See the inspiring stories Come meet us Time to legalize weed?
OPINION
Columnists' Opinions

Keep the Export-Import bank: Column

The 80-year-old lender has kept our country influential abroad and prosperous at home.

James L. Jones
American-made machinery in a manufacturing facility in Bolingbrook, Ill.

Over two centuries ago John Adams observed that "facts are stubborn things." Whether they are resilient enough to prevail over ideological passions is being sorely tested in the current congressional debate whether to reauthorize the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), whose charter is set to expire on June 30.

Despite the opposition's extreme rhetoric, the basic facts remain.

Fact: America's prosperity and strength depends upon vigorous trade and market access abroad.

Fact: 95% of the world's customers live outside our national borders, where massive middle classes with huge purchasing power are emerging.

Fact: America must compete fiercely in these markets with other countries for sales, for investments, to develop supply chains, and to gain greater geopolitical influence.

Fact:Export credit — the kind provided by the Ex-Im bank — remains a critical component of America's competitiveness toolkit.

Since its founding during America's effort to emerge from the Great Depression, the Ex-Im bank has supported American jobs by financing our exports when credit is not commercially available or when U.S. companies face undue competition in foreign markets from competitors provided financing by their governments. It levels the playing field for American businesses so they can compete in foreign markets against foreign competitors.

Many opponents of reauthorization base their arguments on a world that doesn't exist, where markets are untrammeled by state-supported export finance. The reality is that throughout the world approximately 60 export credit agencies are jockeying to offer enticing financing terms with a view to winning more and more sales for the companies domiciled in their respective nations, often at our expense.

China, Europe, Russia and even Canada have expanded their state-backed export support even as Congress continues to deliberate on the future of Ex-Im. One of China's multiple export credit arms has authorized more financing in the last two years than Ex-Im has since its founding eight decades ago. Even some nations that are party to the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits that sets export financing limitations and guidelines for OECD member countries including the United States, often lend outside the framework, further disadvantaging American companies and our nation.

Last year alone, Ex-Im backed U.S. exports valued at approximately $27.5 billion and supported 164,000 export-related U.S. jobs. Using the accounting method required by law, Ex-Im has sent to the Treasury $7 billion more than it has received in appropriations since 1990. Ex-Im's record of strengthening U.S. exports and competitiveness while generating revenue for the U.S. treasury explain its long history of bipartisan support from Republican and Democratic presidents and the U.S. Congress.

It would be a bit naïve to suppose that foreign governments would suddenly about-face and dam their tidal waves of export credits if Congress were to shutter Ex-Im's doors. Competitors would welcome the United States unilaterally disarming and ending its export finance program. It would mean more business for their companies and a stronger geopolitical hand around the world for them. The reality is that if the United States leaves the field on export financing we place more at U.S. business abroad and jobs at home at risk; we would undermine American influence and economic leadership at a time when it's needed more than ever.

As a former NATO commander, service chief and national security adviser, I have witnessed firsthand the geostrategic importance of American economic engagement. Where the U.S. private sector is not present, America's interests and values suffer. The result is a less stable and secure world. After serving over 40 years in uniform, I have a trained aversion to whatever threatens our nation. The willful undermining of our national economic competitiveness counts among them.

I would agree that a world without state-funded export credits is one to which we should aspire. However, unilaterally disarming by closing Ex-Im is not the answer. It would destroy the U.S. Treasury's leverage in negotiating reductions to state-backed export finance that would be observed by all — creating the level playing field we should all seek.

As Americans, we hope and trust that despite the fractiousness of our political system, we can still overcome gridlock to do what's best for our nation. The stubborn fact is that reauthorizing the Ex-Im bank is good for America. It will help sell more American products abroad, support American jobs, expand U.S. global influence and do so without adding to our fiscal deficit. Whether slogans prove more stubborn than facts remains to be seen. For our country's sake, let's hope that John Adams was right and that the facts and our national interest prevail.

General James L. Jones served as national security adviser to President Barack Obama, supreme allied commander Europe, and commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.

Featured Weekly Ad