Mike Levin: “indeed there is a basic trade policy issue involved in this debate, and that is whether we want to shape trade policy…”

“indeed there is a basic trade policy issue involved in this debate, and that is whether we want to shape trade policy, whether we want to shape the terms of competition, or we do not. Do we believe that trade as it expands is always better, regardless of its nature and its terms? I do not think it is. I think we have to shape trade policy. Ex-Im is part of that picture. In competing with other nations who help their companies in terms of their exports, those other nations do so, and the question is, are we going to effectively compete with those nations? We are not going to help keep jobs in the United States by destroying the Ex-Im Bank. That is just not the way to do it. There is talk about downsizing, for example, at Boeing. Ask the machinists who work at Boeing whether they want us to end the Ex-Im Bank. Their answer is no. Ex-Im Bank helps Boeing. It helps them produce goods in the United States that are exported to other places. There have been problems with Ex-Im in terms of small business. There has been an effort to address those. We can probably still do better. There has been a problem in terms of companies that violate U.S. trade laws. There is an effort to address this in this bill. We can probably still do better. But the answer in terms of an effective shaped American trade policy, which I believe in, is not to eliminate the Ex-Im Bank.”