MR. VAN ES: It's good to be with you
all again. For those of you who I haven't met,
my name's Chris Van Es. I'm the senior vice
president for communications and external
engagement at EXIM.
It's great to be with everybody again.
I know we've got a very strong agenda here
talking about the Competitiveness Report which is
slated to be released on June 30.
I do want to note as this is the last
meeting of this iteration of the Advisory
Committee, I do want to thank everybody on the
committee for your time, and your energy, and
your efforts over the past year to support EXIM,
to support the exporters of our country, and just
express our gratitude for all that you've done to
help the agency.
I do want to specifically thank
Chairman Pearce, and Dan Runde, and Ambassador
Paula Dobriansky for their leadership in the
various committees. We certainly couldn't have
managed this without you all and so just want to
say a special thank you for everything that
you've done.
I will keep my remarks very short
today as I want to allow room for Acting Vice
Chair Cruse to provide an update on the agency,
and then obviously the meat of the agenda, the
Competitiveness Report.
The one thing that I will mention at
the top in terms of administration updates, I
hope everybody had a chance to see the
announcement from the agency last week on
domestic financing. We'll be putting together a
proposal for board review over the next several
weeks and months.
I think along the way we would
definitely welcome your feedback with the
understanding that I think what we're trying to
accomplish is to figure out what EXIM's role can
be in restoring America's manufacturing and
support our exporters in ways that the market has
not been.
So with that I'm going to do roll call
and then I will turn it over to Chairman Pearce.
So I will call everybody's name and if you can
just acknowledge that you are here we can go from
there. Chairman Pearce.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: I'm here.
MR. VAN ES: All right. Maria Cino.
Bill Cummins. Ambassador Paula Dobriansky.
MEMBER DOBRIANSKY: I'm here. Can you
hear me by the way, Chris? And also I'll vouch
for Maria Cino. She didn't have her -- she was
muted, but she's here.
MR. VAN ES: Okay, sounds good. We
will mark that for the record.
MEMBER CINO: Thank you, Paula. Sorry
about that.
MEMBER DOBRIANSKY: Technology, okay.
MR. VAN ES: All right. Rodney
Ferguson.
MEMBER FERGUSON: I'm here.
MR. VAN ES: All right. Lawrence
Goodman. Owen Herrnstadt.
MEMBER HERRNSTADT: Yes, hi everybody.
I'm here.
MR. VAN ES: All right. Bill
Huntington. Sean McGarvey. Scott Palmer.
MEMBER PALMER: Yes, I'm here.
MR. VAN ES: All right. Rich Powell.
MEMBER POWELL: Here.
MR. VAN ES: Okay. T.J. Raguso. I
heard Alex Sanchez earlier, but Alex, just
confirming you are still on.
MEMBER SANCHEZ: Chris, I'm here.
MR. VAN ES: All right. Venkee
Sharma.
MEMBER SHARMA: I'm here. Good
afternoon, everybody.
MR. VAN ES: Good afternoon.
Christopher Smith.
MEMBER SMITH: I'm here.
MR. VAN ES: Linda Upmeyer.
MEMBER UPMEYER: I'm here.
MR. VAN ES: All right. And Joanne
Young.
MEMBER YOUNG: I'm here.
MR. VAN ES: Okay. Anybody that I
missed? If not, then I will turn it over to
Congressman Steve Pearce. Congressman, all
yours.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thank you, Chris.
Appreciate you and all of the staff, and thanks
to all of the members for joining us today. We
are just wrapping up a couple of years of pretty
exciting actions I'm looking forward to
discussing on the report today.
Before we get into the business I want
to say a special thanks to Judith Pryor. She's
the director that I think has been just a real
godsend to EXIM. If we could get everyone to
turn off their microphones we're getting some
feedback here. And if you've got both a computer
and a cell phone going just you've got to mute
one of them or you get that wobbling tone that we
were hearing a second ago.
So again, thanks to Judith Pryor. For
myself and I think I speak for certain members of
the committee we're just hopefully hoping that
she will get reappointed to another term. We
feel strong about her presence in the EXIM
community.
So, I think that right now we will
turn it right over to Jim Cruse and get that
report. And again I'm going to ask if everyone
would mute your phones. We're still getting
feedback, so if you would mute. And in fact it
helps somewhat on the bandwidth if you're not on
speaking to put your camera on silent also.
Anyway, Jim, thanks for being with us today. We
look forward to your report.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Thank you,
Chairman. Really nothing has dramatically
changed in what our priorities are. The bank as
many agencies are trying to reengage with the
mandates of the administration, particularly on
the two fronts of what to do on the -- I'll call
it the China front, the international affairs
front, as well as the climate front. And those
are our priorities in trying to understand the
specifics of the mandate, and understand where we
fit in, and identify and develop the programs to
do that.
That includes of course setting up our
China and Transformational program with Adam
Frost. But all of that is an exercise in
progress, in motion, and we are not done with any
of those. But we do hope that during this summer
a lot of them will come to fruition.
But that's what we've been doing,
that's what our priorities are. And of course
getting this report out is a fundamental part of
all of that. Anyway, thank you all. I'll be
glad to answer questions as we go through.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thank you very much.
Isabel Galdiz will give us a report on the U.S.
Congress on Global Export Credit Competition,
that is, the Competitiveness Report. So, go
ahead.
MR. VAN ES: Isabel, I think you're on
mute.
MS. GALDIZ: Okay. Hello. Good
afternoon, Chairman Pearce, Ambassador
Dobriansky, distinguished Advisory Committee
members, members of the EXIM board, Acting Vice
Chairman Cruse, Directors Pryor and Director
Bachus. It's my pleasure to present you with the
EXIM Competitiveness Report to Congress.
I am here in representation of not
only Jim Cruse whose fingerprints are on every
year's edition of this report, but also in
representation of the international relations
staff led by Cassie Rowlands and Tarela Osuobeni
as well as many, many others who throughout the
bank and throughout the year have really
contributed to this effort. So I really want to
say it's a tribute to the staff of the bank.
And we were fortunate to get Chris Van
Es and Hazeen Ashby's inputs into this to ensure
its utility to the incoming leadership team.
So with that I will turn to the
overview of the report. I think Tarela is
helping me here with the slides. The economic
disruptions due to COVID-19 have in many ways
accelerated the trends that we reported in the
previous edition of this report that you reviewed
last year so the substance of this report may
seem very familiar to you.
What I was hoping to do in this
presentation, and given that we are ushering in a
new administration is take the opportunity to
review with you this report in terms of its
scope, the methodology that staff uses to produce
the report, and how all of this is structured
around the mandated responsibilities that
Congress has imposed on us.
So, first off in terms of the scope of
the report as you can see here Congress has
mandated that EXIM shall include a survey of all
other major export financing facilities available
from other governments and government-related
agencies through which foreign exporters compete
with U.S. exporters.
By way of background, this may come as
a point of interest to you, members of the
Advisory Committee. Before the 2009 global
financial crisis when EXIM was producing this
report our focus was strictly on OECD and
primarily G7 ECA activity as this was
representative of exactly what Congress
identified, the major financing facilities from
other governments.
However, the 2011 Advisory Committee
noted the dramatic growth in export finance
available from the export credit agencies of non-
OECD countries, but also the sizeable unregulated
financing programs that the OECD ECAS had
introduced.
And in their recommendations the
Advisory Committee wrote that 2010 was a tipping
point for the G7 export credit activity because a
majority of the export financing activity was
being provided outside the bounds of the OECD
rules.
And so with that the Advisory
Committee requested that EXIM staff give
prominence to unregulated financing programs and
called them a, quote, "equally competitive
concern."
The Advisory Committee further
concluded that EXIM should monitor unregulated
and exceptional export financing facilities from
other governments, and report on those programs
in the future recommending that to that end EXIM
employ resources to better understand the
products, terms and conditions associated with
the various forms of financing provided outside
the purview of the OECD guidelines.
So, since that time EXIM staff has
devoted a good bit of time and effort to doing
just that. So how do we respond to this mandate
from Congress and to the recommendation of that
2011 Advisory Committee? I think next slide,
please. Okay.
Staff works year-round compiling
activity data, program and policy information,
and export community perspectives including your
perspectives from this Advisory Committee that
can be aggregated and provided to Congress as an
indication of whether the bank is, quote, "fully
competitive with or comparable to the official
financing of exports available from other
governments."
Through this research EXIM is able to
find information on specific terms and conditions
available from other governments either directly
or indirectly. Additionally, EXIM conducts a
mandated survey of banks and exporters. Next
slide, please.
So with respect to the methodology,
and I think this has been a focus of some of the
Advisory Committee discussion previously so I'll
take a moment to review that here -- Congress
again mandates that the bank shall use all
available information to estimate the annual
amount of export financing available from each
such government and government-related agency.
So in order to fulfill this objective
EXIM employs a range of efforts. Specifically we
reach out bilaterally to our foreign export
credit agency counterparts to request their data.
We see that ECAS can publish data. They have
different fiscal years, they have different
program offerings. So we use this as a platform
to collect data in a comparable way from ECA to
ECA.
EXIM supplements that information with
anecdotal information collected from
transactional experiences. Loan officers
routinely refer us to information that they are
privy to in the context of specific transaction
discussions.
We also use focus group meetings,
expert sources, interviews, and publications,
industry publications to further supplement our
understanding. We attend conferences and are
part of the Berne Union which is but one industry
association, the most important industry
association of export credit agencies, and we use
their public data.
Finally, and in light of -- hello?
Finally, and in light of previous Advisory
Committee comments with respect to the low
response rate that I'll get into in a minute
regarding EXIM's survey, EXIM Bank has employed
third party research and surveys to supplement
those survey findings given the low response rate
that we have found.
Once the report is complete EXIM works
with its interagency partners to collect their
inputs and feedback, and that input and feedback
is substantial. And we do have very
collaborative approaches to that work with the
other agencies, again, that I will refer to in
coming slides. So the next slide, please.
So what does Congress expect you to do
now? Well, you're very familiar with your role.
You are now to review this report and pursuant to
Section 3(d)(4) provide Congress with your own
written comments on the extent to which the bank
is meeting its mandate to provide competitive
financing to expand U.S. exports.
So Congress expects you to assess in
looking at this report whether or not -- and
based on your own experience, whether we have met
this mandate of providing competitive financing.
Congress is also asking that the
Advisory Committee provide suggestions on how we
can improve our efforts towards that goal of
ultimate competitiveness.
As you will know from my previous
remarks, Chairman Pearce and all, EXIM takes
Advisory Committee feedback very seriously, and
we work hard to implement your suggestions. On
that point I'm going to note that you, Chairman
Pearce, and others on this distinguished
committee led EXIM to consider streamlining the
survey. You asked us to focus in and produce an
export credit primer to make it easier for
readers to get through the report, and the jargon
that's used in the export credit world.
And finally, you asked us to build up
our China research given the emphasis and
priority that this committee has placed on
Chinese activities, and the sheer volume that we
see in terms of the data and the numbers of
Chinese activities.
To that end we did add research from
Mandarin sources because as many of you know we
have found discrepancies between English and
Mandarin sources. So a direct window into
Chinese activities in Mandarin did help improve
our understanding of Chinese engagements overall.
And more on that to you later. Next slide,
please.
So, with respect to the exporter and
lender survey that is mandated we would like to
draw attention to a point of disappointment for
us, frankly, which is the low response rate in
this year's survey. Only 23 percent of those
surveyed responded, contrasted to the 52 percent
response rate in 2020.
The low response rate is really
something that we are hoping to be able to
address in coming years. When we've reached out
to exporters and lenders to ask them about this
because they did join focus group meetings that
were held this year to supplement the survey
findings they explained that EXIM's very limited
engagement in the market during 2020 did not
provide them sufficient information for them to
report on and respond to the survey.
I will note that it may be then that
the response rate could be a function of EXIM's
presence in the market. And with that I'll also
share that in 2010 when the response rate was 52
percent EXIM did report a record-breaking year
with total authorizations of almost $25 billion
that year in favor of about 35 billion exports.
Just to keep that in the back of your mind.
So, now diving into the substance of
the report and the key findings. As I noted
these findings will be familiar to you in that
2020 showed many of the same trends that we
reported on last year in some cases accelerating.
So specifically, in terms of foreign
government responses to the disruptions caused by
COVID-19 we started reporting on that last year
as that was developing. The data and information
gathered so far this year shows a substantial
increase in domestic support that export credit
agencies are being asked to provide in addition
to short-term support aimed at keeping exporters
afloat through the crisis.
Additionally, foreign export credit
agencies leveraged their ECA underwriting and
transactional expertise. In some cases
governments channeled substantial resources
through their export credit agencies, elevating
the ECAS to what I would call first responders in
the face of this economic disruption.
In terms of EXIM's role exporters and
lenders did appreciate EXIM's reentry into the
MLT space, and many comments were made regarding
Chairman Reed's hard work in this regard.
Again, EXIM response to COVID
disruptions was also valued by the exporter and
lender community and flagged as an area of EXIM
work that was very, very much a partner to their
ability to address the disruptions that they were
facing.
In terms of other trends you will note
again this year that OECD-regulated activity
comprised about one-third of trade-related export
credit support in 2020. ECA content requirements
continued to evolve and COVID-19 led other export
credit agencies to look to support their domestic
industry and their international supply chain
even more than in previous years.
And the export credit programs of
Europe and Asia continued to try to keep pace
with the Chinese competitive programs even though
the scope and scale of those programs is
obviously much, much smaller.
So, two key highlights from 2020 that
are not new but were certainly much more widely
noted in 2020 was, first, that sustainable
finance is taking center stage. This has been
the main focus of industry conferences, exporter
and lender commentary, the surveys of the various
communities that we are a part of, the OECD, the
Berne Union, Equator Principle banks, all focused
on sustainable finance. So export credit
agencies have really emphasized their focus on
greening their portfolios and on expanding
programs around those greener efforts, and also
on ways to restrict new commitments for brown
projects.
Secondly, we heard quite loudly from
the exporting community that other governments
are growing their whole of government approach to
official financing. Foreign official financing
packages that involved multiple agencies from the
same government and helped spread the risk among
various partners were viewed as a critical
approach to the economic disruptions and the
deteriorating risk environment in which export
credit agencies found their portfolios.
So exporters, buyers, lenders, all
would like to emphasize that highly competitive
packages are born out of this country as a whole
approach as they called it.
So in terms of the focus of this
committee which has been China, and Ambassador
Dobriansky has done such good work putting our
attention onto those developments, I will note
that the findings of this year in the 2020 report
point to Chinese volume decreasing. And this
decrease is consistent with the decrease from all
other export credit agencies. It isn't
surprising that China like everybody else put its
focus on domestic and short-term program support
rather than cross-border support.
So they did report a decrease from
just over $33 billion last year to about $18
billion in 2020. But $18 billion is still a very
substantial portion of the total ECA business.
What we also learned, and this to the
point I was making earlier regarding the
interagency collaboration, EXIM has worked
together with OCEA, and I want to thank Adam
Frost for his work to find us a way to partner
with OCEA. OCEA is the Office of Commercial and
Economic Engagements of the Army.
And they conducted research, extensive
research this year that we were able to use to
cross-reference our own research. So that is a
welcome piece of work.
Additionally, we've partnered with
other government agencies who have eyes and ears
on the ground through our embassy, et cetera, to
also try to verify our data and information. So
we have a high degree of confidence in these
findings, but we can't overstate the opaque
nature of this type of support.
So despite these estimations of lower
Chinese activity in 2020 exporters and lenders
emphasized this ongoing Chinese competition and
this additional research that was done with other
agencies and our own Mandarin research did not
reveal any change in Chinese government use of
their ECAS strategically. So it doesn't appear
to be a shift in any gears from the Chinese side
in terms of their activities. This just seems to
be part of the downturn borne out of COVID. But
next year we'll have more information for you on
that. And short-term support was very high in
2020 for the Chinese as well as everybody else.
So next slide, please.
So what are the next steps? Well,
we're here today to discuss with you any
questions you might have to help advise you on
the production of your Advisory Committee
statement. Our designers are currently working
hard with our communications team to lay out the
report. And the goal which is enshrined in law
is that we submit this report to Congress by the
June 30 deadline.
So with that, Chairman Pearce, I will
turn it over to you and thank you for the
opportunity to brief you on this report and
welcome any questions.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thank you, Isabel.
Appreciate that. And we're going to open up to
the committee now the discussion, questions,
observations, and just go ahead and raise your
hand. We'll identify committee members as their
hands are raised. So I'll look for those
comments to come in.
Now, until we see the hands raised I
would like to ask -- making notes here. So, in
your report on page 50 you talk about the EXIM
competitiveness and you lay out different things
that affected the competitiveness. As you went
then to page 51 you've got all of the comments
about -- from people. So just reading down
through the highlighted section here. I'm
looking at the third comment. It starts they
have a lower content requirement. The next one,
national content requirement. Another comment,
no ECA requires 85 percent domestic content. The
next one is content. The next one is content.
The next one is content.
So, obviously content was a big part
of the feedback that you got for your report. I
would just ask Jim Cruse why did the content
requirement sort of get papered over? It doesn't
actually get any attention. It's got attention
from the users. It's a major element for the
users, but in your report I forget exactly what
the words were, but it says we've transitioned I
think is the word. It's been evolving. And
that's a fairly benign way to say exactly what
did happen.
So, Jim, if you can address why that
-- when the content requirement is such a major
thing from the feedback why in your report is it
almost a footnote?
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Well, it didn't
mean to be a footnote. As you see in there we
have reported that a lot of people pay attention
to it. It has long been the number one issue
mentioned by the community.
We did take up last year in December
for the China program how we're in the context of
new governments and new priorities. We had been
going through the process of evaluating where we
are on content, looking at the December action,
and trying to define exactly how that fits into
these priorities today.
We are in the midst of that. We're
certainly not trying to downplay it in the report
as much as we are letting the exporters and
bankers speak for themselves. And we reported.
But we didn't have anything specific to add to
that, and we didn't want (audio interference).
So I really don't feel that we were downplaying
it as much as we were trying to let the community
speak for itself.
MR. VAN ES: Chairman Pearce, I put
you on mute just because we were getting a little
bit of feedback.
MEMBER SANCHEZ: Chairman Pearce?
MR. VAN ES: Chairman Pearce, are you
there?
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay, all right.
Sorry about that. So, in follow-up you observed,
Jim, and I appreciate the observation that you're
not downplaying it. But on page 49 you list
things which have the exporters, the lenders, the
export credit practitioners give their views on.
And so you list four things there that views were
given.
But the most dominant view that was
given is not listed there. And so with respect
to your position I think that you are downplaying
it, and I think that that needs resolution.
You also mention in the report one or
maybe two of the countries specific content
requirements. And so not only do we not mention
the EXIM vote to change the content requirement,
we don't mention what it went to. So some of the
observations that I just read off are pointing
out the high content requirement, but at the end
of the year, and I know I don't have to tell you,
but at the end of the year there was a very
significant vote, maybe one of the more
significant things in EXIM history which we
pointed out in our letter that this is a very
significant event and yet it doesn't get
treatment.
I just -- I'm not going to hammer away
at it, but we probably in our letter are going to
point out that we feel like that's an omission of
the report.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: I mean, that's
fair. Like I said we --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: -- not moving on
content because it had been so regular that we
were focusing on things that were new. But there
wasn't any intended downplay, I can guarantee you
that.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: You're telling me
that no one had ever commented before about the
lack of engagement, or maybe the gotcha mentality
that you mentioned in the report? You're saying
those were showing up for the first time.
And again, I'm sorry, I'm not going to
buy that. I think that a lot of the objections
have appeared over decades and so you repeat
those, but to say that you didn't repeat the
content requirement because that it has appeared
so often in the past I think is absolutely
diminishing the importance of that issue and
diminishing the importance of what the board did
at the end of the year.
I'll go on to other questions of the
committee here. Other raised hands, please.
MEMBER SANCHEZ: Chairman Pearce, Alex
Sanchez in Florida.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Yes, go ahead.
MEMBER SANCHEZ: Thank you, Chairman
Pearce. I apologize to you and the committee. I
was only able to access this through my iPhone.
And I've read it three times. And as I kept
reading it I kept looking for the content
requirement and I couldn't find it. So to your
point, and I appreciate you bringing your points
up, I was -- I wasn't sure what had happened to
the recommendation, and correct me if I'm wrong.
It was to go to 51 percent. Isn't that correct?
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: That is correct.
MEMBER SANCHEZ: So I couldn't find
that in the report. And I was wondering to your
point, Chairman Pearce, why it wasn't in there.
So I want to support your comments because I read
this on my iPhone. I kept reading it and I said
my God, I wish I had my laptop because I just, I
can't find it anywhere. So I think that needs to
be clarified, Chairman Pearce.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay, thank you.
We'll keep that discussion going. Other comments
from members of the committee? It looks like,
Venkee Sharma, that you have your hand raised.
You're muted. You're muted, Venkee. Mr. Sharma,
you need to unmute. Go ahead. You're still
muted. You have to go to the tool bar there in
the middle of the screen and unmute the
microphone. Let's go to another one. Scott
Palmer, go ahead.
MEMBER PALMER: No questions, Chairman
Pearce.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. Let's go back
to Mr. Sharma.
MEMBER SHARMA: Hi. Can you hear me
now?
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Yes, yes, that's
great.
MEMBER SHARMA: My apologies. I did
know how to unmute it, but it wasn't working. I
had two quick questions. One is on the -- I
think we kind of didn't complete the thought on
page 41 around the export development guarantee
program from the UK. There was a reference to
box 4 and I couldn't find box 4 within this
document.
But on a more broader basis could
someone from the EXIM team advise sort of what's
the punch line here. It kind of looked like we
were building to something, and how it needs to
be addressed, but on implications -- but the
implication section didn't really address the
impact or what EXIM needs to be looking at with
respect to our own Working Capital Guarantee
Program. So that's really my first question.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: I don't have the
ability to look at page 41 of the report and be
on this screen, but it is quite possible given
the delivery yesterday of the whole report that
there is some glitch there in terms of skipping a
beat.
We were highlighting that program
because it does represent a trend that came
blasting out of the COVID issue of ECAS becoming
much more involved in building up the domestic
capacity in individual countries. And the UK has
done that in spades by building in a longer-term
capex type capacity in working capital. Not just
a short-term year supplies and information, but
rather helping people expand their capacity as a
whole.
And we were trying to accent that
because it was a major development in ECAS moving
internal to the country rather than just looking
at the outside sale of individual exports. So if
we've missed a beat there we will go back and try
to catch that because we did feel it was an
important development.
MEMBER SHARMA: Okay, great. The
punch line seems to be missing a bit as in box 4
(audio interference) the second comment on
sustainable and support sustainable transactions.
Perhaps we should list (audio interference)
clarity of that and how we (audio interference)
more. Because EXIM's (audio interference) focus
seems to be on an appetite for sustainable sales.
But I think with (audio interference) support I
think we need to (audio interference) sort of
definition and what falls into that box. And
that definition of sustainable deals is changing
pretty fast as well. It's a dynamic thing.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: I admit (audio
interference) not hear most of what you just
said. But it dealt with sustainable. And we
certainly were trying to emphasize that
development in the past year. It was a huge
development in all ECAS and I don't know what
more we could have said about all of that.
Isabel, do you want to comment?
MS. GALDIZ: Thanks, Jim. Yes, I just
wanted to add that we were using that reference
to the program, and I do see there is a typo
there we need to fix so thank you for pointing
that out to us, as an example of how ECAS are
moving more into this untied financing domestic
space.
But I do want to draw the committee's
attention to page 48 where we did refer to the
content change with respect to sustainable
finance, and also from the EXIM side for the
China and transformational export program. We
included that reference under sustainable finance
because that was where most of the other ECAS had
introduced the flexibilities that came online
last year which was in favor of climate-friendly
clean energy technologies.
And since our change was coming in
part in response to this -- one of the
transformational sectors being renewable energy
we reported our change there. I hope that
clarifies a little.
MEMBER SHARMA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Just to follow up a
little bit on that. Now I think there's a
congressional restriction for the U.S. EXIM on
any discrimination in energy projects. Is that
correct? Is that correct, Jim?
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Yes. We can't
discriminate by sector. We can use climate
change, environment as a basis for denial, but it
has to be on the basis of a technology or non-
specific aspect.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. Yes, just
getting that into the record there. Other
questions from committee members?
MEMBER DOBRIANSKY: Mr. Chairman, I
don't know if you see me. I've had my hand up
(audio interference).
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Yes, go ahead. I
don't see you and didn't see the hand raised, but
go ahead.
MEMBER DOBRIANSKY: Okay. I have the
hand raised function on. Thank you. I just
wanted to join in behind you and I think it was
Alex who was speaking. I too have been on an
iPhone regrettably over the last days and had a
challenge in reading the report, but I did come
away with the same feeling relative to the
content. So I did want to reaffirm that, number
one.
But number two, Jim, if I could ask
you a little bit of a different question, and
that is moving aside for the moment the comments
that you've heard, how would you define the way
the content was addressed in the context of the
report? I'd be interested in hearing your
description. How do you see it as having been
presented? Thank you.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: I'll also comment
on the fact that the document has morphed over
the past two weeks in ways that I have not kept
up with. I'll say that when we wrote it
originally there was a considerable point on the
fact that other countries continue to use content
as a main tool by which to gain competitive
advantage.
And the area in which they had done
that the most this past year was in the
sustainable area. And how to emphasize and give
an incentive to green projects, they had
particularly lowered the content requirements for
renewable and other types of green projects.
So in my remembrance, the last time I
actually read the entire document which was not
last night I'll grant you, that we had made a
very specific point as to what -- that content
was the major policy tool that other ECAS use to
achieve their ends. And in 2020 that tool had
been applied in particular to incentivizing the
area of sustainable.
That was the point the last time I
read the entire report in its entirety it was
making. If that's not clear I do apologize, but
it certainly was intended to be a specific strong
point.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Other comments or
questions, committee members?
MEMBER RAGUSO: Chairman Pearce, T.J.
Raguso.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: T.J., go ahead.
MEMBER RAGUSO: I don't have a comment
about the content, but if we're done with that
topic I just was going to make another
observation about the report. If that's okay.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: We're in no
particular order here, just people making
comments. It doesn't have to align with a
subject area.
MEMBER RAGUSO: Okay. Referencing
back to our Competitiveness Report from 2019,
Isabel and Jim, you may remember it was probably
one of my observations about -- remember you guys
included in the ECA primer you guys had included
a number of -- I'm sharing my screen right now if
you guys can see it -- remember this? It was
about page 19 on the 2019. You guys have these
nice charts.
Because one of my observations was
that too many times we've got a really long
report, but so many of the people that receive
the report really don't understand how EXIM
financing works. They might make a comment about
how we lend to an exporter on a long-term deal,
like we make a direct loan to Boeing. And the
whole idea was hey, let's show them as much what
it is as what it's not.
And so I still like those. I don't
know if you got pushback on them because I notice
they're not there this time. So anyway, that was
my observation. Since my job is explaining how
different financing things work, boxes and arrows
work for me. And so I just -- any comments on
that? Because I still like them.
MS. GALDIZ: So we like --
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: We did too, we just
didn't get many comments one way or the other and
we're trying to keep the report as short as
possible. If there had been more comments like
yours we would certainly have kept them. We
thought they were good. But a lot of people are
not visual and so we thought perhaps the
visualization hadn't gone over that well because
we didn't get many comments on them.
MEMBER RAGUSO: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thanks, T.J. Other
comments? Committee members.
MEMBER YOUNG: Chairman Pearce, can
you see me?
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: I don't see you
right now, but go ahead.
MEMBER YOUNG: Okay. I wanted to pick
up on the issue of a whole of government approach
to official financing. And in particular that's
something that Chairman Reed and Member Judith
Pryor were very big on and made some strides in I
think previously.
And this is perhaps a little out of
the box, but President Biden just at the G7
talked about the Build Back Better world
initiative which is a partnership to be funded by
the G7 nations in multiple billions to improve
infrastructure in developing nations. And it's
intended to be a rival to China's Belt and Road
Initiative where again I think we really come out
stronger in terms of cleaner energy that we're
(audio interference).
It seems to me this is a big
opportunity for EXIM Bank along with other
government agencies and departments to get
together and be a lead in this global effort to
challenge China. And I'm wondering if the report
might at a minimum put a footnote in it where the
whole of government approach to official
financing is discussed commenting on the EXIM
Bank's potential to lead this effort.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: The issue of
forewarning or foreboding of what would be in
next year's report has come up quite often. We
have gotten a lot of suggestions and kickback on
that so we tend not to do it. We don't disagree
with the thought, but it is something that if we
did it in one place there's probably a dozen
other places that we could do it that are much
more controversial. So I understand and you're
not the first one to make that kind of a comment,
but it does run up against the limitations of the
report as being a report on what happened in
2020.
MS. GALDIZ: Jim, if I could just add
to that. This emphasis on whole of government
approach is exactly trying to capture your point
because we did hear from the community on exactly
these issues which is how can we work together to
provide an effective response.
And so how can we partner with other
agencies to offer that competitive tool to our
exporters that they can benefit from in China and
elsewhere. So your point is extremely well taken
and we did try to shape it in a more backward-
looking way. But others who commented did make
your exact point to us so thank you.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. Before we
take our next comment from committee members I
want to take the opportunity to introduce a
couple of the people who are listening in today.
Ben Johnson is a staffer for
Congressman Williams from Texas. He's on the
Financial Services. A good friend of mine. Also
Mitchell Wilkinson with Congressman Lucas on the
Financial Services. I know them and have worked
with both of them. So thank you for being in the
audience today. Other comments from?
MEMBER SMITH: Chairman Pearce, this
is Chris Smith.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Yes.
MEMBER SMITH: I had my hand up.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Hi Chris, thanks.
MEMBER SMITH: I wanted to ask about
two different things. One, the discussion of the
survey, page 49 and thereafter seems to emphasize
a low response rate which to me is not remotely
surprising given that it was a global pandemic
last year. And frankly, the results of the
survey I think have to be viewed in that context.
I noted that the report catalogues the
number of negative responses from respondents
about the bank during the pandemic in terms of
starting up some new programs. And frankly, I
think the report is completely lacking in context
that again it was during a global pandemic when
the economy and the government were largely shut
down. So I just want to raise questions about
why the lack of context in the report on that,
especially up in the summary.
Second is in the summary there's a
chart on page 10 I think about -- it's a rather
large graphic that for some reason is in the
summary of the report about how other governments
sort of characterize their role in their export
sector.
And I just wonder why -- why that's a
highlight of this report. Other governments can
certainly describe their own roles. I fail to
see the relevance of that to very much because
it's self-reporting by other governments. So I
don't see how that's a relevant comparison to
make since they get to characterize themselves,
and additionally why that would be highlighted in
the summary of the entire report. So those are
my two comments.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Jim, I'll recognize
you. I'm coming from a political election area
where people constantly describe themselves in
maybe different ways than other people would
describe them. I think that Chris is making a
great point. Would you care to address the
relevance of the chart on page 10 that's in the
executive summary?
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: It had to do with
the issue that has been raised for some time, the
different emphasis that countries were
increasingly putting on their ECAS. Ten, twenty
years ago most countries viewed ECAS similarly,
had a similar philosophy and a similar approach.
And we have been noting that for some time.
This was used in the G12 heads of
export credit agencies in September. They felt
that it was a very accurate representation of the
differences in approach and philosophy amongst
these major ECAS. And in that context we thought
it was a good representation of what we had been
talking about.
MS. GALDIZ: And if I could just
supplement what Jim is saying and segue into
another response to your other question regarding
the context. The context that we were offering
is how other governments were turning to their
export credit agencies to help support the
companies and domestic economy during COVID. And
I think what exporters noted to us was relative
to our counterpart EXIM had played a role within
the boundaries that have been already drawn and
that currently exist.
But EXIM did not as other ECAS did
forge new programs, and new relationships, and go
beyond its existing mandate. We were told we did
a great job of helping to restructure credit,
helping to respond to these short-term needs,
working with waivers and other measures that we
took within the four corners of our program
offering.
But other governments approached it
very differently, and really expanded the
envelope of their ECA work into many other areas.
MEMBER SMITH: And wouldn't that have
required action by Congress to allow that to
happen? I just recall seeing announcements
pretty much every week on the relief that EXIM
was providing on a continuous basis. And
frankly, just staying open was a minor miracle.
So again, I think the report is
completely out of context in terms of somehow
criticizing EXIM for doing something that it was
not permitted to do.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Jim, you care to
address that, that EXIM was prohibited from doing
some of the things that you list in the report as
possibly being things that we should have been
doing, or could have been doing?
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Well, I guess it
comes back to the fact that the report is not
criticizing. It is a report of what the exporter
and banker community was commenting about what
other people did compared to what we did.
It is not saying what we should have
done, or tried to get legally done. It is a
picture of their view, and as such it is not a
criticism of the entity, it is a statement of
what the exporters see as a difference in
approach.
Now, what you do with it is up to
Congress. We've been reporting many of these
same things for 20 or 30 years. Some have been
acted on, some have been not acted on. We're not
advocating. We're not pushing. We are simply
doing what the mandate says which is report on
the situation and what the community views as the
situation.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Isabel --
MEMBER SMITH: Jim, I would just ask
Jim, do you agree that EXIM was unresponsive
during the COVID crisis? Is that a fair or
accurate characterization of EXIM?
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: What it is is a
characterization of how the community viewed it.
It's not how we viewed it. Our views are not in
there. Our views are simply -- our job is simply
to report on how the community viewed it.
MEMBER SMITH: Well, this is a report
from EXIM Bank. You're entitled to have a view.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: I'd just say many
of the people would view -- would have a
disagreement with that statement. I don't
comment one way or the other, but many others
have said that our views should not be in the
report.
MEMBER SMITH: Yes, but I don't think
many other people have said EXIM Bank was
unresponsive during COVID. That to me lacks
credibility and accuracy.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: They didn't say we
were unresponsive, they said compared to others
we were not as wide and deep in the response.
But what we did was quite responsive and quite
helpful. We explicitly reported that.
MEMBER SMITH: On page 50 the first
paragraph says unresponsiveness.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Like I said I'm not
looking at it. I don't know.
MEMBER SMITH: EXIM's lack of
direction and unresponsiveness as problematic and
unique among all ECAS. I can't think of a
stronger negative indictment of what was by any
other metric an incredibly successful year for
EXIM Bank during a global pandemic. So I think
that's completely inappropriate to be in this
report.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thank you, Chris.
And following up on that, Isabel, you had I
thought in your statement about what EXIM was
supposed to do in this report, one, you're
supposed to make recommendations. Is that not
one of the statements that you made?
MS. GALDIZ: The Advisory Committee is
charged with reviewing the report and making
recommendations. The staff is charged with
compiling data and information, and conducting a
survey, and then compiling that for you, the
Advisory Committee, to review. So we aren't
really being asked about staff making
recommendations.
MEMBER SMITH: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I'll yield the floor, but I think that the
Advisory Committee's letter needs to correct the
record on some of these just factual errors.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Yes. We have those
penciled in to the section. If you note in the
letter that we circulated around, it left blank
that area about the report because it came pretty
late and I was frankly still working on it last
night when I finally got to a laptop. Like you
all I was having to work from a cell phone. It
was very difficult in the I think 48 hours that I
had the report in my hands to discern it. So
late last night I was working on that.
And so we've written those objections
into a section that has not been circulated
around. We'll circulate that around before we
finalize the Advisory Committee letter. But I'm
in full agreement with you and appreciate that.
So, one of the questions that I've got
-- oh, go ahead. Yes.
MEMBER SANCHEZ: Alex in Florida,
Chairman Pearce. Chairman Pearce, I agree with
those last comments. I will have access again to
my laptop tomorrow and I want to read this report
in its entirety.
Those last comments alone would not
even addressing the content policy which I agree
with you, Chairman Pearce, was one of the major
decisions made by this organization, this body
and the board I think is a failure. I for one
cannot agree to this report as written right now.
I will withhold final judgment on it until I get
to my laptop tomorrow, but the last comments I
agree with. And then my earlier content -- I
agree with your comments.
Basically you read the thing and you
wonder where's the 51 percent. So, let's send
this out tomorrow so we can read it and many of
us didn't have much time to read this before the
call.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: That's exactly
correct. So I visualize that we may have another
meeting of the Advisory Committee next week. So,
just you can stay tuned for that. And I
appreciate the time frame which we were working
with. Paula, I saw your hand go up a moment ago.
MEMBER DOBRIANSKY: All right, thank
you. I'm just brief -- I see Owen's hand. And I
don't know if I'm going before Owen, or skipping,
or preemptive him, but Owen, I'm very brief.
I just wanted to say I too want to
back up what Chris Smith said. I think his words
are exactly right, and also I think it was Alex
before. And I would welcome the opportunity. I
only used an iPhone as well so I finally have a
computer that was not operative but now is. So,
I'm just joining that chorus strongly in this
case.
I think that this last period was very
significant in terms of the discussion that we
had, and in terms of the work. It was
consequential. And the terms used, whole of
government approach, very consequential in terms
of U.S. markets, U.S. businesses. So I want to
support the content comments and the last
comments made by Chris Smith. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thank you. Owen,
we're coming to you now.
MEMBER HERRNSTADT: Thanks. I'm not
even sure where to begin, quite frankly, Mr.
Chair. First of all, I really want to send my
compliments to the staff and the career officers
Jim and Isabel at the bank for putting together
this report in an unbelievably difficult year of
COVID, increased competition, changes, et cetera.
And I think your dedication and the comprehensive
report that you put together is a good testament
to the service that you've given the bank and the
American people and exporters, et cetera. And so
thank you for that.
I think it's also important to
remember, and please correct me if I'm wrong Jim
and Isabel, but what the Advisory Committee is
being asked to do is provide a letter commenting
on the report, not approving the report but
commenting on the report. So I think it's
important that we remember that.
While there are some things with the
report I may take maybe a little issue with I
think it's important to also stress what Jim just
said. The idea of the report as my understanding
is, is to give Congress a better idea on what the
competitiveness and what the status of the
competitiveness of the Export-Import Bank is.
I don't think it's supposed to be a
policy paper, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
And you've stated the facts to the best of your
ability.
I want to compliment you on a few
things. One, past Advisory Committees have
raised questions about the responsiveness of the
surveys and the low numbers. I noticed there
were 26 this time on it. But I do appreciate the
efforts you have made to increase that
responsiveness by going out and getting a third
party survey. And I think this is something that
you're going to have to work on. I don't know
how to do it. I leave that to the experts. But
I think your genuine effort to do that is very
welcome.
I also welcome your attention on other
governments' ECAS on sort of their holistic
approach. I've said for a long time we have to
remember in comparing ECAS that ECAS, some are
public like the bank, some are private like
others in Europe. Some have different missions
and different purposes. And some work in more
partnership and cohesion with other policies that
governments have, like creating jobs, et cetera,
on that.
What we've got is the U.S. Export-
Import Bank which does both, to support exports
that support the mission to create and maintain
good jobs here at home. And I think it's always
good to remember in comparing ECAS the
difference. So I like the effort in terms of the
chart that you mentioned I believe on page 10 on
that, with respect to that.
Critically I liked your comments,
Isabel, about taking a look at the holistic
approach of the Export-Import Bank in working
with other agencies within the U.S. government as
well. This is something that EXIM is part of,
can't solve on its own, but obviously has its own
turf and mission that Congress has given it. But
it's to complement all the other work that's
being done on this domestically for exporters.
The other thing is the attention to
China I think is once again critical. I remember
several years ago you were asked to focus on
China and you really have done that. And I
understand the opaqueness and the difficulty with
getting information about China's ECA, the
efforts you've made with Mandarin, and many other
things I think show a really giant step forward,
and it's very critical, your efforts to do that
as well.
In terms of the content piece I'm not
going to belabor that. I mean, I and others
dissented over the December 17 decision of the
board on that. My understanding is it hasn't
been implemented yet, but you're figuring stuff
out on that. I get that. I think the inclusion
of that in the Competitiveness Report is handled
in the box discussion on content. I quickly
counted, and I may be short on this, goes for at
least five pages I think on it. I think that's
an awful lot and I think there are so many things
to focus on in terms of competitiveness and the
attention to all of those things is obviously
critical.
I'm a little confused, Chris. The
report that the bank has furnished if I
understand it correctly is reporting on what
exporters have said about the bank just like the
pages of comments that some exporters have said
about content on that. So, what the
Competitiveness Report is reporting to Congress I
think is what exporters -- I'm sorry, what some
exporters have said to try to give a picture to
the bank. It's not a conclusion that the bank is
making on any of these things, but merely
reporting out what some of those concerns are.
There are a few other things, but
again, I really want to stress that in our
letter. The nine pages, Mr. Chairman, you sent
us I must confess a little troubled by it. And I
want to focus on really our comments on the
Competitiveness Report itself.
I really want to stress that in
whatever letter we ultimately agree on or
disagree on putting forward, that we really do
compliment the bank for putting together a
Competitiveness Report in some of the most
strenuous, difficult times I think any of us have
ever witnessed in a difficult year. So that's my
two cents. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thank you. I would
associate myself with your comments on the
dedication and (audio interference) for the
staff. I don't think our discussion here is any
way out of line. There are questions that need
to be asked, and you wondered why we were having
these discussions, that we're not supposed to
approve the report.
I take it pretty seriously as a former
member of Congress that I find reasons to
disagree with pieces of the report. And before
we put those into writing I would prefer that we
find some ground where we can (audio
interference) handle this issue, a very difficult
issue, handle it very well or if we don't come to
an agreement then we'll have to express our
independent opinion. That's the reason these
discussions are going on. I don't think any
(audio interference) the effort of the staff.
There are legitimate questions about the way that
the things have been stated, and we're going to
continue with those. Rodney Ferguson, you've got
your hand up.
MEMBER HERRNSTADT: Mr. Chair, if I
could just -- when I said the approval of the
report it referenced one of my colleagues talking
about the committee (audio interference) report.
And I was just looking for clarity there. Of
course our discussion is on comment on the report
itself.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. I understand,
thank you. Rodney.
MEMBER FERGUSON: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for the staff. I'd also
reiterate Owen's point about the ability to get
this report done in an extraordinarily difficult
year, and the efforts to even expand on some of
the information. Though not as robust as you'd
hoped at least it was an honest and thorough
effort on your part so that's to be applauded.
I want to make two points. First,
briefly on the content issue. I would point out
to everyone that one of the case studies in the
appendix, I think it may be H, I'm not sure, is
devoted to someone commenting at length about the
difficulty they face operating in an environment
with content restrictions. As I read the report
and read the appendices to me that stood out as
an indication that there was some effort to
dedicate space in the report to a firsthand
experience with that. And we can argue about
emphasis elsewhere in the report, but I just
wanted to point that out to all of you who may
have not have gotten down to the appendices that
it is featured there.
But the real comment I wanted to make,
and it's sort of a comment and a question. In
the Appendix G, the environmental appendix, there
is a long discussion about progress made on
efforts to encourage renewable energy exports and
to create access to that, financing on the part
of the bank. I applaud that of course.
But there was a curious thing, and
this maybe is a question. A curious thing has
occurred between the report and the letter. In
the report there is a lengthy discussion of
renewable energy focused on battery storage,
solar, financing of wind projects, et cetera.
And of course which I applaud and there is much
to discuss even within that appendix.
But in the letter there's a somewhat
curious inclusion there where you talk about
renewables and then as almost an afterthought you
include nuclear energy which is not mentioned as
far as I can tell in the full report. I could be
wrong. Like many of you I've had less than a
fulsome opportunity to read through this report,
but I have read it. And I don't remember any
reference to nuclear energy. And suddenly in the
letter it's included as an example of something
that should be supported by the effort of
Congress to include it under the renewable energy
category.
I would say that the idea of including
nuclear energy under the renewable category is in
and of itself controversial within the
environmental community. There are people that
do not in any form or fashion consider nuclear as
renewable energy nor -- because it isn't.
Uranium is not a renewable resource. Nor is it
generally thought of in terms of globally as one
of the innovative new sources which is another
categorization we use throughout this report.
So I would just put that to your
attention that while I think we can have a
healthy debate about nuclear energy and nuclear
energy exports I just found it curious that it
would be included in the summary letter but not
anywhere to be found in the report. And I think
it may bear a note that nuclear exports are
generally not considered clean or renewable
energy by most of the environmental community at
least. So I would leave it at that.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: -- Ferguson, having
been the one who put the nuclear in there I was
just trying to make the point that the Congress
has mandated a non-discrimination policy and
nuclear is the ultimate clean energy. There's
absolutely no emissions from that. So it may not
fit with renewables, but it may fit with clean
energy. We'll try to make that distinction. I
see that Mr. Powell has got his hand up. Rich.
MEMBER POWELL: Yes. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman. Just responsive to that last
point on nuclear. As I read the letter, and I
very much associate myself with that specific
point in the letter and the letter overall, very
much share the concept that in future
congressional action, either reauthorize or
improve the activities of the Export-Import Bank,
the transformational exports program, especially
the China competitive transformational exports
program ought to include nuclear amongst the
clean energy resources.
I take exception with one point that
Mr. Ferguson just made. While I do think that
there are some environmental community that don't
see renewable energy as clean energy, given all
of the discussion earlier in the conversation
about the importance that this administration is
putting on climate action, and given the very
clear signals that this administration has made
from its campaign plans all the way through the
American Jobs plan that nuclear energy, in
particular advanced nuclear energy is a critical
part of addressing the global climate challenge.
I would strongly urge both this
committee and the bank overall when it's talking
about clean energy to include nuclear in that
definition, and certainly we would support a
recommendation from the committee to Congress to
include more recognition for nuclear in the
transformational exports program going forward.
I think from a climate perspective it's pretty
unarguable that nuclear certainly in the United
States is the foremost form of clean energy.
Globally it is a primary form of clean energy.
And certainly as we think about competition with
China and Russia in global exports having an
extremely competitive nuclear energy export
program is just absolutely vital.
Obviously EXIM has played a vital role
in that in the past. I think we've discussed
this in previous meetings. I would certainly
associate with that comment in a letter. Thanks
very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks as well to
the staff for this report.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thank you, Mr.
Powell. Maria Cino, you've got your hand up.
MEMBER CINO: Yes, thank you very
much. Listen, I'll make this brief. It appears
that the two hours goes by pretty quick here as
we're almost three quarters done.
But again, not to repeat. I concur
with what Chris said earlier. We probably are
all in the same boat, or most of us are in the
same boat. It sounds like everybody was working
off an iPhone last night and trying to read the
report. So maybe looking at the report a little
bit more closely and coming back.
But I do want to stress, and I think
you highlighted it very well, Chairman, in your
conclusion. I've been on this -- I've been on
the advisory board for a little less than two
years. In that time I came here where there was
no appropriations, and suddenly we had record
appropriations for EXIM Bank. And then we went
into in 2020 three quarters of the year COVID.
So in light of that a great deal was
accomplished, and I do think that it is something
that we continue to need to stress as we look at
answering and responding to this letter. So
again, don't want to be redundant of what Chris
and Paula said, but I concur.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thank you very much.
I'm looking at the hands. I don't see the full
list. Hold on just a second. Let me go to
another question that I have if you could.
So, Jim, one of the things that is key
in any business is looking at the future. And so
I don't know this, and maybe I just overlooked
it, but in the report there's no mention of the
loans and the programs that are being considered
in the pipeline. Is that a part of the report
that I just missed?
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: No. As I said in
response to someone else we try to report on just
what was going on in 2020. We quite
intentionally have never talked about what we
have in the pipeline, what we're about to do.
That's just part of the parameters of this report
which is to report on the 12 months of activity
ending the previous December.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: What just by way of
information how much is in the pipeline right now
roughly? How much in loans are in the pipeline?
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Thirty some
billion. I'm not going to be too precise, but
it's a number around 35. And it goes up and down
fairly regularly depending upon the size of
chunky transactions that come in and out.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: So there is a
significant difference -- and by the way,
Chairman Reed in her testimony in front of the
Senate committee last year. I've got that
somewhere. But she at the end of the year said
$39 billion. So -- and it's a very important
number. Now, maybe you don't refer to it, but I
think for the purposes of this committee that we
should know that that's a fairly significant
figure.
So, as we're looking at the annual
report that was put out last year I think there's
a difference -- let me back up to the list on
page 29. It shows that the U.S. has got $1.8
billion in loans out. The whole thing in
Mozambique, did that occur in 2020? Wasn't there
an amendment to the 2018 so it kind of reset
itself? Wasn't that $4.7 billion in 2020?
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: No. The action in
2020 was an amendment that slightly lowered the
figure. We only count in the year the change in
the activity. And so in this case it would have
been a minus. So the Mozambique shows up in
2019.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. But it shows
up in 2019, but the commitment changed. Didn't
the players change? Didn't the initial applicant
sell out or whatever to Total in France? That
doesn't require a different accounting? Because
your annual report I think has the $4.7 in there,
$4.7 plus the $1.8, and now the figure in the
annual report is going to be different than the
figure in this Competitiveness Report.
As a former member of Congress I can
tell you that when things don't harmonize then
you sit here and you have more questions than
what you should have. And there should be even
maybe an explanation that the number in the
annual report reflected an amendment to a
process. But for me as a business guy if you've
got a commitment out there for whatever, you
amend it and you say okay, we're going to reset
it, it's amended down because of some of the
competitive things onshore and some offshore. We
reset it but it's still an obligation to us.
Then that's a fairly significant position to
recognize that we have this commitment out here,
$4.7 billion and $1.8 billion. And at some point
there is a recognition that we are limited in
resources and how much does this -- how much more
risk can we take on, how much more exposure can
we take on.
And so, I don't know. It seems like
there needs to be some harmony between the annual
report and this Competitiveness Report, or you've
got people coming into the equation with
different numbers.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Well, the annual
report is a fiscal year and the Competitiveness
Report is a calendar year. Those are by the
definitions of each. We try to maintain the
consistency calendar year to calendar year.
In terms of Mozambique I'm simply
going by the rules in credit reform that all
government agencies have to follow. Our offices,
financial, the budget office is the ultimate
arbiter of this. We're simply following how they
report it. And we can't really play with how
they report it.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: That's fine.
Rodney, your hand is up. Is that still from
before, or do we need to recognize you?
MEMBER FERGUSON: No, Mr. Chair, that
was from before. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. Rich, your
hand's up. Maria, if that's (audio
interference). Linda, Linda Formella, I see
yours up now.
MS. FORMELLA: Thank you. Thank you
for recognizing me. I'm Linda Formella from the
communications office. This conversation about
the annual report, maybe I can help you a little
bit with that.
The way it was reported in the 2019
would have been the original authorization.
That's how it would have shown up. What we did
last year, I just checked the plan (audio
interference) listed in the long-term loans and
guarantees which is appropriate because it wasn't
an amendment.
However, we did discuss as a pull-out
of a success story the fact that it had been
amended to the $4.7 billion. So I hope that's
helpful. I agree whenever there's an amendment
and we highlight the amendment it does get
confusing, but in terms of reporting the numbers
that wasn't reported twice. We just reported the
fact that we had amended and are highlighting it.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay, thanks.
Appreciate that. One of the questions -- again,
I'm looking for hands, and I see Maria and
Rodney. I think your hands may still be up from
before. Are they new hands? Maria, you got
something? Rodney? Isabel, your hand's up now.
You want to make a comment?
DIRECTOR BACHUS: Yes, thank you. I
just wanted to go back on the point that somebody
made regarding the unresponsiveness comment. And
I realize that you've only been reading, many of
you, most of you, this report on the phone given
the short time you've had with it.
So, just to clarify. The comment
about unresponsiveness that was referenced is in
general and it is not related to EXIM Bank's
response to COVID. And in the subsequent section
just below that comment which was a general point
that we drew from the exporter and lender
commentary in general about EXIM Bank, under the
key points from the survey and focus groups there
was a specific comment.
And I do want to say this because I
see many from EXIM staff are online and they
haven't even seen, many of them, the report.
That exporters were mostly positive. And it says
here exporters were mostly positive about EXIM's
COVID-19 response, appreciating how EXIM's
changes to the supply chain, finance program,
made the product more accessible.
One exporter made another comment.
And then in the quotes, exporters are very
complimentary of the way that the EXIM guarantee
product performed under stress during COVID. So
I think that there were many positive points that
were made about EXIM's response to the COVID, and
the unresponsiveness was relative to kind of
generally EXIM's customer service relative to
other ECAS.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Again, if I can give
a sense for us who are seeing the report for the
first time it feels like the comments, if you
visualize a balance scale sitting here, and the
comments on the negative side far outweigh the
comments on the positive side. And for the
casual staffer reading from Congress they're
going to see the weight of the comments that were
made on the negative side that this didn't work,
this didn't work, this didn't work, this didn't
work. Oh, and this worked okay. This didn't
work. This didn't work. This didn't work.
Anyway, and so you're going to measure by the
relative weight. That's what I mentioned to Lee
in conversation yesterday is that that you depend
on the people down the street to authorize and to
fund this program. And if everything is not
working then that's a significant thing.
So Jim, again I'm looking at page 29
and the ranking of 13th of the U.S. in that list
of countries. Somewhere in the report, and I
wasn't able to find it just as I was doing the
reviewing, it's talking about some of the
countries during COVID began to spend -- their
ECAS began to operate very much for domestic
industries. And the statement was regardless of
their export footprint. And so my question is is
it possible to determine, and I think UK was
mentioned specifically, their ECA. So is it
possible to say that the money that is listed in
here, UK is number seven in the list at $3.4
billion, is that 100 percent for exports, or are
they mixing the funding streams supporting
companies that are not doing any exporting at
all? So give me a little bit of a reflection on
that if you can.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: The numbers in that
table are supposed to be only meaning the long-
term export finance. We went to some
considerable trouble to differentiate what they
spent internally, short, medium, long-term
working capital, and what they had allocated into
their typical standard medium/long-term export
finance. The figures in that table are self-
reported medium/long-term export finance.
MR. VAN ES: Congressman Pearce, are
you there?
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: I'm here, I'm
talking to myself. So, if I could follow up that
question. What's the significance of putting the
statement in the report that ECAS, some ECAS are
focused on non-export domestic countries if the
numbers don't -- if the numbers are not being
affected by it that seems like a confusing thing
to me that it says okay, be aware some of the
ECAS are doing that, but we're not reporting the
numbers in the report. You see the possible
question that I have. And again, I'm asking the
question from down the street because you sit
here and you see a statement in the report and
you start wondering well, does that table reflect
it or not. And so at least the statement should
be added that even though some ECAS are now
focusing internally on non-export companies that
this report, or this table, or whatever is
reflective only of their exports. Because it did
raise a question in my mind when I saw that
qualification.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: All right. The
point on the domestic side has been to say in the
context of COVID people -- some countries had put
an enormous amount of time into supporting their
domestic supply chain even if they didn't have
that much of a regular medium/long-term activity.
It was simply a note as to how ECAS are used
which is a separate point from their activity.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. Fine.
Another -- I see Joanne Young, another member
with her hand up. Joanne.
MEMBER YOUNG: I'm glad to be out of
the car so I can have a little more stable photo.
First of all, I totally agree with the comments
on content that have been made.
And secondly, with respect to the
negativity of the report and citing commentators
to that effect I wonder if it's possible to drop
some footnotes where applicable, and at least
indicate if these are things that Congress has
imposed on the bank.
I mean, there was a major effort to
get the bank reauthorized and funded, but there's
certain restrictions that the EXIM staff and
leadership are dealing with, and that Congress
imposed. And I'm just wondering whether to the
extent you feel you've got to make these negative
comments or include them that where applicable
they could tie into the restrictions you all
operate under.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: There have been a
lot of debates in the years about that type of
qualification. I'm not arguing (audio
interference) one another, but it is viewed as if
it's due to government mandate -- and take MARAD
as a classic example. We simply report what the
exporters say. On the other hand we try to make
points that MARAD is a mandated consideration due
to defense security issues wanting to have a
maritime fleet capable of carrying our troops
across the ocean.
So it's something we try to keep a
level focus on, but footnoting every comment to
whether it related to a mandate or a
congressional restriction might be a little
difficult. Take the one on responsiveness. I
have no idea what that particular commentator was
addressing. And most of them aren't easy enough
to identify. But dropping footnotes is something
we'd have to view and ask a broader political
dynamic on. I'm not opposed to it, I'm just
saying it has been proposed in the past and it
did not get a lot of support.
MEMBER YOUNG: Thank you. I just
think that some of the comments may be out of
proportion and also make the EXIM staff and
leadership look not as good as they should. So I
do think that at least some balance there,
especially as I say where you can do nothing
about these restrictions, it would be good for
Congress to know.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thank you, Joanne.
Other questions from committee members. Seeing
no hands -- oh, Joanne's hand is still up.
Another observation. Go ahead.
MEMBER YOUNG: I'm sorry, my hand is
down.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. All right.
So, one of the questions that I've got is on the
-- I think page 48 where it talks about the
initiation of EXIM Advisory Committee,
Subcommittee on Strategic Competition with the
People's Republic of China. I recall
specifically that it was the subcommittee who
generated that, or it was the Advisory Committee
who generated that subcommittee. And in long
discussions with the chair before we did that,
and she was pointing that her general counsel was
saying that they didn't have the right without --
because of FACA, the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, that they were -- that EXIM itself was very
limited in this capacity. And so I think it's a
very important point that the subcommittee
originated from the Advisory Committee, not from
EXIM. And I think that's a correction that needs
to be put into the report.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: I don't disagree.
We'll see what we can do.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay, thank you.
And conversely, again to harmonize the name of
the subcommittee has evolved. And in the report
it's one thing, but in the initial creation it's
the EXIM Advisory Subcommittee on Strategic
Competition with the People's Republic of China.
And I would urge that you again harmonize that
between years. From down the street nothing is
more confusing because you've got so many
agencies that you're trying to oversee, you've
got so many different committees and
subcommittees that when a name changes now then
the staff has to go and research is this actually
the same as before. And if we could get that
name in the report harmonized with its initiation
last year that would be helpful for the people
who are trying to dissect this report down the
street.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Yes, I agree. Keep
it straight. And I would like to just add at the
end here that the Advisory Committee comment is
free to come up with what they think are
omissions or whatever. So the fact that the
people who responded to the survey said a whole
bunch of things in one direction does not stop
the Advisory Committee from saying our experience
should be added to the comments that are here.
And they list ding, ding, ding, ding. So that's
totally within the scope of the Advisory
Committee comment which is to give Congress the
views from the Advisory Committee as to whether
the survey and all the other stuff that we did
captures a realistic picture of the export
finance competition. It is quite appropriate for
added (audio interference) brought in to bear.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Yes. So speaking
for myself, and I see Judith has got her hand up,
but let me kind of address that. That one of the
reasons I think that this discussion is so valid
and so energized is that speaking for myself, but
I heard the same thing from committee members
over the last two years, that EXIM came from
being shut down. And we got the reauthorization
actually after the Advisory Committee was put
into place.
And to watch an agency of four or five
hundred people transition from basically
hibernation into pretty active, and then to very
active, and one of the biggest deals that was
ever done at EXIM, all those things kind of
occurring. The reforms coming from Congress.
Those things were having to be implemented. And
so as an individual I'm watching an agency that
is trying to come out of a dormant period and
become fully active. And I think that
universally the committee -- the Advisory
Committee was extremely complimentary over the
two-year period.
And so to read this report feels like
it was -- that maybe we saw it wrong. For me I'm
not willing to let the permanent staff and the
accomplishments that were put into place. Just
doing those reforms was significant enough, but
doing reforms, changing content, moving ahead,
and dealing with COVID, and the action on the
bridge financing, and all that stuff was
happening at light speed. And so I think for
myself had a very, just a very good feeling about
EXIM having watched on the Hill as different
members tried to kill the thing. For four years
they were trying to kill you completely, get you
completely out of -- where you could never be
reauthorized.
And so to watch that with that
background and to watch it become mobile, and
agile, and active, I think that's the reason that
this conversation is energized. I see Judith
Pryor again. Judith, thanks for your service and
we're keeping our fingers crossed for you,
Judith. Go ahead.
DIRECTOR PRYOR: Thank you so much,
Chairman Pearce, and thank you so much for your
kind comments at the top of the meeting.
Just a few observations. I think one
of the best things I heard today could be best
summed up as sort of don't shoot the messenger.
The Advisory Committee is free to dispute the
opinions that have been offered by those
interviewed. And it sounds as if this committee
is very willing to do so in the letter that will
be included in this report. So I couldn't agree
more with you. This staff has had a tough year
and has done a fantastic job. Honestly, I bet
the staff -- because they're solely responsible
for collecting data. But I'm guessing they were
biting their tongues reading some of these
comments and just would love nothing more than to
be able to refute each and every one. But a
minute on that in just a second.
I would also venture to guess that
it's very difficult to get others to participate
in this survey. The numbers have dropped so
substantially. It was a bad year. It was a
tough year for everyone. But the other thing is
we were shuttered for four years. If I'm other
ECAS, and even customers to some extent, why
participate? This is a super difficult task that
EXIM has been mandated to perform year after
year.
And I just want to emphasize that
because we're not king of the hill anymore.
We're not the ECA that everyone looked up to, the
same ECA that was operating in 2015. And I think
it's hurt the response level for this report.
And that's just a gut feeling, but I'm usually
pretty spot on with some of my gut feelings.
And then last, I will say this team
probably had some extensive feedback. I've heard
everybody say I haven't had time to read this.
Director Bachus and I just got this report
yesterday at about 5:30 for the first time. I
haven't had a chance to read through all of it.
I'm just guessing that there's been
some extensive back and forth with the
interagency review process which has held up this
report. But again, once again this is meant to
report the data. So I really encourage the
Advisory Committee to be strong in its comments
that get included in this report.
And I know I said last, but just one
more question for Vice Chair Cruse and Isabel and
others. Is there ability for rebuttal? Is there
an opportunity for others besides the Advisory
Committee or Director Bachus and myself to
include comments or rebut some of the points that
were made in this document? Because I do agree
with Chairman Pearce, it does seem truly unfair
that all the efforts, and all the hard work that
this team has done day in and day out go
unrecognized and erroneously reported.
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Well, rebuttal has
been discussed, not in the past 15 or 20 years.
When it started up there were a lot of questions
about what should the report contain. And it was
decided early on that it should not have a
continuing access, rebuttal. A statement,
rebuttal, and then rebuttal of rebuttal, and all
this type of stuff.
But I think the important thing here
to remember is that what I'm hearing today is the
reflection of the fact that from a dead stop,
nearly dead period to where we are today has been
a fantastic achievement of staff and work, and
program structure, and responsiveness.
The community is looking at that and
going yes, you did. You were very impressive in
what you did compared to where you were. But
they're looking at it compared to what others are
doing. And they're simply making the point that
no matter how huge a jump it was for us, and how
impressive it was what we did, compared to what
the others have done and are doing. Remember,
they have been doing this for all the years that
we were doing nothing, that they are so far ahead
in what they are, and so sophisticated in what
they're doing that the comparison is like what
you see here.
I don't know it's a rebuttal of facts,
but what you see depends upon where you sit, or
something like that. That when you sit from the
exporter and buyer perspective and compare what
we're able to offer compared to what the others
are able to offer and do there seems to be a big
difference.
When you look at it from where we are
compared from where we were it's impressive,
exceptional, outstanding effort. And so I think
the important thing here is to make that
distinction and to recognize it. I don't think
that one's right and one's wrong. The
perspective of where we stand vis-a-vis where
everybody else is at least at the end of 2020. I
might quibble with the words "totally
unresponsive," but the general picture that we're
in a far different place than most everybody else
if fairly accurate. We are in a far better place
than we were two years ago, and that -- the staff
and the management, the leadership, deserves a
lot of credit for that. And I have been one of
the ones who have credited them for that.
But it's just a matter of is your view
comparative to others, or is your view compared
to where you were. And both views can have a
high degree of accuracy in them. And I think
that's the type of correction that would be
useful to include in this commentary.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: If I could (audio
interference) I appreciate that. Judith, were
you finished there? I'm sorry, I'm cutting you
off.
DIRECTOR PRYOR: I was there. I was
just agreeing with Jim. I think that as it's
been said many times on this call most of what
we're following has been mandated by Congress.
And it has put some -- thrown a wrench in our
ability to respond to the market. So in the same
way. So yes, I would welcome that, Jim. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thanks,
Commissioner. So, I guess my question right now
is Jim and Isabel, what things do we need to put
into our letter that would help give a clearer
picture of the movement? In other words, some
people might not know the things that you all
did. And so if we're going to offer a contrast
to what the report is because you're mandated to
do the report and the surveys and to put that
thing out there. I wouldn't want to cover those
up.
But what things could we point to that
you all in response to the gotchas or the other
comments that kind of jump off the page, what
actions in 2020 were taken to start dealing with
those complaints?
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Well, I think the
comments made here are fairly representative.
You start with setting up the China program and
the decisions made in December of 2020. We're
compared to where we were a giant step for all of
U.S. mankind. That's -- other people look at
going from 85 to 51 and they say pshaw, everybody
else is at 20. And you're only talking about
transformational sectors.
So that's why I'm saying that both
sides are correct. We made a major step there.
We made a major step with our COVID responses,
the performance of our asset management unit in
salvaging the situation with the airline
industry. We're going to end up with very, very
few losses there in an industry that has been
absolutely decimated by this because of the
equality of our analysis, the quick-footedness of
the people and the negotiating skills. We have
managed to put almost all of those transactions
on good footing as well as responding to the
supply chain and other needs of exporters that
were unique. So we did quite a few things that
the exporters did comment favorably on as Isabel
had pointed out.
That may not be as obvious or as
significant as people think it should be and
that's a fair comment. But how we responded to
COVID was exceptional in terms of what the needs
of our sector was. How we dealt with the issue
of China was an exceptional step forward in terms
of meeting the demands of that situation.
And putting all the reforms in place
that Chairman Reed did during calendar year '20
in terms of looking at additionality, and the
broad, and all the things that had been mentioned
before. So yes, she gave the bank a sound
footing upon which to grow. And programs which
can be filled in with details.
And so from the perspective of where
we were and where we got to by the end of the
year there is a good double handful of major
accomplishments. All we're trying to say and
what the exporters were trying to say is don't be
too content with that. You have come a long way,
but that the others have been going at this for
the past 10 years and they're pretty far ahead of
you. And you have a chasm yet to handle.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thank you.
(Simultaneous speaking.)
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Go ahead, Isabel.
Go ahead.
MS. GALDIZ: If I could just add one
point in response to what Director Pryor just
mentioned. If we look at the data the United
States, the EXIM Bank placed 13th, 13th. That
was a painful sentence for me to write into the
report. So if we just look at the
data. Coming in after Denmark. I mean, come on.
That was a lot for us at the staff to write. And
if you listen to the commentary from the
exporters and lenders, they saw that as well.
They saw that we were not in the deals. They
reported that we were not at the table.
And the efforts that we made to
respond to COVID are not connected to this report
per se because we are looking at competitiveness
of current projects, and unresponsiveness was
relative to are you putting out offers of support
today for all of these requests that we have for
you.
So the stellar work which was truly
stellar as Jim recognized in terms of portfolio
management wouldn't really hit let's say the
books of this report because it's focused on
competitiveness and which export credit agencies
completed the deals and which ones didn't. And
our placement demonstrates where we fall on that
spectrum.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: I appreciate that.
And just one side thought then. Of the $40, $39
billion that was in the pipeline, this is not for
our comment or report, but just for our use as an
Advisory Committee. So in the first six months
or whatever we've got in 2021 how many of those
projects have come on through and been locked
down?
VICE CHAIR CRUSE: Well, I'll put it
this way. In calendar year 2021 we're not going
to be 13th. We have had so far to date a much
more vigorous level of activity. And by the end
of the year I'm pretty certain we'll be back in
the top 10 if not higher.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. Again, as the
Advisory Committee that's reassuring that all the
things that we saw taking place last year that
take a while to get any action. But yes, that's
-- know that we're moving up the list, not down
the list. Trends are always very important in

business and just watching that trend go the
right direction. We can improve and scoot higher
in the direction.
Director Pryor, you're back up with
your hand. Go ahead.
DIRECTOR PRYOR: No, no, I'm sorry.
I never turned it off. Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: No problem, no
sweat. Okay. We're close to our two-hour point
here and we haven't made a decision. I will tell
you, Chris Van Es, if you and I can have a
conversation right here so that people know.
I think that we need to as Advisory
Committee approve our report and our letter and I
don't think it's ready to go. What I'd like to
do is maybe work with -- so it can come together
really quickly now. I think the observations
that we have here, I think we can make amendments
and start circulating that like by the revisions.
In probably three hours I'll have another
revision ready, send it. You all can circulate
it. And then I would guess that maybe Monday we
have to have a short meeting to actually take a
vote. I'd like your input on that.
MR. VAN ES: I think that is fine. I
do want to check with the staff in terms of FACA
and making sure that we comply with any sunshine
laws. So let me see if I can check with the
staff and make sure that we do that. I think if
it requires a meeting to vote I think that's fine
conceptually.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Yes. And I want to
comply with all of the rules and laws of
notification of public meetings. So we may just
vote on this thing by email if that's again, if
that's allowed under the rules.
MR. VAN ES: I suspect it is, but
again, certainly as a non-lawyer I would like to
double check that before we commit.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. So then to
the rest of the committee you see here where we
are, that we've had I think a very powerful
discussion. There are strong emotions on it and
that's to be understood because I think people
feel strongly about the efforts that we've seen
over the past two years.
And being a part of the group that was
trying to break the back of EXIM. Not being a
part of the ones that were trying to do it, but
to hold them back. It was good friends of mine
who were trying to do that. So to watch what
we've done is two years is just extraordinary.
And so I again commend the entire staff and this
discussion today I don't think was personal. And
I ask that please don't let it become that way.
But I think it's been very instructive.
So we're going to -- I will get to
work on the last pieces of that report. We're
going to circulate it around. Feel free if
you're going to make changes, send things in
Word. So make the changes in Word and it will
identify who's making the changes. And then I
take those and I put them into a master document
with both the original and whatever. And then
I'll try to harmonize the words to it and then
we'll send it around again and we'll get your
feedback.
I'm hoping by Monday or Tuesday
meeting or not that we will have our piece done
because I know you've got to get to the printers.
But a couple of the suggestions today I think you
all have said probably need to be input. There
were some things that needed to be finished out
and some charge to be made to the committee
members. If you will send to me your suggestions
for the overall report. Again, we'll keep these
discussions going and see what needs to be there,
what the staff frankly feels like should not be
there. And those are all fair discussions to
have. And so let's pile onto this. The next
three days are going to be very active, but to
meet that 30th of June deadline we've just got to
do it this way.
You don't have a change in
administration every year. It's every four
years. I'm not too worried that we didn't get
the report till late. It's -- things just change
a lot with the changes of administration. I've
seen it for 20 years so I'm not worried that
we're in this position but we do have to act with
dispatch at this point.
So with that, other items for the good
of the order? We go now to public comment.
Anyone else on the call from the public that
wants to make comments you can raise your hand
and we'll recognize you.
MR. VAN ES: And India, if you could
let us know that would be great.
MS. WALKER: Yes, no problem. Hold on
for one moment.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: I see Ben Johnson
with his hand raised. Ben.
MS. WALKER: Yes.
MR. VAN ES: Ben, I think -- Ben, we
can't hear you. Can't hear you.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Ben, go ahead.
You're going to have to unmute. And you're back
muted now.
MS. WALKER: Try again, Ben. Okay, go
ahead. It says you're unmuted. It might be
something wrong on your end.
MR. JOHNSON: Can you hear me now?
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Yes.
MR. JOHNSON: There we go. Okay.
Thank you guys. It's been great listening to
this conversation. Just a few point from a
congressional staffer that hasn't seen this
report that will read as much as I can of the
report, but just as kind of Chairman Pearce said
we have a lot of time. So anything that you guys
can do to contextualize what is in the report
will be extremely helpful because as you guys
know this reauthorization that was passed for
seven years came after a lot of negotiations.
There's a lot of specific congressional intent in
there. So if you deviate from that congressional
intent you're going to give a lot of people who
as the chairman has mentioned are looking for any
excuse to bash the bank. You're just going to
give them ammo that is unneeded. So anything you
guys can do to contextualize what is in this
report is going to be extremely helpful.
Going back to the congressional
intent, the non-discrimination clause with
renewable energy has been huge to a lot of people
that helped get this passed. So anything to
really bolster that I think will be huge as you
move forward and rely on a lot of these members
of Congress to keep the bank going for the
foreseeable future.
Also, the content requirement stuff.
If that's been a huge issue as it seems it is
today please say it so many times you think you
are beating a dead horse because like I said, we
will not have as much time as we probably should
to dedicate to reading a long report. And make
sure it's in there 20 times if you need to make
sure we read it once.
So like I said, that's just my two
cents as a congressional staffer. Like I said
it's been great listening to this call and I look
forward to reading the final product. So thanks
for having me on.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Thanks, Ben. And I
just have to say that Ben started out in my
office and just barely beyond the intern level.
And to see the way that he's matured in this
financial services arena. I felt like it was
important to start engaging some of the staffers.
They're the ones who at the end of the day have
to keep the members informed. The issues are
overwhelming in number and complexity, and EXIM
is one of the most opaque things in the entire
world. And so just no one understands it. It's
easy to demonize. It's the bank for Boeing. I
mean, you've heard all that stuff. You see it
continuously in the papers.
And so with the Advisory Committee
consent we will just keep involving these
staffers because they will be the one contending
behind closed doors. And like I said the
negotiations were long, they were serious, they
were hard. And it took a lot of people kind of
just biting their tongue and saying okay, we're
going to reauthorize for seven years. There's no
magic. These are sheer hard things. So Ben and
Mitchell, again, thank you all for being on. I
know both of your bosses extremely well and know
that they're supporters of the bank. And so we
just hope that we have made your understanding
just a bit clearer.
Other public comment? India, if
you've got people that want to make comment
please open it up.
MS. WALKER: Yes. Any additional
public comment or questions please feel free to
raise your hand, or you may insert your question
in the actual chat itself.
MR. VAN ES: All right. We'll give
five more seconds as a last call.
CHAIRMAN PEARCE: Okay. Let's go
ahead and make that the last call. If you've got
written comments then we welcome those comments.
Again, this meeting today is why I
think this group is so spectacular. I think
people take their job seriously on this Advisory
Committee and the staff is obviously -- you're
doing a tremendous job. I think Owen said it
best for all of us. So let's (audio
interference) our focus here the next three days.
A lot's at stake on what we're doing right here
in this space.
Again, God bless you all. Thank you
for being part of the call. And this meeting is
adjourned.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter
went off the record at 4:10 p.m.)