The U.S. Export-Import Bank was created in 1934 by an executive order of the President. Its purpose is "financing and insuring foreign purchases of United States goods for customers unable or unwilling to accept credit risk. The mission of the Bank is to create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing sales of U.S. exports to international buyers." Its charter was last extended to June 30th, 2015. If Congress does not act quickly, the charter will expire.
Supporters of the U.S. nuclear industry claim that the Ex-Im Bank must be rechartered in order for the U.S. to be able to compete in the international nuclear marketplace. They say that without the support of the Ex-Im Bank, U.S. nuclear companies cannot compete with the aggressive Russian marketing of nuclear technology because the Russian nuclear industry is heavily supported by the Russian government. Critics of these claims say that extending the Ex-Im Bank charter will just encourage corruption and make the U.S. taxpayers liable for corporate losses. They recommend that the U.S. government streamline export regulations for countries that want to purchase U.S. nuclear technology. They also say that U.S. companies must offer superior products and services at competitive prices.
Another claim made by the supporters of rechartering the Ex-Im Bank is that an export credit agency like the Ex-Im Bank is often made a requirement for bidding on international nuclear contracts. The say that if the U.S. does not have such an agency, then U.S. companies cannot bid for these contract. Opponents of the rechartering say that foreign buyers ask for such credit support just because it is available. U.S. companies, backed by private financing, already compete successfully for foreign nuclear business against government-supported companies of other nations.
Ex-Im Bank supporters say that uncertainty over the future of the Bank will make potentials buyers less confident about the purchase of U.S. nuclear technology. Critics point out that U.S. nuclear products and services are the world's "gold standard" for the global nuclear market and they are not worried about the disappearance of the Bank hurting U.S. competitiveness. The critics say that it would be better for the U.S. nuclear industry to proceed on its own merits without be tied to the turbulence and uncertainty of political disputes over funding and chartering of government agencies.
Critics of the renewal of the Ex-Im Bank charter say that far from being critical to the flourishing of the U.S. nuclear export business, the U.S. government may, in fact, be an obstacle to the industry. They say that the current "commercial nuclear export regime is convoluted and burdensome and spread between three different federal agencies—all of which increases costs, imposes delays, and limits innovation." They say that government subsidies create dependency in subsidized industries that actually undermines competitiveness.
Ultimately, the U.S. nuclear industry should be able to stand on its own without the need for taxpayer support which may disappear as political currents shift. The fears about other governments subsidizing their nuclear industries may be overblown. The Russian government is poised to substantially reduce its support for nuclear exporting companies in the near future. France's nuclear export company, Areva, is in serious financial trouble. And Japan's nuclear industry is still reeling from the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
