BANGOR, Maine — Faced with potential job losses for the region, the Bangor City Council is unanimously asking Congress to reinstate the controversial U.S. Export-Import Bank.
In a unanimous decision during a precouncil work session Monday, council members agreed to sign a letter by Councilor Ben Sprague, asking the state’s legislative delegation to support renewing the bank’s charter.
“Failure to renew the charter for the United States Export Import Bank will put American companies at a competitive disadvantage, which puts American jobs at risk,” the letter reads.
The letter references recent controversy surrounding the bank, stating “we … support all efforts to root out any fraudulent activity, but we also believe that the positive activities associated with the Export Import Bank can and should continue.”
That statement came after multiple bank officials were suspended or removed amid investigations into alleged gifts and kickbacks as well as attempts by some bank officials to steer federal contracts to favored companies.
It also comes after General Electric Co. announced it will move 80 of about 450 jobs at its Bangor plant to France because of Congress’ failure to renew the bank.
Established in 1943 — when foreign economies crippled by World War II could not afford to purchase U.S. exports — the Export-Import Bank helps make American exports competitive by lending money to foreign buyers so that they can purchase U.S. goods.
There are nearly 60 such banks throughout the world that effectively subsidize private companies foreign exports to help make them more competitive. Supporters of the bank say its demise means U.S. exports will be less competitive compared to foreign exporters that use the assistance of their own import-export banks.
However, opponents say the bank is too expensive and that propping up U.S. exports is the job of private industry, not the U.S. taxpayer.
The bank claims the income and jobs it helps provide for the U.S. economy actually saves the federal government about $14 billion over a 10-year period beginning in 2014. However, a competing report for the Congressional Budget Office claims the bank will actually cost taxpayers $2 billion over the same time period.
Congress allowed the bank’s charter to expire June 30. Conservative lawmakers have framed the bank as a form of corporate welfare that favors special interests over the interests of U.S. taxpayers.
Meanwhile, Democratic supporters have argued the bank helps support middle class jobs in America.
Follow Evan Belanger on Twitter at @evanbelanger.