I am a little torn on this issue. Yes, the EXIM bank tends to be more supportive of established and profitable corporations. Yes, the EXIM bank should operate independently from political influence. Yes, their should be more support for new businesses needed to establish foreign markets. While all of these ‘negatives’ are true, there are also some ‘positives’. From prior stats, the EXIM bank underwritten loans, have resulted in net positive returns to our treasury- with some losses some years, but overall net positive returns of 10’s of billions to the treasury (it may be much more or somewhat less, I can’t recall the specific numbers). Building foreign markets for products that require large capital investments over a long period of time carry risks that banks would rather not undertake and large fluctuations in capital reserves are something that publicly traded companies are often unwilling to take on, since it effects stock valuations and investor returns, particularly for the larger companies which tend to be predominately featured parts of 401K mutual fund packages. These companies are faced with international competitors that are directly supported by their governments to cover these risks and this puts our companies at a great competitive disadvantage without the EXIM bank- which is bad for our economy. The EXIM bank helps to level the playing field. I support the EXIM bank’s role for these long term capital investment driven products, which have historically resulted in long term returns to our county’s treasury. I do believe that some re-thinking of the EXIM bank’s charter is warranted to assure it’s independence from undue politicization and to expand it’s role in judiciously supporting new companies expansion into foreign markets. I do not support eliminating the EXIM bank without a detailed study of the longer-term consequences of so doing- which to me seem to be negative at this time.