U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–432 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–895

ECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES IN

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK REAUTHORIZATION

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND FINANCE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE U.S. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK, FOCUSING 

ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE BANK’S ECONOMIC IMPACT PROCEDURES

MARCH 8 AND MARCH 29, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

(

Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/senate/senate05sh.html 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

ZELL MILLER, Georgia 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

KATHLEEN L. CASEY, Staff Director and Counsel 

STEVEN B. HARRIS, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW OLMEM, Counsel 

JOSEPH R. KOLINSKI, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator 

GEORGE E. WHITTLE, Editor

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND FINANCE

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana, Ranking Member 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

GREGG RICHARD, Staff Director 

CATHERINE CRUZ WOJTASIK, Minority Staff Director

(II)

(III)

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2006

Page

Opening statement of Senator Crapo ..................................................................... 1

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Sarbanes .............................................................................................. 8

Senator Enzi ..................................................................................................... 23

WITNESSES 

James H. Lambright, Acting Chairman and President, Export-Import Bank 

of the United States ............................................................................................. 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

Gerald F. Rama, Senior Vice President and Deputy Group Head Global, 

PNC Bank on behalf of the Bankers’ Association for Finance and Trade ....... 12

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

James ‘‘Al’’ Merritt, President and CEO, MD International, Inc. Miami, FL .... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

John Matthews, Managing Director, Boeing Capital Corporation, on behalf 

of the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade 

Council, and the Coalition for Employment Through Exports ......................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

Statement of John W. Douglass, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace Industries Association of America dated March 20, 2006 ...................... 47

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

Opening statement of Senator Crapo ..................................................................... 51

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Enzi ..................................................................................................... 75

WITNESSES 

James H. Lambright, Acting Chairman and President, Export-Import Bank 

of the United States ............................................................................................. 52

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75

Steven R. Appleton, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and 

President, Micron Technology, Inc. ..................................................................... 63

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78

Thomas M. Sneeringer, Director, Federal Governmental Affairs, United 

States Steel Corporation on behalf of the American Iron and Steel Institute 64

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

Letter from Barbara Cubin, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wyoming, Michael B. Enzi, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Wyoming, and Craig Thomas, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 

to James H. Lambright, Acting Chairman and President, Export-Import 

Bank of the United States dated March 20, 2006 ............................................. 91

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE EXPORT-IMPORT 

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2006

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room 538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Mike Crapo (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO 

Senator CRAPO. This hearing will come to order. The Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance meets here today to 

discuss the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. The ExportImport Bank is operated under a renewable charter that expires on 

September 30, 2006. As the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over 

the Ex-Im Bank, this hearing is the first step in that important reauthorization process. 

The Ex-Im Bank was established in 1934 as the official Export 

Credit Agency of the United States and it helps the U.S. companies, small and large, by providing loans, guarantees, and insurance to finance the sale of U.S. exports. Last year, Ex-Im Bank supported close to $18 billion in U.S. export sales and these exports include airplanes, tractors, medical 

equipment, and agricultural equipment, to name just a few. 

There are three issues which are important to our reauthorization process, among others, that I intend to explore with our witnesses today. One, why has not the Bank met it is 20 percent small 

business mandate and what steps are necessary to fix this? Are additional steps necessary? Two, what are the issues surrounding implementation of the economic impact procedures? And what can be 

done to improve that process? And three, are the principles, process, and standards governing the use of tied aid credit funds appropriate? 

I am sure there are going to be other issues and I do not want 

to discourage our panelists from raising issues that they think we 

need to address, but those are three that I am aware of that I am 

sure that we need to address. 

For our first panel today, we welcome James H. Lambright, the 

Acting Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank. President Bush recently nominated James Lambright to be Chairman 

and President of the Import Bank and I cannot think of a better 

choice. I am hopeful that we can expedite your nomination and I 

2

am looking forward to getting that process concluded, as well. 

James Lambright’s experience and expertise will be a great help to 

this Bank and to the Committee as we go forward. 

Our second panel today includes Mr. Gerald Rama, Senior Vice 

President and Deputy Group Head of Global PNC Bank; Mr. Al 

Merritt, the President of MD International, Inc.; and Mr. John 

Matthews, the Managing Director of Boeing Capital Corporation. 

We welcome all of you here with us today. 

I hope that you have all gotten the instructions, and I try to run 

kind of a tight ship here, and that is that you are asked to keep 

your oral presentation to 5 minutes. There is a clock in front of you 

and right up here, as well, that will turn yellow with one minute 

left and turn red when your time is up. And I ask you that you 

try to keep your remarks to the 5 minutes. It is always tough. I 

know for me that I cannot exactly tell when 5 minutes is up. It 

seems to go faster when I am talking. 

So please keep your eye on that so we can have time for give and 

take during our exchange. And if there is something that you did 

not get to say that you really wanted to, do not worry, there will 

be plenty of questions and discussion really between us so that you 

can get your points in. 

Why don’t we proceed then and we will start out with you, Mr. 

Chairman. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. LAMBRIGHT

ACTING CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT,

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to be here today to testify on the 2006 reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. 

The mandate of the Bank, as expressed in our charter is to create and sustain U.S. jobs by supporting U.S. exports that otherwise 

would not go forward, either because of use of government supported competition or because the private sector is unwilling or unable to assume that risk. We do this through loans, guarantees and 

insurance. That mandate remains at the core of why the Bank exists and why it should be reauthorized. 

We are requesting an extension of this charter for 5 years to September 30, 2011. We are also requesting that our existing authority 

to approve dual-use transactions, as well as the life of the sub-Saharan African Advisory Committee be extended to that same date. 

Except for these changes, we at Ex-Im Bank believe that the current charter language provides the institution with sufficient powers and flexibility to meet the challenges of the next 5 years. 

Our charter provides guidance as to how to meet our mandate. 

We then must set our course by those beacons, one representing 

the aggressive support we provide workers and exporters, and the 

other representing responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

Since our 2000 reauthorization, we have authorized over $47 billion in financing support of an estimated $63 billion in U.S. exports. Some of those have been big-ticket items, such as aircraft 

and power generation equipment, but over 80 percent of those 

transactions have been made available to directly support small 

business exports. 

3

For fiscal year 2005, every taxpayer dollar invested in the Bank’s 

program and administrative budget has yielded financing support 

of over $50 in exports. 

Since I was appointed Acting President and Chairman about 8 

months ago, no topic has received more attention at Ex-Im Bank 

than small business. We have worked closely with Congress and 

small business representatives on a number of changes in this 

area, including the claims process, a new division for small business outreach, small business specialists designated in each division and expanding our online capabilities. 

We have already laid a strong foundation for growing our small 

business program. In fiscal year 2005, Ex-Im authorized 47 percent 

more in dollar volume than in fiscal year 2002 and 21 percent more 

in terms of transactions. 

Another focus of the Bank has been economic impact. Through 

the economic impact process, the Bank seeks to determine whether 

a transaction under consideration will adversely affect U.S. production and employment or result in the manufacture of a good subject 

to specified trade measures. 

In analyzing these cases, Ex-Im Bank must balance the benefits 

associated with the U.S. export against the long-range implications 

of increased foreign production. In recent years, economic impact 

decisions have affected Ex-Im Bank financing support for many exports, including steel-making equipment, glassmaking equipment, 

greenhouses, microchip manufacturing machinery, soda ash processing equipment and others. The inescapable responsibility of having to choose the interests of one set of U.S. workers over another 

makes these the most challenging cases the Bank must assess. 

In looking to the future, industrialized countries not part of the 

OECD such as Brazil, India, and China are emerging as significant 

exporters of capital goods. We have to decide what Ex-Im Bank’s 

response should be as those governments provide aggressive financing. There is no more fundamental mandate than leveling the playing field for our exporters and keeping their jobs here in the United 

States. I have every confidence that Ex-Im Bank will continue to 

serve American workers and preserve American jobs for years to 

come. 

I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to working with you on this during the Bank’s reauthorization process and I would be happy to 

take any questions. 

Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Lambright. 

Let us start out on the small business issue. Basically, I appreciated your statement that although the Bank is making progress, 

there is room for improvement on the small business front. I also 

applaud for recently establishing the Ex-Im Small Business Committee that I understand reports directly to you, as the President 

and the Chairman. 

Do you feel that more changes are needed? And should Congress 

direct the Bank to delegate more medium-term financing authority 

to commercial banks and export financial institutions? I have been 

told that SBA and OPIC have been successful in this delegation. 

And I am just curious as to whether you feel that we have adeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jun 05, 2007 Jkt 025856 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\35432.TXT BANK1 PsN: BANK
4

quate procedures and processes in place or whether we need to do 

something in addition, from either your perspective or ours here? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. In terms of advancing the needs of small businesses, there is a lot that we have done in the last few months. ExIm Bank is demand driven and our charter directs us not to compete with the private sector. And so we have never turned down 

a small business transaction for budget reasons. What we are doing 

right now then is focusing on increasing awareness within the 

small business community so that they know that our programs 

are available. 

You mentioned the Small Business Committee that we also developed recently to focus explicitly on outreach and providing more 

awareness and education in the small business community. And 

the Small Business Committee will serve a number of needs of 

small businesses. We have designated specialists in each business 

unit so that small businesses see familiar faces when they come to 

the Bank and they are dealing with people sensitive to the needs 

of small businesses. 

As you mentioned, the Committee reports directly to me, as does 

the new Senior Vice President for Small Business. So there is a lot 

that we are doing in terms of future changes. I would like to see 

how these changes play out in reaching small businesses and boosting demand. 

You mentioned medium-term delegated authority as a particular 

mechanism, and that is something that I would be happy to explore 

with you. We do use delegated authority in other programs, particularly those used by small businesses and the medium-term program is another place that we can explore that. 

Senator CRAPO. I have been noticing, I was looking at the statistics. The goal is, I guess, the lending mandate is now 20 percent. 

In the last 3 years, we have hit, if I am reading this chart right, 

19.8, 16.9, and 19.1 percent, respectively, which means we are getting close. We are in the ballpark. 

I did not fail to notice that you indicated that you have not rejected a small business loan for budget reasons. That seems to 

imply to me that Congress has set a pretty accurate target. You are 

getting close to it. 

If we are not, on a budgetary basis, rejecting loans it may suggest that we allow you to continue with the processes that you are 

using. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. I would appreciate the opportunity for the Bank 

to continue along that path. The 20 percent measure was raised 

from 10 percent in the last rechartering. And while we since then 

have always been comfortably above the 10 percent, we have been 

stretching and not meeting the 20 percent. As you note, the number has been knocking around just below 20 percent in the last few 

years. And I think that the measures that we are taking now to 

increase outreach and improve some of our systems such as roll out 

an online application system that will make it easier for small 

businesses to work with the Bank. We hope that it would reach 

and even exceed 20 percent. 

I do not look at 20 percent as the end of the process. I would like 

to do as much as we can for small business. But I also do not think 

the 20 percent is the only measure against which to think about 

5

the Bank’s performance. Since rechartering in 2002, each fiscal 

year we have shown a steady improvement in the amount of dollars that we make available for small businesses, as well as the 

number of transactions that serve small business. So each year we 

are doing more for small business and I would like to continue 

doing that. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

I appreciate your focus on this, and we will look forward to 

watching how it proceeds and working with you on it. 

Let us move to the economic impact process. The last reauthorization changed the economic impact procedures to include the effect of outstanding trade orders, preliminary injury determinations, 

and Section 201 investigations before determining the Bank’s financing of exports. This was an attempt to ensure that the Bank 

support for transactions not only helps U.S. exporters but also does 

not negatively impact domestic companies. 

The current system still has problems and tensions between the 

companies on both sides of the issue. It is my intention to hold a 

future hearing on this specific topic. But although the vast majority 

of loan guarantees before the Bank should not be slowed down, 

some of the larger and more controversial loan guarantees do need 

to be better vetted, in my opinion. Otherwise groups that believe 

they will be harmed by the loan guarantee start coming to Congress and asking us for intervention. We certainly would rather 

have you keep it all on your plate if we possibly can. 

To me a better approach than having it work that way would be 

to establish a system or a process which is fair and perceived to 

be fair by everybody, so that the facts are all well-presented to the 

board and they can act accordingly. 

I guess my first question is do you think that there are changes 

that are necessary or could be helpful in accomplishing that? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Senator, I think your description is fair that 

these cases are a challenge for the Bank to resolve because they 

pit the interests of one set of workers against another. They do 

generate a lot of interest from those who see the benefits of the immediate export and from those who see the potential longer-term 

implications to U.S. producers of the same commodity. And that is 

a balance that we have to struggle with. 

We do have a rigorous analytical process. I think that sometimes 

cases come to Congress’s attention because this process can take a 

long time. It is not particularly predictable from the outset what 

the outcome will be because it weighs a variety of factors, it involves a lot of analysis and input from interested parties. We have 

a public notice and comment period which allows people to give us 

their viewpoints on the proper elements to be balancing. 

But I do think that where we could improve it would be to make 

it more predictable and transparent. 

Senator CRAPO. I am not going to hold you to this but explain 

a little bit more about the transparency and predictability, how we 

could change to improve that. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. We have a process that lays out a number of 

steps and asks questions that the Bank must determine before we 

can proceed with a transaction that implicates these procedures. 

6

And I guess the reason that it is not as transparent or predictable from the outset is it involves compiling a lot of information 

about our domestic industry but also about the industry of the borrower who would be increasing this production of a commodity. So 

that can take a long time to generate that information and digest 

it and come up with the answers to the questions laid out in our 

charter. 

I think that is one way we might be able to make it more predictable or transparent is to try to involve interested stakeholders 

more quickly in the process. What we have been trying to do is, 

through our homework, develop answers to these questions and 

then put them out for comment. 

I think that is an appropriate way to come to the right outcome, 

but it is not necessarily the best way to let interested parties know 

the likely outcome. So if we let people come into the process earlier, 

that may be a way for us to get all the issues on the table up front 

so that people see what is at stake and can react accordingly. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

In your opinion what are the most contentious aspects of the economic impact procedures? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. There are a number of steps in the process, from 

determining what is an exportable good to whether an item is substantially the same as one that is subject to a trade measure, asking then if the foreign production will lead to substantial injury in 

the domestic market? Will the commodity be in oversupply at the 

time the project comes on stream? Will the foreign producer 

produce enough of the commodity to displace American production? 

With each step there are questions that need to be answered and 

interested parties can weigh in on either side of any of those questions. 

Before getting you a more specific answer, and before we would 

take a position on any of these issues, we would want to work with 

you, your staff, and the rest of the Committee and exporters, labor 

groups, and industry representatives as to where they think perhaps there could be different interpretations of some of these provisions. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. As a part of the economic analysis, 

do you think that adequate focus is been made on a foreign country 

providing subsidies or imposing some other kind of trade distorting 

practice or barrier that could have a negative impact on U.S. producers? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. We try to account for a wide variety of elements 

that will end up increasing the displacement of American production and consequently put American workers in that industry at 

risk here in the United States. That is something that we would 

look at. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. Let us go on to the tied 

aid issue. I expect that, in fact, is already included in the written 

testimony of some on the second panel. 

There is a concern, and I am going to be kind of paraphrasing 

or quoting here, that although the Bank’s 2005 Report to Congress 

expressed the view that the OECD tied aid rules have been a great 

success in reducing the level and distorting influence of tied aid, 

there is a general perception among American bankers and exportVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jun 05, 2007 Jkt 025856 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\35432.TXT BANK1 PsN: BANK
7

ers that the use by other countries of tied aid and implicitly tied 

aid is growing. 

Are there principles, processes, and standards governing the use 

of tied aid, of the tied aid credit fund, appropriate use? And are 

they giving us an accurate picture? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. If you think about the U.S. Government’s efforts 

in this area over the last 15 years, there has been a dramatic success in reducing the amount of trade distorting tied aid that is seen 

globally through international negotiations, to the use of tied aid 

funds. So the tied aid funds that the Ex-Im Bank have are not 

meant to be a tool to be used with great frequency. They are used 

to be a credible deterrent against the use of tied aid by foreign governments and should be used selectively. 

As a result, the policy parameters surrounding the Ex-Im Bank 

make for a very small strike zone in proving what cases make the 

use of the war chest appropriate. And so while we still do hear of 

other governments, we see other governments doing this, we have 

pursued those cases on the transaction level but also at the international negotiation level. 

Senator CRAPO. It is my understanding that no tied aid deals 

have been approved since the last reauthorization. Can you explain 

to me why? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. You are correct that since the last reauthorization the Bank has had no approved transactions. We have had 

about 20 requests that we have pursued and there are a variety 

of reasons no approvals came to be. 

As I mentioned, there are a lot of policy elements that need to 

be proven. In some cases exporters decided to devote their energies 

elsewhere. In others, exporters have withdrawn for fear of the 

backlash from the buyer. Others, the market may have been too 

rich or too poor to necessitate the use of the funds. And some have 

had transactional elements fail, such as credit or environmental 

reasons. But it has been a wide variety of reasons. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

I have one more question, and that is according to the Ex-Im 

Bank’s 2004 Competitiveness Report the status goal of official export credits is being challenged by the emergence of an alternative 

ECA world, particularly the recent rapid growth in the activity of 

Chinese, Brazilian, and Indian Export Credit Agencies. 

To what degree is the Ex-Im already seeing the impacts of emergence of these ECA’s and demand for its own financing of U.S. exports? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. We are starting to see aggressive government financing more and more, though Ex-Im Bank has not yet been 

asked to match one of these aggressive financings. The Chinese, in 

particular, have been using aggressive government financing for 

commercial reasons, especially to lock in long-term market share. 

So this is something that we expect to see more and more of. And 

our charter gives us not just the authority but the responsibility to 

level that playing field for exporters. But the Ex-Im Bank cannot 

act in a vacuum. 

As part of the Executive Branch, I have to be cognizant of other 

considerations, broader legitimate policy concerns within the U.S. 

Government. And so I think this is an issue that we in the GovernVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jun 05, 2007 Jkt 025856 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\35432.TXT BANK1 PsN: BANK
8

ment will be facing during the whole course of this new charter reauthorization. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. That is all the questions 

I have. 

Senator Sarbanes is here. 

Senator Sarbanes, if you would like to make an opening statement and ask questions, you are welcome to do so. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES 

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

would like to do that. 

I am not going to be able to stay for the hearing and I apologize 

to these witnesses and I assure them that we will carefully review 

their testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you as the Chair of the Subcommittee, and Senator Bayh who is the Ranking Member, for arranging for this hearing, and also for a second hearing which I understand has been scheduled for later in the month concerning the 

reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. 

The Bank’s charter expires on September 30 of this year. And I 

think it is very important for this Committee to follow a schedule 

that will permit Congress to finish the reauthorization process by 

that date, actually even earlier would be better. 

I strongly support reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank, as I have 

in the past. I have been very much involved in the previous reauthorizations. U.S. exporters can compete very effectively on the 

basis of price and quality, but they encounter a competitive disadvantage when foreign governments provide subsidies to their 

country’s exporters that more than balance where our companies 

find themselves. 

The work of the Export-Import Bank also provides leverage to 

U.S. negotiators attempting to extend international agreements to 

limit the use of government export subsidies. If everyone limited 

them, we would have a different situation, but that is not the world 

in which we find ourselves. And I think we have to deal with the 

real world. 

There is another important reason to support the Ex-Im Bank. 

Some developing economies can pose credit risks from which commercial banks shy away, even when the transactions may represent significant opportunities for U.S. exporters. By evaluating 

the country risk involved, the Export-Import Bank can provide a 

guarantee for commercial export loans, opening the way for an export transaction that would otherwise not occur. 

The Bank has handled the risks associated with its activities 

quite well. Its losses are more no more than 2 percent of its disbursements over its 72 year life. The fees it charges for its financing services have brought hundreds of millions of dollars into the 

Federal Government which have been returned to the Treasury. 

Obviously, our approach to the Ex-Im Bank should reflect whatever progress has been made in controlling the growth of exporter 

credits offered by a national government, but it appears that overall funding for the Export Credit Agencies of other governments 

have not declined and may, in fact, have been growing although 

9

different accounting and funding methods sometimes make comparisons difficult. 

In addition, foreign governments may continue to use market 

window and untied aid arrangements to avoid the OECD limitations on tied aid. 

In light of the size of our trade deficit and the continuing challenges to our trade competitiveness, I was disappointed by the Administration’s proposal to substantially reduce funding for Ex-Im 

Bank. But we are told that in the short-term the Bank will be able 

to maintain its programs at current levels because it will have 

available carryover funds and funds freed up when anticipated 

transactions are not completed. But obviously the Bank is being 

put right at the margin, at the edge, and I am concerned about a 

possible downward trend in the Bank’s funding. I do not think we 

are a point in international trading arrangements where a reduction in Ex-Im Bank funding is prudent. 

This is especially true if we want the Bank to extend the reach 

of its operations for support of exports by smaller U.S. business 

and exports to developing countries. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to share one other concern that I have, 

and that is that the Treasury Department may be taking an unduly intrusive role in the Ex-Im Bank’s use of the tied aid war 

chest. I am going to ask about this, but it appears that there have 

not been any transactions from the war chest authorized over the 

past 4 years. 

Now, the Treasury has the legal responsibility to negotiate arrangements in the OECD to limit tied aid export credits, and that 

is an important objective. But one of the objectives of the Congress 

in the 2002 reauthorization was to limit the Treasury’s role in the 

Bank to the formulation, along with the Bank, of general guidelines for tied aid transactions. Case-by-case decisions about tied aid 

were to be left to the Bank, subject to rejection by the President. 

This is a complex subject, but I think we need to explore it in the 

course of these hearings. 

I said back then, when we did the reauthorization, and I want 

to repeat it, the tied aid credit war chest is a very important resource to meet the challenge posed by foreign export credits and its 

use should not be hampered by disagreements among Executive 

Branch agencies. 

Mr. Lambright, let me ask you, how many transactions have 

been financed with funds from the war chest since September 

2002? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. None. 

Senator SARBANES. None? How do you explain that no war chest 

transactions have been authorized? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Given the U.S. Government’s success over the 

last 15 years to reduce the amount of tied aid use globally, we now 

have a war chest that is a tool to be a deterrent but not to be used 

with great frequency. And as a result, the policy parameters surrounding when it would be appropriate——

Senator SARBANES. But does it continue to be a deterrent if you 

use it with no frequency? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. That is a good question, Senator, but the global 

use of tied aid has come down. And so on any particular case that 

10

we assess we need to make sure that it meets all of the transactional and policy elements. And the cases that we have seen we 

have pursued, but they have dropped away for a variety of reasons, 

leaving us with no approved transactions, as you noted. 

Senator SARBANES. When does the Treasury become involved in 

any transactions in this case-by-case examination? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. The charter does give Treasury a consultative 

role in the process and they weigh in early in the process to assess 

the proper course of action. Sometimes the decision might be to 

pursue remedies in the OECD. Other times it might be to develop 

information on a case to decide whether or not Ex-Im war chest 

funds would be appropriate to use. 

Senator SARBANES. Have there been instances in which Ex-Im 

thought that using the war chest was reasonable but it was blocked 

by Treasury? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. I would not say that we put forward a formal 

proposal to use it and it was blocked. The way it works in practice 

is, as we develop a file on a case to answer all of the transactional 

and policy elements sometimes the cases just do not come to fruition. Even if at the beginning we would have thought that it did 

meet the criteria, sometimes exporters just do not stick it out with 

us through the whole process. 

And so while there may have been cases that would have fit the 

criteria, we never had any that went all of the way to winning an 

American contract. 

Senator SARBANES. I mean, you are saying we have the OECD 

limitations and people are adhering to those. But it is my understanding that countries are developing all sorts of end runs around 

these limitations. Is that correct? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. We certainly have heard of cases where there 

have been rule violations or new types of government financing 

that we have to deal with. Where there have been clear violations 

is where I think the procedures have worked best. 

We did have one case where there was a violation. Ex-Im Bank 

did make its war chest funds available but ultimately the exporter 

did not win the contract. 

Senator SARBANES. What can you do to get a better handle in 

terms of knowledge and information about these alternative ways 

of financing that competitor countries are using? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Just next week, I am hosting my G-7 Export 

Credit Agency head counterparts where this will be a major focus 

of discussion. In our preliminary conversations with them, I think 

what we are seeing is more and more use of these, particularly by 

the Chinese. So we are going to be spending a great deal of time 

next week exploring the details of those kinds of financings and 

how traditional Export Credit Agencies can respond. 

Senator SARBANES. I have to say to you, and I will close this line 

of questioning, it does not seem to me that the Bank is standing 

shoulder-to-shoulder with our exporters the way it should be doing 

in terms of the competition. If it is a level playing field out there, 

than it is up to the exporter to compete on price and quality. If that 

is the basis of it, I think our people can do quite well. And if they 

can do quite well then we need to examine why we are falling 

short. 

11

But it is my understanding that other countries are figuring out 

all kinds of ways to provide support to their exporters and that our 

people take it on the chin as a consequence. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Senator, I agree with you 100 percent on the 

competitiveness of the U.S. exporter. In terms of U.S. Ex-Im Bank 

with respect other Export Credit Agencies you are right, there has 

been some divergence in the flexibilities that various Export Credit 

Agencies hold. 

Certainly in Europe, many of the Export Credit Agencies have 

been given greater flexibilities to operate effectively off budget and 

that has freed them up to find a number of new tools to compete 

with the emergence of new forms of government finance. 

The U.S. Ex-Im Bank is a very traditional Export Credit Agency 

by our charter. We are focused on the U.S. jobs associated with exports and so our policies reflect that focus. But I can tell you that 

I personally come to work every day thinking about how to help 

U.S. exporters and keep jobs here in the United States. 

And if I see any way that the U.S. Ex-Im Bank can stand up on 

behalf of exporters, I will do that. 

Senator SARBANES. You keep referencing Europe but my understanding is that China, Brazil, India are all engaged in these activities as well. Is that correct? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. You are absolutely right and they are outside of 

the OECD and not constrained by the rules that we operate by. 

What I was suggesting is that some of the European ECA’s are developing flexibility to try to compete with those emerging Export 

Credit Agencies. 

Senator SARBANES. I know the Chairman asked about this or has 

expressed an interest in it. And that is what can the Bank do to 

strengthen its small business program? Is there a small business 

division within the Bank? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Just in the last few months, we have taken a 

number of steps to further our small business outreach. We now 

have a new small business unit headed by a Senior Vice President 

that has about a tenth of our staff focused exclusively on outreach 

to small businesses and advocacy within the Bank for small businesses. There are a number of other steps that we have taken to 

improve our technology, to designate specialists within each Bank 

division, who will be experts on small business. 

So there is a lot we are doing but we strive every day to do more 

and more for small businesses that need our help to export. 

Senator SARBANES. Is the position of Executive Vice President 

and Chief Operating Officer, do you continue to hold those positions and Acting President as well? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Technically, in the paperwork, I suppose my 

title was changed to Acting President but those positions are not 

filled. 

Senator SARBANES. Not filled? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Right. 

Senator SARBANES. Is it the assumption that you will return to 

them because there has now been a nomination for President of the 

Ex-Im Bank; is that right? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Right, and——

12

Senator SARBANES. Okay, I am sorry. I was misinformed. You are 

waiting. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. I am currently the Acting President of the Bank, 

as well as, just a few weeks ago, have been nominated to the position and I await Senate confirmation. 

Senator SARBANES. I assume those positions will not be filled 

until the Senate acts on your nomination; is that correct? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. That is most likely, yes, sir. 

Senator SARBANES. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Lambright. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CRAPO. Again, thank you, Mr. Lambright. 

We appreciate your attention to these issues and coming before 

us today. 

That will conclude our first panel. You are excused, Mr. 

Lambright. We appreciate your attendance. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. I will call up the next panel and while they are 

coming up let me introduce them. 

The next panel, as I indicated at the outset, is made up of Mr. 

Gerald Rama, who is the Senior Vice President and Deputy Group 

Head of Global at PNC Bank; Mr. Al Merritt, President of MD 

International, Inc.; and Mr. John Matthews, the Managing Director 

of Boeing Capital Corporation. 

Gentlemen, if you will please these take your seats at the appropriate part of the table as designated, and Mr. Rama, we will begin 

with you. 

I would like to remind all of our witnesses that we want to have 

you—by the way, I wanted to say you provided very excellent written testimony. You are not going to be able to say it all in 5 minutes but I encourage you to remember to watch the clock and then 

we will get into some good discussion. 

Mr. Rama, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GERALD F. RAMA

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND

DEPUTY GROUP HEAD GLOBAL, PNC BANK

ON BEHALF OF

THE BANKERS’ ASSOCIATION FOR FINANCE AND TRADE 

Mr. RAMA. I am pleased to be here today to express the banking 

industry’s view on the reauthorization of the U.S. Ex-Im Bank, particularly since I have had the opportunity of work consistently with 

the Ex-Im Bank over the last 32 years. The agency and staff, in 

my mind, are some of the most committed and hard-working public 

servants. 

The credit support Ex-Im provides is a vital and integral component in the competitiveness of American products in the international market. Its reauthorization is designed to keep American 

products competitive in the global marketplace. 

My written statement includes comments on a variety of topics. 

This morning I will focus on the two topics I believe are the most 

important, economic impact and domestic content. 

The Export-Import Bank is required to consider the extent to 

which transactions are likely to have an adverse effect on indusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jun 05, 2007 Jkt 025856 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\35432.TXT BANK1 PsN: BANK
13

tries and employment in the United States. Though the rationale 

for this requirement is understandable I am unaware of another 

ECA that is subject to a similar requirement. In most cases, the 

domestic harm that might result from a transaction will occur 

whether or not the U.S. exporter seeking Ex-Im support makes the 

sale. If the U.S. exporter does not make the sale, one of its competitors from another country will. 

In evaluating economic impact however, Ex-Im staff does not 

consider the availability of goods from foreign sources. We strongly 

feel that the Bank should take into account whether a project will 

go forward, particularly since we may be limiting an exporters ability to be considered a consistent and righteous provider in future 

sales and in this sale. 

We appreciate the mission of the Export-Import Bank and the 

U.S. jobs created through exports. We feel that the Bank has 

adopted an overly restrictive policy of only providing credit support 

for the value of the U.S. content and capital goods term sales. The 

Bank limits its involvement in the transactions for the lesser of 85 

percent of the value of eligible goods and services and 100 percent 

of the U.S. content in those goods and services. If the U.S. export 

consists of 50 percent U.S.-made components and 50 percent nonU.S. made, the Bank support is limited to 50 percent of the contract price. This is problematic because as the complexity increases 

in the manufacturing processes and the sourcing of components it 

is more difficult to track the levels of sources of non-U.S. content. 

This is particularly true for small businesses who lack the resources to do such research. Requiring strict proportionality results 

in fewer U.S. exports than could otherwise be achieved. 

Other countries have concluded that strict porportionality and 

less strict accounting for content is not required. For example, Japan’s ECA does not reduce its support of transactions that have at 

least 30 percent Japanese content and Canada decides its level of 

support on a case-by-case basis. Italy’s ECA announced in 2004 

that it would shift its standard from made in Italy to made by 

Italy. And Ex-Im reported that other countries are moving to this 

approach as well. 

Ex-Im should adopt a case-by-case approach that balances the 

costs and benefits of individual transactions rather than adhering 

to a strict formula that requires precise tracking of U.S. content 

and we urge Congress to express its support for that approach as 

well. 

The Export-Import Bank, I am saying this again, plays a key role 

in helping U.S. businesses of all sizes compete in markets around 

the world. Ex-Im has recently been critiqued as being too slow and 

overly conservative. Within the constraints of its budget and resources we feel that Ex-Im Bank and its current management is 

doing a good job, particularly as the staff has lost experienced personnel through attrition. But improvements can always be made. 

We believe the Bank is hampered by having too few people and 

too many requirements imposed on it by Congress and by the Government requiring seasoned staff to do that work that do not relate 

to its primary mission. We urge Congress to provide the Bank with 

significant additional resources in its administrative budget and to 

14

act on our recommendation to reduce the Bank’s administrative 

burdens. 

We look forward to continuing to work with Members of Congress and with the Bank to maximize its effectiveness in promoting 

American exports. 

Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Rama. 

Mr. Merritt. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES ‘‘AL’’ MERRITT

PRESIDENT AND CEO,

MD INTERNATIONAL, INC., MIAMI, FLORIDA 

Mr. MERRITT. Thank you, Chairman Crapo and Senator Bayh 

and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for asking me to appear here today. This is a thrill for a small business owner from 

Miami to come up here to Washington and be in this fancy room. 

So thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. We welcome you here. 

Mr. MERRITT. I am Al Merritt, President, Owner, and Founder 

of MD International, a small business based in Miami, Florida. We 

export medical equipment and services, primarily to Latin America. 

MD International has used Ex-Im Bank financing on numerous 

occasions during our 19-year history. In 2003, we had the honor of 

being named Ex-Im Small Business Exporter of the Year, which 

was very thrilling with a ceremony here in Washington, DC. 

We are proud of the relationship we have had with Ex-Im and 

we look forward to working with them in the future. 

I also appear here as a board member of the Small Business Exporters Association of the United States. SBEA is the Nation’s oldest and largest nonprofit association of small and mid-sized companies. 

We had a meeting in Miami in my offices 2 weeks ago and people 

flew in from around the country from our association to prepare for 

this and discuss the issues, so I am truly speaking for the association as well as my own company. 

SBEA represents the more than 22,000 companies of the NSBA 

that export. The NSBA is the National Small Business Association 

that has 22,000 members in the United States. 

As in prior years, SBEA and NSBA strongly support the 2000 reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank by Congress. We are optimistic 

about Ex-Im’s future under the leadership of Jim Lambright and 

we appreciate the open and honest dialogue that we have had with 

him thus far and the other Ex-Im Bank board members and the 

Ex-Im Bank senior management. 

A strong Ex-Im Bank is very much in the interest of smaller 

companies and the Nation as a whole. Ex-Im is not simply the 

bank of last resort but for many small exporting companies it is the 

bank of only resort. 

Yet while we honor Ex-Im Bank for financing billions of dollars 

in export sales by smaller companies, we also want to offer some 

recommendations for improving the Bank’s performance in a rapidly growing globalizing and competitive world. 

This subject is treated extensively in my written testimony, 

which I will simply summarize. 

15

First, we backed the mandate enacted by Congress in 2002 that 

Ex-Im devote 20 percent of its financing dollars strictly to small 

business. The 20 percent mandate remains a reliable indicator of 

the Bank’s focus on small business and the effectiveness of its efforts. 

The Bank exceeded this mark several times in the 1990’s and it 

reached 19 percent or better several times since. The fact that the 

Bank has fallen below the mandate since 2002 is no reason to 

change this measurement. 

SBEA believes that the Bank can achieve the 20 percent mandate consistently if it organizes its efforts under a small and medium-size enterprise division comparable to the highly successful 

ones at the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Canadian Export Credit Agency. Ex-Im needs permanence and stability in its SME operation. 

By our count, Ex-Im has had 15 major changes in the structure, 

leadership, and responsibilities of its small business operations just 

in the past 10 years. Ten of those changes have occurred since the 

last reauthorization. I think that is a key point. 

At various points since 2002, a Group Vice President, a Senior 

Vice President, a Vice President, and an Office Director have headed the Bank’s small business organization. 

At times since 2002, the operation has reported directly to the 

Bank President, at times to lower middle management figures and 

at times there has been no small business office at all. 

During periods when the Bank has had a designated small business operation its responsibilities have fluctuated considerably, as 

has its authority to make decisions about transactions. Normally, 

we prefer to let Ex-Im Bank handle small business on its own and 

we certainly commend Chairman Lambright and the Bank’s management staff for the effort that went into the recent Small Business Committee proposal. But on this point the Bank needs some 

additional Congressional guidance, in our opinion. 

The commercial banking community, exporters, and the Bank 

staff need to know that the small business operation is permanent 

and stable. They need transparency and a sustained focus. Congress needs clear accountability. We recommend that Congress create a small and medium-sized enterprise division at Ex-Im Bank. 

We recommend that the division handle all of Ex-Im small business 

financing and credit decisions, that it have full-time staff including 

underwriters dedicated exclusively to small business transactions 

and that the head of the division report directly to the Ex-Im Bank 

board. 

A similar structure has helped OPIC go from $10 million in 

small business financing in 2001 to $347 million in 2005. It lifted 

Canada’s Export Credit Agency from dealing with less than 500 

SME’s to dealing with 7,000, one-fifth of Canada’s exporting companies. Ex-Im deals with about 1 percent of the SME exporters in 

this country. 

We suggested two ways that Ex-Im can use this proposed SME 

division to increase U.S. exports. First, it can focus on the 60 percent of SME exporters who are only shipping to one country and 

encourage them to ship to two or three. The Commerce Department 

can help Ex-Im with this. 

16

Second, Congress can direct Ex-Im to begin delegating authority 

for medium-term transactions to commercial banks and export finance institutions. Medium-term financing covers periods of 6 

months to 7 years. It is what buyers of U.S. manufactured capital 

equipment want. Those capital equipment exports offer the 

quickest payoffs in high-paying jobs at home, trade deficit reduction, and benefitting for U.S. manufacturing. 

Yet, while SBA delegates authority for its small export finance 

transactions and OPIC is delegating authority for its larger transactions, and even Ex-Im itself delegates authority for other transactions, the Bank still does all of the nuts and bolts work for medium-term transactions at its headquarters. 

One consequence is that medium-term transactions take inordinate amounts of time, sometimes more than a year. The slow paperwork, heavy process is costing our country important export 

sales. 

Giving commercial banks more authority to move these transactions along subject to final Ex-Im approval would be enormous 

benefit to exporting companies of all sizes. 

That concludes my remarks and I would be happy to take any 

questions. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Merritt. 

Mr. Matthews. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MATTHEWS

MANAGING DIRECTOR, BOEING CAPITAL CORPORATION

ON BEHALF OF

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS,

THE NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL, AND

THE COALITION FOR EMPLOYMENT THROUGH EXPORTS 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am John Matthews, Managing Director of Boeing Capital Corporation, the financing arm of the Boeing Company. 

We at Boeing and the other members of NAM, NFTC, and CEE 

strongly support the reauthorization of Ex-Im Bank. Each year, ExIm Bank supports some 3,000 overseas sales of American-made 

goods and American-provided services. During fiscal year 2005, ExIm issued $13.9 billion in financing, mostly guarantees and insurance of commercial loans. That financing supported $17.8 billion in 

U.S. exports. Those export sales, in turn, supported thousands of 

jobs for American workers. 

Most of these transactions are sales by small and medium-sized 

companies. But even for large corporations like Boeing, Ex-Im 

Bank plays an essential role not only for our 50,000 commercial 

aircraft employees but also for our 26,000 U.S. suppliers and vendors throughout all 50 States. 

In 2005, the Boeing Company purchased approximately $5 billion 

from more than 11,500 small business suppliers in the United 

States. Of that total our commercial unit, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, paid $1.4 billion to over 2,900 American small businesses. 

Today, I would like to focus on three key points. One, financing 

is the key element of global competition. Two, Export Credit Agencies are growing around the world. And three, Ex-Im Bank is financially sound. 

17

First, financing. Traditionally, companies competed on product 

quality, price, and service. In today’s world, financing is an increasingly important competitive element. Ex-Im Bank has two central 

missions: To level the playing field first when U.S. exporters are 

confronted with competitors that have ECA financing; and second, 

when commercial banking is not available. Each year, 70 percent 

of all Boeing’s commercial aircraft sales are to overseas customers. 

Historically, 30 percent of these Boeing exports have relied upon 

Ex-Im to provide loan guarantees. In fiscal year 2005 alone, Ex-Im 

authorized financing to support the export of 78 Boeing commercial 

aircraft to 19 airlines located in 18 different countries around the 

globe, including nations in Africa and Latin America. This represented 33 percent of all of our exports for that year. 

Second, Export Credit Agencies. Virtually all trading nations operate Export Credit Agencies. The most recent data show that ECA 

financing is increasing worldwide. Last October, the International 

Union of Credit and Investment Insurers, the Berne Union, reported that its 52 member ECA’s executed a total of $788 billion 

in financing during 2004, the highest total ever measured. 

That total approaches 10 percent of global trade flows in that 

year. Even more telling, the 2004 total marked a 60 percent increase over the 2001 level of $470 billion. While the structure of 

ECA’s varies from country to country, virtually all operate in close 

corporation with their national government and most operate with 

government financial support of some type. 

Faced with that financial backing for its foreign competitor, no 

U.S. company, no matter how large, can compete on its own. When 

foreign ECA support is present, we must have the backing of ExIm Bank. 

Third, Ex-Im Bank is financially sound. At the end of fiscal year 

2004, the most recent public data, Ex-Im Bank had a total exposure of $61.1 billion. Against that exposure the Bank had $9.6 billion in reserves, a very strong reserve position. 

Exporters and our overseas customers pay fees for Ex-Im’s participation in overseas sales, which in the last several years have 

covered the Government’s costs of operating the Bank. 

Ex-Im charges interest on its direct loans and premiums for its 

guarantees and insurance. Ex-Im does not subsidize interest rates. 

In financial terms, Ex-Im’s commercial role is in mitigating risk, 

especially in markets where commercial financing is not available. 

Specifically in aircraft transactions, Ex-Im generally does not 

provide direct loans. Rather, Ex-Im guarantees that if the airline 

customer defaults on the loan, Ex-Im will assume the financial liability. These guarantees make it possible for certain foreign airlines, especially in developing countries, to secure commercial bank 

loans they might otherwise not qualify for at those commercial 

banks. Ex-Im has not incurred any losses on its commercial airplane guarantees over the past 15 years. This is a real testament 

to the continuing effective due diligence performed by the Bank before it provides guarantees to foreign airlines. 

According to the Bank’s Annual Report, Ex-Im generated a net 

income of $2 billion during fiscal year 2004 through its interest 

charges, premiums, and fees. Unfortunately, under the Credit Reform Act of 1990, the Bank cannot utilize its own revenues to cover 

18

its costs. Instead, the Bank must obtain annual appropriations for 

both its operating expenses and its loan loss reserves. As a result, 

the Bank is handicapped by the Government’s own budget rules. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The Bank is indispensable to Boeing and 

has been innovative and reliable in times of crisis, such as the financial markets’ retrenchment in the aftermath of September 11. 

It is critical to our ability to compete against a subsidized competitor while sustaining high-paying U.S. jobs. 

We commend this Committee for its timely consideration of ExIm Bank’s reauthorization, and we urge that the Committee act expeditiously to report the reauthorization bill to the Senate so that 

Congress can complete the legislative process prior to the September 30 expiration of the Bank’s charter. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Matthews. And again 

to each of you, I thank you for not only your testimony here today 

but also the written testimony that you have provided, which has 

gone into a number of issues in more detail that you have been 

able to do in your comments and it will be very helpful to us. 

I want to just start out with you, Mr. Rama. I was interested in 

both your discussion of the economic impact and the domestic content issues. Starting out with domestic content, could you review 

with me again just what the U.S. rule is, what is required? 

Mr. RAMA. We will only support on term capital goods, capital 

goods sales, medium-term not short-term up to the U.S. content 

with the foreign content being no more than 85 percent. So that if 

you have a $100 million sale, $60 million of which is U.S. made, 

$40 million is non-U.S. made, Ex-Im will only support the $60 million level. 

The second problem with the U.S. content is you have many 

small businesses that do not know what the sources of their primary material are and are unable to complete the forms necessary 

to access Ex-Im Bank. There is a major supplier in the Pennsylvania area of rebuilt carburetors employing thousands of people, 

selling both domestically and internationally, that cannot tell you 

where the original carburetor came from or where the original auto 

part came from and cannot access to Ex-Im. 

Senator CRAPO. I was interested in, was it Japan or Italy that 

was changing——

Mr. RAMA. All of the above. 

Senator CRAPO. They are doing made by as opposed to made in. 

Mr. RAMA. That is correct. 

Senator CRAPO. The notion there is that if the manufacture takes 

place there that they are not focusing so much on where the individual parts came from. 

Mr. RAMA. We stand, as a bank, PNC—and I am representing 

BAFT, but I can speak specifically for PNC. We were the most active in the number of transactions in medium-term transactions 

with Ex-Im last year. We devote inordinate amounts of time working with exporters and with Ex-Im trying to figure out whether the 

goods qualify. Sometimes they simply do not and it is a lost sale 

and a lost financing. 

19

Senator CRAPO. What is the source of the U.S. domestic content 

rule? Is that in statute? 

I see someone behind you shaking their head yes. 

So basically, the Ex-Im Bank is operating under a statutory requirement that they deal with these——

Mr. RAMA. I think the reality of the global marketplace, that particular issue, people simply do not know where their primary products when they are manufacturing is coming from. And they are 

being asked to make an attestation and oftentimes they simply 

cannot. The bigger companies can because they have the research, 

et cetera. The small companies simply cannot. And sales are lost 

and opportunities are lost, in our mind. 

Senator CRAPO. I suppose that one of your recommendations 

would be regardless of whether this is a statutory requirement or 

not, we should probably address the question as we deal with reauthorization? 

Mr. RAMA. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Let us move to your discussion of economic impact, as well. You 

indicated in your testimony that your concern with it was that even 

in those cases—and let me get to it—where if a U.S. exporter does 

not make the sale, one of its competitors from another country will. 

Mr. RAMA. That is correct, sir. That is our opinion. 

Senator CRAPO. I underlined your, as I was reading it, the notion 

that the competitor from another country will. How does the ExIm Bank make that determination with confidence, that another 

competitor from another country will be the one that steps in and 

makes that sale? 

Mr. RAMA. In my mind, there is a partnership with Ex-Im Bank 

and it is a tripartite partnership with the importer, the exporter, 

and oftentimes the Bank. When the importer is saying I can buy 

this product elsewhere and they are showing you a quote, I think 

that answers the question. 

Certainly, I am not doing major financing in my own bank, but 

we have been involved with issues involving economic impact. And 

when we lost that sale, when the U.S. company lost the sale, the 

project was made anyway. 

In talking at—I am a member of BAFT, which is part of the 

ABA—our last Trade Finance Committee meeting it was generally 

stated that no one could say one project that was not done by ExIm because of economic impact that was not done anyway with 

sourcing from other places. 

It becomes also problematic when that supplier is further 

deemed to be unreliable in the global marketplace because the importers do not know whether Ex-Im will support them. 

Senator CRAPO. I understand the points you are making and I 

also see the potential problem if the United States began subsidizing or supporting transactions that truly are competitive with 

the U.S. producer, if there is a U.S. producer who could fill that 

order. And it seems to me that that is an issue we want to address 

because, as you indicate, if in fact the transaction will take place 

with a non-U.S. producer no matter what, that is pretty relevant. 

But on the other hand if, in fact, a U.S. producer has the most likely opportunity to pick up a transaction if we do not finance it from 

20

some other source, that should be a very relevant factor in the ExIm Bank deliberations. 

And so somehow we have to get to a median level here where we 

are analyzing the right things and making the determinations on 

the right basis. I understand your point. 

Mr. RAMA. And I agree, sir, the question is particularly difficult. 

But again I think the research will prove, at least from the banker’s perspective, that the deals are getting done. However the resolution occurs, I do not have an answer. I am simply raising the 

point. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Merritt, I would like to turn to for a moment. You are a very 

strong and eloquent advocate for the small business mandate. 

There are some who say that the calculation of how we hit the 20 

percent is not been made or does not take into consideration the 

small business benefits from a lot of other transactions that are 

considered to be large transactions and so forth. 

To me, one of the facts that was the most significant about the 

testimony of Chairman Lambright was that no small business loan 

had been denied on a budget basis. In other words, if they had 

been denied it was on other grounds. What does that say to you? 

Mr. MERRITT. I do not really know how they calculate those numbers. I think that if Boeing has small business suppliers to them, 

I believe that they included those in that 20 percent. 

They do not? Okay, so I really do not know how they make those 

calculations. 

I understand that about 28 percent of all U.S. exports are made 

by small companies, companies with less than 500 people. And the 

Bank has no office to support those transactions, with no authority 

to make credit decisions. 

Senator CRAPO. I also found or have significant interest in your 

suggestions as to this office that you would like to see the Bank 

establish. You went into this a little bit in your testimony and I 

would like you to expand on it. 

Chairman Lambright has taken some steps in that direction and 

has established this new unit that will report and has a person 

with I think the same level of seniority in the company that you 

were recommending. What are your thoughts about what they have 

done so far and what, in addition to that specifically, do you think 

that we would need to encourage them to do? 

Mr. MERRITT. I think, with all respect, that started 2 months ago 

immediately prior to the Bank’s reauthorization. There has been 15 

changes, 10 in the last 5 years. So, I really do not think that the 

Bank is structured competitively for the people like us in a small 

business. 

I think the best way to measure things is by comparison. In Canada, as a comparison, their Ex-Im Bank equivalent financed $57 

billion in export transactions and of those, $11 billion were small 

business. Our bank did $18 billion and of those $2.7 billion were 

small business. Canada’s economy is one-seventh the size of our 

economy. 

The reason that the Bank has been so successful is about 10 or 

12 years ago they set up an office like what we are asking the 

Bank to do, which is dedicated to small business, a separate team 

21

of people with a career track, with authority to make credit decisions that structure for small businesses, for this 28 percent of our 

economy, 28 percent of the exporters that are represented by small 

businesses. Our Bank does not have an office like that. 

Senator CRAPO. So basically your point is that there is plenty of 

fertile ground out there for these types of loans if we can simply——

Mr. MERRITT. You better believe it. I can tell you, many companies like our size, we do not have the time to go through the process and try to figure out who we should talk to this year at the 

Bank. 

We were talking about the tied aid before. It is a very similar 

situation with tied aid. When we see tied aid cases, the effort that 

it takes a small business, a company with $10 million, $20 million, 

or $30 million in sales to fight that battle in Washington, we just 

do not have the ability to do that. 

If we had an advocacy office in the Bank that looked after our 

interests, that came to know us as clients, it would be a very different story, I believe. 

We made some calculations yesterday and the small business exporters, if we only increase 10 percent the amount that they are 

exporting, it will take a $280 billion bite out of our Nation’s $700 

billion deficit. We have an enormous problem in this country, and 

this Bank is a key element in the solution, along with Commerce 

Department and trade promotion, to solve that problem. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Matthews, in your testimony you talked a little bit about the 

way in which we handicap the Ex-Im Bank by our own budget 

rules. Your point, if I understand it correctly, and I would like you 

to explain it to me a little bit, is that the Ex-Im Bank generates 

a significant amount of income through its interest charges, premiums, and fees. And yet it is not allowed to use those varied resources, its own revenues, to cover its own costs. And it has to 

come back to Congress on an annual basis to get appropriations 

and so forth. 

First of all, tell me if I have explained the issue correctly and 

clarify it a little bit, if you would like to. 

But also, would you recommend that we change the operations 

of the Bank so that we allow them to use their own revenues for 

these costs and then to engage in more transactions? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes, as I mentioned, the Bank generated over $2 billion in fees 

and interest in 2004, and that was more than enough to cover its 

costs of operation. So we believe that if the Bank is able to retain 

those earnings and revenue over time the surplus would grow and 

they would be able to do more business without imposing any financial impact on the Government. 

As far as whether we would recommend changing that, I think 

we would but we would like to get back to you in writing with more 

detail on that. 

Senator CRAPO. Certainly, and I appreciate that. 

Let me say to the entire panel, just because of time I am going 

to have to wrap up here. There is a lot of questions on each one 

of your testimony that I would like to pursue further with you, alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jun 05, 2007 Jkt 025856 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\35432.TXT BANK1 PsN: BANK
22

though the testimony itself is very helpful. And we can go into a 

number of the aspects of it simply with your written testimony. 

But I would encourage you, if there are additional points or if 

you want to clarify or enhance anything or any points that you 

have made, please do not hesitate to submit further supplemental 

testimony to us if you will, as we move forward. 

We are going to hold another hearing on the economic impact 

issues specifically, but just in reviewing your testimony I have seen 

a number of other issues I personally was not aware of and will 

be very interested in pursuing. 

So again, thank you for the time and effort that you have put 

into preparing you written and your oral testimony today and your 

interest in the Bank. I do know that although each of you have 

raised issues about how we can improve and strengthen the system, each of you have very strongly indicated that we should proceed expeditiously with the reauthorization of the Bank and try to 

strengthen it because it is a very key part of our competitiveness 

globally. And I want to let you know that I agree with that. I believe our whole panel, our whole Subcommittee, and full Banking 

Committee agrees with that. And we just need to figure out the 

things that we need to do to improve and strengthen the operations 

of the Ex-Im Bank. 

So with that, again I thank you all for coming and this hearing 

will be adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements and additional material supplied for the 

record follow:] 

23

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MICHAEL B. ENZI 

I would like to thank Senator Crapo for scheduling this important hearing on the 

reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. I also want to thank Mr. James 

Lambright, acting Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank, Mr. Gerald 

Rama, Mr. Al Merritt, and Mr. John Matthews for agreeing to testify today. 

As the official export credit agency of the United States, the mission of the Export-Import Bank is to assist in the financing of goods and services from the United 

States for export. Since the Bank operates under a renewable charter that is authorized through September 2006, it is important that the process for reauthorization 

begin and I applaud the work of Senator Crapo for holding this hearing. 

I am a strong supporter of encouraging U.S. exports abroad. By expanding our 

Nation’s ability to export, we are in turn creating more jobs and stimulating the 

economy here at home. It is clear that some businesses cannot obtain the funding 

necessary to expand their export business without the financial support of the Export-Import Bank. In addition, as a former small businessman, I am particularly 

supportive of the small business lending mandate that was increased in the 2002 

reauthorization. I hope that the Bank will work with the small business community 

to encourage additional applications. I also hope that small businesses are receiving 

the support they need from the Bank in order to increase their ability to export. 

One issue that I have major concerns with is the economic impact determination. 

As you know, when the Board of Directors reviews an application, the Board will 

look to see if the benefits of approving the proposal outweigh the costs. It is my understanding that the Board will only look at the benefits/burden analysis during the 

repayment period. By only looking at the economic impact during the repayment period, the Board is receiving a skewed version of just how detrimental certain loans 

can be to the U.S. economy. The Bank is currently reviewing an application to finance the export of refurbished locomotives to a soda ash facility in Kenya. I am 

strongly opposed to this application. If approved, U.S. taxpayers will be subsidizing 

a soda ash facility overseas that will be in direct competition with domestic soda 

ash producers. Soda ash, which is a primary raw material in the manufacture of 

glass and detergents, is America’s largest inorganic chemical export. About 90 percent of soda ash production in the United States is located in my home State of Wyoming. This industry is a crucial supplier of jobs and economic expansion in communities throughout Wyoming. By aiding this facility in Kenya, the Export-Import 

Bank would be supporting a company that is a direct competitor of U.S. companies 

in the soda ash export market. 

Under the application discussed above, the Board will only review the costs associated with increasing global production of soda ash over 6 years, or the life of the 

loan in question. It is clear that refurbished locomotives can be used for far longer 

than the 6-year period. By limiting the economic impact period to the life of the 

loan, the Bank is giving its economic support to projects that in the long-run will 

have a detrimental impact on the U.S. economy. This practice must change. 

This proposal is one example of the flaws in the current economic impact process. 

Under its own Economic Impact Fact Sheet, the Export-Import Bank stresses the 

fact that its charter requires that the Bank ‘‘assess whether the extension of its financing support is likely to yield a net adverse economic impact on U.S. production 

and employment or would result in the production of substantially the same product 

that is the subject of specified trade measures.’’ In order to ensure that the Bank 

is not approving applications which would adversely affect the American economy, 

the Bank must look at the economic impact of a proposal over a timeframe that is 

similar to the life of the export. 

As the Banking Committee considers the reauthorization of the Export-Import 

Bank, I urge my fellow Members of this Committee to ensure that the Bank is upholding its duty to properly balance the benefits of an application with any negative 

economic impact on the U.S. economy. 

Thank you again to Senator Crapo for holding this important hearing today. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES H. LAMBRIGHT

ACTING CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 8, 2006

Mr. Chairman, Senator Bayh, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be 

here today to testify on the 2006 reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the 

24

United States (hereinafter Ex-Im Bank, or Bank). Ex-Im Bank was originally chartered in 1934 and has played an active role in assisting in the financing of U.S. exports ever since. The mandate of the Bank as expressed in our charter is to create 

and sustain U.S. jobs by supporting U.S. exports that otherwise would not go forward. And while there are many issues pertaining to Ex-Im Bank policies that I will 

discuss in this testimony, that mandate remains at the core of why the Bank exists 

and why it should be reauthorized. 

There is little argument that we are living in a very competitive global economic 

environment, and there are many instances when our exporters cannot be left to go 

it alone if we are to sustain the well-paying jobs behind those exports. In this kind 

of environment, the United States cannot afford to unilaterally disarm. The specific 

role of the Bank is to help provide export financing in instances where otherwise 

creditworthy transactions would not go forward. That can occur when private sector 

banks find a market or a buyer too risky for commercial financing, or when the export credit agencies of other countries offer support to their exporters in order to 

secure a sale for their workers and industries. 

Make no mistake about it—I believe that U.S. workers make goods and services 

that can more than match the price and quality of any of our major competitors. 

But when other export credit agencies such as COFACE of France, Hermes of Germany, or ECGD of Great Britain offer financial support to their exporters, Ex-Im 

Bank steps in to ‘‘level the playing field’’ for our exporters and our workers. We 

want to make it possible to keep those jobs here in the United States. 

We do this by offering direct loans to foreign buyers of U.S. goods and services, 

guaranteeing commercial bank loans to those same buyers, guaranteeing working 

capital loans to U.S. exporters to make it possible for them to make the exports and 

offering insurance policies so exporters, especially small business exporters, can 

offer extended payment terms to their foreign buyers. It is through working capital 

guarantees and our insurance policies that we do the great bulk of our small business transactions, a topic I will discuss in depth below. 

The Congress, through our charter, has offered us clear guidance on how to meet 

our mandate. I liken it to steering a ship between two beacons. One beacon represents the benefits we offer to U.S. workers and exporters when we assist in the 

financing of exports that otherwise would not occur, while the other represents the 

risks associated with credit. Over the years, those exports have helped to sustain 

U.S. jobs, jobs that on the average offer higher wages than nonexport jobs. Since 

our 2002 reauthorization, we have authorized $47.9 billion in financing support of 

an estimated $63 billion in U.S. exports. Some of those have been big ticket items 

such as aircraft or power generation equipment. But over 80 percent of those transactions have been made available to directly support small business exports. 

But we adhere just as strictly to the other beacon—the one that represents assuming reasonable risk and responsible stewardship of the resources provided by 

taxpayers necessary to bear those risks. The beacon of risk is ‘‘reasonable assurance 

of repayment,’’ a term Congress has explicitly put in our charter as our standard 

for making credit judgments. Once we decide to finance a transaction, we set aside 

a ‘‘loss reserve’’ to cover expected future losses. This reserve is provided for by the 

appropriations for our ‘‘program budget,’’ which represents the taxpayers’ contribution necessary to, when added to fees paid by our customers, serve as an estimated 

loan loss reserve against expected losses on transactions underwritten in a given 

year. So the taxpayers assume the risk represented by the program budget and also 

provide for our administrative budget. The results have been a bargain. Currently, 

every taxpayer dollar invested in the Bank’s program and administrative budgets 

makes financing available for over $50 in U.S. exports. The overall loss rate for ExIm Bank over the course of its history has been less than 2 percent. That compares 

favorably to rates for commercial banks. Loss rates vary between markets and products, and we keep a close eye on what is occurring with every type of transaction. 

We believe Ex-Im Bank’s financial success is attributable to (i) productive international negotiations to create a level playing field with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, (ii) responsible credit underwriting standards that seek reasonable assurance of repayment and (iii) rigorous 

management of our portfolio. 

The conclusion is that we are conscientious fiduciaries of taxpayers’ dollars. When 

we manage to steer a course between the beacons of supporting exporters and workers on the one hand, and assuming reasonable risk on the other, we are of real benefit to the U.S. economy. 

Congress also guides us on some course refinements along the way. It has instructed us to make 20 percent of our financing authority available for small business transactions, and though the 20 percent has never been fully realized, we have 

never turned down a small business transaction due to lack of resources. We are 

25

still seeking the best course to steer in order to maximize support for small businesses, within the context that Congress has instructed us to be a demand-driven 

institution and not to compete with the private sector. We are happy to follow Congress’ guidance on that issue. Congress has also told us to include efforts to promote 

exports to sub-Saharan Africa. As a result, Ex-Im Bank supported 115 transactions 

in 20 countries in the region, totaling $461.8 million, a 36.4 percent increase over 

the fiscal year 2004 volume. In addition, Congress told us to support exports from 

businesses owned by women and minorities, which I will discuss later. 

I was privileged to become Acting President and Chairman in July 2005, and I 

am happy to continue in that role until the Senate acts on my nomination to be 

President and Chairman. If I am confirmed, I will continue to steer the Bank between those beacons, to keep an even and predictable course. But I won’t be able 

to do it by myself. I will need the help of our very capable Bank staff, upon whom 

all Board members depend for the vital information that makes it possible for the 

Bank to function. Moreover, I want to emphasize that the Chairman and President 

of the Bank cannot act in isolation from the other Board members and expect to 

have an effective, smooth-running institution. I depend upon my fellow Board members for advice and counsel right now, and I can promise that I will continue in that 

practice if I am confirmed. That includes assuring that members of the Board have 

access to all of the information available on transactions and Bank policies, and 

have access to Bank staff to supply that information. That is the way I work now, 

and that is the way I will work in the future, if confirmed. 

In the 8 months I have held the position of Acting President and Chairman, and 

the 4 years I served on the staff level at the Bank, I have participated in Bank decisionmaking and become familiar with Bank policies. The Administration’s decision 

not to request any substantive changes in the policies laid out in our charter is appropriate to our needs. Although the role and need for official export credit are constantly evolving in the face of the changing nature of export credit competitors (from 

France and Japan to China and Brazil) and the massive flows of private capital into 

the emerging markets since 2000, we at Ex-Im Bank believe the current charter language provides the institution with sufficient powers and flexibility to adjust our 

programs and policies to meet those challenges. 

We are requesting an extension of the charter for 5 years, to September 30, 2011. 

We are also requesting that our existing authority to approve dual-use transactions, 

as well as the life of the Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee, be extended to 

that same date. 

Ex-Im Bank currently has the authority to approve transactions supporting the 

financing of dual-use exports as long as the items are of a nonlethal nature and are 

used primarily for civilian activities. While not widely used, that authority is important to some of our exporters. And the Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee has 

proved to be a valuable source of knowledge to the Bank as we attempt to increase 

our exports to this important part of the world that offers great potential for our 

exporters. 

Appropriations 

For fiscal year 2007, Ex-Im Bank is requesting $26.4 million for its program budget. When added to other available budget authority, that will give us a total estimated program budget of $176.5 million. We further estimate that it will allow us 

to authorize financing of approximately $17.5 billion in support of $22.5 billion in 

U.S. exports. From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2005, the Bank has authorized financing of $48 billion in support of U.S. exports using $1.6 billion in program 

budget. That is a bargain for the U.S. taxpayer. 

The Administration is also requesting $75.2 million for our administrative budget, 

compared to $72.5 million enacted for fiscal year 2006. This pays for every aspect 

of our operations, from salaries to rent. I would like to emphasize that it is the administrative budget that is most important for our small business initiatives. It covers our outreach efforts and technological upgrades. 

Small Business 

Since I was appointed Acting President and Chairman about 7 months ago, no 

topic has received more attention at Ex-Im Bank than small business. We have been 

working with Congress on its concerns as well as with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) as they prepared a report on how we interpret our small 

business legislation and account for our small business transactions. We have conferred with small business representatives on changes I am about to discuss. And 

while I cannot say we have reached total agreement on all issues with all of the 

parties involved, we are embarking on major changes in our administrative structure with the purpose of continuing to increase our support for small businesses. 

26

I say continuing to increase because we have already laid a strong foundation for 

growing our small business program. In fiscal year 2005, Ex-Im authorized 2,617 

transactions that were made available for the direct benefit of small business, compared to 2,154 in fiscal year 2002, which represents a 21 percent increase. In terms 

of dollar volume, the Bank supported $2.66 billion in small business transactions 

in fiscal year 2005 compared to $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2002, a 47 percent increase. And the Bank’s Working Capital Guarantee Program, which benefits primarily small business exporters, had a record year in fiscal year 2005. Of the Bank’s 

total Working Capital authorizations of $1.096 billion, 78 percent, or $850 million, 

directly benefited small business exporters. 

While I recognize that we have been making progress, I am also aware that there 

is room for improvement. As I stated above, Congress has placed in our charter the 

mandate to make available 20 percent of our resources for direct support for small 

business. We have consistently made these resources available but they have never 

been utilized at the 20 percent level. We feel the way to move to the 20 percent 

level and beyond is to improve our outreach programs in order to increase demand. 

I have appointed John Emens to the new position of Senior Vice President for Small 

Business to manage his own unit, a staff focused solely on small business outreach. 

He will report directly to the President and Chairman of the Bank. The person holding the position of Senior Vice President will serve as the primary small business 

advocate on the staff level, and will of course work closely with the Board member 

given responsibility for small business matters. In addition, the Bank’s regional offices in New York, Florida, Illinois, Texas, and California are now dedicated exclusively to small business outreach and support. Since his appointment in August as 

Vice President for Small Business, Mr. Emens has had a total of 129 meetings with, 

and sales calls to, small businesses. 

Because the new Senior Vice President for Small Business is responsible to the 

President and Chairman for outreach to small business, and therefore has the lead 

responsibility for increasing the number of our small business transactions and the 

overall dollar amount of those transactions, we are separating those responsibilities 

from Bank personnel who are responsible for actually processing the transactions—

that is, those in what we call the ‘‘business units.’’ That reflects what we do for all 

businesses, large and small, within the Bank. It is part of our credit culture, and 

reflective of the culture in the private sector, that those who must objectively evaluate credit not be the same as those responsible for business outreach. 

However, I want to assure you that small business transactions are processed 

only by personnel experienced in small business and who are sensitive to the special 

needs of the small business exporter. To further enhance our services to small business, I have designated all such employees throughout our business units as ‘‘small 

business specialists,’’ so that when representatives of small business come into the 

Bank to discuss their transactions, they will interact with personnel who are familiar to them and knowledgeable about what their needs are. 

The GAO report mentioned earlier finds that Ex-Im Bank ‘‘generally classifies 

small business status correctly.’’ Ex-Im Bank employs a transparent and reliable 

methodology for determining our customers’ small business status and reporting our 

direct support for small business. We have appreciated GAO’s cooperative approach 

to the small business review. It has been a positive experience for Ex-Im Bank, both 

in terms of reaffirming our methodology and from the perspective of identifying 

areas in which Ex-Im can improve the efficiency with which we determine and report our direct small business support. For example, in conjunction with the introduction of our Ex-Im Online program, we are this fiscal year updating electronic 

participant records, strengthening internal controls around small business reporting, and arranging for an independent external audit of the Bank’s direct small 

business reporting starting with fiscal year 2006. 

Ex-Im Bank’s Small Business Committee 

We also realize that outreach to small businesses and processing small business 

transactions involve almost every division within the Bank. Therefore, we have established an Ex-Im Bank Small Business Committee (SBC) to coordinate, evaluate 

and make recommendations regarding the many Bank functions necessary for a successful small business strategy. The SBC will be co-chaired by the Senior Vice President of Export Finance and Senior Vice President for Small Business, who will report to the President and Chairman of the Bank. And we have institutionalized this 

structure by having the Board formally approve it. The SBC will be composed of 

representatives from Domestic Business Development under the Senior Vice President for Small Business as well as the principal processing units within our Small 

Business Group—Export Finance (Business Credit, Trade Finance and Insurance 

and Multi-Buyer Insurance), Credit Underwriting, the Office of the General Counsel 

27

and Asset Management. Other divisions within the Bank, including Congressional 

Affairs, will also participate at meetings. 

The goals for the SBC are to:

• Provide a Bank-wide focus on small business; 

• Report and evaluate each unit’s small business performance; 

• Identify opportunities for cross-selling and expanding the use of Bank programs 

for small business; 

• Measure the progress and take steps toward meeting small business plan objectives; and 

• Serve as a forum for exploring new small business initiatives. 

Claims Committee 

In addition, we have established a new claims reconsideration procedure and 

‘‘Claims Committee.’’ The Claims Committee will be responsible for evaluating and 

making final decisions with respect to claims originally denied by the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer. I believe these changes will help all of our customers, but 

will be particularly useful to small businesses, by improving transparency in the 

claims reconsideration process. In addition, the new procedure establishes formal 

consultation among the business units of the Bank and the Asset Management Division as part of the reconsideration process. The Claims Committee will comprise (i) 

the Senior Vice President for Small Business, (ii) the Senior Vice President for Export Finance, (iii) the General Counsel, (iv) the Chief Financial Officer, and (iv) the 

Senior Vice President for Credit and Risk Management. 

To strengthen customer education about the reconsideration process, a small-business portal with information pages will be created on Ex-Im Bank’s website. The 

Claims Committee will hold its first meeting in mid-March. 

Technology Upgrades 

I also want to discuss with you the progress we are making regarding our technology improvements. The Bank has responded to the Congressional mandate in our 

last reauthorization to ‘‘implement technology improvements that are designed to 

improve small business outreach, including allowing customers to use the Internet 

to apply for the Bank’s small business programs.’’ The Bank has substantially expanded its online capabilities for its customers, especially small businesses. The 

Bank has been implementing online capabilities in stages. In the past 5 years, we 

have done the following:

• Forms automation. Ex-Im Bank has updated its website to provide all customers, 

particularly small businesses, with improved access to information, applications, 

and forms. All of Ex-Im Bank’s applications and forms are available through the 

website. 

• Electronic claim filing. Ex-Im Bank has established an electronic claim filing system to expedite claim filing and enable customers to obtain a quicker claim payment. 

• Electronic compliance. Ex-Im Bank has developed an online Medium-Term Electronic Compliance Program, which greatly improves the efficiency and turnaround 

time in approving disbursements. 

• Letter of Interest. Ex-Im Bank has implemented an online application for its letter 

of interest. The online letter of interest system provides a paperless workflow and 

application process for small businesses. This capability streamlines the process 

for small businesses and saves them time in tracking the status of their submitted 

applications. 

• Registration and subscription services. Customers can sign up online to receive 

Ex-Im Bank publications, e-mail updates, and other information and to manage 

their subscriptions. 

Ex-Im Online 

Ex-Im Online, our major business reengineering and automation project, is the 

next step. In June, small business customers will begin using Ex-Im Online for 

multibuyer products, including support for special buyer credit limits. These are the 

products most heavily used by small business: More than 80 percent of the customers are small businesses, and these products represent half of Ex-Im’s annual 

transaction volume. Customers will apply online, get quick decisions, and receive 

online status information. Programming for the system is complete. The system has 

been fully tested and customers are being trained. 

Ex-Im Online will reengineer, automate, and modernize Ex-Im Bank’s primary 

business processes, particularly for the products used by small businesses (shortterm export credit insurance) and the products that provide significant indirect

28

support for small business exporters and suppliers (medium-term insurance and 

guarantees). 

Ex-Im Online will provide exporters, in particular small businesses, the benefits 

of electronic application submission, processing, and insurance policy management. 

Ex-Im Online will reduce customers’ paperwork, improve Ex-Im’s response time, increase productivity and improve risk management. 

Ex-Im Online will allow customers to:

• Apply online. Applications and all supporting documentation can be submitted 

and processed electronically. • Get quick decisions. Online retrieval of credit and demographic information and 

automated underwriting will reduce review and decision time for short-term 

transactions. • Receive online information on application status. Applicants will receive email notification of the status of their application. • Reduce paperwork burden. Automatic data entry and reuse of existing data will 

permit ‘‘enter once-use many times’’ management of customer information. • Manage export accounts receivable online. • Strengthen product development. Ex-Im will be able to consider a broader range 

of product enhancements and modifications, particularly in the short-term insurance area, as a consequence of better risk quantification and management capabilities using online systems.

There will also be benefits to Ex-Im Bank:

• Increased productivity and better resource use. Replacing manual processes will 

allow staff to focus on meeting growing small business needs and extending outreach to new customers. Ex-Im will redeploy staff from processing to customer 

service. As small business transactions and volume grow as expected from increased outreach, we will be able to manage the growth without adding staff. In 

addition, staff shifted from processing to customer service will provide more person-to-person service for small business customers, especially new exporters. • Increased customer satisfaction. Streamlined application submission, automated 

case processing, and quicker decisions will increase satisfaction with Ex-Im services, supporting our outreach and marketing. • Stronger risk management. Business intelligence tools and better sharing of information will improve management of the portfolio.

This program is the result of approximately $10.8 million in spending over 5 

years, and while it has taken a long time to get it in place, I am confident it will 

bear fruit by easing small business customers’ interaction with the Bank. 

Pursuant to direction in our 2002 reauthorization, the Bank has realigned its 

budget to support small business technology. Technology expenditures in fiscal years 

2001 and 2002 increased from $7.6 million to $12.0 million, an increase of more 

than 50 percent, with smaller increases in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004. In 

the last three fiscal years, Ex-Im’s administrative expense budget has been generally flat, and Ex-Im has funded improvements to its portfolio of online applications and services from its general technology budget. 

In the end, I would like to be able to guarantee that these efforts will result in 

20 percent of our funds being utilized by small business exporters, and that our 

small business figures will continue to grow in absolute terms. Unfortunately, I cannot. At Congress’ direction, we are a demand-driven enterprise. I cannot predict 

business cycles, or whether applications that come in tomorrow will be appropriate 

for the financing we have to offer. But what I can guarantee is that we will do everything within our power to increase demand through improved outreach programs. And I promise you that Ex-Im Bank is going to listen to small business input 

concerning our programs, that we will communicate with Congress and take your 

concerns seriously, and that our renewed efforts in small business are going to be 

sustained. 

Economic Impact 

Through the economic impact process the Bank seeks to determine whether a 

transaction under consideration would adversely affect U.S. production or employment, or result in the manufacture of a good subject to specified trade measures. 

In analyzing these cases, Ex-Im Bank must balance the benefits associated with the 

U.S. export against the long range implications of increased foreign production. 

Given Ex-Im Bank’s objective of maintaining and increasing employment of U.S. 

workers, Ex-Im Bank has long accepted the principle that it should not extend financing support when such support would adversely affect the U.S. economy. 

While Ex-Im Bank’s consideration of economic impact predates the Bank’s 2002 

reauthorization, Congress made substantive changes to the economic impact section 

29

of our charter in 2002. After extensive vetting and coordination with our stakeholders—including the U.S. export community, industry, labor interests, and Congress—Ex-Im Bank issued revised economic impact procedures in March 2003. 

The economic impact procedures are intended to lay out a reasonable and logical 

process to analyze the impact of Ex-Im Bank support for a particular transaction. 

The economic impact analysis considers issues such as whether the goods and services Ex-Im Bank is asked to support would establish or expand foreign production 

capacity of an exportable good, the relevance of trade measures, the global supply 

and demand for the good to be produced and the competitive impact on U.S. industry from increased production. The process includes review by other U.S. Government agencies, as well as input solicited from interested parties through Federal 

Register notification. 

In recent years, economic impact decisions have affected Ex-Im Bank financing 

support for many exports, including steel-making equipment, glass-making equipment, greenhouses, microchip manufacturing machinery, soda ash processing equipment, and others. 

Keeping the Competitive Edge in New Products and Special Markets 

Environmentally Beneficial Exports 

Ex-Im Bank established the Environmental Exports program to increase support 

of environmentally beneficial goods and services. Since the program’s inception in 

1994, Ex-Im Bank’s environmental transactions have grown significantly, with a 

total portfolio in excess of $2 billion. That has allowed U.S. environmental companies to compete in promising emerging markets. From fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 

2005, Ex-Im Bank has supported more than $1.3 billion in environmentally beneficial exports. The Ex-Im environmental portfolio includes transactions financing 

U.S. exports of renewable energy equipment, wastewater treatment projects, air pollution technologies, waste management services, and many other goods and services. 

Renewable energy and water project exports are eligible for repayment terms of up 

to 15 years under an OECD agreement that became effective July 1, 2005, for a trial 

period of 2 years. It is our goal to use these new terms and our outreach programs 

to expand our exports in this sector, where we feel the United States has a real 

technological edge over its competition. 

Women and Minorities 

As a nation, our institutions work best if they reflect the society in which we live. 

This holds true especially for business. It is easier to successfully market a product 

or services to a community if you know that community and are part of it. With 

this in mind, we at Ex-Im Bank are striving to help the American export community 

be more competitive by working to increase our transactions involving women- and 

minority-owned businesses. For fiscal year 2005, our authorizations in this area 

were $353 million, compared to $296 million in fiscal year 2004. We have increased 

our outreach to achieve this goal, and plan to increase it even more this year. In 

fiscal year 2005, Ex-Im Bank staff participated in 57 speaking engagements and attended thirteen conferences expressly aimed at these targeted audiences. We are 

committed to continuing and expanding these efforts. 

Future Challenges 

Any testimony about Ex-Im Bank must include a discussion of the challenges ExIm Bank will be facing over the next 5 years, the length of our request for reauthorization. That is no easy task, because it is extremely difficult to predict even such 

major events as the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990’s, or the rise and fall of 

some or our major markets in South America such as Venezuela and Argentina. But 

there are issues that bear watching and which may have to be dealt over the next 

5 years. 

Developing countries on the upper part of the industrialization scale (for example 

Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are emerging as significant exporters of capital 

goods such as airplanes, trains, and construction and telecommunications equipment. Those products are generally priced very attractively, are steadily improving 

in their quality and are typically supported by official financing. This financing is 

often on better terms better than agreed to by members of the OECD. U.S. companies, and those in all G-7 countries for that matter, are noting that these emerging 

exporters are displacing them in a variety of markets around the world—and financing is sometimes a key element in that displacement. We have to decide what 

should Ex-Im Bank’s response be. 

Looking at this issue from the standpoint of our Congressional mandate, there is 

little doubt that the guidance would be for Ex-Im to offset the financing if requested 

to do so, keeping in mind that we also must find a reasonable assurance of repayVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jun 05, 2007 Jkt 025856 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\35432.TXT BANK1 PsN: BANK
30

ment, comply with our environmental guidelines, live within a limited budget and 

meet our economic impact requirements. There is no clearer or more fundamental 

mandate than leveling the playing field for our exporters and keeping jobs here in 

the United States. 

Conclusion 

I have every confidence that this institution that I have grown to admire and respect will continue to serve U.S. workers and taxpayers for years to come. A flexible 

charter allowing Ex-Im Bank—with the guidance of Congress and the exporting 

community, to develop answers to the pressing issues facing us now and in the future—is key. The beacons to help a steer a true course have been set so we can do 

our job for the U.S. economy. There is no more important economic issue than preserving our job base, and with the help of Congress in this year of our reauthorization, we will continue to fulfill that mandate. 

I will be happy to answer your questions. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD F. RAMA

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY GROUP HEAD GLOBAL, PNC BANK

ON BEHALF OF THE

BANKERS’ ASSOCIATION FOR FINANCE AND TRADE

MARCH 8, 2006

Introduction 

I am pleased to be with you today to discuss the banking industry’s views on reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. I am testifying today 

as a banker who has worked with the Ex-Im Bank for over 32 years and as a member of Trade Finance Committee of the Bankers’ Association for Finance and Trade 

(BAFT), an organization founded in 1921. Today, BAFT is an affiliate of the American Bankers Association and its membership includes most of the major American 

banks that are active in trade finance and other international banking activities and 

also many of the major international banks chartered outside of this country. 

My employer, PNC Bank, is part of the PNC Financial Services Group, one of the 

Nation’s largest financial services firms. PNC is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and has a diversified business mix, which includes providing a broad range 

of international banking solutions such as trade finance, foreign exchange, correspondent banking, international cash management, and online trade services applications. For more than 30 years, PNC Bank has supported export growth by providing export financing and trade facilitation to companies nationwide. In 2005, our 

bank received the Presidential ‘‘E’’ Award for export service on the basis of the 

bank’s record of export promotion and continuing efforts to educate U.S. companies 

about trade finance resources. 

Why We Need the Export-Import Bank 

Every so often, and particularly during the process of reauthorizing the ExportImport Bank, someone will express the view that the United States does not need 

and should not have such an agency. They contend that the Bank is unnecessary 

and constitutes nothing more or less than corporate welfare. If the Bank actually 

were serving an important purpose, they argue, the private sector would meet that 

need without requiring any taxpayer support. In their view, the Bank simply is a 

mechanism to hand out taxpayer money to special interests. 

In my view, these critics are wrong. The reality is that the Bank serves the interests of our Nation by providing credit support that is a vital component in the competitiveness of American products in international markets. For example:

• An American software developer with 60 high-paying U.S. jobs in the Southeast 

started exporting products in 2004. The company had a contract to provide software priced at $1.6 million to a foreign purchaser but could neither get financing 

approval from its principal bank nor find another lender. The company went to 

the Ex-Im Bank and obtained single-buyer export insurance for $1.6 million and 

a $900,000 Working Capital Guarantee Program transaction-specific guarantee. It 

then was able to obtain financing from a local bank. The insurance policy from 

the Ex-Im Bank was critically important to the software company’s success for 

several reasons: (i) it is a pay-as-you-go policy which the private sector does not 

provide (small businesses often cannot afford the large up-front premiums the private sector requires regardless of usage); (ii) it covers countries and situations 

that the private sector will not (because of long lead-times to project completion 

31

and installation); and (iii) Ex-Im was able to provide a fast and very reasonable 

response to a small, but complex transaction. 

• A small family held company in the Northeast, which employs 100 people, manufactures machine tools used to maintain transportation equipment. The company 

also has a larger, German affiliate that manufactures the same equipment (and 

which can obtain export credit financing from Germany’s export credit agency). 

The company has a large customer in Eastern Europe on which it relies for a significant portion of its annual revenue, and this customer’s needs can be met by 

products made by the company in America or by its affiliate in Germany. The customer is undertaking an extensive, long-term refurbishment of its operations and 

when it makes equipment purchases it specifically seeks export credit financing. 

Medium-term guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank on two occasions (approximately 

$10 million and $6 million) played an important part in the company’s sales of 

equipment manufactured in the United States. 

• A guarantee provided by the Ex-Im Bank has enabled a company in Arizona that 

manufactures electronic test products to obtain working capital financing that otherwise would not have been available. The company’s sales in foreign markets 

have expanded in the face of international competition and exports now contribute 

about 45 percent of the company’s total sales. The total number of employees at 

the company has grown by 25 percent per year since 2003, largely on the basis 

of the expanded foreign sales made possible by the Ex-Im Bank’s guarantee. 

• An American company that employs 70 people in the Southeast emerged from 

bankruptcy in 2005. It is the last producer of its product in the United States and 

Europe, and it is facing substantial competition from producers in Japan. More 

than 30 percent of the company’s sales are outside the United States and it expects that to grow to 50 percent in the next few years. Without Ex-Im Bank 

multibuyer insurance coverage, the company’s asset-based lender would not be 

willing to include the foreign receivables in the company’s borrowing base and it 

could not survive. The pay-as-you-go feature and Ex-Im’s quick response time on 

special buyer credit limits were essential to meeting this company’s financial 

needs. 

• An American company based in the Midwest employs 77 people in manufacturing 

operations that produce processing equipment. It competes with companies from 

Taiwan, Japan, and China. The company sold equipment to a buyer in Eastern 

Europe. The buyer made a down payment of 15 percent of the purchase price. An 

American bank was willing to finance the remaining 85 percent only because the 

company obtained an Ex-Im Bank guarantee under its medium-term financing 

program. The bank also used the Ex-Im Bank’s Working Capital Guarantee Program to extend a $1.5 million transaction-specific line of credit to the company 

to enable it to meet the payment guarantee bond and work-in-process financing 

needs of this transaction. Ex-Im’s credit support of this company has enabled it 

to be successful against its foreign competition in the global marketplace.

Each of these situations represents incremental export sales by American companies that support the jobs of American workers and help to reduce our national 

trade deficit. 

Many other examples could be cited. These are the ‘‘special interests’’ the Ex-Im 

Bank serves and I would like to suggest it is in our national interest for it to continue doing so. 

It is important for Congress to remember that American businesses are engaged 

in fierce competition with foreign companies in the global market. Many of those 

foreign companies come into the market with various advantages, including credit 

support from their home country export credit agency (ECA). In the midst of this 

competition we cannot afford to abandon one of the most important factors that 

helps American business compete—the Export-Import Bank—nor can we afford to 

impose any new or more onerous restrictions on its ability to support American exports. If we did, the inevitable result would be fewer export sales, loss of jobs, and 

an even wider trade deficit. 

Something that I and other trade bankers have observed in recent years is that 

the ECA’s from other countries are getting to be more strategic and flexible in their 

approaches to export finance. In addition, new competition is coming from emerging 

market ECA’s, such as those in China, India, Eastern Europe, and Brazil. They all 

understand the extent of international competition and they are taking new approaches that will enable their exporters to win in the global marketplace. For example, many ECA’s are becoming more aggressive when it comes to taking on risk 

and more willing to provide financing for transactions that generally benefit their 

country, even if the transaction does not directly involve the export of locally produced goods. I believe that U.S. companies’ efforts to compete in international marVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jun 05, 2007 Jkt 025856 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\35432.TXT BANK1 PsN: BANK
32

kets will be hampered if our Ex-Im Bank does not take a similarly aggressive approach. (This is not to say that Ex-Im has not been aggressive in certain respects 

in the past. Trade bankers have noted the Bank’s willingness to take on credits that 

commercial banks have been unwilling to accept.) I hope that in reauthorizing the 

Bank, Congress will clearly express its support for an aggressive effort by the Export-Import Bank to meet the needs of American businesses—large and small—competing in global markets. 

Issues Related to Ex-Im Bank Operations 

I would like to comment on a number of issues that arise out of the Ex-Im Bank’s 

operations and the various requirements imposed on the Bank under current law. 

Small Business 

The Export-Import Bank is required by law to make available an amount equal 

to at least 20 percent of its aggregate loan, guarantee, and insurance authority in 

each fiscal year to finance exports made directly by small business concerns. The 

Bank frequently is criticized on Capitol Hill for its repeated failures to satisfy this 

requirement. We think the criticism is unfair. 

In the first place, it should be acknowledged that the 20 percent standard is a 

limited and arbitrary measure of the Bank’s service to small business. Small business transactions, by number, typically make up more than 80 percent of the transactions approved by the Ex-Im Bank each year. But when the sole measure is total 

dollar amount, large business transactions overwhelm those done by small business. 

By their very nature, the large export products that generally are produced by larger companies (airplanes, heavy equipment, and project work) mean large dollar volumes. If Ex-Im were evaluated on the amount of effort it puts into small business 

transactions, the 20 percent standard would be easy to meet because the work put 

in by the Bank on a small transaction can be as much or more than a large one. 

Another shortcoming of the test is that it fails to take into account the participation 

of small business in large business transactions. A single airplane sold by Boeing 

has myriad components produced by small business, yet Ex-Im gets no credit in its 

small business ledger for the support it provides to Boeing that indirectly benefits 

those small businesses. Finally, it also is difficult to understand why 20 percent is 

an appropriate test. As a banker, I find it difficult to comprehend why Ex-Im should 

be considered a failure at 19 percent and a success at 21 percent. 

I also believe that critics of the Bank are misconstruing the 20 percent test. The 

Bank is required to ‘‘make available’’ to small business a specified amount of its authority—the law does not require the Bank to actually extend loans, guarantees, and 

insurance equal to that amount. This is appropriate because the Bank is a demanddriven organization. It has no control over the source of credit support requests it 

receives. All that it can do is educate small businesses about its programs, encourage them to use its programs, and assist them in negotiating their way through the 

process. We believe that through its small business outreach efforts the Bank is 

making available to small business the full amount its authority, thus in reality it 

is satisfying the statutory requirement. 

Thinking of this provision as if it were a mandatory 20 percent requirement also 

puts the Ex-Im Bank in an untenable position. Suppose that the Bank’s loans, guarantees, and insurance extended to support small business exports in a particular fiscal year exceeded 20 percent of its authority by a small amount near the end of the 

year. If an exporter that does not qualify as a small business brings a large export 

transaction to the Bank, the 20 percent standard gives the Bank an incentive to 

delay or not do the transaction in order to stay above 20 percent. That does not 

make sense if the real purpose of the Ex-Im Bank is to promote U.S. exports. At 

the same time, the 20 percent standard also creates an incentive for poor credit decisions if the Bank is below 20 percent and needs more transactions to satisfy the 

test. Neither incentive is a healthy one for the Bank. 

Congress should rethink this requirement and devise a better way to measure the 

Ex-Im Bank’s success in working with small business. 

Economic Impact 

The Export-Import Bank is required by law to consider the extent to which transactions are likely to have an adverse effect on industries and employment in the 

United States. The rationale for this requirement is understandable (although I am 

not aware of any other ECA that is subject to a similar requirement): Taxpayer 

money should not be used to support a transaction if its benefits for U.S. industry 

and employment are outweighed by the transaction’s adverse impact on U.S. producers and employment. In most cases, however, the harm that might result from 

a transaction will occur whether or not the U.S. exporter seeking Ex-Im support 

makes the sale. If the U.S. exporter does not make the sale, one of its competitors 

33

from another country will. The adverse impact on U.S. industry will occur in either 

case. Thus, it seems that unless the U.S. exporter is the only possible source of the 

equipment to be sold, the economic impact on the United States of an export sale 

will always be positive. Unfortunately, when it evaluates the economic impact of a 

transaction, the Ex-Im Bank staff does not consider the availability from another 

source of the goods to be sold. We believe this is a valid consideration that the Bank 

should take into account in its analysis and we urge Congress to provide direction 

to the Bank in that regard. 

I have another concern that the Ex-Im Bank and Congress should consider as 

well—the reputation risk created by the economic impact test. Whenever the Bank 

turns down a transaction on the basis of economic impact, it has an adverse effect 

on the perception of U.S. exporters as reliable suppliers: The financing support that 

was expected did not come through. If a foreign purchaser has doubts about whether 

Ex-Im support for the financing of their purchase actually will be made available, 

the likelihood of the U.S. exporter getting the sale is diminished. For this reason 

we believe that the economic impact test should be used as little as possible. A step 

in the right direction would be to raise the minimum transaction size for economic 

impact assessment from $10 million to $25 million, to take into account the effects 

of inflation over time. 

Co-Financing 

Co-financing is an arrangement whereby exports that are sourced from more than 

one country can receive credit or credit support from two or more ECA’s in an efficient manner. Typically, the ECA for the country that is the principal source of the 

products or services takes the lead and is the sole agency with which the purchaser 

must interact. The cofinancing arrangement allows for one set of documents and one 

source of disbursements, in each case provided by the lead ECA which obtains supporting financial commitments directly from the other participating ECA’s. 

Bankers that finance these transactions like cofinancing arrangements because 

they are an efficient and convenient way of providing credit support for what otherwise could be extremely complex transactions. As the Export-Import Bank noted in 

its June 2005 Report to the U.S. Congress on Export Credit Competition (the 2005 

Report to Congress), the ‘‘availability and ease of ECA cofinancing has become an 

important and measurable competitive issue.’’

According to the Ex-Im Bank’s website, it currently has bilateral cofinancing 

agreements with ECA’s in four other countries: Canada, Italy, Japan, and the 

United Kingdom (and a limited agreement with K-Exim of Korea). At a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee prior to the Bank’s last reauthorization in 2001, 

Ex-Im Chairman John Robson reported that the Bank had entered into a bilateral 

agreement with ECGD of the United Kingdom and that discussions with EDC of 

Canada were close to completion. We are disappointed that agreements have been 

signed with only two other countries in the ensuing 4 years (a 1998 GAO report said 

there were more than 70 ECA’s operating throughout the world; the UK’s ECGD 

has agreements with ECA’s in 24 different countries). Although the Bank has participated in cofinancing arrangements on a one-off basis with ECA’s in countries 

with which it does not have a cofinancing agreement, having signed agreements is 

preferable. The agreements make it clear to potential purchasers that cofinancing 

is available and they establish a framework that facilitates cofinancing implementation for an actual transaction. When the Bank signed its cofinancing agreement 

with Canada in May 2001, its press release said, ‘‘This is another step in the right 

direction by Ex-Im Bank to deliver the same type of flexibility offered by a number 

of ECA’s.’’ We urge the Bank to take more of these steps and to make cofinancing 

agreements with other ECA’s a priority. 

MARAD 

Transactions supported by Export-Import Bank guarantees in excess of $20 million or that have a repayment period of more than 7 years are subject to a requirement (administered by the U.S. Maritime Administration—MARAD) that the goods 

being financed must be shipped on a U.S.-flag carrier if they are transported by sea. 

The exporter is required to use a U.S.-flag carrier even though other carriers might 

(i) be available at lower cost; (ii) have vessels that are more suitable for the particular cargo being shipped; and (iii) provide logistical advantages with respect to 

their availability and routing. This can result in situations that are nothing short 

of ridiculous. For example, a West Coast-based exporter that was selling goods to 

a purchaser in Jamaica was required to use a U.S.-flag carrier and as a result 

watched its goods in one shipment go from San Diego to Japan, to the Dominican 

Republic, then finally to Jamaica. Another shipment went from San Diego to Florida, to Spain, and then to Jamaica. If it were not required to use a U.S.-flagged vesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jun 05, 2007 Jkt 025856 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\35432.TXT BANK1 PsN: BANK
34

sel, the exporter could have arranged direct shipment from San Diego to Jamaica. 

The MARAD requirement added significant costs and weeks of shipping delays. The 

exporter summed it up as ‘‘extortion.’’ It certainly is nonsense. 

Although waivers are available in certain limited circumstances, the waiver process itself acts as a disincentive for potential purchasers of U.S. goods. 

At a time when the United States is recording record merchandise trade deficits, 

it seems foolish to burden U.S. exporters with requirements of this kind. According 

to the 2005 Report to Congress, ‘‘None of the other G-7 ECA’s have similar cargo 

preference restrictions.’’ Congress should seriously consider rethinking the MARAD 

requirement and, at the very least, restrict its application by raising the minimum 

amount from $20 million to $30 million or more. 

Domestic Content 

The Export-Import Bank’s mission is to support U.S. jobs through exports. In pursuing that mission, the Bank has adopted a restrictive policy of only providing credit 

support for the value of the U.S. content in an export. The Bank limits its involvement in a transaction to the lesser of: (i) 85 percent of the value of eligible goods 

and services, and (ii) 100 percent of the U.S. content in those goods and services. 

Thus, if a U.S. export consists of 50 percent U.S.-made components and 50 percent 

non-U.S. made, the Bank’s support would be limited to 50 percent of the contract’s 

value. This is problematic in several related respects. First, as complexity increases 

in manufacturing processes and the sourcing of components, it is becoming increasingly difficult to track the levels and sources of non-U.S. content. This is particularly true for small businesses that do not have the resources to devote to it. Second, 

requiring such strict proportionality likely results in fewer U.S. exports than could 

otherwise be achieved. The question is: How much support should Ex-Im be willing 

to provide in order for an export transaction to occur? It is not at all clear that the 

correct answer is tied to the proportion of U.S. content. What is clear is that other 

countries have concluded that strict proportionality—and thus strict accounting for 

content—is not required. For example, the 2005 Report to Congress indicates that 

Japan’s ECA does not reduce its support of transactions that have at least 30 percent Japanese content and Canada decides its level of support on a case-by-case 

basis. Italy’s ECA announced in 2004 that it would shift its standard from ‘‘Made 

in Italy’’ to ‘‘Made by Italy’’ and Ex-Im reported that other countries were moving 

to this approach as well. We believe that Ex-Im should adopt a case-by-case approach that balances the costs and benefits of individual transactions, rather than 

adhering to a strict formula that requires precise tracking of U.S. content, and we 

urge Congress to express its support for that approach as well. 

Tied Aid 

The Export-Import Bank’s tied aid war chest was established to enable the Bank 

to combat export subsidies provided by foreign governments in the form of financing 

for public-sector projects that is tied to the purchase of goods and services from exporters in the donor country. Although the Bank’s 2005 Report to Congress ex- pressed the view that OECD tied aid rules have been a ‘‘great success in reducing 

the level and distortive influence of tied aid,’’ there is a general perception among 

American bankers and exporters that the use by other countries of tied aid and implicitly tied aid (referred to as ‘‘untied aid’’) is growing. The particular countries that 

are mentioned include China, Japan, Germany, and Denmark. We are concerned 

that the Bank has not utilized any tied aid funds since 2002, possibly because the 

Bank is unwilling to act unless it has overt proof and possibly because of the unwieldy procedures that govern the relationship between the Treasury Department 

and the Bank regarding use of the war chest (and the Treasury Department’s unwillingness to use the war chest funds). We believe that the Bank should reexamine 

what is happening in the market and then determine whether greater use of the 

war chest is needed. Congress should review the procedures followed by the Treasury Department and Ex-Im Bank for utilizing the war chest and consider whether 

they could be simplified and whether clarifying the Bank’s authority to utilize the 

war chest would facilitate the use of those funds to combat the use of tied aid by 

other countries. 

Dual-Use Products 

The Export-Import Bank generally is prohibited from providing credit or credit 

support in connection with the sale of defense articles or services to any country, 

with the exception that the Bank may provide such support if it determines that 

the articles or services are nonlethal and that their primary end use will be for civilian purposes. This exception, which we believe is useful and appropriate, sunsets 

and requires periodic renewal. It currently is set to expire on October 1, 2006. In 

1997, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported, ‘‘the Ex-Im Bank appears to 

35

have established procedures that provide a sound basis for determining whether 

these exports are nonlethal and primarily used for civilian purposes, as required by 

law.’’ We believe the time has come to make this a permanent provision that does 

not require periodic renewal. 

Conclusion 

We believe that, within the constraints of its budget and other resources, the Export-Import Bank generally is doing a good job in promoting the export of American 

goods and services to international markets, but improvements always can be made. 

The Export-Import Bank plays a key role in helping U.S. businesses of all sizes compete in markets around the world, but we believe the Bank is hampered by having 

too few people and too many requirements imposed on it that do not relate to its 

primary mission. Consequently, we urge the Congress to provide the Bank with significant additional resources in its administrative budget, and to act on our recommendations to reduce the Bank’s administrative burdens that inhibit its functions. We look forward to continuing to work with Members of Congress and with 

the Bank to maximize its effectiveness in promoting American exports. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES ‘‘AL’’ MERRITT

PRESIDENT AND CEO, MD INTERNATIONAL, INC. MIAMI, FL

MARCH 8, 2006

Senator Crapo, Senator Bayh, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear here today. I am Al Merritt, President of MD International, Inc., 

of Miami. MD exports medical equipment and related services to Latin America, the 

Caribbean, and other markets. Areas of medical care that we address include general medicine, ENT obstetrics/ gynecology, ophthalmology, physical therapy, cardiology, surgery, critical care, anesthesiology, and imaging. We also provide turn-key 

and ongoing hospital renovation and remodeling projects throughout the world. 

Throughout its 19-year history, MD International has offered financing to foreign 

buyers, often with the support of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. 

Without Ex-Im’s assistance, our company would have lost important sales, and individuals throughout Latin America would have gone without access to modern medical technology. 

I also appear here today as a representative of the Small Business Exporters Association of the United States, on whose Board of Directors I serve. SBEA is the 

Nation’s oldest and largest nonprofit organization of smaller exporting companies. 

As the international trade council of the National Small Business Association, SBEA 

also represents NSBA’s 22,000 exporting companies. 

Let me begin by stating unequivocally—on behalf of MD International and 

SBEA—that we strongly urge Congress to reauthorize Ex-Im Bank.

We support Ex-Im and we want to make it even more effective. 

The Need for Ex-Im Bank 

Sales of products and services to developing nations involve a significant degree 

of foreign risk, especially when the foreign buyers finance their purchases over several years. Commercial banks historically have been reluctant to assume a major 

share of this risk. For one thing, the collateral securing the loans is often in another 

country, where recovery can be difficult. 

Every exporting Nation grapples with this risk. Nearly all of them address it by 

providing guarantees to commercial lenders and brokers that agree to finance exports using certain criteria, or by providing credit directly to exporters. 

This is particularly vital for transactions by smaller companies. Not many banks 

are involved in export finance. And not many of those will handle smaller international transactions, especially when the exporter is a small business. Fewer still 

will accept ‘‘walk-in’’ small business exporters who are not long-time commercial 

customers. Without Ex-Im’s (and SBA’s) available backing for export finance, small 

business access to export finance would be close to zero. Congress envisioned ExIm as a ‘‘bank of last resort’’ for exporters; for small and medium-sized companies, 

it is frequently the ‘‘bank of only resort.’’

Our company is a good example. We have been exporting successfully for nearly 

20 years. We ship to forty countries. We employ 111 people. Yet even with our history, reach, and employees, many deals would be impossible for us without Ex-Im 

guarantees and insurance. 

36

* Here, as elsewhere in this testimony, ‘‘small and mid-sized enterprises’’ (or exporters or 

‘‘SME’s) refers to U.S. businesses with fewer than 500 employees, with certain limited exceptions as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

Maybe I can illustrate this with an analogy. If you buy a tire for your car, you 

probably will pay cash for it. If you buy a new transmission for your car, you may 

well charge the cost to your credit card and pay it off over 3 or 4 months. 

But if you buy a new car, you probably are not going to pay cash for it or even 

pay it off in a few months. You will most likely want to finance it over a couple 

of years. 

Lots of small exporters in effect sell tires. Tire sales can be a good business. Plenty of foreign buyers want the equivalent of tires, and that can form a pretty good 

trading relationship. You can do a lot of ‘‘tire exporting’’ as a cash business without 

having to find financing for your buyers. 

With ‘‘transmissions’’ and products that cost more per unit, however, many buyers 

will want to take a few months to pay. Unless you as an exporter want to act like 

a bank—and most exporters cannot and do not—you will need short-term export financing. 

‘‘Transmissions’’ and their equivalents are desirable exports that can support good 

jobs at home and form the foundation for solid and growing international trade 

channels. So it helps everybody when Ex-Im provides short-term guarantees and insurance for the financing of these exports. 

‘‘Cars’’ (in other words, higher value exports like capital equipment) are a much 

bigger deal. The buyers want to take years to pay, but the benefits to the exporters 

and the United States as the exporting country are huge. Companies that build 

‘‘parts’’ for the ‘‘cars’’ get sales. Many jobs, both direct and indirect, get created and 

supported. ‘‘Car’’-type exporting is a very good business. Sales are larger. Margins 

are usually healthy. And the buyers eventually come back for ‘‘tires’’ and ‘‘transmissions,’’ not to mention servicing and training. ‘‘Car’’ transactions use mediumterm financing. Without Ex-Im backing, these transactions are extremely hard to 

put together. 

(Ex-Im also provides long-term financing for very big ticket items. Let’s call them 

‘‘airplanes.’’ They are vital to the U.S. balance of trade, and necessary, but not a 

major focus for ‘‘SME’s.’’ * Few small business exporters want to extend payments 

out beyond 7 years.) 

In sum, American companies of all sizes would lose countless billions of dollars 

in export sales—and the high-paying export-related jobs that go with them—without 

Ex-Im, the official export credit agency of the United States. 

But there is another side of it, too. I like to think that companies like mine help 

the United States put its best foot forward overseas. Companies that construct 

roads, purify water, build homes and schools, and improve health care. We show our 

neighbors that we care about the quality of their lives. We demonstrate that our 

government and our private sector want to help them achieve health and prosperity. 

Without Ex-Im, that capability, too, would be greatly diminished in the developing 

world. 

Here are two examples of MD International transactions that Ex-Im financed.

• (A ‘‘transmission’’) We sold a fluoroscopic diagnostic device, manufactured in 

Utah, to a Mexican hospital for $150,000. Ex-Im provided the hospital with financing. • (A ‘‘car’’) We completely outfitted a women’s hospital in the Dominican Republic 

with $7 million worth of U.S. manufactured medical equipment. Thanks to 7 year 

financing from Ex-Im, we made the sale despite stiff competition from German 

and Spanish companies, selling EU-manufactured equipment, and backed by the 

export credit agencies of Germany and Spain.

So MD International and many other SBEA members keep a close watch on ExIm. 

How To Improve Ex-Im 

MD International and other SME exporters appreciate the assistance that Ex-Im 

has provided. But it is no secret that Congress gave Ex-Im a mandate in 2002 to 

allocate 20 percent of its financing dollars to SME transactions, and that the Bank 

has so far failed to meet that mandate. 

SBEA would like to suggest some reasons why, based on the experiences of companies like mine, and to recommend steps that Congress and the Bank could take 

to meet this entirely achievable threshold. 

Ex-Im starts with an great resource—many dedicated, hard-working people. There 

are also several Ex-Im products that are well-suited to smaller companies. These inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jun 05, 2007 Jkt 025856 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\35432.TXT BANK1 PsN: BANK
37

clude the agency’s export working capital (preshipment) financing and its short-term 

insurance against buyer default. 

While these products—and the SME awareness of them—could always be improved, overall they tend to work well. The criteria for obtaining the financing are 

relatively transparent and the authority to get the transactions underway is delegated to a network of banks and brokers. 

Ex-Im’s principal challenge with these products is finding and educating its potential customers. A secondary challenge is making sure that those customers, once inside, are retained and return again. 

So our first recommendation is to the Bank: Broaden outreach to SME’s on these 

products and use their feedback to make improvements in them. 

While we would encourage Congress to stress this point in the Report accompanying the reauthorization legislation, we do not feel it is necessary to be included 

in the statute itself. 

To its credit, Ex-Im has developed an ambitious plan for outreach, as part of its 

recent ‘‘Small Business Committee’’ initiative. 

In terms of identifying further new SME customers, I would simply repeat what 

my SBEA Board colleague Jim Wilfong said at last week’s Ex-Im Advisory Committee meeting. Over 60 percent of the SME’s that are currently exporting ship to 

only one country. Getting them into a second or third country would increase the 

demand for Ex-Im products—without the sometimes steep learning curve involved 

in a company’s first export transaction. The Commerce Department’s U.S. Export 

Assistance Centers, located in over 100 cities across the country, could be helpful 

partner to Ex-Im in this process. 

Our second point is that the Bank’s emphasis on SME transactions has tended 

to ebb and flow over the years, based on the priority that the Bank leadership has 

attached to them. Unfortunately, this has resulted in considerable SME management instability. 

When we consulted with current and former Bank staffers about Ex-Im’s approach to SME management over the past decade, a rather confused picture 

emerged. 

By our count, Ex-Im has had 15 different management structures for addressing 

SME’s since 1997, or more than two a year, on average. The point person for SME’s 

has been at various times a Group Vice President, a Senior Vice President, a Vice 

President, and an Office Director. For at least two substantial periods of time since 

1997, no one was in charge of SME responsibilities. ‘‘Business Development’’ has 

been included in and excluded from the small business operation (when the Bank 

has had one), at one point being separated into international business development, 

which was excluded, and domestic business development, which was included. The 

Ex-Im field offices have been told to concentrate on small business, to concentrate 

on large business, and again to concentrate on small business. The SME operation 

has been near the top of the organization chart, answering to the President, in the 

middle, answering to various Senior Vice Presidents, near the bottom, and for a 

while in 2004–5, essentially off the chart, directing no one and essentially directed 

by no one. The staffing levels have ranged from one to more than twenty. Sometimes the person in charge of SME’s could intervene in specific transactions, but 

sometimes not. Sometimes the SME operation has handled insurance products, 

sometimes guarantee products, sometimes both, and sometimes neither. Sometimes 

the SME operation has had the authority to approve credit and authorize transactions, but sometimes not. Sometimes the head of the Bank’s SME operation has 

long been involved in the Ex-Im’s small business transactions; sometimes the person 

has had no significant recent SME experience. 

Ex-Im’s SME management reached one of its ‘‘high points’’—with a Group Vice 

President answering directly to the Bank President—prior to the Bank’s 2002 reauthorization. Shortly afterward, the entire operation was abolished. What followed 

was one of the periods in which the Bank had no SME operation as such. 

Our normal preference would be to let Ex-Im handle SME’s on its own, and we 

certainly commend Chairman Lambright and the Bank’s management and staff for 

the effort that went into the recent ‘‘Small Business Committee’’ proposal. 

But we do believe that the lack of a permanent, stable structure with responsibility and accountability for the Bank’s SME performance has reduced the effectiveness of the Bank’s SME work. It also has confused commercial banks and exporters, 

as well as the Bank’s own staff. So we request that Congress provide Ex-Im with 

additional guidance in this area. 

We recommend that Congress:

• create a permanent Small and Medium Size Enterprise Division at the Bank, 

• direct this Division to have its own staff of underwriters and business development specialists, devoted exclusively to SME transactions, 

38

• authorize the Division to create its own credit standards and to process its own 

transactions (subject to approval by the Ex-Im Board), 

• require this Division to have a system of compensation, benefits, incentives, and 

promotions comparable to other career tracks at the Bank, 

• put a Senior Vice President or higher in charge of the Division, 

• stipulate that the person holding that position have significant recent SME experience, and 

• have this person report directly to President and Board of the Bank.

We believe that this approach would offer significant advantages. 

First, it offers a framework of transparency, responsibility and accountability for 

SME transactions at the Bank. It puts the Bank’s senior SME management in 

charge of the Bank’s SME products and transactions. 

Second, it creates an environment of stability in a domain of Ex-Im management 

that has been subject to frequent upheavals. It permits planning and benchmarking. 

Third, it provides a secure setting for Bank employees who want to focus on 

SME’s but fear more sudden shifts in the winds. 

Fourth, it shortens the ‘‘feedback loops’’ between the Bank’s SME customers and 

its SME policies, as well as between the Bank’s SME officials and its Board. Process 

streamlining, turnaround time reduction and new product offerings will be simplified. Outreach becomes strategic and sustainable. 

Fifth, it facilitates oversight by the Bank and Congress as Ex-Im carries out such 

Congressional mandates as the requirement to devote 20 percent of the Bank’s financing dollars directly to SME’s. 

We suggest that the SME Division’s funding allocation be left up to the Bank. Adjustments can be made, if necessary by Congress, according to the Division’s success 

in hitting its benchmarks. 

We believe that this approach to the management of Ex-Im SME transactions will 

be successful in part because we have seen something very similar to it succeed 

spectacularly at the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. 

OPIC’s mission is in many ways more difficult than Ex-Im’s. Rather than finding 

American companies that want to sell goods overseas, OPIC must find ones that 

want to invest overseas. 

These investments must promote American companies and not cost a single American job. They must aid in the progress of developing countries (OPIC was once part 

of USAID), and they must make economic sense on their own. 

If the universe of SME’s that export is small—5–10 percent of all U.S. SME’s—

the universe of SME’s that want to invest overseas, and with these stipulations, is 

a fraction even of that. 

Five years ago, a debate raged within OPIC about whether to stop handling SME 

transactions altogether. 

OPIC’s President at the time, Dr. Peter Watson, made the decision to go in the 

other direction. He set up a Small and Medium Enterprise Finance Department, installed an focused and energetic leader to head it, allocated significant agency resources to it (including full-time dedicated underwriters), and gave it his strong public and private backing. 

In fiscal year 2001, OPIC handled SME transactions valued at $10 million. Last 

week, the agency released its numbers from fiscal year 2005: $347 million in SME 

transactions. 

At the same time, the agency announced a new Enterprise Development Network 

that will use delegated authority financing to raise these figures even higher. 

A similar approach also had a dramatic impact at Canada’s export credit agency, 

Export Development Canada (EDC). In 1994, the Canadian Government decided to 

create an SME unit within EDC, with its own underwriters and business development staff, with full responsibility for EDC’s SME products, and with its reporting 

directly to EDC’s President. 

Since then, EDC has grown from servicing fewer than 500 SME’s to more than 

7,000,—or one-fifth of Canada’s 35,000 total exporters. Providing export financing 

through commercial banks (80 percent) and directly (20 percent), EDC last year provided CAN$11 billion in SME export financing. 

From a base of 220,000 SME exporters in the United States, Ex-Im provided export financing to around 2,300, in the amount of US$2.7 billion. This is only about 

a fourth of the export financing that Canada provided to its SME’s, despite the fact 

that the overall U.S. economy is seven times larger than the Canadian economy. 

Ex-Im has the raw material—in the U.S. economy and in its own staff—to greatly 

expand its SME financing. It needs an appropriate management structure, the right 

allocation of resources, and strong backing from Congress. 

On that note, our next recommendation relates to the Bank’s allocation of staffing. 

39

To step back a bit, Ex-Im as an institution reflects the environment in which it 

developed. Founded in the 1930’s, the Bank evolved mainly in the 1950’s through 

the 1970’s—a time when larger companies represented nearly all of the demand for 

buyer financing instruments, especially those involving terms of longer than a few 

months. 

As more American ‘‘SME’s’’ have gone global in recent decades, that demand pattern has shifted. SME’s here are finding overseas customers quite willing to place 

larger orders, and orders for more expensive items (cars), but in need of more flexible and longer-term financing. 

In 1986, the year before MD International began exporting, there were about 

65,000 small business exporters in the United States. Today, there are nearly 

220,000. The value of American small business exports now tops $200 billion annually. (And that’s just counting merchandise exports, not most service exports. Many 

small businesses like MD International sell services separately or packaged with 

goods exports.) 

Today, over 97 percent of all U.S. exporters are small businesses. Their activity 

is broadly dispersed across the country. Take my home State of Florida. Over half 

the value of Florida’s exports comes from SME’s. The same is true, remarkably 

enough, in the economic powerhouse of New York State. In California, the figure 

is almost half—and the number of SME exporters tops 50,000. Across the Nation, 

more than one-fourth of all U.S. zip codes show merchandise exports of over $500 

million a year. 

Ex-Im as a whole has not really reflected these changes in the business environment. 

The Bank’s staff is highly concentrated in Washington, DC. No more than 25 

Bank employees—highly dedicated and overworked ones, we might emphasize—are 

in the field. And virtually none of them have the authority to underwrite and approve transactions. 

In terms of ‘‘being where the customers are,’’ the Bank is almost the polar opposite of the Small Business Administration, about 20 percent of whose staff is in 

Washington, with 80 percent in the field. Even SBA’s modest Office of International 

Trade has only 6 people in Washington, with 17 in the field. 

As noted, the Commerce Department maintains a network of over 100 U.S. Export 

Assistance Centers across the Nation. These would be logical settings for Ex-Im personnel. 

So our third recommendation to Congress is to have Ex-Im provide you with a 

report on how it could shift more underwriting and business development staff, especially those handling SME transactions, into the field. 

But field staff alone cannot reach every SME exporter with financing needs. The 

Bank operates through a network of brokers and delegated authority lenders. Except when it does not. 

And here I return to my point from earlier, about tires, transmissions, and cars. 

Companies like mine—capital equipment exporters with bundled services—are 

selling ‘‘cars.’’ More and more SME exporters are migrating into cars—higher value 

equipment and service exports. But buyers want to take several years to pay for 

cars. 

This upside potential is extremely significant for several reasons. First, capital 

equipment exports support U.S. manufacturing. MD International, for example, 

buys from smaller U.S. manufacturers like Welch-Allyn in New York, Wallach Surgical in Connecticut, Miltex Surgical Instruments in Pennsylvania, Health-O-Meter 

Scales in Chicago, Gendex Del X-Ray Company in Chicago, Midmark in Ohio, Simmons in Atlanta, Mettler Electronics in California, Protocol Monitoring in Oregon, 

and Medical Research Labs in Illinois. Altogether, we buy from over 100 U.S. manufacturers based all across the country—almost all of them SME’s. 

Second, these exports are closely linked to higher-paying jobs in the United 

States—jobs that pay 15–20 percent higher, on average, than comparable work in 

nonexporting companies, according the Commerce Department statistics. 

Third, these exports establish longer-term buying relationships with foreign customers, as those customers order parts, upgrades, servicing, training, and ancillary 

equipment over time. 

Fourth, they also help establish American technical standards and specifications 

in overseas markets, a boon to a wide array of exporters. 

Fifth, capital equipment exports are simply worth more money, on average, than 

most other types of exports. 

So if the SME Division of Ex-Im that we are proposing needs an early focus, expanding SME capital equipment exports should be it, in our opinion. Nothing will 

get the Bank’s SME numbers up above 20 percent faster, nothing will yield a 

40

quicker payoff in job creation, and nothing offers greater potential to make an early 

dent in the U.S. trade deficit. 

But there is a rub. 

Because foreign buyers of capital equipment (car buyers) want and need to spread 

their payments over many months or even several years, exporters like me and 

quite a few other SBEA members need to access Ex-Im’s ‘‘medium-term’’ financing, 

covering repayment periods of 6 months to 7 years. 

Ex-Im does not delegate authority for its medium-term products to private sector 

lenders. As a result, the agency’s transparency and decision cycle times for these 

products leave much to be desired. 

The Bank says that medium-term transactions take about 40 days. I will have to 

tell you that just about every capital equipment exporter I know tells me they endure much longer waits—months and even years. I know I often do. 

Given the many good transactions with Ex-Im that I have had, I hate to say this, 

but the Bank has developed a bad reputation among foreign buyers for its mediumterm financing. Knowledgeable buyers that my company encounters often flinch 

when we say we want to finance through Ex-Im. They tell us stories of shuffling 

paper back and forth with Ex-Im for a year or 18 months—and then being turned 

down. They tell us they turn to the Europeans and Japanese and get their transactions settled in a matter of weeks. 

SME’s cannot handle delays of this duration. Customers walk away. Cash flow 

problems develop. Business reputations get damaged. 

While the Bank does not break out its figures for the small business share of medium term financing, we have heard Bank officials estimate it at about $100 million 

out of $1.7 billion in overall medium-term financing. If this is correct, the SME 

share is less than 6 percent. 

This medium-term bottleneck will persist, in our opinion, as long as Ex-Im itself 

continues trying to handle the nuts and bolts of every transaction at its headquarters. There simply are not enough people at 811 Vermont Avenue, and there 

never will be. 

The only way to truly solve the problem is to make the commercial banks genuine 

partners by delegating more authority to them for medium-term transactions. 

If delegating authority works for SBA, with smaller transactions, and for OPIC, 

with larger transactions—as well as for Ex-Im itself with other products—it can be 

made to work with the Bank’s medium-term financing. 

Accordingly, we urge Congress to direct the Bank to delegate more medium-term 

export financing authority to commercial banks and export finance institutions. 

I might note that this proposal is also strongly backed by the Bank’s larger company customers. 

What we are ultimately talking about here is faster turnaround times, higher customer satisfaction levels, and lower transaction costs.

Those are three pretty good measures for service improvements at the Bank. 

Another way to accomplish both is by putting more of the Bank’s transactions online. 

Happily, the Bank’s new ‘‘Small Business Committee’’ plan anticipates this. 

We would encourage Congress to hold Ex-Im to this commitment by stipulating, 

at least in Report language if not in the law, that the Bank’s online system for exporters be up and running by July 2006, as promised, and that it soon include a 

password-protected area of the Ex-Im website displaying:

• where each exporter’s application(s) for financing stand, 

• what decisions have been made on the application(s) and what decisions remain, 

• whether any further information will be needed from the applicant, 

• the person or persons at the Bank responsible at each step of the process, 

• the anticipated timeline for final action on the application, and 

• the anticipated date for the disbursal of funds.

Such a system would not only improve turnaround times and lower transaction 

costs, but would also enhance transparency at the Bank and provide a valuable 

benchmarking tool for senior management. 

Finally, there is one Ex-Im metric that we believe Congress should not change.

It is the requirement for the Bank to devote 20 percent of its financing dollars 

directly to small business. 

The Bank surpassed this percentage at least three times during the 1990’s, and 

it is perfectly able to do so again, particularly if it manages for a goal of 21 percent 

or 22 percent. 

For fiscal year 2005, the Bank says the SME share is at 19.7 percent. 

41

The SME share metric supplies a necessary spur to Ex-Im to keep a strong focus 

on SME financing. It works hand-in-glove with the SME Division that we are proposing. Each reinforces the other. 

Other metrics have significant disadvantages, in our view. For example, the 

Bank’s SME dollar volumes, while generally useful, reflect a mixture of factors. 

General trends in world trade and exchange rate variations can play as much of a 

role in shifting the Bank’s dollar volumes as the efforts of the Bank itself. 

Focusing too closely on the number of transactions will perversely incentivize the 

Bank to emphasize simple, very low risk transactions with rapid approval times. 

More complex transactions, particularly medium-term transactions with higher dollar values—where the Bank’s approval processes are already far too long—could 

well be pushed to the back burner. Yet, as noted, these types of transactions generally have far greater paybacks in high-paying U.S. export jobs. 

A concern is sometimes expressed that the 20 percent requirement for SME’s 

might cause larger exporters to be refused financing if their transactions occurred 

toward the end of a fiscal year and would thus drop the Bank’s final SME percentage below 20 percent. While SBEA believes that the Bank could avoid such unforeseen difficulties by managing for a goal of 21 percent or 22 percent rather than 20 

percent (which allows little room for error), we share the view that the Bank itself—

and not exporters—should be held responsible for any failure to meet the 20 percent 

mandate. 

Accordingly, we propose the following process for assuring Bank compliance with 

the 20 percent mandate:

• In any Fiscal year that the Bank fails to allot 20 percent of its transaction dollars 

to SME’s, the Bank shall submit a report to Congress within 60 days acknowledging the shortfall and describing a specific plan of action for rectifying it. This 

plan must, at a minimum, specify additional funds that will be allocated from the 

Bank’s administrative budget to the SME Division. 

• Within 30 days after the above plan is submitted to Congress, the Bank shall report to Congress on its implementation. 

• During the fiscal year following the one in which the Bank fails to meet the 20 

percent mandate, it shall report quarterly to Congress on the percentage of its 

dollars that have financed SME transactions.

We believe that this approach will communicate the seriousness with which Congress views the Bank’s SME responsibilities without adversely affecting any other 

exporters. The requirement for Ex-Im to allocate more administrative funds to the 

SME Division if the mandate is not met will help keep the agency’s management 

focused on the SME goals. The quarterly reporting requirement assures that Congress does not have to wait till the end of the next fiscal year to see whether the 

Bank has corrected any deficiencies. 

In sum, Ex-Im has inherent strengths and the Bank does some things very well. 

As a Nation, we would be seriously set back without it. 

SBEA strongly supports Ex-Im’s reauthorization, and we intend to strongly support it in the appropriations process. 

But Ex-Im can be improved, and we hope Congress will do so. 

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to take any questions at this time.

42


mar8-1.eps
43


mar8-2.eps
44


mar8-3.eps
45

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN MATTHEWS

MANAGING DIRECTOR, BOEING CAPITAL CORPORATION,

ON BEHALF OF

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS,

THE NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL, AND

THE COALITION FOR EMPLOYMENT THROUGH EXPORTS

MARCH 8, 2006

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am John Matthews, Managing Director of Boeing Capital Corporation, the financing arm of The Boeing Company. 

We at Boeing, and the other members of NAM, NFTC, and CEE, strongly support 

the reauthorization of Ex-Im Bank. Each year, Ex-Im Bank supports some 3,000 

overseas sales of American-made goods and American-provided services. During fiscal year 2005, Ex-Im issued $13.9 billion in financing—mostly guarantees and insurance of commercial loans. That financing supported $17.8 billion in U.S. exports. 

Those export sales in turn supported thousands of jobs for American workers. 

Most of these transactions are sales by small- and medium-sized companies. But 

even for large corporations like Boeing, Ex-Im Bank plays an essential role, not only 

for our 50,000 commercial aircraft employees, but also for our 26,000 U.S. suppliers 

and vendors throughout all 50 States. In 2005, the Boeing Company purchased approximately $5B from more than 11,500 small business suppliers in the United 

States. Of that total, our commercial unit, Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA), 

paid $1.4B to over 2,900 American small businesses. 

Today, I would like to focus on three key points: (1) Financing is a key element 

of global competition; (2) Export credit agencies are growing around the world; and 

(3) Ex-Im Bank is financially sound. 

Financing is a Key Element of Global Competition 

Traditionally, companies competed on product quality, price, and service. In today’s world, financing is an increasingly important competitive element. Ex-Im 

Bank has two central missions: To level the playing field when U.S. exporters are 

confronted with competitors that have ECA financing; and when commercial financing is not available. 

Each year, 70 percent of all Boeing’s commercial aircraft sales are to overseas customers. Historically, 30 percent of these Boeing exports have relied upon Ex-Im to 

provide loan guarantees. 

In fiscal year 2005 alone, Ex-Im authorized financing to support the export of 78 

Boeing commercial aircraft to 19 airlines located in 18 different countries around 

the globe, including nations in Africa and in Latin America. This represented 33 

percent of all our exports for that year. 

Export Credit Agencies are Growing Around the World 

Virtually all major trading nations operate export credit agencies. The most recent 

data show that ECA financing is increasing worldwide. Last October, the International Union of Credit and Investment Insurers—the Berne Union—reported that 

its 52 member ECA’s issued a total of $788 billion in financing during 2004, the 

highest total ever measured. That total approaches 10 percent of global trade flows 

in that year. Even more telling, the 2004 total marked a 60 percent increase over 

the 2001 level of $470 billion. 

While the structure of ECA’s varies from country to country, virtually all operate 

in close cooperation with their national government, and most operate with government financial support of some type. Faced with that financial backing for its foreign competitor, no U.S. company, no matter how large, can compete on its own. 

When foreign ECA support is present, we must have the backing of Ex-Im Bank.

Ex-Im Bank is Financially Sound 

Ex-Im Bank is financially sound. At the end of fiscal year 2004, the most recent 

public data, Ex-Im Bank had a total exposure of $61.1 billion. Against that exposure, the Bank had $9.6 billion in reserves—a very strong reserve position. 

Exporters and our overseas customers pay fees for Ex-Im’s participation in export 

sales, which in the last several years have covered the government’s costs of operating the Bank. Ex-Im charges interest on its direct loans and premiums for its 

guarantees and insurance. Ex-Im does not subsidize interest rates. In financial 

terms, Ex-Im’s crucial role is in mitigating risk, especially in markets where commercial financing is not available. 

46

Specifically, in aircraft transactions, Ex-Im generally does not provide direct 

loans. Rather, Ex-Im guarantees that if the airline customer defaults on the loan, 

Ex-Im will assume the financial liability. These guarantees make it possible for certain foreign airlines, especially in developing countries, to secure commercial bank 

loans they might otherwise not qualify for at those commercial banks. Ex-Im has 

not incurred any losses on commercial airplane guarantees over the past 15 years. 

This is a real testament to the continuing effective due diligence performed by the 

Bank before it provides guarantees to foreign airlines. 

According to the Bank’s fiscal year 2004 annual report, Ex-Im generated a net income of $2 billion, through its interest charges, premiums, and fees. Unfortunately, 

under the Credit Reform Act of 1990, the Bank cannot utilize its own revenues to 

cover its costs. Instead, the Bank must obtain annual appropriations for both its operating expenses and its loan-loss reserves. As a result, the Bank is handicapped 

by the Government’s own budget rules. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The Bank is indispensable to Boeing. It has been innovative and reliable in times of crisis such as 

the financial market’s retrenchment in the aftermath of September 11. It is critical 

to our ability to compete against a subsidized competitor while sustaining high-paying U.S. jobs. We commend this Subcommittee for its timely consideration of ExIm Bank’s reauthorization and we urge that the Committee act expeditiously to report a reauthorization bill to the Senate, so that Congress can complete the legislative process prior to the September 30 expiration of the Bank’s charter. 

I would be happy to answer any questions about the broader exporting community 

or provide more specific examples of the Bank’s criticality to Boeing’s ability to compete.

47


mar8-4.eps
48


mar8-5.eps
49


mar8-6.eps
(51)

ECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES IN EXPORTIMPORT BANK REAUTHORIZATION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Senator Mike Crapo (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO 

Senator CRAPO. This hearing will come to order. 

Today, the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance 

meets to discuss the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. 

This is our second hearing and today we are going to focus on ways 

to improve the Bank’s economic impact procedures. 

The last reauthorization changed the economic impact procedures 

to include the effect of outstanding trade orders, preliminary injury 

determinations, and Section 201 investigations before determining 

the Bank’s financing of exports. This was an attempt to ensure that 

the Bank support for transactions not only helps U.S. exporters but 

also does not negatively impact domestic companies. 

The current system still has problems and tensions continue between companies on both sides of the issues. This has been demonstrated on loan guarantees involving steel, semiconductors, ethanol, and soda ash to name a couple. Although the vast majority 

of loan guarantees before the Bank should not be slowed down, 

some of the larger and more controversial loan guarantees do need 

to be better vetted. Otherwise, groups that believe they will be 

harmed by the loan guarantee are then forced to come to Congress 

and ask us for intervention. A better approach would be to establish a process which is fair and perceived to be fair by everybody 

so that the facts are all well-presented to the board and they can 

act accordingly. 

For our first panel today, we welcome Jim Lambright, the Acting 

Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank. Welcome, Mr. 

Lambright. At our last hearing, Jim Lambright suggested that ExIm could improve the economic impact process by making it more 

predictable, transparent, and by involving interested stakeholders 

in the process earlier. I completely agree with this and I appreciate 

Mr. Lambright’s willingness to work with our Subcommittee on 

these issues. 

52

Our second panel includes Steve Appleton, the CEO of Micron 

Technology, Inc. and Thomas Sneeringer, Governmental Affairs Director of United Steel Corporation. Both of these witnesses have 

considerable experience with the Export-Import Bank’s economic 

impact procedures and have specific suggestions on how procedures 

could be improved to provide greater fairness and transparency. 

I thank each of you for coming before the Committee this morning and I look forward to your testimony. 

Let me turn off my Blackberry so it does not keep beeping into 

the microphone. 

We will now proceed. I know that the witnesses have all received 

the instructions about testimony today. What we like to do, we 

have a little system of lights here to help you try to keep focused 

on the time limits. We ask you to keep your oral presentations to 

5 minutes and that will give us time to go through questions and 

answers. I always remind witnesses that if you are like me and like 

99 percent of all other witnesses, the 5 minutes run out before you 

run out of things to say. Please be assured that we will have an 

opportunity during the question and answer period with me and 

with other senators who will be here to get in the points that you 

want to make. So we just ask you to pay attention to the clock. 

With that Mr. Lambright, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. LAMBRIGHT

ACTING CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

happy to be here today to testify on Ex-Im Bank’s procedures involving economic impact. 

As I stated in my testimony of March 8, the mandate of the Bank 

is to preserve and create U.S. jobs by supporting U.S. exports that 

would not otherwise go forward. Consistent with this mandate ExIm Bank fully agrees with the principle that it should not approve 

a transaction that would, on balance, harm the U.S. economy. This 

is the foundation of our economic impact procedures. 

Decisions that raise economic impact considerations, however, 

are the most difficult the Bank must make because it weighs the 

interests of American workers against those of another. 

The Bank’s economic impact procedures are intended to lay out 

a reasonable and logical process for analyzing the impact of Ex-Im 

Bank support for a particular export transaction. Ex-Im Bank endeavors to implement the Congressional mandate in a thoughtful, 

considered, and transparent manner with full participation of interested stakeholders. 

In 2001, Ex-Im Bank recognized the shortcomings in the then-existing economic impact procedures and initiated a process to improve them. The process of vetting changes was extensive and included representation of all stakeholders. 

In March 2003, Ex-Im Bank released new procedures reflecting 

changes developed through public consultation as well as changes 

mandated by Congress in the Bank’s 2002 reauthorization. Many 

of the shortcomings of the prior economic impact analysis were addressed, including clearer criteria and definitions, broad consideration of trade measures, enhanced interagency consultation, and 

53

provision of notice to interested parties. As you noted in your opening, Mr. Chairman, since the new procedures took effect economic 

impact issues have arisen in a number of transactions, including 

those related to the production of textiles, chemicals, steel, semiconductors, soda ash, and solar panels. 

Ex-Im Bank must balance the need for inclusiveness with commercial practices that require efficiency and timeliness on transactions. While the Ex-Im Bank makes every effort to complete the 

economic impact analysis expeditiously, it requires a substantial 

dedication of staff resources, usually takes 8 to 10 weeks, and has 

even taken up to 1 year, depending on the extent to which the feedback and information obtained through the notice and comment period comport with the Bank’s analytical findings. 

For example, a lack of consensus among industry observers about 

the outlook on supply and demand balances can lead to an inconclusive finding on oversupply and may complicate the Bank’s analysis. 

Exporters have indicated that the delay and uncertainty associated with the Bank’s economic impact policy have, in some instances, frustrated their commercial relationships and caused them 

to lose export sales to foreign competitors. At the same time, the 

Bank must ensure that potential transactions are thoroughly vetted and all interested parties have an opportunity to be heard. 

The revisions of the economic impact procedures implemented in 

2003 have been successful from a number of perspectives. They 

clarified the criteria for Ex-Im Bank’s analysis and expanded participation by other U.S. Government agencies and stakeholders in 

the process. 

Yet, as you noted, the economic impact analysis continues to 

present challenging issues for Ex-Im Bank. Despite these challenges, Ex-Im Bank strives to implement the economic impact procedures so that they are transparent, predictable, effective, and fair 

to exporters, affected industries, and other interested parties. 

I look forward to working with you and the Committee to achieve 

these objectives and I would be happy to take any questions. Thank 

you. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Lambright. 

I do have a number of questions. I have been studying the flow 

chart of the economic impact policy to try to understand just exactly how economic impact decisions and trigger points are 

reached. And it actually is not one of the more complicated Government flow charts that I have seen. It is relatively comprehensible 

and I think that you guys should be commended for that. We need 

to just be sure that the substance in it is what we want to have. 

At our last hearing, you suggested that the Ex-Im Bank could 

improve the economic impact process by making it more predictable, transparent, and involving more stakeholders in the process 

at an earlier date. Could you elaborate on those points and give me 

a little more detail about what exactly it is you think that can be 

done to improve in those areas? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. While you note that 

we have worked hard to develop a clear flow chart of the decisions 

that need to be made, unfortunately at nearly every stage in that 

54

flow chart a debate can arise, depending on the facts of a particular 

case. 

Take the very first step. Some cases are subject to debate as to 

whether they implicate the procedures at all. For example, if the 

export is part of a plant but is only ancillary to production, does 

it expand production capacity? As an illustration, think of a dedicated power supply to a widget factory where our export would not 

be involved in making more widgets but it is certainly part of the 

overall operation. 

Right now, Ex-Im Bank errs on the side of inclusion but I think 

that exporters would benefit from more clarity in this case as to 

what even falls under the procedures. And we would be happy to 

work with the Committee on developing guidance on that front. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

We are going to get into some more details on each of these 

issues but, as you know, one of the questions or issues is whether 

a product in question will be in surplus or in oversupply at the 

time when it is marketed or when it is sold. It seems to me that 

is a really difficult calculation to make, and frankly reasonable people are going to have different points of view on that. 

How does the Ex-Im Bank or how should the Ex-Im Bank resolve 

that question? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. During the last reauthorization, the Bank went 

into the process of reauthorization with no definition and no indicators of how to think about that term surplus or oversupply. What 

was added in the last reauthorization was a list of possible indicators that the Bank should look to as guidance in assessing this 

oversupply question. But there is still no explicit definition. 

So we look to this list of indicators that includes Section 201 investigations or preliminary trade measure determinations, price 

dynamics—are they rising or falling? We look at bankruptcy or unemployment trends. We can even look at whether there are trade 

adjustment and assistance program petitions. 

In many cases, these indicators form a consensus view and it is 

an easy decision. As you noted, many of them are very difficult. 

But I think one thing that we may do to make it easier could be 

to explore finding a clearer definition that would add some more 

predictability or clarity. 

But I am not sure that there is an elegant solution that would 

eliminate contentiousness entirely, Mr. Chairman, because this is 

a test about predicting the future, forecasting global supply and demand dynamics of an industry several years out. And as you might 

imagine, especially when jobs are at stake, opinions can diverge 

dramatically as to what that future will look like. 

From my days in banking, I saw people make and lose fortunes 

speculating on the future dynamics of a commodity. So finding a 

consensus might be difficult. 

And so what we do with these indicators that guide us is we 

must judiciously assess all of the positions that are put forward in 

the process and work to develop the most reasonable set of assumptions for the board to consider. 

Senator CRAPO. Do you think we need to change or alter the 

process which the statute now sets forth and the indicators that 

the statute now requires? 

55

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Because there is an inherent likelihood for diverging opinions, given that this is looking forward to the future, 

there is some prognostication involved, and as you noted reasonable people can disagree. I do not know that we can eliminate that 

contentiousness entirely. But I do think that we could work with 

various industries, exporters, to try to explore a definition that perhaps we could all agree on, even though some people will still likely disagree in its application. 

Senator CRAPO. I think that would be very helpful because, as 

you indicated, people have made and lost fortunes trying to figure 

out what the market is going to do in a particular product. And yet 

that is exactly what you are asked to do, to determine whether to 

proceed with a loan or a loan guarantee. 

I do not know that I have the answer but I think it would be 

very helpful if some type of review process were undertaken in 

which participants were involved in a decisionmaking process or at 

least a review process to help identify not only the factors but also 

the decision points that need to be reached in terms of making that 

decision. 

Obviously nobody has a final answer to this or they would be 

probably the most sought-after investment adviser in the world. 

But I think that we can get to the point where we generate a process by which we have a much higher level of confidence. And so I 

would be encouraged by your suggestion that perhaps getting people together to analyze that would be a good idea. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. I would be happy to work on that in any way 

that the Committee would advise. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Let us go on. Another issue that comes up is in determining 

whether the product in question competes with U.S. production of 

a same or similar product. That is an easy thing to answer if it is 

the same product that we are talking about. But often what we 

find out, I am learning, is that there are similar products or products in the chain that manufacturing equipment can be utilized to 

make or that can be facilitated by the loan, even though they are 

not directly related to the proposed product that is at issue in the 

loan. 

The question that I have is how do you make the determination 

as to whether the product in question competes with another U.S. 

product that is the same or similar? And how do we improve that 

determination, if there is a way to do so? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. It seems like there were two parts of your question. The first is making the determination. If I understood the second part of your question correctly, it was also making sure that 

a borrower is going to use a machine as they say they would so 

that it is not producing other products that might also compete 

with U.S. firms. 

But both of those are things that we do investigate in the course 

of underwriting a transaction. First of all, we determine the magnitude of the competitive threat to U.S. firms by looking at where 

the foreign producer will sell this new output and then comparing 

that with the markets where U.S. firms are active so that we can 

try to measure the displacement of U.S. production that is at risk. 

56

In terms of determining whether a product is the same or similar, we have engineers that assess the technical elements of the export and advise us on the various uses to which that export could 

be put. We also work with other U.S. Government agencies that 

may have expertise in certain industries in coming to a conclusion 

of whether this is a competitive product. But we try to be inclusive 

in that definition so that we are not ignoring a potential threat to 

U.S. industry. 

Senator CRAPO. It would seem to me that this is one area where 

getting the proposals publicly vetted at an early stage would significantly benefit the Ex-Im Bank analysts because, as wonderful 

and as smart as they are, I do not think that they are necessarily 

experts in every product in every market. If we were to have the 

public availability of what is being considered accomplished at an 

earlier stage, then those who might feel that there is a competing 

product or a circumstance involved could then provide that information and help the analysis at an earlier stage. 

Would you agree with that? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. There seems to be a lot of merit in that and we 

can explore ways to introduce that part of the process earlier. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Another aspect of this, which I do not even have any idea how 

we would solve is that often, although we might be trying to analyze whether a certain set of manufacturing equipment can be used 

for this process or that process or product, in a significant sense 

financing is fungible. And if money is utilized for a totally unrelated aspect of a business but is provided for that, then that can 

free up money inside that company or that business for what may 

not be a related product but would be money that is related because the company is manufacturing it and they have freed up assets in another area. 

Is that kind of issue discussed? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. It is certainly discussed but, as you noted, it can 

be a difficult question to resolve because money is fungible and it 

may be difficult to identify all the potential uses to which a firm 

might put its funds. But we certainly do look at whether an overseas firm or even a country generally is subject to any kind of a 

U.S. Government trade measure so that if a foreign entity has been 

determined by the U.S. Government to be an unfair competitor, 

then that would certainly limit our interest in working with that 

borrower. 

Senator CRAPO. I can see that in terms of any trade circumstances where a competitor has already been identified as 

being in violation of some kind of a trade rule but it seems to me 

the question goes even more broadly to those who are not engaging 

in unfair conduct in any way, it is just that they are competitors 

and money is fungible. And it seems to me to be a very difficult—

I do not have an answer for you. It just seems to me to be a very 

difficult issue. 

I wonder is that issue even a factor in the economic analysis at 

this point? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. It is not a formal factor mentioned in our procedures, but certainly if interested parties raise that issue with us it 

is something we can take into account. 

57

Senator CRAPO. Then you can and do take it into account. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. We can take it into account although, as you 

noted, it can be difficult to decide what to do with that information. 

But it is certainly something that we can explore. 

Senator CRAPO. Right. 

To move on, when loan applicants claim that the Ex-Im Bank financing is warranted because private sector financing is not available or because there is some market failure of some kind, what 

kind of documentation do you currently require from applicants to 

demonstrate that this is the case? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. This is certainly a concern of ours and it is part 

of our due diligence up front in a transaction. We pay close attention to the markets. We follow a number of banks and we look for 

an absence of commercial financing in these transactions. 

Programmatically as well, we are comfortable that our transactions have the element of additionality which is the term we use 

for the characteristics you are describing. 

We do very little direct lending. There is always a commercial 

bank involved in our transactions. And so the commercial banks 

can let us know when this is a transaction ripe for commercial 

lending. 

But to your question about documentation, this is something that 

we do as part of our due diligence. I am not aware that we require 

anything formally in writing. 

Senator CRAPO. So maybe you have just answered this question, 

but do you require the applicant, for example, to provide to you, for 

example, the last 3 years of their capital raising efforts and the 

success or failure of them? Or do you require them to provide to 

you applications for commercial financing that have been rejected 

so that they can establish that they have not been able to get financing? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. No, Mr. Chairman, we do not go so far as that 

in our analysis of additionality. What we have found is that these 

are hard fought transactions and if it is too difficult or too unattractive for a borrower to document their failure to obtain funds, 

it might increase the attractiveness of foreign-made products. So 

we try to strike a balance in our due diligence of investigating the 

question. We understand that it is central to our mission and so 

we do not want to be doing transactions that violate this 

additionality standard. But we also need to realize that we are a 

participant in private sector transactions and try to keep pace with 

those transactions. 

Senator CRAPO. Do you have any concerns that the banks, for example, that you might be working with would have a financial interest in having you conclude that the loan would be something you 

should proceed with? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Yes Senator, although generally they would 

make more money doing it themselves if they found it to be a creditworthy transaction. So, I think the profit they make on an Ex-Im 

Bank transaction is very thin. So we really step in as a lender of 

last resort. 

Programmatically our policies are structured so that we are not 

anybody’s first choice for financing and really we come in where we 

are needed to fill a market gap or to meet competition. 

58

Senator CRAPO. Another related issue is the question of whether 

a foreign export credit agency will provide the support if we do not. 

I know that is often a question that is raised or an issue that is 

raised. 

What proof is provided in those cases that a foreign export credit 

agency will provide financing if the Ex-Im Bank does not go forward and that the U.S. exporter would lose that business? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. I think both the question and my answer will 

follow our last exchange because again this is an area that we investigate, and take very seriously. Again, it is a central tenet to our 

mission that we are here to level the playing field against foreign 

government supported financing. 

And yet, to your question, we are not receiving formal reports 

from borrowers as to the offer that a foreign export credit agency 

might have on the table. 

And again it gets to the issue that these are hard fought transactions. We work with our counterpart export credit agencies in the 

OECD to try to set up rules that level the playing field. And so we 

do have procedures that we can pursue through the OECD to make 

sure that these rules are being followed. But in a transaction specific instance, the pace of the transaction may not permit waiting 

for a fully authorized foreign offer. It may put the U.S. export at 

risk. 

Senator CRAPO. You indicated some OECD procedures and so 

forth and that there was communication back and forth between 

you and other similar operations. Is that level of communication 

sufficient, in your opinion, that you can have confidence in the 

judgment that the Ex-Im Bank will make as to whether there is, 

in fact, an alternative source of financing? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. I do not put that forward as an answer to a specific transaction. What I was suggesting is that it sets a general 

framework for export credit agency behavior. I know that the U.S. 

Ex-Im Bank follows those rules, as do most other export credit 

agencies in the world. 

So it sets a framework for behavior. It allows us to have relationships with these other export credit agencies so that we can investigate suggestions that there would be offers. But on any particular 

transaction we do need to go further than that. We try to work 

with the export credit agency to confirm the terms of the offer. 

Sometimes we are able to do that, sometimes we are not. We try 

not just to rely on a simple allegation made by one party. We do 

try to corroborate it. 

But at the end of the day we do not have a formal requirement 

for written proof of an offer. 

Senator CRAPO. Would having such a formal requirement of written proof of the offer pose a problem? In other words, would it slow 

down the process or make it so that the system could not work 

well? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. I would want to think about that and talk to 

some of our exporters, lenders, and borrowers about that. My sense 

is that we ask about it, we do investigate it but that we are not 

demanding formal written proof either because the pace of the 

transaction does not allow it. But my fear really, Mr. Chairman, 

would be that if we would have such a formal requirement that by 

59

waiting for verification from a foreign export credit agency to confirm a formal authorization the deal may be done and U.S. exporter 

competitiveness would be damaged. 

Senator CRAPO. The deal being the alternate credit agency would 

actually do the deal? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Right. Exactly. 

Senator CRAPO. So it seems to me that if an applicant were to 

say look, if you do not do the deal with us, we are going to do at 

it with XYZ foreign credit agency, that it should be something that 

is relatively simple to say to the applicant have you made an application? And if so, can you produce it to us? Am I just oversimplifying the issue? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. I understand your concerns, Mr. Chairman, and 

I think that it is a topic that we would certainly be willing to explore with you of where the appropriate line to draw would be. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. And again, I do not profess to be an 

expert in these areas like you and your analysts are, and frankly 

a lot of the participants in the industry are. But it seems to me 

that from what I have observed there is a lot of representations 

and allegations that are made from all sides that seem to be able 

to be verifiable, if we had the time and the connections to be able 

to do so, or if we had the requirements that the applicant be prepared to document facts. 

I think the same would probably be true about those who were 

objecting, maybe not just the applicant but the objectors may be required to document some of the financial information or conclusions 

that they are suggesting that the analysts reached in the process. 

Another issue is input to our Ex-Im analysts from other sources. 

For example, would it be useful to the Bank and the Bank’s economic impact assessment to be able to get greater input from agencies like the Department of Commerce and others that may have 

greater expertise in some of the industries that are subject to the 

economic analysis being done? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, we certainly put a great value 

on the input that we get from other agencies and it might be useful 

to explore the role of these other agencies’ inputs. Today, our procedures reach out to other agencies at the end of the process. We 

could explore the practicality of changing the timing of that as well 

as the extent of the interagency involvement in the process and 

how their input is to fit into our decisionmaking. 

We certainly get a lot of value from the expertise that these 

agencies bring and any guidance on how to use that information in 

the process would be helpful. 

Senator CRAPO. It does seem to me that is probably an avenue 

of significant help. 

Another issue, has the Bank ever looked into policies or practices 

of other Government agencies such as, for example, the International Trade Commission, to try to see how they approach these 

same types of issues in terms of due process and transparency or 

economic impact provisions? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Yes. At the time of the last reauthorization, the 

Ex-Im Bank staff conducted a broad survey of best practices that 

we could bring to bear on our process, and one of the valuable additions that we made at that time was introducing the public notice 

60

and comment period, so that interested parties, not just the participants of the transaction, but any interested party, would have an 

opportunity to voice concerns in the process. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. This question, I suspect you might 

have guessed you were going to get. There are some who are concerned about previous economic impact analyses that the Bank has 

done, and on a subject related to economic impact procedures, some 

of my colleagues are concerned by that application by the Ex-Im 

Bank of the test as to whether the issuance of credit or financial 

guarantees by the Bank will cause substantial injury to producers. 

Namely, they are concerned that the credit insurance was issued 

to help finance the construction of an ethanol dehydration plant in 

Trinidad and Tobago, although this extension of credit resulted in 

substantial injury as defined by the Ex-Im Bank’s authorizing statute to U.S. producers, and that is the concern that I know you are 

very aware that some of my colleagues have raised. 

I assume you are familiar with these issues. Are you confident 

that the Ex-Im Bank staff are aware of the current statutory limits 

on credit insurance? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. I am familiar with the concerns of your colleagues, Mr. Chairman. I have drawn upon my staff to look into 

this matter thoroughly, and they have kept me well-informed of 

Congressional concerns. 

As for Bank staff, I consider it my responsibility to ensure that 

staff are fully aware of the statutory constraints surrounding our 

ability to extend credit. I have done that. I consider it an important 

part of my job, and, yes, I am confident that staff is aware of those 

limits. 

Senator CRAPO. As you may be aware, there is at least one Senator and probably others who would like to see some kind of an 

analysis of this particular transaction by the Inspector General’s 

Office, but you do not have an Inspector General’s Office operating 

right now; is that correct? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. That is correct. We have appropriated funds, but 

we do not have a nominated or confirmed Inspector General. 

Senator CRAPO. When did the funds get appropriated? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. In this fiscal year cycle. 

Senator CRAPO. This current fiscal year cycle? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Right, for the first time. 

Senator CRAPO. So you now have the funds, but you do not have 

the nominee. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Right. 

Senator CRAPO. Do you have any other employees in this office 

of the IG? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. No. This would be the first time that we would 

have the Inspector General function inside the Bank. 

Senator CRAPO. So for those who would like to see an IG investigation into this particular transaction, is there any way that we 

could proceed without having to wait for the nomination and then 

confirmation of the IG, him or herself? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I am as interested as anyone in 

reaching a resolution on this matter, and I would like to move as 

quickly as possible in addressing the Senators’ concerns on this 

transaction. And I stand ready to refer the matter to an Inspector 

61

General as soon as we have one, and I would be willing to explore 

any alternatives to that in terms of referring the matter to an outside party. I am not in a position to know whether we are able to 

do that or not. 

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate your willingness to consider these 

other alternatives, because I, too, would like to get this issue resolved as promptly as possible, and see if we cannot move forward 

and really get past it. We seem to be stuck just with the procedural 

fact that the President and Congress have not appropriated the 

money and nominated and confirmed the nominee for Inspector 

General fast enough to be able to address it, at least at the pace 

that I would like to see it addressed. 

I am going to be exploring other alternatives with those who are 

concerned, and I appreciate your willingness to work with us on 

those alternatives. Hopefully, we can find an agreeable approach to 

this that does not require us to have to wait for the IG’s office to 

become fully functional. 

I believe those are all the questions that I have right now. I want 

to come back to the very first question that I asked, and just ask 

you, again, looking at this from the perspective of this Committee 

and its effort at reauthorization—I guess what I am saying is looking at the potential for statutory reform, statutory provisions that 

will address the economic impact analysis process, are there any 

specific statutory provisions that you believe we need to include, either changing some existing provisions to improve them, or adding 

some new provisions that would help to improve the process? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, the Bank has come into the reauthorization process requesting a fairly clean bill. In the area of 

economic impact, while we recognize that the process certainly can 

benefit from refinement, I think most of the ideas that I have 

heard or that we have contemplated may not rise to the level of 

a statutory change. Rather, they are a process or implementation 

change. I would be open to hearing any ideas that you are hearing, 

or that you think may not rise to the level of a statutory change, 

but that the Bank should be considering nonetheless. And if in exploring any of the ideas that we have heard from interested parties, if any of them strike me as rising to the level of a statutory 

change, I will certainly continue to remain in contact with you and 

your office on this. 

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate that, Mr. Lambright. I would like to 

first of all thank you. The willingness to work with the Committee 

that you have just expressed is something that you have proven by 

your conduct in the past to be something that you are sincere 

about, and I appreciate the fact that you are so willing to work 

with us, because it gets a lot easier when we are able to talk these 

things over, find solutions, and then agree on moving forward. In 

that way we have to do much less legislating, which I think in the 

end is better. 

With that, I do not have any further questions, and so we appreciate you coming today, Mr. Lambright, and you are excused. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. We will now invite our second panel to come up 

to the table. 

62

Mr. Lambright, you did not get away from the table fast enough. 

One of my colleagues had asked me if I would ask you a question 

for him. Senator Enzi is not able to be here, so if it is okay, I would 

like to bring you back to the table and ask you to answer one more 

question. 

Mr. Appleton, you can stay right there because this should not 

take very long. 

I apologize. You should jump up fast when you are released from 

your testimony. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator Enzi has asked that I ask you the following question. He 

indicates that it is his understanding that the Export-Import Bank 

is considering an application to finance the purchase of refurbished 

locomotives by a soda ash facility in Kenya. It is his understanding 

also that the Export-Import Bank only considers the negative economic impact that these locomotives will have during the life of the 

loan. Locomotives will certainly last longer than the life of the loan, 

and it would seem to him, and I would agree with him, that the 

economic impact analysis should consider the full impact of such a 

transaction over the life of the entity, not over just the life of the 

loan. 

At any point during the process, does the Export-Import Bank 

evaluate the full impact of such a transaction, and if not, why? 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. The useful life of the export is a substantial factor in setting the term of our support, and while certain exports 

may have a life that extends beyond the term of our support, it 

does provide an objective method for calculation, and if we keyed 

our analysis to useful life, it may open us up to yet another point 

for debate as to exactly how long this piece of equipment might 

last, and under what circumstances it might have enhanced or diminished longevity. 

But let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleague, that 

our staff is quite cognizant of the potential threats from this transaction. They are working seriously on assessing those potential 

threats to U.S. industry. We have already had our public notice period where we have received comments from interested parties. It 

has not yet gone to other agencies for comment. And as it proceeds, 

we will continue to keep your office and his fully apprised of any 

developments. 

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate that, and like I said, I have confidence when you make the representation that you will approach 

it in that way, that you will do so. This may be an issue that we 

would want to mandate that you evaluate. I know you just said 

that it is tough, but this may be one that the question of looking 

at the full life of the product or the process might be something 

that we will want to be sure that the Agency does figure out a way 

to evaluate. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. And I would appreciate the opportunity to participate in that analysis of finding a way to address this concern. 

Senator CRAPO. All right, Thank you very much. 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. And now you are excused if you move fast. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAMBRIGHT. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. 

63

Senator CRAPO. We would like to welcome our second panel here 

today. As I indicated earlier, our Panel No. 2 consists of Mr. Steve 

Appleton, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Micron Technology, 

Inc., and we welcome you here with us, Mr. Appleton; and Mr. 

Thomas Sneeringer, Governmental Affairs Director of the United 

States Steel Corporation. Mr. Sneeringer, we welcome you as well. 

We will begin with you, Mr. Appleton, and you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. APPLETON

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRESIDENT, MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 

Mr. APPLETON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify before this Subcommittee regarding 

the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of United States. I 

will keep my comments brief, but I have submitted a more detailed 

version of my statement for your review. 

Senator CRAPO. And I should have said all witnesses’ full statements will be made a part of the record. 

Mr. APPLETON. Thank you. Let me start by saying I appreciate 

the work of the Ex-Im Bank in encouraging exports from the 

United States, and the work of this Committee in authorizing and 

overseeing funding for the Bank. These activities have clearly had 

an advancing effect on the interests of the United States. 

However, I would like to also share a perspective that highlights 

how these efforts might be improved. First, a little background on 

Micron. I could spend all my time telling you Micron’s history, but 

in recognition of your time and the others here, let me sum it up 

this way. In the last 25 years, there have been over 40 companies 

that have manufactured a computer memory chip known as a 

DRAM. Today, there are only five still developing this technology, 

one in the United States—that is us—one in Japan, one in Europe, 

and two in Korea. 

Most of this consolidation was the result of nonmarket artificial 

manipulations, in other words, directed Government subsidies, but 

that is another story for another day. So regardless of the reasons 

that there are not many of us left, Micron has survived as one of 

the most competitive and innovative memory producers in the 

world, with operations in Japan, Europe, the Far East, obviously 

in the United States in many location, Idaho, Utah, Virginia, California, Texas, Minnesota, et cetera. So we have a large presence 

and we are a very competitive company. 

So with that background in mind, you can appreciate my surprise when I discovered in August 2004, that the Ex-Im Bank was 

considering $500 million in loan guarantees to a DRAM competitor 

in China, a company called Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, also known as SMIC. Now, SMIC is a foundry that manufactures product for both themselves and others, including memory like the DRAM and NAND flash chips that Micron 

makes and sells today. 

SMIC, at that time, had three semiconductor facilities in China. 

They were financed with a mix of private equity, loans from Chinese banks, and vendor financing. Most of the equipment it purchased for these three factories was from U.S.-based equipment 

suppliers, so it was even more perplexing to me that SMIC could 

64

claim to need Ex-Im Bank financing in order to purchase manufacturing equipment. 

So what happens when a constituent hears about something happening in Washington they have a lot of concerns about? They 

come to Washington, and indeed, I did. In fact, I met with most of 

the Ex-Im Bank Board Members and various agencies, and guess 

what I found out? The $500 million request had, without notice, 

turned into $1.2 billion for an already over-supplied market to 

produce product for our competitors, under the umbrella that the 

dollars would be used for making products that did not compete 

with us, with a claim that Japan was going to provide the financing if the United States did not, and force them to buy all Japanese 

equipment, along the lines of the issues you were asking Mr. 

Lambright before. Of course, this turned out to not be the case. 

As you might imagine, we objected based on the available data, 

and hired an economic consulting firm to further study the issue. 

They performed an independent economic impact analysis, which 

we submitted to the Ex-Im Bank. Fortunately, then-Chairman and 

President Phillip Merrill, reviewed all of the available data, and as 

you know, Mr. Chairman, including the submitted analysis by the 

economist that we had provided, and made the determination that 

the SMIC request did not meet some of the required criteria, and 

would need further review, at which point SMIC chose not to pursue the loan. 

As a result of this experience, I have detailed a number of recommendations that I mentioned in my written comments to improve the Ex-Im Bank process, but let me just focus on a couple 

of them. 

First, more detailed information should be provided in the Federal Register notice, and if there any significant changes—as I mentioned there were in the loan amount—from the original notice, the 

Ex-Im Bank should be required to issue another request for public 

comment. 

Second, the public comment period should be extended from 14 

days to a minimum of 30 days, and the period of time the interagency group has to review the proposed deal should also be extended. 

So, in summary, I believe these changes, along with the others 

submitted, will be useful in future instances that may affect companies like Micron. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Appleton. 

Mr. Sneeringer, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. SNEERINGER

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION

ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE 

Mr. SNEERINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for this opportunity to appear. I am appearing for the American Iron and Steel 

Institute, of which U.S. Steel is a member, and we have been as 

active as we can be at the Ex-Im on steel issue. We also find a 

great value to the Bank, I will not take the time now to talk about 

that, but, as many people as are in this room cannot all be wrong. 

65

The Bank is obviously addressing a very important need in the 

economy. 

I would like to draw your attention and the Subcommittee’s attention to some thoughts that occur to us after working on steel 

issues at the Ex-Im as long as we have, and I could summarize it 

in three points. 

Number one. The Ex-Im Bank should not be in the business of 

undermining a primary negotiating objective of the United States 

to eliminate steel subsidies around the world. 

Number two. The Ex-Im Bank should not be in the business of 

enabling circumvention of trade law remedy orders after they have 

been won. 

And third, those of us who wish to have a greater role in helping 

the Bank make the right decision, as Mr. Appleton has suggested, 

can think of a number of ways in which it would be easier for us 

to do that, and we think beneficial to the Bank. Let me cover each 

of these very quickly. 

On the subsidization issue, the steel industry operates in a distorted market. In a real market, a persistent or a permanent oversupply of product could not exist. When supply exceeds demand, 

the price falls, the least competitive companies fall off the bottom 

of the list, and some kind of equilibrium is attained. Never, ever, 

ever does that happen in the steel industry, and that is because the 

market is deeply distorted through governmental intervention. This 

can take the form of high tariffs, opaque nontariff barriers, currency manipulation, et cetera, but the primary cause of the market 

distortion in the steel world is subsidies. 

Our Government knows that. The Clinton Administration found 

it in a deeply detailed study done in 2000, and in 2001, newly elected-President Bush instructed the USTR and the Commerce Secretary to initiate worldwide talks to eliminate steel subsidies. The 

U.S. position, going into those talks, and maintained ever since, is 

that all governments should get out of all steel making. Those talks 

have been very unsatisfying, I am afraid to say, because what 

quickly happened is that the rest of the world divided into two 

camps. The developing countries wanted off the hook, and the developed countries wanted their existing subsidies grandfathered 

and their new subsidies green-lighted. If nothing else, it confirmed 

what we already know, and that is that governments all over that 

world are addicted to subsidizing their steel industries. 

Now comes the Ex-Im Bank. When the Ex-Im Bank subsidizes 

construction of excess capacity elsewhere in the world through finance support or any other means at its disposal, it does two 

things. It helps to create additional overcapacity in a flooded market, and it undermines the negotiating posture of the United States 

in trying to get other governments to give up their subsidies. Every 

time the Ex-Im Bank subsidizes steel capacity in other countries, 

the way I see it is it cuts another inch off the bottom of the negotiating chair at the steel subsidy talks on circumvention. All this excess steel that is floating around looking for a home finds its home 

in North America, and largely in the United States. That is because we have no tariffs, no real nontariff barriers, and we have 

customers who are always happy to pay less than the real price of 

steel in their cost-cutting efforts. 

66

So we bring trade law cases to defend ourselves. We win orders 

and, immediately, the respondents go into a deep circumvention exercise: Trans-shipping, yes; fraud, yes; but more often just shifting 

products and switching countries. Some of the ideas that have been 

put forward in anticipation of this hearing address that kind of circumvention. The Ex-Im Bank should not be in the business of helping people build capitol equipment that is going to help them take 

their steel products one more step downstream in order to avoid orders, and it should not help them build steel capacity in other 

countries to get around the order. 

Last, on administrative procedures, we have not found the procedures at the Ex-Im Bank to be particularly transparent. We do not 

feel that we have been reached out to the way the Bank promised 

we would be. It is very easy to contact the steel industry. Contacting one person at the American Iron and Steel Institute will do 

it. We are highly organized. I would add, finally, that all the suggestions that have been made in terms of notification to the Congress, et cetera, we support. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Sneeringer. I have 

some questions—some will be specific, but several I think would be 

the type that both of you could respond to. 

Mr. Appleton, first of all, thank you again for coming before the 

Committee today and for helping us to analyze this issue. I know 

that because of the time limits you were not able to go into all of 

the recommendations that are contained in your written testimony. 

Could you give us an overview, maybe, and a little more detail of 

some of the changes that you think should be made to the Ex-Im 

Bank procedures to increase the fairness and the process for companies like yours? 

And, Mr. Sneeringer, I am going to ask you the same question. 

Mr. Appleton. 

Mr. APPLETON. First of all, let me just start out by saying, and 

I think echoing some of the comments made by my peer, that the 

process of transparency in general needs to be improved. When we 

talk about the Register notice and what is in the Register notice, 

there is not a lot in there. In order to adequately respond, we need 

to be able to understand a lot more about what is being requested 

of the Ex-Im in order for us to go through the three things that 

are important on the transparency side. When you think about 

what the economic impact analysis is supposed to do, it is supposed 

to look at oversupply, it is supposed to look at competing product, 

and whether there is harm or injury, and those are relatively all 

detailed, involved items to look at, and we need time to do that, 

which was the other thing that I had mentioned about we need 

more time than what is allowed for the comment period. 

Now, specifically, if you look at some of the things surrounding—

you know as you look around this impact economic analysis, what 

is it that we are trying to avoid, or what is it that we are trying 

to accomplish? An application is made today, and there are a lot 

of assertions, as you had mentioned, regrading things around the 

application, like is there really another Government agency that is 

willing to loan the money? In the example that I provided, that 

company said that another country was waiting in the wings in 

67

order to provide this money, and require them to all buy non-U.S. 

equipment or Japanese equipment, and they asserted that many 

times, both in the discussions I think over a number of months. 

And in fact, when the Ex-Im Bank loan guarantee did not occur, 

as a result of them not pursuing it, none of that ever happened. 

It just evaporated, although it was a guarantee, it was a done deal, 

if we were willing to step up. So your comment earlier, I think, of 

Mr. Lambright about what kind of proof do you require, we need 

written proof around those kinds of things, that in fact, there has 

been a market failure, that you cannot go to the market and access 

the money, that in fact, there is a Government agency that is in 

waiting and so forth. Those things and the specifics of them are 

very important, and I think you are on the right line of inquiry as 

to what we can do about that. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sneeringer, same question? 

Mr. SNEERINGER. Mr. Chairman, what we are looking for is an 

opportunity to share what we consider relevant information, and 

information that the Bank says it takes into consideration. I imagine they have their independent sources, but there is just no better 

source on what is going on in the steel market than the steel industry itself, because we study it every day. 

For example, on subsidies, we have comprehensive information 

on what the subsidy picture is going to look like and the capacity 

picture is going to look like in the future, because we vigilantly 

cover every announcement by every government about what it is 

going to build, how much the new ‘‘investment’’ is going to lead to 

in terms of additional tonnage, who is going to own it, et cetera. 

Attached to my prepared testimony is the most recent paper that 

we submitted in to the OECD on exactly that subject. When an application is pending before the Ex-Im Bank relating to global steel 

production, we would like to explain what we know about subsidization and capacity growth in the markets involved. 

Similarly, on circumvention, I know that there has been some resistance at the Bank to employ this one or two steps upstream or 

downstream formulation that was in the legislative history of the 

last amendments, and that is suggested might be incorporated into 

the statute. In our case, it is easy to implement if you are in the 

normal process of steel making. If you have an order against hotrolled steel, we know that people can take it one step downstream 

to cold-rolled, or they can coat it, or they can paint it, and any of 

these processed will allow them to get out from under the order. 

So, in the steel industry, this proposed rule can be relatively easy 

to apply. But it is not always easy to apply, and one could make 

a big mistake applying it mechanically. For example, if you went 

upstream in steel, say you had a hot-rolled order, you would have 

trouble getting the whole way upstream to iron ore or scrap, or a 

scrap substitute. So it does not always work. 

The objective, however, is to help the Bank understand when 

something might be being done for the purpose of circumvention. 

We have a very strong case to present to them on that. Basically, 

we do not know what cases will be considered. We get 14 days 

when a proposed financing finally surfaces. Very minimal information is available. We do not know exactly what steel products are 

68

involved. We sometimes have trouble even telling what the country 

is until the very last minute. 

So, I embrace everything that Mr. Appleton said about extending 

the comment period from 14 to 30 days. I also wish there was more 

of a mandatory outreach to the trade associations that are involved. In addition, there are government agencies—going back to 

the subsidies negotiating objective principle—that are there at the 

table at these steel subsidy talks. I am sure they put their oar in 

the water ultimately at the Ex-Im Bank, but, they should be consulted right off the bat. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. It seems to me that a 

theme that both of you have been talking about is apparent here, 

and that is that as the Ex-Im Bank approaches making, obviously, 

very difficult analysis, that it can be benefited in that by getting 

an early, aggressive, and complete expression of the issue out to 

the public so that those who know whether the potential for circumvention is there, and if so, why, can contact and let the Bank 

analysts know what is going on. 

Mr. SNEERINGER. It does not necessarily mean that they are triggering an outcry of opposition. It might or it might not end up 

there, but we want to have a reasoned opportunity to present facts 

that we have and they do not have. 

Senator CRAPO. Right. First of all, let me say, both of your sets 

of written testimony were very well-prepared and have a significant amount of very helpful information in it, and I appreciate 

that. I am assuming, because both of you have tended to focus on 

this aspect of the public involvement and the notice and comment 

opportunities, that is probably the most important—not that we 

would ignore the rest—but that is probably the most important 

area for us to focus on; am I correct in that, Mr. Appleton? 

Mr. APPLETON. Yes. Clearly, as I mentioned, when I first had 

learned, inadvertently almost, what was happening in our particular case on a loan going to the competitor in China, you know, 

I came to Washington and spent some time here, and I am glad 

that I did. I learned a lot more that was without notice by spending 

time with those that were involved, things that probably never 

would have surfaced. There was no transparency to it. And, of 

course, it heightened the issue. 

Senator CRAPO. One of the other suggestions that has been made 

is that when a final economic analysis is reached by the agency, 

that be made public and available for comment. Do you have any 

suggestions or thoughts on that? 

Mr. APPLETON. Yes. If you do not mind, let me start. 

Mr. SNEERINGER. Sure. 

Mr. APPLETON. I completely agree. And because what happens 

is—by the way, we never did see it. We never do see what that is, 

so it is hard for an industry to voice input and provide concerns 

when it never sees the analysis. That kind of goes without saying. 

Mr. SNEERINGER. I agree it should be made available to the public. But I also like the provision that has been suggested that it be 

reported to the Congressional Committees of jurisdiction. I think 

you have a right to know. 

Senator CRAPO. And that the Committee receive the economic 

analysis. 

69

Mr. SNEERINGER. Can I just make two other points? 

Yes, we are interested in procedural changes but there are two 

statutory changes that I would like to highlight. One is to be very 

clear that the $10 million threshold cannot be ducked under 

through disaggregation of projects. We have had that occur in the 

steel industry where there was an application for financing—I forget the exact number—it might have been $30 million. But we 

were not hearing about it because it was being sliced into a series 

of projects that were under $10 million each. So we think that is 

a very important point. 

Also, going back to circumvention, again I do not know if one or 

two steps upstream or downstream can even be legislated. I know 

it would very difficult to word it. And it would be dangerous to try 

to employ it mechanically. 

On the other hand, I really think there should be some changes 

in the law that require the Bank to take into account the possibility that the project that they are subsidizing is for the purpose 

of circumventing a trade order. So that would cover both additional 

machinery in the country where the firm was caught dumping or 

creation of new capacity in a second country that would be owned 

by the firm under order so they could export product in the United 

States and avoid the order. 

Senator CRAPO. Those are very helpful, thank you. 

Moving to another issue, what are you respective thoughts about 

the notion that I raised with Mr. Lambright about making sure 

that we have increased and adequate participation by other Government agencies that have expertise in the area of the particular 

proposal? 

Mr. SNEERINGER. The agencies that we know the most about are 

the ones that are involved in trade cases and that would be Commerce and the ITC. Certainly when you talk about negotiating postures around the world, although Commerce is the lead agency, 

USTR would be involved. And I do believe that they ultimately, can 

and do put their oar in the water at the Bank. 

But I think early consultation with those agencies is very important and I am really not aware of the extent to which the Bank 

goes to the ITC. The ITC is also a fabulous wealth of information, 

in our case, on how the steel market operates, and what competes 

with what. 

When the ITC investigated our safeguard action, known as the 

Section 201 case, it divided the entire steel market into only four 

pieces because there is so much competition within each piece. 

Each industry segment covered as many as 20 or more products 

but the division took into account what competes with what. So, I 

think that type of information is important to the analysis conducted by the Bank. 

Mr. APPLETON. I completely agree with his comments on the 

Agency and let me just add one other which we also found helpful 

in the time that we spent looking at some of these issues, and that 

was the Treasury Department, given their expertise in the financial markets. 

I know Mr. Lambright mentioned the evaluation that goes into 

the probabilities and the financial expertise of these other agencies 

70

and the capability and market principles and I think they could be 

helpful there as well. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

In the same context, we have say the Commerce Department, the 

Treasury Department, the ITC, and others who I assume are in the 

business of making similar types of economic analysis in other contexts but similar types of analysis. Are there any examples there 

of those types of Government agencies who have already addressed 

these questions of transparency and due process that we could look 

to see how perhaps we could improve things at the Export-Import 

Bank? 

Mr. APPLETON. Absolutely. If you look at the processes that are 

in place at both Commerce and ITC, and of course USTR, and how 

they work together, they have pretty good precedents and pretty 

good process for transparency and how to work through these. 

Mr. SNEERINGER. I agree. And I know the Bank is concerned 

about proprietary information and that is one of the reasons we get 

so little information when we ask for it. The fact is they could look 

at the ITC’s procedures for redacting and publishing parallel documents that leave Business Proprietary Information out. I think we 

should be able to learn more than we do at the Bank and without 

jeopardizing the economic well-being of the applicant. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I think these are some hopefully very 

productive areas we can look into to try to move this in the right 

direction. 

Another question, you have both discussed the economic analysis 

that you had to deal with in your particular circumstances. What 

factors did the Ex-Im Bank examine when looking at economic impact in your cases? 

Mr. APPLETON. Let me just highlight one that I think is important that you noted earlier in a question that you had of Mr. 

Lambright. 

Right now there is an oversupply calculation, forecast that is required. I am sure it is this way for the steel industry and it is certainly that way for the semiconductor industry. These markets are 

difficult, if not impossible, to forecast beyond about six minutes, 

much less 6 months or a couple of years. And it seems to me that 

the focus has been on what is going to happen 2 years from now. 

And if there is a forecast that somehow says the market is going 

to be fine 2 years from now that then over weights what is going 

on currently in the industry. 

It just strikes me as odd that the current industry has little to 

no bearing, as opposed to a forecast of something that might happen on whether there is going to be an oversupply in the market. 

One other comment that I want to make really along the regards 

of fungibility. A lot of these assets are about can you be injured or 

not? And what are the assets going to be used to produce? And 

they are fungible. It is almost like pouring a cup of water into a 

bucket of water. It just disappears because in this particular case, 

in semiconductor equipment, when you are buying advance semiconductor equipment, you can use it to build a number of semiconductors. It does not just have to be the one that is particularly 

a competing product. 

71

That goes along the lines of how do you determine what is a competing or a similar or like product. And we think that in that analysis it needs to look at not only the potential but also the probability of the capacity being used for a competing product. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Sneeringer. 

Mr. SNEERINGER. The question is what factors went into the economic analysis in cases we were interested in. At risk of sounding 

glib, for reasons stated earlier, we do not have the foggiest idea. 

Senator CRAPO. So therefore the earlier comments about the public notice getting engaged earlier and perhaps being able to see the 

economic analysis or have access to the information, even if it has 

to be redacted, would be very helpful? 

Mr. SNEERINGER. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

I want to go just a little further into the question that Mr. Appleton just raised or the issue that Mr. Appleton just raised and that 

is this notion of trying to predict into the future whether there is 

going to be an oversupply. 

I too think that it raises a question. If there is currently an oversupply, why would that not be the biggest factor rather than a projection about what may be the case a couple of years down the 

road? 

Mr. Appleton, you can elaborate on that if you want, and Mr. 

Sneeringer, I would like to have your thoughts on that as well. 

Mr. SNEERINGER. I will go first. If we just took the existing capacity of the steel industry right now and looked at history where, 

as I said before, no matter how low the price gets the least competitive companies do not fall off the bottom of the list, I would say 

it is going to be static. But I do not have to rely on that kind of 

deduction. 

Attached to my statement is a detailed report on announcements 

made by foreign governments about capacity they are going to 

build well into the future, at least to 2012. It is pretty frightening. 

It is very detailed. Our experience is that a lot of this new capacity 

does get built and very little of the existing capacity gets taken 

down in the process. 

In the case of steel what is now an oversupply will only get 

worse. We can quote the foreign governments for that proposition. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Appleton, do you want to go into that any 

further? 

Mr. APPLETON. I just want to expand it slightly and that is, I 

think similar in our industry there are a lot of forecasts that are 

made about capacity and overcapacity and subsidized. And as my 

colleague is well aware of, just like we are, there are government 

activities, government actions if you will, and rules and regulations 

and WTO compliance to try to deal with a lot of that. 

But what happens—and if there is something currently in place, 

that is clear. But what happens at the Ex-Im Bank is they make 

forecasts that are very difficult to do or rely upon forecasts, if you 

will, that are very difficult to rely upon with any accuracy. 

And so we really do need to look at, I think as you mentioned, 

the current state of the industry should clearly be the greatest 

weighting. 

72

But we also need to look at the potential, recognizing that it may 

not be in overcapacity today but that it very well could be. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I am just about at the end of my 

questions, although I want to try to summarize in my own mind 

what we have gone over. I am going to ask you each a final question and that is going to be is there something else that we have 

not gotten into that you want to be sure we get on the table? Or 

do your own summary for me about what you would like to be sure 

we take from this hearing. 

But it seems to me, as we have looked at this, we have covered 

a bunch of issues but most prominent seems to be the importance 

of making sure that we get detailed information regarding proposed 

financing to the public at an early stage and in an adequate way 

so that input can be bough to bear by those who have expertise on 

the specific proposal and the industries involved. 

Giving more time to that process so that we allow again those 

who are interested and who have the expertise to be able to muster 

their forces and their analysis and engage in a timely fashion 

would be another. 

Another is extending the levels and nature of performance by the 

interagency group. 

Another would be making a final version of the economic impact 

analysis available to the public after the decisions have been made 

so that can be then commented on and evaluated. 

Another would be adopting really stronger criteria for the economic impact analysis itself. That is a little vague but a lot of different aspects of that have been discussed here today. 

Another could be requiring substantiation of competing offers or 

assertions about availability of competing offers and, with regard 

to the additionality criteria, requiring substantiation for the potential of the proposal to meet the additionality criteria. 

I have notes that I have been writing to myself all over the desk 

here and I am sure that I have missed some of the issues there but 

it seems to me that a number of these types of issues have been 

raised today and I think they are all helpful. 

What I would like to do is to just give each of you an opportunity 

to wrap up if you would like to, anything that you would like to 

add to this basket or to focus on and make sure that we have before us. 

Mr. Sneeringer, I will start with you. 

Mr. SNEERINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Certainly the administrative procedure improvements that you 

have listed go beyond what I brought to the table so I would certainly endorse all of those. 

But to go back to the top two points that I mentioned, one is the 

fact that the U.S. Government’s position on steel subsidies is that 

all governments ought to pull out of all steelmaking. I do not know 

if you can legislate that but it certainly needs to be taken into account by the Bank. I think that could be done through better and 

earlier consultation with other agencies and taking other agencies’ 

word for these things, really taking the lead from agencies that are 

out there trying to negotiate the end of steel subsidies worldwide. 

Second on circumvention, again I hope there is something that 

can be legislated that would require the Bank to ask itself, ask othVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jun 05, 2007 Jkt 025856 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\35432.TXT BANK1 PsN: BANK
73

ers, take into account, and make findings, that what it is doing 

does not constitute enabling circumvention of trade remedies. Because how untoward would that be? Private companies spend millions of dollars and years, right through the appeals, finally getting 

these orders that are designed to stop dumping or stop subsidization, only to find that another arm of the Federal Government is 

helping the very same people get around those orders? I think it 

is wrong and I think it should be outlawed in some way. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Appleton. 

Mr. APPLETON. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and again let me 

thank you for inviting us here today to share some of our thoughts. 

First of all, we need transparency. 

Second, we need to be able to respond to that transparency. 

And third, and finally, we need to substantiate within that transparency the assertions and the data that are involved in the analysis. If we can get that accomplished we will have gone a long ways 

from where we are today. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. That was a very good succinct analysis of the objectives that we need to accomplish. 

Before I wrap up, I was just noting, Mr. Sneeringer, when you 

were speaking about your first point about making sure that we do 

not support the violation of a trade measure in the United States. 

On the Ex-Im’s chart for their economic impact analysis, one of 

the boxes is the economic good subject to specified trade measures? 

And so the issue is certainly raised already. But what I am hearing 

you say is that, at least in the case of steel, you do not think that 

the box is working. 

Mr. SNEERINGER. Let me give two quick examples. Let us say the 

trade order is against dumped hot-rolled steel and now we find out 

that somebody, namely the very same firm that got hit with the 

order, has decided to build a cold mill by which they can take hotrolled steel and make it cold-rolled steel or a hot dip line where 

they make it galvanized or corrosion resistant steel, something 

downstream that is not subject to the order. 

Why would we want the Bank to help subsidize that? 

Another example would be what if that firm owned or wanted to 

own a plant in another country and they decided that the hot-rolled 

steel they used to make in country A they will now make in country B because that is not covered by in the order. Why would we 

help build that plant? 

Senator CRAPO. So we have to be more expansive in our evaluation of the trade implications rather than very narrow in terms of 

where there is a specific trade order? 

Mr. SNEERINGER. Right. 

Senator CRAPO. I think that is very helpful. I assume, Mr. Appleton, the same thing would be true in the semiconductor business? 

Mr. APPLETON. That is right. At the risk of going on too long, I 

want to make one final comment. 

In all of this analysis that we go through, I think one of the key 

factors is to make sure that we are not unintentionally harming 

U.S. interests. And of course there is an interest in terms of exportation and there is an interest in terms of competition in making 

sure the United States stays healthy in a particular industry. 

74

That seems to be sometimes in the background and not as prominent as it should be. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. And I do want to again 

say to both of you that your testimony was very well-prepared, the 

written testimony and your oral presentations have been very helpful here. 

As you both started out with, we all understand that the ExportImport Bank has a very important function and is very useful and 

helpful. And our purpose here is to make sure that it does actually 

achieve very effectively those objectives that we all can agree on 

that are the proper objectives. 

I think that the issues that we have raised here today clearly can 

be helpful in getting us much further down that road and your testimony has been very helpful in helping us to bring some specificity 

and some focus on the specific things that we can do. 

So again I thank you very much both for the presentation and 

the material and the support that you have given us but also for 

the time you have given to come here and the present your information to this Committee. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements and additional material supplied for the 

record follow:] 

75

PREARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MICHAEL B. ENZI 

I would like to thank Senator Crapo for holding this important hearing today to 

discuss economic impact issues in the context of the reauthorization of the ExportImport Bank. I also want to thank Mr. James Lambright, acting Chairman and 

President of the Export-Import Bank, Mr. Steve Appleton, and Mr. Thomas 

Sneeringer for agreeing to testify today. 

Earlier this month, Senator Crapo held a hearing in this Subcommittee on the 

reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. At that hearing, I shared major concerns I have with the economic impact determination the Export-Import Bank uses 

to see if the benefits of approving a proposal outweigh the negative economic impact. 

I want to reiterate those concerns and discuss an application that is currently pending to show why the Bank’s economic impact procedures do not make sense. 

Each time the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank meet to review an 

application, they do a cost-benefit analysis of that project to determine the projects 

impact on our economy. If the economic benefits outweigh the economic harm, the 

application should be approved. Vice versa, if the net benefit is negative, the application should be denied. It sounds simple, and as a strong supporter of sending U.S. 

exports abroad, I support financing projects that are beneficial to our Nation. 

Unfortunately, it is not as straightforward as it sounds because the process that 

is used to determine the net benefit of a project is suspect. The Board only examines 

a portion of the transaction and therefore, only does a portion of the analysis necessary to determine the economic impact. It is my understanding that the Board 

only examines the economic impact of the transaction during the repayment period. 

They do so even though the entity may be used for years and as such, may pose 

challenges to the U.S. economy for years beyond the repayment period. 

The problematic nature of this process can easily be seen through an application 

pending before the Board. The Board is currently reviewing an application to finance the purchase of refurbished locomotives for the Magadi Soda Company, a soda 

ash facility in Kenya. The application is for $14.4 million in financing, but it is my 

understanding that the economic impact analysis will only look at the burden on 

the U.S. economy over 6 years, the life of the loan. 

The refurbished locomotives will allow the Kenyan facility to supply an additional 

325,000 metric tons of soda ash to the market, and those locomotives will obviously 

be functional for more than 6 years. Our domestic soda ash industry, which is primarily in my home State, will therefore face export markets with an additional 

325,000 metric tons of soda ash each year. That additional product will have an impact on prices and will negatively impact our economy. Thus, I would argue that 

an economic impact analysis which takes into account the effect on our domestic 

market for only 6 years is inadequate. 

In order to give my colleagues additional information on this issue, I would also 

like to submit a letter the Wyoming delegation recently sent to the Export-Import 

Bank in opposition to the locomotives application. This letter discusses in more detail the negative economic impact that this pending application will have on Wyoming’s soda ash communities. I hope the Board takes the information seriously and 

I hope my colleagues examine it to look at the problems with the Export-Import 

Bank’s current process. 

The process right now just does not make sense. Without looking at the full impact of any transaction, we cannot know if the transaction is truly beneficial to our 

economy. As we work through the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, this 

is an issue that needs to be addressed. I look forward to working with my colleagues 

to improve the process for approving applications at the Export-Import Bank. 

Thank you again to Senator Crapo for holding this important hearing today. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES H. LAMBRIGHT

ACTING CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 29, 2006

Mr. Chairman, Senator Bayh, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am happy to 

be here today to testify on Ex-Im Bank’s procedures involving economic impact. 

As I stated in my testimony of March 8, the mandate of the Export-Import Bank 

of the United States (Ex-Im Bank or the Bank) is to preserve and create U.S. jobs 

by supporting U.S. exports that would not otherwise go forward. Consistent with 

this mandate, Ex-Im Bank fully agrees with the principle that it should not approve 

76

a transaction that would harm the U.S. economy. This is the foundation of our economic impact procedures. But as the Bank acknowledges the importance of this 

principle and these procedures, these decisions are among the most difficult to 

make. 

Through the economic impact process, the Bank seeks to determine whether a 

transaction under consideration would adversely affect U.S. production or employment, or result in the manufacture of a good subject to specified trade measures. 

The statutory language requiring consideration of economic impact, which has existed in various forms for over 35 years, reflects Congressional intent to balance two 

competing priorities—supporting U.S. export transactions and denying support for 

otherwise creditworthy transactions due to the possibility of long-term adverse economic consequences to the United States. 

The Bank’s economic impact procedures are intended to layout a reasonable and 

logical process for analyzing the impact of Ex-Im Bank support for a particular export transaction. The economic impact analysis considers issues such as whether the 

goods and services Ex-Im Bank is asked to support would establish or expand foreign production capacity of an exportable good, whether the product is the subject 

of trade measures, the global supply and demand for the good to be produced, and 

the competitive impact on U.S. industry from increased foreign production. The 

process includes review by other U.S. Government agencies, as well as input solicited from interested parties through notification in the Federal Register.

The Bank does not take this obligation lightly, and thoroughly analyzes these 

transactions in an attempt to reach the right result. Ex-Im Bank strives to implement the Congressional mandate in a thoughtful, considered, and transparent manner, with full participation of interested stakeholders. At the same time, the Bank 

stands ready to work with the Congress, affected industries, exporters, organized 

labor, and others to refine the process for considering these transactions, based on 

experience over the past several years. 

I would like to take this opportunity to explain how Ex-Im Bank’s current economic impact procedures were developed, how they are applied to export transactions, and the Bank’s experience with these procedures over the last 4 years. 

Procedures Prior to 2001

In 2001, Ex-Im Bank recognized the shortcomings in the then-existing economic 

impact procedures, and initiated a process to improve the procedures. At that time, 

the principal criticisms of the economic impact procedures were that they: (i) lacked 

clear definitions and criteria for important terms, such as ‘‘surplus’’ and competitive 

impacts; (ii) only considered final trade measures, as opposed to preliminary determinations and injury findings; (iii) did not provide for sufficient interagency consultation; and (iv) provided for inconsistent and inadequate notice to potentially interested parties. 

The process of vetting changes to the economic impact procedures was extensive 

and included representation of all stakeholders. Ex-Im Bank held a public hearing 

to discuss the procedures and consulted with Members of Congress, other U.S. Government agencies, as well as representatives of industry, exporters, and organized 

labor. In March 2003, Ex-Im Bank released the new economic impact procedures reflecting changes developed through public consultation, as well as changes mandated by Congress in the Bank’s 2002 reauthorization. These procedures addressed 

many of the shortcomings of the prior economic impact analysis, including:

Clearer Criteria and Definitions. The procedures clarified important concepts 

such as oversupply by establishing indicators relevant to the determination. 

Such indicators include commodity prices, capacity utilization rates, employment levels, and bankruptcies. In addition, Ex-Im Bank broadened its evaluation of the impact of new production on an industry by consulting with a variety 

of knowledgeable industry sources, including independent industry observers, 

trade associations and U.S. Government agency experts. 

Broad Consideration of Trade Policies. In addition to final trade measures, the 

economic impact procedures consider preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations, suspensions agreements arising from trade investigations, and Section 201 injury findings. 

Enhanced Interagency Consultation. Ex-Im Bank changed the procedures to include regular consultation with other U.S. Government agencies (including the 

Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.) ExIm Bank alerts these agencies early in the process to all transactions that may 

be subject to detailed economic impact analysis. The Bank solicits agency views 

on the applicability of trade measures, industry information, and the appropriateness of its findings. 

77

Notice to Interested Parties. Ex-Im Bank promptly notifies interested parties of 

transactions that are subject to detailed economic impact analysis. These notices are published in the Federal Register and on the Bank’s website. U.S. Government agencies are separately notified of such transactions. 

Current Analvtical Process 

Ex-Im Bank staff subjects each transaction to a series of questions to assess the 

potential adverse impact. First, staff ascertains whether an export to be supported 

by Ex-Im Bank will enable the foreign buyer to establish or expand production capacity of an exportable good. Transactions that enable a foreign buyer to establish 

or expand production capacity of an exportable good are subject to further analysis. 

Second, staff determines whether the resultant production will be ‘‘substantially 

the same product’’ as a good that is the subject to an applicable trade measure, including antidumping orders, countervailing duty orders, and Section 201 safeguards. 

If a trade measure is applicable, then Ex-Im Bank is prohibited from supporting the 

transaction. 

If the resultant production is not the subject of a trade measure, and the Ex-Im 

Bank transaction is more than $10 million, then Ex-Im Bank staff considers whether the resultant production will meet the ‘‘substantial injury’’ threshold of 1 percent 

or more of U.S. production. Transactions under $10 million are included in a postauthorization annual review to determine whether the Bank authorized multiple 

transactions to a single buyer that, in the aggregate, exceeded $10 million. 

If a transaction meets the 1 percent threshold, then Ex-Im Bank staff conducts 

a detailed economic impact analysis that weighs the benefits of an export against 

the potential costs and harm to the U.S. economy from supporting the transaction. 

At this stage, Ex-Im Bank publishes the details of the transaction in the Federal 

Register and on its website and notifies relevant U.S. Government agencies. These 

public notices are intended to reach out to trade associations and other interested 

parties for comments on the proposed transaction. 

The staffs analysis seeks to determine: (1) the likelihood that the product in question will be in ‘‘surplus’’ (or oversupply) on global markets at the time it is first sold; 

and (2) whether the product in question competes with U.S. production of the same, 

similar or competing product. 

If either of these two circumstances exists, then Ex-Im Bank is prohibited from 

supporting the transaction unless the Board of Directors determines that the shortand long-term benefits to industry and employment in the United States are likely 

to outweigh the short- and long-term injury to U.S. producers and employment of 

the same, similar, or competing commodity. Comments received pursuant to public 

notice are included in the analysis that is presented to the Board of Directors for 

decision. 

Recent Experience with Economic Impact Analvsis 

Since the new economic impact procedures took effect, Ex-Im Bank has received 

requests to support capital equipment sales to a variety of foreign buyers. Economic 

impact issues have arisen in a number of these transactions, including those relating to the production of textiles, chemicals, steel, semiconductors, soda ash, and 

solar panels. 

Ex-Im Bank must balance the need for inclusiveness with commercial practices 

that require efficiency and timeliness on transactions. While Ex-Im Bank makes 

every effort to complete the economic impact analysis expeditiously, it requires a 

substantial dedication of staff resources, and usually takes 8 to 10 weeks. Completion of an economic impact analysis may take up to 1 year, depending on the extent 

to which the feedback and information obtained through the notice and comment 

period are consistent with the Bank’s analytical findings. The oversupply assessment requires an analysis of future supply and demand balances of the new production associated with Ex-Im Bank financing. However, a lack of consensus among industry observers about the outlook on supply and demand balances can lead to an 

inconclusive finding on oversupply and may impede the Bank’s analysis. 

Trade measures, oversupply and trade flow impacts have figured prominently in 

Ex-Im Bank’s analysis of these transactions. Since 2002, Ex-Im Bank has conducted 

a detailed economic impact analysis of 22 transactions, a quarter of which involved 

sales primarily by small business exporters. Ex-Im Bank’s Board of Directors has 

approved 11 transactions, and two were denied on economic impact grounds. Seven 

transactions were withdrawn prior to Board consideration. While applicants may 

withdraw their transactions for any reason, exporters have indicated that the delay 

and uncertainty associated with the Bank’s economic impact policy have in some instances frustrated their commercial relationships and caused them to lose export 

sales to foreign competitors. The Bank must ensure that potential transactions are 

78

properly vetted and all interested parties have an opportunity to be heard. At the 

same time, it is critical that Ex-Im Bank’s processes permit U.S. exporters to remain competitive in the global marketplace. 

Conclusion 

The revisions to the economic impact procedures implemented in 2003 have been 

successful from a number of perspectives. They clarified the criteria for Ex-Im 

Bank’s review and expanded participation by other U.S. Government agencies and 

stakeholders in the process. Despite this progress, economic impact analysis continues to present challenging issues for Ex-Im Bank. The analysis inherently pits 

one set of interests and U.S. jobs—those of the prospective exporter and its suppliers—against those of another U.S. company or industry that may be harmed by 

the export sale. Moreover, Ex-Im Bank continues to grapple with some of the core 

concepts raised by economic impact analysis, including the determination of oversupply and the evaluation of trade flow impacts. Despite these challenges, Ex-Im 

Bank strives to implement the economic impact procedures so that they are transparent, predictable, effective, and fair to exporters, affected industry, and other 

stakeholders. 

I look forward to working with you to achieve these objectives. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. APPLETON

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND PRESIDENT

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.

MARCH 29, 2006

Mr. Chairman, Senator Bayh, and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is 

Steve Appleton, and I am the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and 

President of Micron Technology, Inc. (Micron.) Thank you for inviting me here today 

to testify before this Subcommittee regarding the 2006 reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank). I appreciate the important 

work of the Ex-Im Bank in encouraging exports from the United States, and the 

work of this Committee in authorizing and overseeing funding for the Bank. I welcome the opportunity to describe to the Subcommittee Micron’s experience with the 

Bank and to share some thoughts on how the Ex-Im Bank’s Economic Impact Analysis process and other related procedures could be enhanced to guarantee greater 

fairness and transparency. 

Let me start by giving you some background on Micron and the semiconductor 

industry. Micron is one of the world’s largest and most innovative providers of advanced semiconductor solutions. Micron produces advanced DRAM, NAND Flash 

memory, and imaging semiconductors that are used in today’s cutting-edge, mobile, 

computing, server, automotive, networking security, industrial, consumer, and medical applications. The company is based in Boise, Idaho and began operations in 

1978. In the United States, Micron has major manufacturing facilities in Boise, and 

Manassas, Virginia, and Micron also is a partner with Intel Corporation in a Joint 

Venture manufacturing facility in Lehi, Utah. Additionally, Micron has design centers in Texas, Minnesota, California, and Idaho, and operations around the world, 

including fabrication facilities in Italy and Japan, a joint venture manufacturing facility in Singapore and a wholly owned assembly and test facility in Singapore. Micron employs nearly 21,000 people worldwide, over half of those employees in the 

United States. Micron’s revenues last fiscal year were $4.88 billion and we invest 

a total of about $1–1.5 billion annually in our worldwide operations and on research 

& development. 

The semiconductor industry is extremely competitive. Only those companies able 

to aggressively control costs, increase productivity, and continuously innovate are 

able to survive. In 1985, there were about 11 major U.S.-based companies in the 

DRAM business—today, Micron is the only one still manufacturing DRAM. To compete, Micron has to produce faster and smaller devices that provide greater capability at the lowest possible price. At the same time, we have to be able to anticipate 

the development of a wide array of end use consumer products and electronic systems that might require our products and adapt accordingly. 

The semiconductor industry is also capital intensive. Manufacturing equipment is 

highly specialized and has a life span of only about 3 years. Companies must continually reinvest to keep ahead of the innovation curve. This means making major investments in research and development as well. It costs around $2.5 to $3 billion 

to construct and equip a manufacturing facility from green field to full operations. 

79

And, the semiconductor industry spends an average of 40 percent of its revenues 

on new capital equipment and R&D each year. 

Due to the capital intensive nature of the business, the semiconductor industry 

is also sensitive to the availability and cost of capital. When our semiconductor competitors have special access to favorable financing through government-subsidized 

programs, it creates enormous and artificial advantages for that competitor. For decades, Micron has spoken out against illegal subsidies from foreign governments to 

develop and protect a domestic semiconductor industry. In many instances, this 

practice has led to massive overcapacity. In the DRAM industry, Micron has seen 

time and again—first in Japan, then in Korea, and then in Taiwan—governmentsubsidized capital poured into expanding capacity in an effort to gain market share 

or given to keep companies from otherwise going bankrupt. For example, in 2001–

2003, the Government of Korea provided domestic manufacturer Hynix Semiconductor with over $16 billion in illegal subsidies. As a result of this, Micron filed and 

won antisubsidy cases against Hynix in the United States, Europe, and Japan. 

Given this background on Micron and the semiconductor industry, you can appreciate my surprise when I discovered in August 2004 that the Ex-Im Bank of the 

United States was contemplating providing $500 million in loan guarantees to a 

DRAM competitor in China, a company called Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation; also know as ‘‘SMIC.’’ SMIC is a relatively new, but rapidly 

growing, entrant into the pureplay semiconductor foundry business. A pureplay 

foundry is a manufacturing facility designed to produce a variety of semiconductor 

products, including memory like the DRAM and NAND Flash chips that Micron 

makes and sells, as well as logic products and other types of integrated circuits. At 

the time of the proposed financing, SMIC was one of the fastest growing semiconductor manufacturers in the world. Most of its revenue came from DRAM, either 

manufacturing and selling product under its own label or manufacturing product for 

other companies to sell. Both from a design and a production perspective, SMIC had 

made DRAM a central part of its business plans. Within 3 years, it had become the 

world’s third largest semiconductor foundry. 

Even more perplexing to me was that SMIC could claim to need Ex-Im Bank financing in order to purchase manufacturing equipment. SMIC had recently completed the construction and ramp of three different semiconductor facilities in 

Shanghai and had done so with a mix of private equity, credit from Chinese banks, 

and vendor financing. Most of the equipment it purchased for these three factories 

was from U.S.-based equipment suppliers. Moreover, in March 2004, only 3 months 

before applying for the Ex-Im Bank loan guarantee, SMIC had raised $500 million 

on international capital markets through an initial public offering. Clearly, SMIC 

was a sophisticated company with access to international capital markets and a 

track record of raising money when needed. So, why did SMIC need to go to the 

Ex-Im Bank? The most likely answer was SMIC wanted to benefit from lower than 

market interest rates. 

As you know, the role of the Ex-Im Bank is to provide financing to help promote 

the export of U.S. goods and services with the stated purpose of maintaining and 

creating American jobs. Importantly, Ex-Im Bank however, does not provide export 

financing for just any transaction, but may do so under two scenarios. The first is 

to match export financing from the Export Credit Agencies of other countries. The 

second is to fill in gaps in private sector financing or to address some other market 

failure—that is, only when an export would not go forward without the assistance 

of the Bank. Accordingly, the Ex-Im Bank should not operate as a private sector 

financial institution and should not supplant or compete with financing from the 

private sector. 

Moreover, Ex-Im should not provide financing for transactions that would result 

in a net negative impact on the U.S. economy. Through its Economic Impact Analysis procedures, the Ex-Im Bank determines whether a transaction under consideration would adversely affect U.S. production or employment. For example, adverse 

effects would occur when the financing supports the creation or expansion of capacity of a product that could then be exported to the United States and cause injury. 

In carrying out its Economic Impact Analysis, the Ex-Im Bank looks at the following 

factors:

• Whether the commodity produced with the equipment financed by the Ex-Im 

Bank will be in oversupply on world markets at the time the resulting commodity 

is first sold; 

• Whether the resulting production capacity is expected to compete with U.S. production of the same, a similar, or a competing commodity; and 

• Whether the Ex-Im Bank determines that the extension of such credit or guarantee will cause substantial injury to United States producers of the same, a similar or a competing commodity.

80

A Federal Register notice requesting public comment must be filed under the ExIm Bank’s Economic Impact Analysis procedures. With respect to the proposed 

SMIC financing, a Federal Register notice was published in August 2004. Unfortunately, the notice itself provides very little information regarding the proposed financing, so it is difficult to provide meaningfully comments on a proposal. The 

SMIC related notice only indicated that the proposed financing was for $500 million 

to a Chinese company to make 60,000 wafers a month of advanced semiconductors. 

Nonetheless, after doing some investigating of our own to flesh out more details, we 

filed comments objecting to the financing. We were able to assess the impact that 

the proposed financing guarantee would have on Micron’s operations because DRAM 

was a central focus of SMIC’s well-publicized business plan and a large proportion 

of its production. We provided the Ex-Im Bank detailed information on SMIC’s competing DRAM production, the state of oversupply in the DRAM market, and SMIC’s 

apparent access to private financial markets. 

In December 2004, I came to Washington to meet directly with members of the 

Ex-Im Bank Board to make this case. During these meetings, I was informed that 

the terms of the proposed financing had fundamentally changed—that the proposal 

was instead to provide SMIC with a $1.2 billion loan guarantee, more than double 

the original proposal. Moreover, SMIC was reportedly guaranteeing that it would 

produce only small quantities of DRAM and that instead its real intention was to 

make logic devices which it claimed were not in oversupply in the global market. 

From my perspective, SMIC’s guarantees were not reassuring. First, the same 

equipment used to produce logic semiconductors can be used to produce DRAM. Second, even if the equipment were dedicated to logic production, it still freed up 

SMIC’s capital to invest its own money in DRAM production. 

When I asked the Ex-Im Bank Board if Micron would have an opportunity to comment on the revised proposed financing, there was resistance. It was only after we 

persisted that the Board agreed to publish a new Federal Register notice. We asked 

to see the draft Economic Impact Analysis report, but that request was denied. Consequently, Micron hired a private firm, CapAnalysis, to conduct a comprehensive 

economic impact assessment. Based on a report by CapAnalysis, the economists concluded that: (1) the world market was in oversupply for both DRAM and logic chips: 

(2) SMIC was capable of accessing financing on its own without an Ex-Im Bank 

guarantee; and (3) the proposed financing would have a net negative impact on the 

U.S. economy and U.S. jobs. 

Ultimately, the proposed financing never went to a vote of the Ex-Im Bank Board. 

As then-Chairman and President Phillip Merrill noted, this was a large and complex 

transaction that implicated a number of requirements under the Ex-Im Charter including the economic impact test, the additionality standard, and reasonable assurance of repayment. 

As a result of our experience with the Ex-Im Bank process, I believe there are 

a number of steps that could be implemented to improve the economic impact assessment procedure and help ensure that other Ex-Im Bank requirements are being 

met. 

With respect to the economic impact procedures, I would make the following suggestions to improve the transparency of the process:

• More detailed information should be provided in the Federal Register notice so as 

to enable potentially affected U.S. producers to comment meaningfully on the proposed transaction. • The comment period should be extended from 14 days to a minimum of 30 days 

(and, for large financings, such as the one involving SMIC, 45 days or more) to 

allow for a more thorough analysis by potentially affected U.S. producers and 

other interested members. • The period of time the Interagency Group has to review the proposed deal and 

the completed Economic Impact Analysis should also be lengthened. Based on our 

experience, members of the Interagency Group were frustrated that their questions and concerns were not being adequately addressed, and that they were consulted only at the last minute. Moreover, certain agencies on the Interagency 

Group, especially the Department of Commerce, should be consulted early in the 

application procedure because they often have industry expertise—for example, 

concerning the semiconductor industry—that does not exist in-house at the ExIm Bank. This especially makes sense given that the Secretary of Commerce is 

an ex officio member of the Ex-Im Board. 

• The Ex-Im Bank should be required to issue another request for public comment 

if there are significant changes to the terms or the amount of the financing. 

• And finally, a public version of the final Economic Impact Analysis should be 

made available for inspection and comment before a Board vote on a particular 

financing proposal. Right now, affected U.S. companies are never given the chance 

81

to see the final analysis, the comments of other parties or the input from the private experts retained by the Ex-Im Bank. This lack of transparency puts the potentially affected producer at a significant disadvantage in terms of transparency 

and due process. These due process procedures are only what are minimally required in other agency contexts such as the International Trade Commission or 

the Department of Commerce, as well as with the Regulatory Impact Analysis review procedures followed by OMB in the context of E.O. 12866.

I also believe that the Ex-Im Bank should implement targeted provisions to ensure that its mandate is being met. First, as I noted previously, pursuant to its 

rules, Ex-Im Bank can provide financing to match the competition from foreign Export Credit Agencies that provide financing or guarantees to their own exporters. 

During the SMIC application, we were told that SMIC had informed the Ex-Im 

Bank that if it did not get a loan guarantee from the United States, it would get 

financing from JABIC, the Japanese Export-Import Bank and that the United 

States exporters would lose business. When we asked what proof was provided, we 

were told that the borrower was not required to provide documentation showing the 

availability of alternative financing—instead, an applicant merely had to provide assurance that this was the case. In our experience, SMIC never received financing 

from JABIC despite its assurances to Ex-Im Bank. Applicants should be required 

to provide some proof of alternative financing from a foreign Export Credit Agency. 

Likewise, if the Ex-Im Bank provides financing based on the ‘‘additionality’’ standard, then the Bank should be required to document the alleged market failure at 

issue. Specifically, the Ex-Im Bank should establish guidelines for determining 

whether its financing is truly necessary. Among other things, they should request 

documentation from the foreign applicant detailing their record of raising capital 

from the private sector during the 3-year period prior to the date of any Ex-Im Bank 

financing application. This should include all loans, equity issuances, and vendor financing. Documentation should also be provided to demonstrate recent, failed attempts to access financing from the public sector. 

I believe that these changes would have been helpful in assessing the SMIC case 

and will be useful in future instances that may affect Micron. However, I am not 

in a position to say that the recommendations I have outlined should be applied in 

all cases. I would leave that to the discretion of the Committee and the Ex-Im Bank. 

I applaud the Ex-Im Bank for its efforts supporting and promoting U.S. exports—

a laudable goal. Without question, the Ex-Im Bank should strive to help small exporters that really need assistance. As I described, the problems that we encountered in our dealings with the Ex-Im Bank could be improved significantly if additional procedures were implemented to ensure a more balanced and transparent 

process. Micron would be happy to work with you, Mr. Chairman, other Members 

of the Committee and appropriate officials at the Ex-Im Bank. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. SNEERINGER

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION

ON BEHALF OF

THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE

MARCH 29, 2006

I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on behalf of the American Iron 

and Steel Institute (AISI) and its U.S. member companies who together account for 

approximately three-fourths of the raw steel produced annually in the United 

States. 

American steel producers strongly support U.S. Government policies to open foreign markets and more specifically the goals of the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im 

Bank) to foster export of U.S.-produced goods and services. The financial well-being 

of our industry and of our domestic suppliers and customers is vital to our economy. 

At the same time, the domestic steel industry remains concerned about U.S. Government-subsidized financings of manufacturing facilities which lead to the expansion 

of production capacity of a major commodity already in oversupply—a problem that 

has been especially prevalent in the global steel industry. 

Our concerns regarding overcapacity are deepened by the fact that world steel 

supply is likely to expand dramatically in the near future. Past experience clearly 

82

demonstrates that overcapacity is the root cause of the economic conditions that 

have regularly subjected American steel producers and workers to substantial injury 

caused by often unfairly traded imports. As the Department of Commerce confirmed 

in its 2000 study entitled ‘‘Global Steel Trade: Structural Problems and Future Solutions,’’ government-enabled distortions and government-tolerated anticompetitive 

practices are pervasive in the world steel market. The outcome is that market forces 

are not able to bring world capacity and supply in line with demand. Much of the 

resulting oversupply in steel ends up, directly or through displacement, in the open 

U.S. market. As a result, the American steel industry is repeatedly injured by import surges. 

This is why the President has made reducing global steel oversupply a priority 

and in June 2001 launched a multilateral initiative designed to restore market 

forces to world steel markets and eliminate the unfair trade practices that harm the 

industry and its workers. In announcing his multilateral initiative on steel, President Bush confirmed the extent of foreign government interventions and the severity of the subsidy-induced global steel excess capacity problem and their direct impact on domestic steel producers and workers:

The U.S. steel industry has been affected by a 50-year legacy of foreign government intervention in the market and direct financial support of their steel industries. The result has been significant excess capacity, inefficient production, 

and a glut of steel on world markets. . . . Absent strict disciplines barring government support, direct or indirect, for inefficient steel-making capacity, the 

problems confronting the U.S. steel industry—and the steel industry worldwide—will only recur.

The initiative included: (1) negotiations with America’s trading partners seeking 

the near-term elimination of inefficient excess capacity in the steel industry worldwide; and (2) negotiations to eliminate the underlying market-distorting subsidies. 

Thus, when the Ex-Im Bank subsidizes loans which result in increased steel production capacity abroad, it directly contradicts the policies and goals established by the 

President. 

Steel companies around the world have recently announced plans to expand steel 

capacity by close to 600 million metric tons from 2005–2012. While capacity expansion must of course be viewed in the context of demand growth, this capacity growth 

far exceeds any reasonable expectation for global consumption growth. The capacity 

expansion continues to occur in Asia and South America, with spurts of growth also 

occurring in Russia and other areas. These capacity expansion facts are sourced 

from a memorandum which AISI and five other major steel associations in the 

NAFTA region submitted recently to the OECD. This submission is attached hereto 

for inclusion in the record. 

Much of the unprecedented building binge occurring in multiple regions of the 

world is taking place in countries which are producing more steel than they consume domestically, and as a result of decisions by governments to support the expansion of domestic steelmaking capability. For instance, India’s Government has 

announced that it aims to increase steel production to 110 million tons by the 2019/

20 financial year—tripling its current output. 

The large, open, and therefore vulnerable U.S. market is the natural choice for 

export by countries who produce more flat-rolled steel products than they consume 

and are heavily reliant on exports, as many other major steel markets are either 

effectively closed to imports, or net steel exporters, or both. A renewed import wave 

of surplus product flooding the U.S. market would be both harmful and unfair. It 

would threaten to undermine the significant progress that domestic steel producers 

have made in recent years in historic and ongoing restructuring efforts, which in 

turn would be put into serious jeopardy. 

The U.S. steel industry does not oppose financings by the Bank so long as they 

are not undermining U.S. Government policies to reduce global steel overcapacity. 

The industry wants to work constructively with the Bank in its consideration of requests for financing of global projects involving the steel industry to make certain 

that future Ex-Im Bank investments are not made that would increase production 

of a commodity product for which there already is overcapacity. 

In 2002 Congress, responding to the Ex-Im Bank providing financing for foreign 

steel production over the objections of the Congressional Steel Caucus and Cabinet 

level officials, and other similar concerns, enacted legislation to prevent the Ex-Im 

Bank from financing production of foreign goods that have been found to injure U.S. 

producers. AISI and its U.S. members supported Congress’ inclusion of provisions 

strengthening the Bank’s economic impact analysis provisions in the 2002 Ex-Im 

Bank Reauthorization Act. While the statutory and procedural modifications to 

these rules were a great step forward, improvements can be made to make the rules 

83

more effective and more transparent. AISI therefore urges Congress to consider proposals—both substantive and procedural, relating to increased transparency—for inclusion in the Bank’s reauthorization legislation:

• Define the term ‘‘substantially the same product’’ to include products that are one 

or two steps upstream or downstream from the product subject to an order or determination. This clarification would apply to the rules relating to both final trade 

measures and preliminary affirmative determinations under Title VII of the Tariff 

Act of 1930. This clarification would make the statute consistent with the legislative intent as expressed by Senator Bayh and Congressmen Oxley and Toomey in 

2002. Similarly, and thematically consistent with the intent of the economic analysis requirement, the analysis of whether the product is or will be in oversupply 

or is in competition with U.S. production of a same, similar, or competing product 

should include also products that are one or two steps upstream or downstream 

from the product subject to the analysis. 

• Specify that the Bank shall not provide financing to a firm for the production of 

substantially the same product that is the subject of a trade law order, regardless 

of the country of origin of the order against that firm. In other words, if there is 

a trade law order against a company producing hot-rolled steel in Country X, the 

Bank should not support a loan to that same company for improving existing 

plants or building new facilities for producing hot-rolled steel in Country Y. 

• Specify that the Bank’s $10 million and $5 million financing thresholds are to be 

aggregated for all financings and financing applications involving the same firm 

and substantially the same product within a 24-month period. Applicants for ExIm Bank financing should not be allowed to circumvent the rules by disaggregating financing applications into several smaller applications to avoid the economic impact analysis and Board consideration. This aggregation proposal would 

apply to the Bank’s general $10 million threshold for an economic impact analysis; 

the $5 million and $10 million thresholds under the preliminary determination 

rules; and, the $10 million threshold under the Section 201 investigation rules. 

• Require the Bank to expand the public comment periods from 14 days to 30 days.

The statute requires that the Bank seek comments from interested parties to ensure that it refrain from financing activities which adversely affect American

interests and that it has established procedures to notify interested parties and 

provide a comment period with regard to loans or guarantees it is reviewing. The 

current comment periods, however, are too short to allow full and meaningful private sector comment. In addition to the formal mechanism for comment and consultation, AISI encourages the Bank to consult closely with domestic industries 

to discuss proposed financings and their impact on excess foreign production capacity. 

• Require that the Bank notify the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs and the House Committee on Financial Services of proposed transactions subject to an economic impact analysis. Currently, the Bank’s procedures 

provide that it will notify the relevant U.S. Government agencies but there is no 

required notification of the Congressional oversight committees.

In conclusion, the 2002 Ex-Im Reauthorization Act made significant changes to 

the economic impact procedures, but the additional amendments outlined above 

would help to ensure that the Bank undertakes a balanced, full, and fair procedure 

with regard to its economic impact analysis.

84


mar29-1.eps
85


mar29-2.eps
86


mar29-3.eps
87


mar29-4.eps
88


mar29-5.eps
89


mar29-6.eps
90


mar29-7.eps
91


mar29-8.eps
92


mar29-9.eps
93


mar29-10.eps