leadership. by the way it starts in syria. effective ifn't be you don't take away their safe syria.n eastern the reason their controlling those border points they know way they'll resupply vice versa.s and if they ever decide to head toward lebanon. they'll need the supply line both ways.

>> we don't have leverage the way we're operating currently. even the thought that we're going to have a conversation with iran about this solution, you can imagine all the calls we get from our partners about what an awful idea that is. some of these things they need to stop talking at that level and start applying strategic solution to this so we can show disruption, stop their momentum, hurt their command in control, hurt their logistics base, make them have to reconsider what aggressive offensive operations that they take. >> senior moment are terrible. let me tell you. >> you have a few things on the plate. i didn't know what you were looking at. >> we want to finish up the fifa

legislation to make sure we can get our the nasa and others focused on all of the threats versus looking over their shoulder. at what is a title wave of misinformation about what they do. that's going to be important to get that so that americans can reengage in the confidence that their intelligence there to keep us safe. that's important. we just got the 2014 bill done yesterday. why that's important the authorization bill, because there's a lot of reforms in there. some of the reforms are based on making sure our security clearance operations are changed a little bit so we're more accurate catching somebody who maybe going bad and stealing whole bunch of stuff and running to places like, i don't know,

moscow. the 2015 makes an important investments which we have to get done and continue our dominance in space. we're at the back-end of that arrangement. we better pick up our pace or we will be in trouble. making sure making the right investment in our ability to protect ourselves what is a growing list of countries and nonnation states cyber capabilities which is concerning. we're on the back-end of that one. we got to pick up our pace and continue our investment in human collection throughout the year. lastly, this week, we had a great round of negotiations in the last few weeks with the senate on an information sharing bill. saxby chambliss and diane feinstein will photo out -- vote out this week. this is going to be critically important if we are going to stay in front.

this won't solve all our problems. if we're going to stay in front what is on growing threat matrix, we have got to have this bill in place so that the privacy sector with protect itself. right now, any offensive action we would take indicting five chinese intelligence officials we know who are stealing our stuff, it exposing inner -- networks that won't have the ability of attacks. those are my immediate priorities. then to continue the internal policy debates we have on things like covert actions on other things we need to get right with the community. i hope to do that before i leave in january. >> catherine? >> thank you. how would you characterize this

relationship between isil, the skills they're sharing? isn't this relationship that's driving public states from others on the hill that's a direct threat to the u.s. homeland? where do the specific multiple strategic warnings from the ic and isil and if so, who fail to act on them? >> i'll start with the last part first. i argue this is a result of an indecision. which is a policy failure. this is not an intelligence failure, it's a policy failure. it's pretty easy to blame the guys who are out standing in the dust to collect the pieces of information. again, i think it's important. we watched them pool up, we watched the debate between el nusra inisil. we watched the concern between the al qaeda leadership about trying to get them back in the

fold. we watched them get weapons. we watched them get finances. we watched western past port holders show up. we watched it all. we heard their stated intentions. reason they're called the islamic state in iraq, they want the levant. which is lebanon, syria and jordan. they want it all. they decided they became strong enough to actually implement it. the reason they're a small number of folks is having big success in iraq, the other policy failure we're just packing up and going home. we don't care if all the troops are ready or not. we're coming home. i think that was a major disaster. if you had a u.s. presence, i'm not talking about engaging in combat operations, if you had a u.s. presence there, it would allow the security services to be more sustainable. it would have influenced the political fracturing we saw

happen after we left. so you get better reconciliation. and you could have seen up close and personal the trouble this was being developed in syria. what we didn't understand, was that isil was going to take advantage of it. those are all policy failures in my mind that has led to this. you can't blame the intelligence community, you can't blame congress. this is a foreign policy failure of a magnitude that will risk the security of the united states of america. they need to shake themselves out of that and start coming one a strategy to win this fight. >> where does the buck stop on that. does it stop with the president? who failed to act here? >> ultimately it's the president of the united states. this is his policy of -- i forget what he call it. don't do stupid, something.

it's almost laughable that is even the mindset of a national security team that threats -- they see the same threats we see. it's not like they didn't get the same stuff that we got. some notion that we just don't anything hard, that everything will be just fine is absolutely, i think a bit naive. it's a bit politically self-serving that you're more concerned what ratings you have at home and what threats happens overseas. that's a dangerous mindset. at some point, they keep doubling down. now it's hard and let's stay out of it. i get that but the problem is, they are threatening the united states of america. that's the problem. >> do it make you you want to stay? you regret your decision? >> you know, i've been in public service and the fbi and army and

legislature for 28 years. this is an opportunity to talk to people hopefully i don't get a chance to talk to them now. i love it. intelligence space, i think it's important work. i think most americans don't get to hear the other side of this conversation. why if we had engaged early, we may have avoided this problem. i don't ever hear that conversation certainly in talk radio, i don't hear that conversation. i think this is an opportunity for me to talk to a lot more people about what it's important. why american exceptionalism does matter. to have a dialogue in a different way that hopefully influence the debate, so by 2016 we have a bunch of americans interested in national security, international engagement, economic prosperity for the next

generation. >> as a journalist, the idea of having access to all that information, sort of like a kid in a candy store. are you starting to feel a period of withdrawal in terms of knowing so much? >> the problem was, things seem to get worse. in that regard, without the campaign moving over my head, i spend a lot more time down there trying to go through all of if i can influence by talking to a lot more people about the importance of these issues in

way they might not hear today, i think maybe i can do something more positive in that regard. >> i had a follow up. it got lost in that answer we had. how would you describe the relationship to the extent that their sharing best practices. is it this relationship that is driving the public state from -- statements from the colleagues on the hill? >> two things. that is i believe a direct an ongoing relationship that has command and control and advice in counsel roles. isil is now a exactly the same mindset but has a competitive nature to al qaeda in general.

their goal is to establish the caliphate now. they decided they wanted it now. i think they are a little bit drunk on their success and really do believe that this is their time to outshine them. same exact wants, desires, techniques, tactics and they also are willing to conduct operations outside of their operations area. i'm not sure you're here for that, this whole debate that they were brutal and that's why he cut him free is nonsense. it was all about isil wanting to do external operations based on a large number of holders. he wanted them to focus on iraq. go back and fight iraq, have him

fight in syria. that's what started the split. there's a little bit of -- i'll show them kind of attitude. >> did the relationship worsen? [indiscernible] >> same goals, same intentions. they have this mutual respect going back and forth. remember they were an al qaeda affiliate. this is just a disagreement on the tactics how they want to succeed. >> did you not say earlier that there was a relationship between aqap and isil? >> they had intermediatories established trying to work out the differences before they were separated from a.q. leadership. >> you think about leaving -- do you worry at all about your home

state of michigan about the powers and congress? >> you know, obviously if you don't want us all to go at the same time but term limits, this is going to happen to other state. this is bound to happen. fred upton is going to be there. he's certainly a powerful chairman and a great advocate for our state. i think that will help the newer folks who get elected come in and get established and allowed to have an impact for the state of michigan. obviously, timing isn't great. again, it's all based on this time frame of how long can you be a chairman. it's just an odd coincidence. as i told my people back home, good while it lasted. the other ones will come up.

i'm a huge believer that people shouldn't be here for 50 years. i think it's better when you get a little bit of a term. you get new ideas. should be a representational body. i think this is a good thing people come in and out. >> last question. >> yesterday on the governing issue. yesterday the bipartisan policy center released a whole set of recommendations on how congress and the election system and so on, could become more governable. one of the things they said, power back to the committees marrying up the house schedule and the senate schedule, working five days a week. that kind of thing. that's your thought about appetite that within the congress? >> first of all, dispose of this

issue that members of congress don't work five days a week. i'm leaving so i can say anything i want. if they work less than six days a week, i don't know that member of congress. that is a complete misnomer. the problem we've gotten ourselves into, in congress, is that we get yanked around by these sometimes populace trends at home that don't transfer into the information we know is the congress. the lack of willingness to have that discussion back home. that's a huge problem. a leadership that is geared toward the smallest minority in any coalition is dangerous. you have this notion that it's better to be at home sometimes than working on these issues through a committee process. i believe in in a committee process in congress. i think it's the best way to get a bill that will have best

opportunity and to bring people together. you have to sit down and work through hard differences. it doesn't mean you sacrifice who you are or your principles. it means you get to place that people can support something moving forward. i like to think our committee has been able to do that, the intelligence committee. every budget since i been chairman, that's unusual. but an important thing to have happen in a committee like yours. it can happen. it should happen. the questions at home shouldn't be, what are you doing to fill in the blanks on this other major issue. it should be, on your committee, what are you doing on this particular problem. how are you going to make that problem better. if every member is a generalist, we will be in trouble. i spent my last four years not being a general. i think members who serve on

a.g. and energy and commerce and serve on those committees, what we should demand of them is more time in committee working through these issues and if in means staying in d.c. five days a week, okay, so be it. i think you can do it in less buff to force people to -- but you have to force people to show up and do the work. that's a hard thing to do. that has caused huge problems in the ability to build coalitions. tune in six months, i'll lay out the whole thing. >> thanks for doing this sir. appreciate it. >> thanks everybody. >> up next on a congressional hearing on whether to keep the export-import bank.

speaker boehner said today, he plans to file a lawsuit against president obama over the president's use of executive orders. we'll have that later tonight. a senate panel will look at ways to try enroughs the number of -- number of rates and sexual assaults on college campus. that's tomorrow 10:00 a.m. eastern. later in the day president obama will hold a townhall meeting in minneapolis. we'll have live coverage start act 3:10 eastern. that's also on c-span 3. >> it was august 15 on a sunday. when richard nixon appeared on national television. not really my time but maybe yours if you remember that. he interrupted the show to say

we're not going to allow the dollar to be converted into gold. this is one the most significant events. the significant things to have happen in the history of money. it was a very decisive moment. where people could not come into fort knox and see, here is a hundred dollars i want to get the gold value. that was consequence big bad problems that the american government, federal government got into with its debt. trying to fight the vietnam war and pay for the great society and it just didn't work out. there was a deficit. >> author and conservative member of british parliament kwasi talks about the history of money. saturday night at 10:00 on afterwards. part of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. this month we're discussing

slaves, the forgotten man. start reading and join others to discuss the book in our chat room at book tv.org. now you can keep in touch of current events at the nation's capitol. every weekday, listen to a recap of today's events at 5:00 p.m. eastern on washington today. c-span radio on audio now, call (202)626-8888. >> in september the export-import banks charter will expire. congress is deciding whether to reauthorize the bank. government and business leaders testify about the bank which is

used to help finance u.s. exports with government back to loans. later we'll hear from export-import bank president fred hockberg. congressman jeff hensarling while he hadn't decided if he'll

support it, here's urging renewal of the program to come to the senate floor before its september expiration. the committee will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. the chair is entitled to examining the reauthorization of the export-import bank. corporate necessity or corporate welfare. i now recognize myself for six minutes to give an opening statement. today we'll examine the obama administration's request to reauthorize the export-import bank. first, we should examine where the money comes from to finance ex-im. whose money is it? well, obviously it is taxpayers' money. the cashier at the corner grocery store. it's the cop on the beat, your children's teachers, the small business owner struggling to

keep the doors open in a tough economy. where does the money go? it goes to foreign countries and foreign companies in the way of direct loans and credit guarantees. the taxpayer money goes overseas to china and russia. nations that openly challenge our economic and security interest. taxpayer money goes to oil rich countries like saudi arabia, the united arab em rats. the taxpayer money even goes to countries with a demonstrated history of atrocious human rights abuses like the congo and the sudan. so who benefits? overwhelmingly and indisputably, it's some of the largest, richest, most politically connected corporations in the world. like boeing, general electric, bechtle and caterpillar. in fact, in 2013 over half of ex-im's financing went to a handful of fortune 500 companies. and big wall street banks apparently benefit as well. as reported in the press recently, one former jp morgan

and citigroup banker said of ex-im's credit guarantees, quote, it's free money, unquote. so if you're a politically connected bank or company that benefits from ex-im, no doubt you would like it to continue. after all, it's a sweetheart deal for you. taxpayers shoulder the risk. you get the reward. if you work at a small business or another american company competing in the global marketplace, it's unfair. ex-im effectively taxes you while subsidizing your foreign competitors. now, we hear a lot from powerful voices on k street and wall street about the bank. but we also should listen carefully to some voices from main street. like hal richards of terl, texas, in my district. quote, as a small business owner who exports, i think it's outrageous that my own government puts my business and other small businesses at a competitive disadvantage through the export-import bank. how is that fair?

now, ex-im tells us sending taxpayer money to foreign interest supports jobs for americans. but the government's chief auditor reported that programs like ex-im, quote, largely shift production among sectors within the economy rather than raise the overall level of employment in the economy, unquote. delta air lines, whose ceo will testify shortly, points out that ex-im's loans to foreign airlines have killed as many as 7,500 domestic airline jobs because the bank will subsidize delta's foreign competitors. caterpillar was a recent beneficiary of ex-im's taxpayer financing that went to an iron ore mining project controlled by australia's richest citizen. an american iron ore company called cliff's natural resources said it will no longer be able to effectively compete with its australian competitors due to the subsidy, and they are now having to cut employees' hours. another american competitor feeling the sting of ex-im is

valero energy in my native texas. ex-im is lending $641 million to a turkish company to build a new petroleum refinery. valero's ceo stated ex-im's -- professor dond budrou of george mason university summed it up neatly, quote, at best the ex-im bank creates jobs in export industries by destroys jobs in nonexport industries. the bank tells us it's essential to u.s. exports. but over 98% of all u.s. exports occur without risking taxpayer dollars. again, over 98%. most of the others who take advantage of ex-im, certainly they could do it without taxpayer support. even boeing, the bank's biggest beneficiary, has admitted it doesn't really need ex-im and could, quote, arrange alternative financing, unquote, without it. now, the bank has also told us

it doesn't cost taxpayers a dime. the congressional budget office respectfully disagrees. it tells us if the bank were to use fair value accounting, the accepted accounting method for almost every bank, private company in america, ex-im's ledger would actually show a net loss to taxpayers in the neighborhood of $200 million a year. that's the difference between washington accounting and main street accounting. perhaps what is most disturbing about the ex-im bank is its ideological and crony-based lending practices. it has a green energy quota. it permits no assistance for coal projects. it is a mandate to specifically support exports going to subsahara africa. last year more than 60% of ex-im's financing benefited just ten mega corporations that clearly have a strong political and lobbying presence in this town. recently a spanish multinational corporation received a $33 million ex-im loan, while former

energy secretary bill richardson simultaneously sat on its advisory board and ex-im's as well. ex-im guaranteed $10 million in loans to benefit the politically favored solyndra which clearly did not favor taxpayers. and just yesterday, just yesterday we woke up to the report in the "wall street journal," quote, the u.s. export-import bank has suspended or removed four officials in recent months amid investigations into allegations of gifts and kickbacks, as well as attempts to steer federal contracts to favored companies. ex-im may not just be guilty of cronyism. it may be guilt of corruption as well. now, i will admit, republicans may disagree on whether ex-im should be reformed or allowed to expire. and i certainly hope that this hearing will help eliminate -- will help illuminate, rather, that decision. but we are united in leavie in

that we cannot rethorize the status quo and we are also united in believing that the smarter and fairer way to promote american exports is by fundamental tax reform, strong trade agreements, a regulatory freeze with the exception of health and safety and greater american energy independence with projects like the keystone pipeline. i now recognize the ranking member for 5 1/2 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank you for finally holding this hearing on the reauthorization of the export-import bank. even though it comes less than three months before its charter expires. it's been over a year since this committee even discussed the bank at a subcommittee hearing to assess its progress on reforms. but let's be serious. this hearing is not going to be a forthright discussion on the merits of the bank. mr. chairman, we know your position on the bank.

we know you have made ending the bank your top priority, regardless if it's at the expense of thousands of american companies trying to compete against businesses in china, russia, korea and countries across europe, all of which have their own version of the ex-imbank. i'm dismayed to say that the republican leader-elect, kevin mccarthy, has also changed his view on the export-import bank. i'm saddened that he has followed the lead of the extremists in an effort to show his tea party credentials. at one point, programs like the ex-im bank were so apolitical that they did not even require a vote. now, policies that create thousands of jobs and increase american competitiveness are under constant attack. i'm becoming more and more concerned that the republican party's willingness to work together onni issues like flood

insurance, tria and the export-import bank has fallen victim to fringe elements who put their -- over the business owners and broader economy. as the extremists celebrate, i have to admit, i mourn it as a loss for our country. our new reality is government shutdowns and debt ceiling crises. it's constant uncertainty. it's not knowing whether the government is going to help pick up the pieces after a major flood or terrorist attack. it's about telling businesses, large and small, you're on your own. so go up against competitors who are backed by global superpowers. and, now, they have set their sights on, quote, exiting the export-import bank, an entity that creates or sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs. and over the past five years, has supported $233 billion in

u.s. exports. i'd like to take a minute to thank representatives denny heck and william lacy clay who have just yesterday introduce add clean ex-im reauthorization bill with 200 democratic co-sponsors. mr. chairman, i'm not an expert at whipping votes, but if you add these co-sponsors to the 14 republicans who recently signed a letter in support of ex-im's renewal, i believe you have a majority of the house in support of extending the bank's charter for the long term. opponents of the bank like to use the term crony capitalism. well, over the past few weeks, we have been working hard to learn more about the so-called crony capitalists that have been supported by the bank. their stories have been astounding. mr. chairman, did you know there are 12 exporters in your district that, i guess, are crony capitalists? and 11 of them are small businesses. over the course of this hearing,

democratic members of this committee will share with you the truth about these hard working americans, not cronies, that are assisted by the bank. there are companies like space x, an ambitious and revolutionary firm based in hawthorn, california, in my district that designs, manufactures and launches rockets. it's the first private company to build, launch and dock spacecraft at the international space station. and it's a company that has been strongly supported by the majority leader-elect, kevin mccarthy. who went so far as to call its founder, elon musk, the wright brothers of the next generation. in just a few short years, the ex-im bank has authorized close to $900 million in support of exports from space x, creating thousands of quality, high-tech jobs across california and in

the united states. i wonder, when m when mr. mccar decided he could no longer support his friend, elon musk, or support the bank that keeps space x innovating and competing, despite the fact he's identified himself as a big supporter of space x. i, too, believe in space x because i know the pain in my district that has been felt over the years after losing our manufacturing base. supporting companies like space x is critical. because they're bringing manufacturing jobs backed. and they ensure the united states remain a world leader in the manufacturing economy of the future. so i thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to this hearing. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> chair thousand recognizes the gentle lady from west virginia, ms. cap doe, chairman of the financial institution subcommittee for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding today's hearing. for the last two years the export-import bank has joined the obama administration's

assault on our nation's coal industry. in december of 2013 the bank imposed guidance that would prevent the financing of coal-fired power plants in all but the world's poorest countries. this guidance dwibed with the epa's proposed regulations to ban domestic coal-fired power plants will ir rev ka bli hinder the development of new coal clean technologies. this is another of the administration's attempt to pick winners and losers in our economy. i can no longer support the authorization of the ex-im bank. i've expressed my concerns to the bank to no avail. in a letter and meeting with chairman hockburg i dus cussed my opposition to this guidance. i've been absolutely clear it is inappropriate to use the bank's financing mechanisms to drive an ideological agenda rather than promote u.s. exports. the administration's policies come at a time when we should be ensuring the united states is leading the world in developing new coal plant technologies. we won't see carbon capture and

s sequestration developed by u.s. countries if we choke off the market for coal technology. the ex-im's guidance is bad for the nation's economy, bad for the development of future tech nolls and bad for the environment. for these reasons, i do not support the extense of this charter. i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, for two minutes. >> mr. chairman, a point of order. we had those clocks going for the national debt. they're going too slowly. you're proposing to eliminate the ex-im bank which will add billions of dollars to our national debt. and you've been unwilling, unless you change your mind, to join with me in taxing increase measures that would replace that revenue. the -- now, whenever somebody wants to inkroo es the national debt, they always say change the accounting system. the ex-im bank would be costing us money if we used fairytale value accounting. i don't think we should. the fact is, we should use gap,

not gop accounting. g-a-a-p. not g-o-p accounting. what is the underlying theory of fair value accounting? not that we look at the profits and losses of the ex-im bank properly accounting for the r k risks they take, but we look at what their cost would be if they weren't the ex-im bank but at a higher cost of funds. that's like saying pizza hut is overreporting its income because they report accurately the cost they pay to the bank for the money they borrow, not the higher amount they would pay if they were jack's pete izzeria instead. the fact that pizza hut has a lower cost of funds doesn't mean they should report higher interest costs and report a loss, but that's what you do under fairytale value accounting. also, i'm in on foreign affairs. i sit there while republicans say that democrats might support

unilateral disarmament. that we would give up our arms and then go into the arms limitation talks asking others to follow our -- our lead. that's what we're doing here. germany has an export credit authority that's three times as large. they have total exports three times as large per capita. and they run a trade surplus. and we would go into negotiations with germany giving up the ex-im bank. why don't we -- >> time of the gentleman has expire e expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, for two minutes. >> first of all, thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hear. thank you also, mr. chairman, for all of your efforts on fostering not only this area, but also in general economic growth and job creation in this country, including manufacturing. as the ranking member has bemoaneded the fact that she has lost it in her district, i just note that the chairman is

encouraging economic growth and manufacturing, but not on the backs of the american taxpayer. thank you also, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing in a very timely manner as well. thank you to the panels. you know, panels, i was struck by an article in the front page of the "wall street journal." it was entitled "officials at ex-im bank faces probes." what i found especially interesting and concerning in this article, notwithstanding the fact that four bank employees have been suspended or removed for allegations of kickbacks, was a statement of the agency spokesman that, quote, the export-import bank takes seriously its commitment to taxpayers and its mission to support u.s. jobs. really? to begin with, i would question the bank's seriousness to taxpayers. in this committee we learned of allegations of potential criminal conduct simply by reading the front page of the "wall street journal." i guess the so-called serious commitment to taxpayers did not reach the level of requisite

seriousness that would result in congress being notified of various serious allegations like this. while we need to be certain we have the facts and assured that this committee does not jump to proverbial conclusions, i do find it curious that these examples of employee misconduct were withheld against the backdrop of this debate over the future as well as the well funded lobbying campaign to ensure the bank's continued existence. if tree these allegations would go to the hort of the concern about this bank. its lending and of the special interest of multibillion dollar corporations. i only need to look at lobby disclosures from our biggest corporations. you get something that looks a lot like crony capitalism. with that, i yield back. >> chair now recognizes the gentle lady from new york, ms. mccarthy, for a minute and a half. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate this hearing. i'm a little confused on what i'm hearing. this is about jobs.

and i can talk about my district. i work my district. i try to bring certainly businesses into my district. and i know in the last several years, i have been able to help my small businesses $86 million, just into my district alone. a lot more jobs added over the last seven years. that's what our job is. to make sure that we can bring jobs home. as the ranking member had mentioned, mr. hensarling, who unfortunately didn't bring a lot of money into his district, but maybe he didn't work the district. i don't know. and mr. mccarthy, who always supported the ex-im bank did have over $69 million that came into his district. this is about jobs. my colleagues on the other side keep saying, we're going to do jobs. we're going to do jobs. where are they? people seem to have a very short memory. when we went through the great crisis, nobody went after the

banks. nobody went after the insurance companies. when we look at the exbank and we hear my colleagues talking about that they found four employees. can i remind everybody? yes they found foreign employees. they did an investigation. they let them go. that's the way the system works. anybody that understands any business, there are always going to be people that are going to try to break the system. if we brought this bill up on to the house floor, we would get it passed. so stop with this. let's do jobs -- >> time of the gentle lady has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. holtgren, for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to take a hard look at the current structure of the export-import bank. protecting taxpayer dollars by keeping government out of tasks that the private sector can perform itself is central to a nation based on free enterprise. an estimated 760 jobs in the 14th district alone rely on the

bank to ensure their export reach their customers. a company in geneva, illinois, asked me to support the bank. another company has jobs dependent on the bank. we can't overlook the 29 smaller production suppliers who fulfill boeing orders in my district. since 2007, the bank has supported almost $6 billion in illinois exports from 301 exporters, including 204 small businesses. an outright elimination leaves u.s. jobs in peril. we must ask the hard questions. do we know the job impact of eliminating the bank without a proper glide path in place? have we addressed the worldwide subsidies offered by our competitors through grade agreements? can we put a reform plan on the table to ensure a more limited scope for the bank? i'm committed to working together to put a viable alternative forward. i yield back. >> time of the gentleman is expired. the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from arizona, ms. cinema, for one minute.

>> and of the export-import bank, because helping arizona businesses expant their manufacturing capacity and exports ability creates jobs and grows our economy. export-import bank fills gaps in private financing stepping up where the private sector can't or won't. last year fred hockburg visited. from fiscal year '07 to '14 the agency reported $176 million in exports from companies in my district. one of those companies, mar tek ink was reluctant to sell equipment to customers in asia. they were concerned once the equipment left their building there was no guarantee they'd be paid. the bank issued an insurance policy so maritek could have sales and guarantee they get paid. thanks to the bank they now export to companies in asia, europe and the americas. allowing the bank's current

charter to expire would threaten the competitiveness of these and many other arizona businesses. that's why a co-sponsor of legislation to extend the bank's authorization and will continue to work to reauthorize this important investment in american jobs. >> chair you recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the problem with the export-import bank is the entire mission and structure. simply the export/import bank is designed to advantage one of u.s. industries at the expense of another. even if congress directed the bank to make changes as it did in 2012, we have seen that this masive bureaucracy will not lead to even modest reforms. people talk about the cost of jobs that would be lost if it's not reauthorizized. how about the new jobs and the more capital for growth created by findly being competitive with foreign competitors? the bank has shown it is not able to conduct mandated economic impact analysis, and

the bank regularly employees fuzzy math and accounting. congressman date t-- quite simpy have failed to follow this mandate. i'm happy to join the chairman and the new majority leader in this effort. i yield back the balance of my time. >> chair now recognizes the gentlemen from missouri, mr. clay, the ranking member of the monetary policy subcommittee for one minute. >> mr. chairman, the mission of the ex-im bank is to support american jobs by facilitating the export of u.s. goods and services. the ex-im bank does not compete with private sector lenders, but provides export financing that fills gaps in trade financing. the bank assumes credit and country risk that the private sector is unable or unwilling to accept. the ex-im bank helps to level

playing field for u.s. exporters by matching the financing that other governments provide to their exporters. you know, refusing to reauthorize ex-im bank would reduce the number of ecas from 60 to 59. hurting only u.s. exporters and workers that they employ. my my home state of missouri, the ex-im bank supported one big -- 339 million of exports from a district that i represent. mr. chairman, those are american jobs. >> time. time of the gentleman has expired. the chair you recognizes the jeman from washington, mr. heck, for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chair. just because somebody says something that's untrue over and over and over again doesn't make it one wit less untrue. let's start this hearing with the truth. here's the truth. the ex-im creates jobs.

205,000 last year. here's the truth. the ex-im supports small businesses. 90% of its transaction go to small businesses. in an appalling lack of understanding of how the private sector works, even large corporations are dependent on small businesses. the greatest plane manufacturer in the world is dependent upon 15,000 suppliers, 6,600 of which are small businesses. who would be put at risk by your position. here's the truth. there are no tax dollars involved. and subsidizing the ex-im. the ex-im transferred over a billion dollars to the treasure iry. where's the proof the treasury ever transferred anything to the ex-im. finally, here's the truth. if we abandon ex-im, we'll engage in unilateral disarmament. unilateral disarmament. every other nation in the world has an export credit authority. don't render the united states the only one without one. >> time of the gentleman has expired. we will now turn to our first

panel of witnesses. and to introduce our first witness, i will yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's my pleasure to introduce richard anderson, chief executive officer of delta air lines. richard has been the ceo of delta since 2007. and has more than 25 years in the aviation industry. as you probably know, delta air lines is one, if not the largest, employer in my district. and across georgia. delta has been placed at a competitive disadvantage by the actions of the export-import bank. and the time has come to level the playing field. welcome to you and the members of the delta family team that's with you. i look forward to your testimony. >>. >> our next panelist, dr. ver neek hua j is a fellow research

center at the mercatus center at the george mason university where her primary interest include the u.s. economy, federal budget and various financial issues. captain lee moak is the president of the airline pilots association which represents almost 50,000 professional airline pilots in the u.s. and canada. before becoming an airline pilot captain moak served as a marine corps fighter pilot. last but not least, steven willburn is the chief executive offer of firm green, a newport beach based energy company that participates in injure chul vir aspects of the green energy business. before we proceed, mr. wilburn, we have one clerical matter to clean up with you. we received two different copies of your testimony.

one 6:00 last night. in that testimony, in that verse, when describing why your commercial bank officer could not provide financing to a brazilian company, you said, quote, simply out of the question given the new t.a.r.p. regulations and the then new dodd/frank legislation. a couple hours later from the democratic staff, we received a new copy of your testimony that struck that language and included the reason, quote, reluctance of banks to support small business exports, unquote. to ensure for the record we have the correct copy of your written testimony, which did you intend? the one we received from you at 6:00, or the one we received from the democratic staff at 8:00? i'm sorry. could you hit the button there. just for the record, we just need -- which testimony is it your intention to include? >> my intention is to provide an

accurate written statement. i was flying from california on an airplane wi-fi trying to respond to your staff. and i was working, realtime editing. the last version -- >> the last version is the one you intend? >> that is my official written statement. >> okay. thank you. thank you, sir. that's what we needed to know. without objection, each of your written statements will be made a part of the record after your oral remarks. not unlike a traffic light, if you are new to this, there is a green light, yellow light, red light system. the yellow light will tell you there's one minute remaining. the red means that it is time to wrap up so we can move on to the next witness. mr. anderson, you are now recognized for your testimony. >> well, thank you. thank you very much for having me here today. just as a private citizen, it is a privilege to be in the halls of congress and have the opportunity, regardless of what

the issue is, to participate in the process. second, it's a real privilege here to be here on behalf of the 80,000 people that i serve at delta air lines and the 165 million passengers that the delta family serves around the world with over 6,000 flights a day. i would note that we're one of the largest operators of boeing airplanes and ge engines in the world. we currently have 100 boeing airplanes on order with ge engines, and we're paying cash for them. and there are not many airlines in the world that buy 100 boeing airplanes and pay cash for them. so let's make sure we put our discussions here in context. i was pleased to hear that we're talking about jobs. because i have about 100 delta employees here with me that have my back today. they're the pilots and the flight attendants that provide

the best airline service in the world. and i'm here to talk about their jobs. because the ex-im bank takes their jobs. and if that's really what we're serious about, we should be serious about reforming the bank. you tried to reform the bank in a bipartisan way the last time, and your reforms were ignored. and it's our jobs that are at risk. and i have a slide up here. the ex-im bank finances the wealthiest, most profitable airlines in the world with huge amounts of our treasury dollars. and you can see on this slide, we have an example of an ex-im bank financing that was just done and a market based financing that was just done. and those financing numbers show you that a very wealthy airline that goes in the private market on a regular basis to finance

airplanes gets over the life of the airplane about a $20 million advantage. and these airlines are also owned by governments and deeply subsidized by their own government in addition to being deeply subsidized by our government. our focus here today is on a narrow issue. i -- i am pleased to hear the job growth. my business depends upon job growth. we have no objection to anything that anybody does in the halls of congress on a -- on either side of the aisle that grows jobs in this country. my business, our business, the delta family serves people that work at all the great companies in the united states. but we shouldn't have a government policy that sacrifices the jobs of hard working people at the delta family in order to subsidize the wealthiest, most credit worthy airlines in the world. i was the chairman, elected the

chairman of the international air transport association by the ceos of all the airlines of the world. and in the course of doing that, i've had many conversations with the ceos of the most profitable airlines in the world. and they tell many e, look with don't really need the ex-im bank financing but it's so cheap i might as well take it. >> this is effectively a free airplane every eighth airplane. all i want is in a level playing field. the story as delta air lines is a great american story. we're now the most successful, profitable airline in the world. but we have to compete against deeply subsidized government airlines that are in turn deeply subsidized by our government. and the prime example is air india. a government owned, government subsidized airline that grodrovs out of the marketplace with a billion dollars of ex-im bank financing. that cost about 1,000 jobs. so when we talk about creating

jobs, why didn't we navigate a policy. and our objection is a narrow objection. it is wide body financing for credit worthy, state-owned an state-subsidized airlines. we have no objection in aenarro bodies. we have no objections in small business. our focus is on the policy function of where u.s. jobs are destroyed by the bank. so if we're serious about creating jobs, this bank needs to be reformed. i yield my time. >> dr. de rugy, you are now recognize ed for your testimony >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member, member of this committee, it's a pleasure to be here today. we don't agree on much in washington. but i think we can all agree that the federal government shouldn't be sending our limited resources to the wealthiest and most politically connected corporation. and, yet, that's what the ex-im

bank does. some say that there are good reason for doing this. they say that the ex-im bank promoting export, supporting job, return money to treasury and helps taxpayers. none of these argument withstands scrutiny as my written testimony has shown. and i will briefly address in my statement today. however, my main focus will be on groups who are affected by x m activity that have gone ignoreded. these people don't have connection in washington. they don't have access to press offices and lobbyists. but they matter, too. it is difficult, but extremely important, that we consider the unseen cost of political privilege. whatever form it takes, whether it's market distortions, job losses, potential destroyed or higher prices. so let's start. first, the bank claims it is

essential to promote u.s. export. economists disagree. we have long known that export subsidy schemes like ex-im do not meaningfully improve national export. and, in fact, the data proved this point. ex-im backs less than 2% of u.s. exports. ex-im likes to tout subsidized firms' successes. but they do not consider the unseen cost imposed on everyone else involved with the other 98% of -- on subsidized export. in these cases, it is the firm's own government, not foreign government that puts them at a competitive disadvantage. for instance, ex-im harmed these firms' export opportunity by making it harder for unsubsidized buyer to secure their own financing. that's because ex-im gives lender an insintive to shift

resources away from unsubsidized project towards subsidized p proje proje project, regardless of the merit of the business. these capital market distortion have ripple effect. subsidize project, attract more private capital, while other worthy projects are being overlooked. the subsidized get richer and the unsubsidized get poorer or, worse, get out of business. unfortunately, we'll never see the businesses that could have been. perhaps they would have been better, more profitable, more responsible than the well connected subsidized businesses. second, the bank claims to support 205,000 jobs in 2013. this number, however, should be taken with a grain of salt. since gao has criticized the bank's job calculation methodology for failing to consider how many jobs would have been created without ex-im.

among other flaws. but even if we accept the bank's questionable jobs claim, that means that it only support 1.8% of all export related jobs in 2013. the bank doesn't promote jobs. as much as it promotes job. for favored company at the expense of everyone else. the other 98.2% of unsubsidized export jobs are placed at a competitive disadvantage by ex-im. p unsubdy sized employer may not expand hiring. they may not increase wages. and they may even have to fire employees because they face competition from subsidized project. third, the bank claims that it benefits taxpayer. a recent cbo report debunks claim of future x m profitability. ex-im is projected to yield losses for taxpayer over the

next decade. but taxpayers are unseen victims in other ways. the ex-im bank transfer risk away from lenders and towards every single u.s. taxpayer that you represent. this creates what economists call moral hazard. since well connected lender like citi bank and jp morgan, they're also no risk when a company defaults. they have very less incentive to apply transaction oversight. they collect high fees on billion dollar loans in good times. but normal tax paying americans pick up the tab in bad times. everyone in this room knows who will benefit if the bank is reauthorized. because the beneficiaries are few enough in number that they can effectively organize and are wealthy enough to apply significant political pressure.

but what about the forgotten firms, workers, taxpayers and consumers whose voice are so easily drowned out by the corporate beneficiary of government privilege. they should not matter less than boeing, ge and caterpillar. this is your opportunity. thank you. >> captain -- captain moak, you are now recognized for your testimony. >> mr. chairman, ranking member waters and members -- >> i'm sorry, captain. could you move that microphone a little closer to you, please? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, again, ranking member waters and members of the committee i'm captain lee moak. i'm the president of the airline pilots association. and it's an honor to represent our more than 51,000 pilots. as a labor leader, i believe that airline employees should work with their companies to better our industry. out put's goal is to make the pie bigger rather than focusing on getting a bigger share. ensuring our company's ability to compete is essential in

safeguarding u.s. jobs and our national economy. i don't believe in subsidies. if we're going to grow our economy it must be based on fair competition. fair competition is good, and on a level playing field. i'm here to tell you u.s. airlines can compete w( anyone in the world. however, we compete in a global economic environment. and it's one thing to compete with foreign airlines that are subsidized by their government. and i know i can't do anything about them. but it's an entirely different matter to compete with foreign airlines that are subsidized by our government. we need to do something about that. this is where the export-import bank comes in. i don't take issue with the historic mission of the bank. but the bank has lost its way. today, the bank is being used to provide subsidies to foreign companies. companies that don't need the financing, but use the advantage to undercut u.s. companies.

recently, the house of representatives voted unanimously to require the u.s. d.o.t. to simply follow the law when it considers foreign air carrier applications. why does this matter? because norwegian air shuttle is attempting to subvert u.s. law and international policy to establish a flag of convenience operation. norwegian has also applied for ex-im bank financing that it does not need and that will hand it an unfair economic advantage that threatens u.s. airlines, u.s. jobs, the u.s. economy, and i'm going to tell you, u.s. national interests. we thank this committee for recognizing that unfair business practices such as nai should be rejected. international flying is crucial for u.s. airlines. tens of thousands of flight crews at the three largest u.s.

carriers fly international operations. so our jobs are directly at risk from this competitive and inappropriate imbalance. since the united states first implemented its open skies policy, the u.s. share of international wide body fleet has dropped from 45% to 17%, and the share is now forecast to be at 5% by 2025. and if that doesn't concern you, well -- well, that should concern you. and the threat affects airports such as los angeles. los angeles international. where in 2013, american, delta and united flew only about 16% of the total international jobs and mainline carriers are in jeopardy. so so are jobs at the small regional airports that are u.s. destinations for many of these

international passengers. in 2013, the xm bank approved $7.9 billion in financing for u.s.-made aircraft that will be operated by our foreign competitors. xm financing is not available a. and a subsidy to routes that are, have been and could be served by u.s. airlines. as a result, u.s. airlines have been forced to withdraw from or not be in key international routes. one example mentioned earlier is air india, use the airplanes, they flooded the u.s. market. in 2008, this forced capacity forced american airlines out of the mumbai route and u.s. jobs

that we lost, directly the result of actions by the xm bank. in 2012, the reauthorization congress rightly directed the treasury department to negotiate with the european union to end wide-body aircraft financing. alpa encourages this committee to seek a full accounting of that effort. i'm going to say because i can go on and on. thank you, and i'm looking forward to all of your questions. every one of them. thanks a lot. >> mr. wilburn, you're now recognized for your testimony. >> thank you chairman hensarling, ranking members watters and members of this committee for allowing me the great honor to be here. mr. chairman, i do apologize, i'm a disabled veteran and i have posttraumatic stress disorder, i'm using it as an excuse, but i don't have a staff

to write my reports or anything, my written statement. so when i got that e-mail from one of your staff members that said i had to have the statement right away. i was real life on an airplane coming from california. i don't want to take up more than my time than that. hopefully, no one influenced my statement. no one will ever influence my statement, i guarantee you that, sir. with that, said -- [ applause ] and i wasn't looking for that, but thank you. my name is steven wilburn and i'm the ceo of firm green. i'm married to margaret wilburn, proud father of five children, nine grandchildren, and one great granddaughter. i won't bother with their names right now because it would take up too much of my time. but i love them. i work hard for them. i built this business for my family first and my employees second. my employees are treated like

family. we're a small company. i want to put a face on small business today, if i can, okay? it's an awesome burden because there's thousands of small businesses throughout. i don't have the authority to speak for all of them. i connell give you my story. and sir, thank you for your service. i started pursuing the firmgreen ten years ago. i'm a firm believer of the lord my god and serving as a marine in vietnam, i fight for free rights, free trade and limited government. i did not understand nor do i understand the rabid anti-government end that seems to be motivates the current tax on the export-import bank. working to accomplish things for the greater good that could not be done by individuals alone. in combat, i could not have survived without my fellow

marines. we cooperate. that's the way i thought we acted in america. i firmly believe that export-import -- excuse me, i firmly believe that the xm bank delivers an enormous value to mainstream america and allows me to grow without borders. we're not limited to domestic markets. we dare to reach out to the world's markets. for example, my award-winning bio gas project in brazil, my client asked me how we intended to present our eca finance proposal for the project. i was embarrassed i had to ask him what he meant. they laughed that meant the export credit agency, your xm bank. that's how i was introduced to the concept of xm bank support but i was competing with linde corporation, multibillion dollar companies, much more prepared for that type of discussion and

finance plan than me. but my clients went positive-to-the export-import bank my clients went through a rigorous underwriting, and thankfully, they were approved for the financing that i could not obtain through my private bank. at that time, it was wells fargo. and they just basically told me it did meet the underwriting criteria. well, i'm going to deviate from my prepared remarks a bit more. and just say due to the air of uncertainty swirling around the reauthorization, in large part, i think by harmful words uttered by the bank's opponents in an orchestrated nonprecedented public spirit campaign i feel i lost a valuable contract in the philippines. words do have consequences. especially when they're uttered by people in power and position. i'm a small man.

i can combat the machines that are out there saying what they're saying. i'm not a crony capitalist. i don't receive any welfare, corporate welfare, whatever you want to call it. we work hard. as a result of losing the memorandum of understanding because the korean bank came in with my korean competitor who had lost to me and basically came up and said, the bank's not going to be reauthorized. he's not going to get the deal. now my employees, including miss dean, we're scrambling, please, words have consequences, be careful. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. >> if the gentleman needs extra time, i would request the same time that was alotted to miss de rugy when he went over her five minutes. do you need extra time? >> not at this time.

hopefully, i'll have adequate time in my answers. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> the chair yield to himself five minutes for questions. first, mr. wilburn, thank you very much for the service to your country as i think captain moch moak as well. i used to be prior to coming to congress an officer in the green energy company itself. i don't know about your particular company but it's a subject i'm highly interested in. but, mr. wilburn, i'll still a little curious. i understand that you were on a flight, i guess, when you were sending your testimony. but i guess my first question is, was it -- simply a clerical mistake, or did you change your mind on whether or not t.a.r.p. regulations in dodd/frank played a role in failing to finance the

brazilian company that sought your product? so is it a clerical error, or did you change your mind about including that in your testimony? >> no, it's not a clerical error. i didn't have all the facts. you'll see the rest of my written statement, i think it speaks to some of those issues surrounding what you're -- >> okay. mr. wilburn, you heard the testimony of others on this panel. and so you were very passionate with your testimony, but frankly, so was captain moak and mr. anderson as well. i've spoken to people, particularly those, for example, at cliff's natural resources who said, you know, they're having to cut hours for, you know, working people, single parents. and so i guess my question is one of fairness, perhaps xm -- i

have no doubt it helps your business but do you acknowledge it can hurt other businesses? >> i can't speak to hurting other businesses directly. unless i have more specific example, mr. chairman. but i can say this, that it's not intent to harm anyone. but if i don't compete through the export-import bank, i know who's going to be harmed. because my competitors in foreign countries financed by their banks will get those deals. and i believe the same would happen to the aircraft industry if boeing doesn't sell those aircraft i think -- >> let me then ask you this question. fairness is a very subjective term. i understand that. >> right. >> but we seem to have a federal policy that says, you know, if you create a product, and you want to sell it to foreigners, if you want to sell it to the chinese, the federal government will step in and subsidize you. but if you want to sell your product to hard-working americans, then, no.

no subsidies for you. and so, i'm thinking about, you know, small businesses, my own district, a nexus personnel business, services in mesquite. the owner said my mother and father opened up the business they used their 401(k), other resources to pay for rent. we had to go to auctions to buy office furniture. you know, small businesses like ours quote/unquote can't rely on the government. again, i guess by definition, you received the subsidy, you believe it's necessary to your business model, i accept that. but how is that fair to the other millions and millions of small businesses who sell to americans who don't get their products subsidized to the federal government? >> sir, i'd love to compete on a fair basis in america with my green technology to take bio gas into methane. i don't get a subsidy.

i take exception to your remark. but my point is -- >> does xm not subsa die finance for your products? >> i don't believe that i'm subsidized. i don't believe that at all. >> yes, sir. >> let me speak to that point, if i may, mr. chairman with all due respect. and i do respect you from the bottom of my heart. my point is, you asked a question. i can't sell my technology here because there's barriers to entry to the market. and the barriers to the entry of the market is the oil and gas industry who subsidize the 15% oil and gas depletion allowance. i don't get that as a producer. i can but my bio and gas -- >> mr. wilburn, we'd be willing to work with you and be much more competitive in areas. i've got limited time.

so does dr. de rugy. have the opponents painted an apocalyptic vision and if so why not? >> i will don't think it's an accurate version, mr. chairman. for one thing, as i said in my testimony, less than 2% of u.s. exports are backed by xm. and that doesn't consider the possibility that these exports would happen independently of the existence, absent the bank. more importantly, we have to think of what some of the other witnesses have said. so, for instance, a large part of the activity of the bank is to subsidize big companies. boeing in particular. and the loan guaranteed 66% of the activity of loan guaranteed through xm benefits boeing. well, boeing is selling planes to a company that could get

access to credit as we've heard without the loan guarantee. more importantly, boeing has a really important and wealthy financing arm, and it could do a lot of things. and it does. >> my time has expired. the chair now recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd like to explain to those who are wondering why there are three individuals presenting who all seem to be opposed to the reauthorization. let me explain the rules. these three individuals were invited by the opposite side of the aisle. and we only get one witness. and that's mr. wilburn who's here. so i don't want you to think that somehow these were objectively chosen and that there are more people against

reauthorization than for reauthorization. we just only get one witness to come here today. having said that, i'd like to enter this letter into the record. this is a letter that our witness told us about where he lost a multimillion-dollar contract because of uncertainty regarding the future of xm. >> without objection. >> letter reads, in view of the uncertainties of the reauthorization of the xm bank and project finance structure you propose have become problematic. we've made the decision in may this year not to proceed with your project offering. our previous partner developer has provided us assurance of the certainty of obtaining satisfactory finance from the export-import bank of korea for our bio gas waste to energy project. with previous discussions with you, we had the impression that your company firmgreen can provide the best technology for our project. but without terms similar to that being offered by the xm bank of korea, it would be impossible for our company to

conclude a transaction. thank you for entering that. i have other letters i'd like to read and share with you. this is from your district, mr. chairman. fritzpac corporation, during the past five years -- i'm reading an excerpt. during the past five years we've grown our international sales from 15% to over 35% of our business. we now have major trading partners in over 30 different countries including brazil, russia, india and taiwan. most recently, we exhibited our products at the balma international trade fair in munich, germany. in addition, our products were used in the construction of sochi winter olympics in russia. so what is fitzpac organization, we're the inventor are of the best concrete mixtures in the world. we sell them to canada, as well as south and to new zealand. we may be small, in place we're thriving here in the u.s. and it

is in no small part due to the services provided by xm bank. this is from your district. the president. we have a letter from your district. i'll read an excerpt. as a small business that employs 265 people, 25% of these employees are supported by the xm bank. we use xm bank to create jobs in rural america. xm bank levels the playing field so that small businesses can grow. xm bank is a self-sustaining operation that has a solid history of making money for u.s. taxpayers. it has created millions of new jobs in the united states. reauthorization of the xm bank is a simple issue. xm creates and sustains jobs, strengthens the plan of american made goods and reduces our deficit. if xm bank ceases to exist, the

deficit would decrease. and we'll lose jobs in texas. you're going to hear a lot from small business today. we have received a number of letters coming from all over america, many of them from small businesses talking about the importance of xm bank. jobs, jobs, jobs. as it was said earlier, we all talk about jobs. we've been through a redepression. we almost went through a depression. we still have high employment in many areas and we're all saying to our constituents that we're going to do whatever we can to provide jobs. but when we look at how we lost our manufacturing base in this country and how xm is helping us to re-create and develop and sustain manufacturing which creates jobs, we say that that's what we want. but here we are, talking about not reauthorizing xm, which is responsible for these jobs and job creations.

i submit to you these letters. i would ask my colleagues here on this side of the aisle, if you have letters or information from your businesses in your district, now is the time to share them. and with that, mr. chairman, i won't use up all of the time that you allotted me. of course you used extra time. i just think the message is clear, jobs, jobs, jobs, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair now recognizes the chairman from california from the policy subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i sat in this very room however many years ago it was, three or four, whatever. when the xm bank was reauthorized for its current reauthorization, there were about six people sitting throughout. the vast majority of the american people have never heard of the xm bank. this american had never heard of the xm bank before being elected to congress but yet, i doubt that the xm bank's footprint on

on the american economy has grown or contracted since that time. but, yet, this room is full. and i understand there's an ante room that is also full. and it seems that the debate over this bank has become a proxy for a bunch of other things but amongst the things that it's become a proxy for in my view is how we operate around here. and how we operate in this place. and it seems there are only two options that are being discussed. one is the complete elimination of the xm bank. and the other is the complete reauthorization of it as it is. but you know what, i think there's a third option. i think there's another way to do this. that doesn't involve complete elimination and doesn't involve, assuming that the bank has nothing wrong with it, and that it is absolutely perfect the way it is. some months ago i formed as the

subcommittee chairman of the relevant subcommittee, i formed a working group to work on reforms for the xm bank. regrettably, none of my friends on the other side of the aisle, that's my fault, not theirs, were in that working group. but amongst the republicans on our side of the aisle, we had a brought spectrum of republicans. it included people who were and probably are still opposed to the xm bank and its reauthorization. and others who came in favoring it. and we did develop a work product which until now i have not released to anyone. mr. chairman, i have a discussion draft. this is the work product of that working group which i would request be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> and for those of you out there, my -- this will be up on my website very soon. and i'll be issuing a press release on the same as well. now this is a discussion draft.

it is in bill form. it has about 20 different reform to the xm bank. certainly i and i don't think in the group think this is the final answer or the only way or whatever. but it's an idea, and i believe an idea that we need to have, not only about this subject, but perhaps about other subjects as well. where we need to, rather than we're going to do this over here or this over here, that perhaps there's something that we can agree that there's some problems we need to fix. but maybe we can fix them. and maybe this thing can do what it was originally intended to do, what we would all like it to do which is support american jobs and american exports. and enable us to compete against all of those other export-import banks around the world. and do so in a more objective, a more -- just a better manner than it is right now.

and in my last little bit of time, mr. anderson, i heard you say that you felt the bank should be reformed. i didn't hear you say that it should be eliminated. is that correct? >> that's correct. and our position, by the way, the last time we were around when we were here, the reason there were only six people in the room, we've been working on this for five years because it's hurt us. and we got reforms, and they were ignored. so that's why our position the second time around is if it's not reformed, it needs to be abolished. because we got all the reforms. and they were totally ignored. i can read you the language. but it's -- the language was strong. and the bank has totally ignored. >> okay. mr. anderson, and i don't know whether the reforms -- this working group, we didn't have you -- we didn't have boeing, we didn't have anybody in the room. it was just us working on what we felt was right. what we felt was right.

and we did something which we believe begins to address your issue, doesn't necessarily eliminate your issue, but we believe it begins to address it. but that's what we tried to do. mr. wilburn, just picking someone on the other side of the issue. you're obviously supportive of the bank. do you have any objection to looking at things we can do to reduce the taxpayer but helping it? >> helping businesses compete whether slow, large on the global stage, i'm all for that. i'm a free market guy. basically, i agree with 95% of what's been said here today. so, i mean, i applaud the delta chairman and the other members for stating that they don't want to abolish the bank. >> thank you, i yield back. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from new york, miss maloney, marketing capital subcommittee. >> i thank the chairman and all the panelists and the ranking member. i believele we live in a very

inconvenient truth right now. especially in global capitalism. and as much as we would like to think that american businesses may not need any help, but what they're competing against is that total support in some cases, subsidy, in some cases, even owned by the foreign government. and if we were not, we would be uni unilaterally disarming in the international stage putting jobs at risk. oftentimes, what we hear in congress, we're not exporting enough. why isn't america exporting enough? and our number one exporter is boeing. boeing exports a lot of planes. but they're competing against airbus that is subsidized, financed and even owned by a government. and a lot of the areas where we're exporting and competing,

the subsidies from their governments are far deeper and stronger that ours. and i fail to understand why we would in any way want to disrupt an agency that is helping export american goods, create american jobs and is not costing taxpayers any money. i think this is something that we should expand. i was at one export meeting where literally a company in new york was exporting clothing to china. i thought that was a great thing. why in the world why would i want to stop an agency that is helping them to do that? therefore, i would like and request a place in the record, a document that's been signed by 835 businesses -- 865 organizations and businesses in america, supporting the xm bank, including the chamber of commerce. and also the national association of manufacturers.

>> without objection. >> i got to think that 865 organizations and businesses can't be wrong. i'll tell you. and i just want to ask, mr. wilburn, the opponents of the bank claim that trade finance should be left to the private sector. what has been your experience with finding commercial lenders, willing to extend credit to foreign buyers who want to purchase your company's services? >> recently, i just obtained some private finance for my three works in progress in brazil. the problem is, that i had to pledge my house, my intellectual property. my inventory. everything i own. i'm a risk taker. i'm willing to do that. but i can only do that once. because once i pledge that

collateral for those three, i can't take care of the next six, seven that we're working on. and if there are those sources out there and the committee members know them, the chairman or anybody, or anybody hearing these words today, if you know these sources of private finance, please get in contact with me. and the other small business peep that i know that would desperately like to have that as a solution. thank you. >> i have all these stack of letters from businesses in support of the xm bank. i'd also like to ask unanimous consent to put it in the record. and also one from labor. labor is supporting it on the basis this creates job in america. i ask you to place it in the record. >> without objection. >> and in response to mr. anderson. i'm a big fan of delta. i fly it like once a week.

i love the airline. >> thank you. >> i was pleased to vote for the support of the bailout by the federal government after september 11th. and i think we voted to transfer the pilots' pension obligation to the pension corporation. so we provided that help. and that's a subsidy, i would say. and we needed to do that. i supported it. i voted for it. and i think also to this day, we have passed bills that restrict and prohibit foreign air carriers from competing with delta by flying routes within the united states. that we are trying in our own way to help the private sector compete and win in a world economy. and provide the wonderful service that you do. but i, for one, am goi ing to b writing boeing and ask them to write in their own words whether they think xm bank has been helpful to allow them to compete and win. and who are their competitors

and compare who they're subsidized if they are, and also to g.e., and to any small company that is getting any help from the xm bank and all our members should do the same. >> the time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. baucus for five minutes. >> i thank the scharmachairman. >> i would say to all members, mr. anderson, what he is saying is identical to what he and the airline pilots' association, and to when we introduced the bill in may of 2012. and i met with the chairman in

march. both sides expressed the concern that mr. anderson. and i was told at that time that they would sit down with delta. and i was also told that boeing would take a look at it. we then put in the language of the reauthorization directing the treasury secretary to initiate and pursue multilateral negotiations for reducing and eliminating government export subsidies for aircraft. we specifically told them that we were concerned about wide body aircraft. to companies that were -- had government-owned subsidies. rich companies as mr. anderson said. and everybody expressed a great sensitivity to this. and we documented losses by

american air carriers on overseas routes. and that's what we're talking about. we're not talking about routes within the united states. that's got nothing to do with this. our american airlines used to lead the world in these overseas routes. from the time that we reauthorized this with -- really, i say it's strong language, but it turned out it wasn't that strong. because it didn't forbid the sale. and i can tell you that they're going to -- as long as we don't forbid them, they're going to have them. because when mr. hochberg met with my office. later when he testifies i'm going to show you my letter to him and his response which was a nonresponse. we've always got that. members also expressed to me great concern on the australian

loan. but there were members on both sides. i wrote chairman hochberg about that on behalf of several members on august the 2nd. we then inquired about the status of our letter. and we were told they were going to respond. december the 20th, i woke up to read in "the wall street journal" that the loan had been approved. after my august letter. no response. finally, on february the 19th, my office two months after the loan was approved and announced, an iron ore industry, the

miners, all sorts of groups expressing concern, he wrote me back and said we approved it. in my letter i asked them to get with us and we wanted -- there was no detailed analysis of the financing request and how it would affect u.s. jobs. and i asked him to share that information with me. even -- i know mr. hochberg is here, i look forward to any explanation, but no one from xm gave us any information. they didn't even give it to us -- just said if i have questions he gave me the number of -- his number. i said i could call him. this is a loan that had already been made. we -- you know, i had what i considered a commitment from xm bank and so did mr. anderson.

on a directed prohibition that was costing probably 10,000 u.s. jobs. these jobs have been eliminated since 1978. when they starteding doing this. there are estimates that this one mine produces more iron ore than our entire u.s. production. and it shut down iron ore production in this country as a result. a lot of it. but we -- >> a lot of promise to reauthorize -- >> and even the treasury department which i asked if i could have 30 seconds -- i asked them what are we going to do -- they basically told us, what are you going to do, are you negotiating? well, wee formed a talking group. basically just blew us off. the staff. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the time has expired. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from california, mr. sherman. >> ranking member notes that only mr. wilburn who is outnumbered 3-1, but i'll point out his arguments are three times as good. therefore, i think it's fair. it's been noted that xm bank is financing the sale of airplanes to airlines that could get credit from somewhere else. that is entirely true. every one of those airlines could get credit from the export credit agencies of germany and france. there's only one catch, they'd have to buy an airbus. so the question here is not whether the buyer could make the purchase. the question here is whether the buyer will purchase the u.s.-made product. and we're told that only 2% of american exports are at stake here. america is running the largest rate deficit in the history of

the world. we can't afford to give up 2% of our exports. we can't afford to give up half a percent of our exports. we're told there's a scandal involving some officers of xm bank. there's also been a scandal involving officers of the united states navy, dealing with the repair of ships in the pacific. yet, no one is proposing that we de-authorize the united states navy. i look forward to working with the gentleman, perhaps the gentleman from california, to improve xm, because i don't think that everything is perfect and none of these criticisms deserve any attention. one of those reforms would be to have language and even more clear language, to say that they can't make a loan or guarantee a loan without looking at the total effect on u.s. jobs. one particular area is airplanes. we're supposed to have an xm bank to finance exports. if you're talking about a power

plant being built in india. the turbine is an export. if the turbine is not in india, it's not an export. planes are different. they fly. and whether a plane has been exported or not, doesn't, shouldn't depend upon the headquarters' building of the buyer, it should depend on where the airplane will be used. there are two approaches we could take. one is to allow u.s. airlines to ask an export and therefore get xm financing on a plane they're going to use in international routes in competition for foreign airlines that are also eligible for xm financing should they buy american planes. the second approach is to deny xm financing to those foreign airlines when they're buying a plane that's going to be used to fly to and from the united states. but these are things to explore.

to throw out 2% of our total exports because of one issue, affecting flights to asia and the middle east, i think would be a mistake. now, mr. anderson, you have financial statements that you send to shareholders. and maybe you've got really a choice. you could use gaap accounting, generally accepted accounting principles. sore some have suggested fairy tale accounting. when you present a p & l statement, do you present the reports that you have based on your deals with your bondholders, or do you instead report the interest expense you would have had if you lived in a fair world? when i read your income statement do i see as income expense, what you're actually going to pay your lenders?

or some notion of fairness as to what you would be paying if only the world were fair? it's an easy question. >> no, it's not. generally accepted accounting principles have various methods for how you account -- >> do any of them involve you reporting, as your interest expense, what the interest expense would be in a fair world? >> yes. in some -- in some instance, in the case of a merger, where you have to go back and fresh start an account. >> okay, some limited -- >> no, we have a lot of interest expense on our balance sheet that is not the actual interest we pay. because the generally accepted accounting principles require you to market to market. >> that may be. but you don't do it and say, in a fair world, interest rates would be the same for you as they are for the emirates? you don't say pizza hut should report the same interest cost as

the local pizzeria or the local pizzeria reports the same costs as pizza hut. you report -- you just had a big merger, or at least you have experience with it. in the ordinary case, i don't think xm bank is going to do a merger with its german competitor. you report interest expense based on the deal you negotiated not based on an imaginary and fair world. >> look, in some instances, you do, in some instances you have to come to a fair accounting standard. i wish it were that simple. none of those reflect a really fair world. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from west virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. anderson, how many employees does delta airlines have in the united states? >> we have about 78,000 employees in the united states. and probably 250,000 retirees.

>> is that up or down or pretty steady? >> actually, we're hiring quite a bit right now. so we are hiring about 600 pilots a year and over 1,000 flight attendants so we're growing our business, without any government aid, by the way. >> you mentioned in your comments with xm bank's behavior in financing wide bodies around the world, you kind of quantified it to maybe 1,000 jobs it might have cost you. could you expand on that a little bit? >> well, that was in specific response to air india. when i hear the arms battle -- what the xm is doing is putting our employees in the cross fire. because it's u.s. jobs lost when heavily subsidized foreign-owned airlines are able to also get a

subsidy from our treasury. and it has reduced the growth of our company. this is the first year it will actually have any real growth in the last five. and we see it in the marketplace by the entry of carriers with xm bank finance, below mark financing. >> so the argument to either relook and reshape like mr. campbell is saying or de-authorize, it is a jobs -- it's small business jobs, but it's businesses that have 75,000 employees at the same time? >> exactly. and the point is, i don't understand why we don't have the same view about jobs that are hurt by the bank, as we do about small business jobs. these are all really important jobs. in the small business part of what xm does is actually really small and it's pretty new to the bank. because after the last reauthorization fight, the bank went into a really aggressive marketing mode to small business

so that it would have constituents in every congressional district. let's set that aside. the real issue is 90% of this goes to the top ten biggest companies in the united states. that are well-funded and well-capitalized. and that's what we're focused on. >> thank you, mr. wilburn. i'm over here. i don't know if you remember in my opening comments, i commented about the administration of the xm bank's policy of not funding coal-fired power facilities and clean coal technologies, except in developing companies. your a green energy company developer. and i love green energy jobs. we love our coal jobs, they're just as important to us as a green energy job is to you. do you think, in thinking about this, that it is a proper place for an entity such as the xm bank to say to american

employers and american workers that because we have a certain environmental belief, that we should disenfranchise one american job over, say, one of the jobs in your company as a green energy company? don't you think those jobs should be treated equally if we're going to be looking at financing exporting across the globe? >> let me respond that basically i'm very supportive of technologies that are good for the environment. and i think the coal industry, particularly my family, has a background in that and we're affected by it. i think the point here is, though, that the bank is looking at the environmental policy. okay? and i'm not an expert on it. i served on the advisory committee of the export bank on the environmental and renewable energy committee. and what i try to advise them of is be cautious when we're taking a look at the environmental

impact. make sure they have the data. make sure that they have the studies and the reports. don't just make arbitrary decisions. and i think for the most part, they have been listening to me but i understand your argument. and all i can say is that i want an environmental sound policy by xm bank that creates and protects american jobs. >> thank you, thank you. i would say i looked at the your list of vendors. you're in around around the state of west virginia, you just need to slip over the state there and export -- >> give me the names of businesses i'll be happy to. >> thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank the ranking member. let me first -- first, i want to say thank you to mr. anderson. you know, delta airlines is one of the largest employers in our

district, and we really appreciate what you've been doing at jfk airport and the expansion there and the folks that you've been putting on. so we want to thank you for that. as a result i made sure that i was reading your testimony very, very carefully, because we do want to create jobs. and i think that's tremendously important. but in looking at it, i just wanted to double-check. because i'd just like to ask, first, out right, and i'll start -- i think i know where mr. wilburn is in reference to the reauthorization of xm. but i just was wondering, captain moak, do you think that we should do away with xm, or should xm be reauthorized? i just want to know yes or no? what do you think about xm? >> first, i want to thank the congressman. i fly out of the kennedy, you do an incredible job out there. flying a boeing airplane, 667.

great airplane, i want to thank you for what you've done and we have thousands of members up there. the xm bank needs to reformed because we have lost jobs at john f. kennedy airport because of actions of the xm bank. it needs to be reformed, period. >> i know we've got to figure this out, but xm was not there. one of the things that concerns me, i am the largest -- one of the largest supporters of trade. and the reason why i support trade, i want to export our goods to other places. and then when i hear an example, for example, trying to level the playing field. there's an example i know took place in 2011, for example. where brazil had the largest land line telephone company and reportedly wanted with china's access on a 30 billion credit

line. with an interest rate of two percentage points below the market. that's one example how china has used its banks to win new exports. this is our competition. and there are hundreds of other examples of which i could give from all over the world. and my concern is, and to all of you, wouldn't you agree that several industries that export jobs throughout would devastate america. and i wish i could just say i'm focused on jfk. i've got to think bigger than jfk. i've got to think i'm a member of the united states congress that i represent my district, but first, the overall benefit. and sometimes, you got to figure out on a balance, wouldn't we be really jeopardizing export jobs without xm bank? >> sir, just to follow, you know, we're here because we need

your help to level the playing field. right now, we're not able to compete, and we're losing jobs out of kennedy, so we need leadership to reform the bank. the bank hasn't followed the will of the congress. >> what i'm getting at is this, as i said, mr. anderson, you i go to you also. see, because what i have to weigh here, you know, is the overwhelming balance of companies that come to me because i'm a pro trader who say this is absolutely important to them. if i would show you the number of companies that come to me and the jobs they represent that would be absolutely december stating to them, compared to one company who i like who have done, i'll have to say good, but then compared to one company, you know, then i've got a decision to make as a member of congress. especially me, because i've got

to defend my own record of wanting to export things all over the world and making it easier so we can compete. and when i look at, for example, to know there's other ecas, upwards of 60 ecas, export credit agencies, that exist in other countries, many of whom don't comply with standards established. countries like china, brazil, india offer below-market concessionary alternatives. wouldn't you agree that's what we have to look at so we can level those playing fields? if we don't level those, then we are putting at risk hundreds of thousands of american jobs because we cannot export to these other countries because there's no level playing field there. i see i'm out of time. >> time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. >> and i thank the chairman.

there's a number of areas that we can talk about here, i think the gentlelady to the right of me may go into this in more detail. but just as a beginning, i'll just do the highlight. and that is the fact although there's a statement saying that xm has never lost money, i think we have some documents to show that has not been the case over its somewhat sordid history of mismanagement, severe losses and past history of having to bail out and recapitalize in the past i'll led the gentlelady address that issue later. secondly, to a technical point, as to accounting, gaap accounting under fasb rules, i think it's 157. we've been in here hearings before. fair value accounting, right? that's part of it, parse and parcel of your process, isn't

it? >> that's correct. i think a lot of businesses in america would love to have the government's accounting system. >> exactly. >> the next point is on reform. maybe i'll throw it it back to mr. anderson and anybody else. the captain as well. maybe we can just reform this, but as some of you indicated before, we've been done this road before, we reformed it before. passed legislation just a few years ago. we instructed treasury to do something and we instructed xm to enter new agreements. and we tried to have xm do cost benefit analysis. neither of those things were completed, correct? >> you were totally ignored. >> so the question i have before i think about re-re-reforming something, if we do that, you don't have to answer this, i'm wondering why i anticipate being here two or three years from now after this