization is ever present around our dinner table. Yesterday, we once again raised the question of why would a respected member of the US Congress so blatantly oppose  a proven export finance tool, which contributes real money to the US Treasury and supports countless jobs?

The answer is – because he can and because Ex-Im is an easy target for partisan politics. Export Import Bank of The United States (US Ex-Im, Ex-im) is one of the smallest agencies of the US Government, but one which has disproportionately high visibility. Certainly restructuring half a floor at the Department of Commerce (which probably employes about the same number of folks as the entire Ex-Im Bank)  would not garner the Good Congressman from Texas the same publicity and power. By blocking the reauthorization, Congressman Hensarling and his allies are able to deliver effective blows to the Presidential Administration and to the Bank’s leadership. Yet the hardest blow their efforts deliver are to the US economy.

I generally believe in government minimizing its involvement in business regulation and personally try to stay out of politics.  Yet it is not always possible, as politics and business are often intertwined and business is negatively impacted by actions such as those of the Good Senator and his supporters.  My sympathies certainly do not lie with the current Administration, whose list of missteps, fumbles and incompetencies is quite long. I did applaud the President’s National Export Initiative until it sort of sputtered, along with subsequent reset attempts. Yet given the phenomenal importance of exports to our (or for that matter to any) economy, it is gross malpractice for any politician(elected, or otherwise) to undermine exports, reduce their economic effect and interfere with the lives of real people who make those exports happen.

Let’s put some things in perspective. USA exports roughly $2.3 Trillion of goods and services annually. Of that amount, US Ex-Im Bank finances about $25 Billion annually, only slightly more than one percent of the total. Seemingly doing away with the Bank will not be a huge loss to the American economy.  Since some of the exporters dropped by Ex-Im would find financing in the private sector, net-net US will probably lose less than one percent of its exports. Not a big deal? Consider that just slightly under $5 billion of the exports financed by the US Ex-Im are financing small businesses just like companies mentioned in the WSJ article. Those companies represent tens of thousands of jobs, which would be lost, or not gained if Ex-Im were to close.

They call Ex-Im “the Bank of Boeing”.  TRUE.  That company is the biggest recipient of Ex-Im financing, but how many small businesses in its supply chain benefit from the aircrafts sold on the world markets, how many jobs are created in post sales service and support – hundreds of thousands. Politically, US image benefits when Boeing Airplanes and other American brands are seen around the world. Ex-Im is a large contributor to that global image building process.  If we close Ex-Im, European credit agencies financing Airbus planes will get an advantage and more Airbus planes will be sold in the world giving a financial and political edge to our European allies. “Better than going to China or Russia” some may say, but “better” is not enough to put food on the dinner table for a family of four in South Carolina, whose breadwinner has been laid off due to loss of international orders.

My experience working with Ex-Im Bank goes back over a decade, I have seen a lot of things at this Agency, which could use improvement and even structural change. Yet in the realm of Federal Government Agencies, Ex-Im is pound for pound among the most effective. Its 400 employees returned over $600 million into the US treasury, That is over $ 1.5 million PER employee, and is equivalent to productivity of many solidly performing companies of the private sector, and that is in the world where deficit, consumption and spending rule. Yet, Congressman Hensarling wants to close this small and profitable Agency down, WHY?  As part of reauthorization compromise, some in Congress want to saddle Ex-Im with new reserve requirements to cushion possible future defaults. Yet, high default rates have not been a problem at Ex-Im, whose rate of default is comparable with that of large commercial lenders taking similar risk. If anything, the bank has been too conservative in its underwriting. Problem with personnel turnover, yes, problem with defaults, not at all. I could and will make a case that because of the uncertainty in reauthorization Ex-Im has lost some of its best people over the last year. More senior people with decades of experience left in the last 12 months than in the previous five years combined.

It is ironic that the labor unions – one of the groups that benefited greatly from Ex-Im’s financing have also been behind the effort to dismantle Ex-Im. When Delta Airlines, bloated with uncompetitive and overpriced labor force, tried to block foreign sales of US made airplanes financed by Ex-Im, the Airline resorted to using political pressure to try and wreck export financing and destroy jobs of people at companies that could compete and deliver economic gain to the US. The absurdity of the situation cannot be understated. It is another example of politics undermining exports.

Of course, there are certainly positive effects of politics on exports. Chief among them are various trade partnerships and free trade agreements. When they work, these agreements are magical and provide fantastic economic benefits to US producers and exporters. Yet those agreements take years to negotiate and ratify, causing lost revenue and loss of competitive position in many markets where other countries outmaneuver US and pass their own agreements quicker. Thus rather than destroying a good and solidly performing Export Credit Agency, which benefits many thousands of people throughout the US, Congressman Hensarling and his colleagues should focus on making sure PTTs are negotiated and ratified faster, so US can produce and export more.

Appeals Court Decision Rejects Delta Request for Invalidation of Ex-Im Bank Air India Transactions

Appeals Court Decision Rejects Delta Request for Invalidation of Ex-Im Bank Air India Transactions

Washington, DC — The U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, DC today rejected a request by Delta Air Lines to vacate the Export-Import Bank of the United States’ (“Ex-Im Bank’s”) support of sales of U.S.-manufactured aircraft to Air India.  The Court has asked Ex-Im Bank to further explain its financing decision for the Air India transactions, but the Court chose to leave undisturbed the Bank’s financing of the Air India transaction and did not question the Bank’s flexibility in carrying out its statutory mandate.

The decision comes following the appeal by plaintiffs Delta Airlines, Inc. and the Airline Pilots Association of a lower court decision in July 2012 that determined that Ex-Im Bank properly approved financing for purchases of certain Boeing aircraft by Air India.

“I am gratified by the court’s recognition that these transactions should not be impeded by litigation. The Bank maintains significant flexibility in complying with its statutory mandates and its effort to support American jobs.” said Fred P. Hochberg, chairman and president of Ex-Im Bank.  “This represents a victory for tens of thousands of American aerospace workers.”

Delta Airlines alleged in its suit that Ex-Im failed to consider the economic impact of its loan guarantees for the purchase of wide-bodied Boeing aircraft by Air India.  Boeing, which by dollar volume is the number one exporting company in the U.S., employs about 85,000 American workers in the manufacturing of its commercial aircraft.

ABOUT EX-IM BANK

Ex-Im Bank is an independent federal agency that creates and maintains U.S. jobs by filling gaps in private export financing at no cost to American taxpayers. In the past five years (from FY 2008), Ex-Im Bank has earned for U.S. taxpayers nearly $1.6 billion above the cost of operations. The Bank provides a variety of financing mechanisms, including working capital guarantees, export-credit insurance and financing to help foreign buyers purchase U.S. goods and services.

Ex-Im Bank approved $35.8 billion in total authorizations in FY 2012 – an all-time Ex-Im record. This total includes more than $6.1 billion directly supporting small-business export sales – also an Ex-Im record. Ex-Im Bank’s total authorizations are supporting an estimated $50 billion in U.S. export sales and approximately 255,000 American jobs in communities across the country. For more information, visit www.exim.gov.

Both Parties Say House Will Pass Export-Import Bank Bill

James Rowley, Bloomberg, May 9th

A bill to raise the Export-Import Bank’s lending cap 40 percent by 2014 will pass the U.S. House today, lawmakers of both parties predict, although Republican leaders aren’t formally urging members to support it.

House Speaker John Boehner endorsed the measure. Still, many Republicans oppose it, saying the bank distorts free markets by subsidizing loans for export sales. The legislation, H.R. 2072, was negotiated by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, and second-ranking Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Enlarge image

Representative John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio and Speaker of the House. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

“The Democrats will be overwhelmingly for it,” Hoyer told reporters yesterday. “This a part of trying to create and keep jobs in America. This is an effort to try to grow our exports. This is an issue supported overwhelmingly by the business community.”

The proposal would raise the bank’s lending limit to $120 billion immediately, $130 billion in 2013 and $140 billion by the end of the 2014 fiscal year. The bank will reach its $100 billion lending cap by the end of this month unless Congress acts, bank officials have said.

The vote will be conducted through an expedited procedure requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. Republicans control the House with 292 members to 190 Democrats and three vacant seats. If all members vote, the bill will need 289 votes to pass under the streamlined procedure.

No Assurance

Hoyer told reporters he hasn’t received assurance from Cantor that Republicans will have enough votes for passage. “My presumption is Mr. Cantor made an agreement that he believes he can pass,” Hoyer said.

The Export-Import Bank, created during the 1930s in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, provides loan guarantees, insurance and loans for foreign purchases of U.S. goods and services.

In an editorial published yesterday, the Wall Street Journal urged Republicans to defeat the measure to show they are “serious about trimming the size of government.” The newspaper said the loan subsidies amount to “job creation, French style.”

After Hoyer and Cantor completed negotiations on May 4, Boehner issued a statement saying that extending the bank’s lending authority is “necessary to promote American exports and remove a threat to the creation of American jobs.”

‘Feeling Pretty Good’

“We’re feeling pretty good about it,” Washington Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, vice chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, said in an interview yesterday. Rodgers said House leaders aren’t pressing individual lawmakers on the issue because they are concentrating on budget legislation awaiting House action later this week.

Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole predicted enough members of his party would support the measure. Cole, a member of the House Republican vote-counting team, said party leaders were “confident enough to put it out there” under the fast-track procedure. “One way or another it will pass,” he said in an interview.

The bill is opposed by the Club for Growth and Heritage for Action, groups that favor lower taxes and smaller government. They say the Export-Import Bank provides unfair lending subsidies that distort free-market competition.

Leaders of the Democratic-controlled Senate said they would seek quick action on the legislation after it passes the House.

‘Broad Support’

New York Senator Charles Schumer, the chamber’s third- ranking Democrat, said in an interview that he anticipated the House measure would receive “broad support” in the Senate.

Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who opposes the bank, said he will insist that the Congressional Budget Office conduct an analysis “of the real cost based on the real risk” of the measure. He said he may push for a vote on an amendment to phase the bank out of existence.

Critics of the bank dispute its leaders’ statement that it had a $3.7 billion profit in the last seven years. DeMint and other opponents say the bank wouldn’t be profitable if market- risk costs were taken into account.

Georgia Republican Tom Price said he hasn’t “detected a groundswell” of support amongHouse Republicans for the measure.

Arizona Republican David Schweikert said he would vote against it because “it’s contrary to my personal finance philosophy.”

The measure would require Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to initiate talks with other governments on eliminating export loan subsidies for aircraft.

Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL), based in Atlanta, has said the bank undercuts U.S. airlines by giving foreign carriers better credit terms to purchase wide-bodied jets.

Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, said he would vote for the measure because it “hits the balance between ‘don’t unilaterally disarm’ in a way that costs us jobs, but we need to reform the bank.”

“It’s time to tackle the Export-Import Bank,” he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net

Another look at purpose of Ex-Im Bank

The News Tribune (Tacoma, Washington)
March 25, 2012 Sunday
BYLINE: BILL VIRGIN; contributing writer

In the annals of children’s appeals to their parents, none has been
used more and proven less effective than “everyone else gets to.”

In matters of public policy, however, it seems to work just fine.

That point is worth keeping in mind in evaluating multiple debates
over government-backed incentive and economic development programs,
starting with one of considerable interest in this corner of the world
– the Export-Import Bank.

Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank is before Congress, but it
has run into opposition from the domestic airline industry, most
notably Delta, which argues that subsidized financing for foreign
carriers to buy American products lowers their cost of competing with
U.S. operators.

The American products those foreign airlines are buying are, of
course, Boeing planes. Not for nothing is Ex-Im called “Boeing’s
bank.” From 2007 to 2012, according to the bank’s own website, Ex-Im
backed more than $27 billion in loans in support of more than $62
billion in Boeing sales from Renton, Everett and Seattle. Dozens of
other Washington companies participated in Ex-Im financing programs
over that period, but none of them represented even $100 million in
activity over that period.

Not surprisingly, then, Ex-Im’s backers include senators from both
parties in states with sizable Boeing presence including Washington
and South Carolina.

The arguments in favor of not just keeping the bank but raising the
cap on its lending and guarantee capacity seems to boil down to these:
Jobs, “everyone else does it,” and “what’s the harm?”

The jobs argument is obvious enough, although critics question whether
export jobs would really disappear if the bank did.

“Everyone else does it” is true enough in that other countries
subsidize and support the export programs of their domestic countries.
Thus the challenge from bank proponents: Do you want to be the one
that unilaterally disarms in global competition?

As to the matter of “what’s the harm?” bank supporters note that Ex-Im
supports itself. Detractors might take note of how well getting
involved in housing finance has worked for the government or the
taxpayers now on the hook for losses. But there’s a larger issue of
harm, having to do with Ex-Im representing one more strand in a web of
cross-subsidies so complex and tangled that we have no idea who in our
economy is accruing what net benefits, never mind the big-picture
question of what anything truly costs, once the subsidies and support
are stripped out.

Whether it’s aircraft sales or housing finance or health care or
seaports, government involvement not just distorts the market but
twists it beyond recognition.

And for many voters, politicians and business leaders, that’s just
fine, so long as the participants reap the jobs, votes and tax breaks
they’re seeking or are promised. Even the suggestion of tweaking the
system is greeted with anguish and outrage. Large-scale reform, to
test the notion whether jobs, votes or financial competitiveness would
truly vanish in the absence of such programs? Unthinkable.

Ex-Im isn’t going anywhere. Too many people have too much of a stake
in seeing it maintained to do away with it. It may emerge from this
scrum with expanded lending and loan guarantee programs. If
Washington’s minor film-industry tax break, which expired last year,
managed a revival in this year’s legislative session, the continued
existence of a much larger, more visible and more politically
connected program such as Ex-Im seems assured. Especially when
everyone else is doing exactly the same thing. It’s as though parents,
taking their cues from Olympia and Washington, respond to the plea
that “everyone else gets to” skateboard off the roof or play with
firecrackers with the admonishment, “Well in that case, have fun!”

Bill Virgin is editor and publisher of Washington Manufacturing Alert
and Pacific Northwest Rail News.

U.S. Ex-Im – Closed for Business?

By Alexander Gordin, March 10, 2012

It is with great horror and consternation that I read the post published couple of days ago in the Inside U.S. Trade blog titled “House GOP Leadership Proposes Long-Term Phaseout of Ex-Im Financing.” It is another example of how bloated and uncompetitive corporations, rather than shape up and cut costs, use lobbying to accomplish their goals while creating economic havoc around them.

.

 Earlier this year we reported at length in this publication about several U.S. airlines that, through their lobbying group The Air Transport Association of America Inc. (now called Airlines for America), have been trying to stop sales of U.S. Ex-Im financed planes to Air India. The group has waged a massive public relations campaign, followed by a legal challenge (Air Transport Association of America Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of the United States, 11-cv-2024, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia [Washington]), and now followed by congressional blackmail and an outlandish proposal to phase out the U.S. Export-Import bank and other Export-Credit Agencies (ECA’s) for developed countries, which are part of OECD.

.

With Congress trying to tie long-term phase out of ECA’s as a condition of short-term reauthorization for the U.S. Ex-Im bank, once again we have  a case of a reactionary bandaid measure being proposed instead of a fundamental strategic look at improving and reforming of ECA operations, as ECAs are among the most effective and fundamental tools of international trade finance and credit insurance.  A rash call for ECA phaseout is not only impractical, but it will serve to make the U.S. and other OECD countries much less competitive on the world stage, as non OECD emerging market countries such as China, Brazil, Russia will move in to fill the void with their ECA’s  offering subsidized financing for their goods and services and further crippling exports for U.S. and other developed nations.

.

U.S. Ex-Im and other ECAs are not perfect, but they serve a tremendous economic function and help facilitate hundreds of billions of dollars of international trade. They help American businesses grow, create American jobs, and help mitigate risks that oftentimes hamper cross-border trade.  Yet in this political quagmire, two things are distinctly absent – a plan for Delta, and other U.S. airlines that are attacking Ex-Im to reform themselves and become more globally competitive, and a call by lawmakers to examine how U.S. Ex-Im’s operations can be adjusted and streamlined to make the bank more competitive, more efficient and better positioned to support our nation’s industries and service providers for years to come.  Both of these things are not only possible, but sorely needed. The financial and political capital that is being spent to wage this nasty reauthorization battle should be directed toward constructive actions and solutions.  Yet, I guess it is easier to shift the blame, sling dirt and use lobbying to protect unsustainable economic positions.

.

House GOP Leadership Proposes Long-Term Phaseout of Ex-Im Financing

Posted: March 8, 2012 in Inside U.S. Trade blog

In the negotiations to break a deadlock over legislation to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, the House Republican leadership is pushing for a reauthorization bill that aims to phase out official export financing in general, and specifically for commercial aircraft, according to informed sources.

The leadership is seeking to include language into the bill requiring the president to initiate negotiations with major exporting countries to end export financing programs. It is also demanding language to reduce export financing for aircraft with the goal of ultimately eliminating such financing.

This language is part of a draft bill dated March 2 that the House GOP leadership circulated to stakeholders for feedback earlier this month, sources said. A copy of the draft bill was obtained by Inside U.S. Trade.

Conservative Republicans in both chambers — and conservative groups such as the Club for Growth — object to Ex-Im reauthorization because they consider the bank to provide “corporate welfare” that distorts the free market. At the same time, House Republicans are under pressure from Boeing and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to approve a long-term reauthorization of the bank.

A GOP leadership aide would not comment on the March 2 draft bill because negotiations are still ongoing. The aide said the office of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is still in talks with House Democrats to come to an agreement on Ex-Im legislation. Cantor hopes to consider a bill on the floor by the end of March, according to the aide.

The aide said the leadership wants a reauthorization bill that would “begin to set a long-term policy goal to eliminate these [financing] subsidies going forward.”

In addition, the March 2 draft bill would extend the bank’s charter by one year and increase Ex-Im’s lending authority to $113 billion from the current level of $100 billion. That gives the bank less leeway than draft legislation agreed upon late last year by the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction, which would have extended the Ex-Im charter by four years and raised the exposure cap to $135 billion (Inside U.S. Trade, Dec. 23).

An Obama administration official said the House GOP draft bill appears aimed at constraining and undermining the bank’s ability to operate. He noted that the bank currently has deals in the pipeline worth more than the $32 billion in support it committed last year, meaning it would reach a $113 billion cap “in a matter of months.”

The Obama administration, which had initially requested an increase to $140 billion, has said Ex-Im is expected to reach its current $100 billion exposure cap by the end of March (Inside U.S. Trade, Feb. 24).

The administration official said requiring the president to enter into negotiations to end export credit financing ignores the fact that the administration cannot force other countries such as China and Brazil to agree to such a deal.

Major developed economies already have non-binding guidelines governing the provision of official export credit negotiated in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Countries also have specific guidelines dealing with export financing for aircraft under the Aircraft Sector Understanding (ASU), which is also housed in the OECD.

The opposition to Ex-Im reauthorization has been partially fueled by a fight in which Delta Airlines and other U.S. airlines have charged that Ex-Im financing for Boeing aircraft exports to India and other countries has led to a persistent oversupply of airline seats that has harmed their business.

These airlines have filed a legal challenge against Ex-Im in a bid block loan guarantees to Air India, although a judge earlier this year rejected the airlines’ move for a preliminary injunction (Inside U.S. Trade, Feb. 10).

“Our position is that we do not oppose the bank’s reauthorization — we just want to ensure that Delta’s employees are treated fairly in the process,” Delta spokesman Trebor Banstetter said in an e-mailed statement.

Ex-Im’s charter is set to expire on May 31. The Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2006 authorized the charter through Sept. 30, 2011, and since then Congress has extended it three times on a short-term basis without changes.