Improving Capital Allocation for Newcomers Act of 2025

— 748 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise loan credit subsidy costs, and miscellaneous program “enhancements” to support small businesses through economic challenges or circumstances. As noted by the Congressional Research Service: Overall, the SBA’s appropriations have ranged from a high of over $761.9 billion in FY2020 to a low of $571.8 million in FY2007. Much of this volatility is due to significant variation in supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance to address economic damages caused by major hurricanes and for SBA lending program enhancements to help small businesses access capital during and immediately following recessions. For example, in FY2020, the SBA received over $760.9 billion in supplemental appropriations to assist small businesses adversely affected by the novel coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic.18 The CRS further notes that “[o]verall, since FY2000, appropriations for SBA’s other programs, excluding supplemental appropriations, have increased at a pace that exceeds inflation.”19 In terms of current loan volume, the SBA “reached nearly $43 billion in fund- ing to small businesses, providing more than 62,000 traditional loans through its 7(a), 504, and Microloan lending partners and over 1,200 investments through SBA licensed Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022.”20 The agency’s total budgetary resources for FY 2022 amount to $44.25 billion, which represents 0.4 percent of the FY 2022 U.S. federal budget.21 HISTORY OF MISMANAGEMENT Throughout its history, various SBA programs and practices have generated negative news headlines and scathing Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Inspector General (IG) reports that have centered on mismanagement, lack of competent personnel and/or systems, and waste, fraud and abuse.22 From the 8a program23 to Hurricane Katrina24 to the more current COVID-19 (EIDL) program and PPP lending program,25 the SBA has managed to maintain its lending role even when repeated system failures have affected its distribution of funds. Congress has been somewhat responsive, pressuring the SBA to clean up fraud-related matters within its COVID-19 lending and grant programs.26 Repub- licans in the U.S. House of Representatives have gone farther, specifying that the SBA needs to improve transparency and accountability and deal with mission creep, the expansion of unauthorized programs, and structural and reporting deficiencies that have allowed mismanagement and fraud to reoccur, largely through massive supplemental appropriations.27 The SBA is led by an Administrator (currently a member of the President’s Cabinet) and a Deputy Administrator. Senate-confirmed appointees include — 749 — Small Business Administration the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, and Inspector General. Entrepreneurs and small businesses require limited-government policies that do not impede their risk-taking and growth. A future Administration can leverage and strengthen core SBA functions that have been fairly effective at reining in and calling attention to costly regulations and policies that are harmful to small businesses. This core advocacy function is aided both by statutory authority and by a network of small-business organizations and allies that support limited-gov- ernment policies.28 Moreover, an effective SBA Administrator and leadership team can work and advocate across the federal government to ensure that extreme regulatory poli- cies—or anticompetitive rules and actions that may favor big businesses over small businesses or international competitors over American small businesses—are dismantled or do not progress when proposed. MISSION CREEP AND ENLARGEMENT As noted, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have evidenced con- cern about SBA mission creep and the need to make a sprawling, unaccountable agency more focused and operationally sound. Moreover, there is unease that the agency has moved from being open to any eligible small business searching for sup- port to being hyperfocused on “disproportionately impacted,” politically favored, or geographically situated small businesses and entrepreneurs. Today, initiatives aimed at “inclusivity” are in fact creating exclusivity and stringent selectivity in deciding what types of small businesses and entities can use SBA programs. For example, even though the SBA under President Donald Trump proposed a rule to remove all of the unconstitutional religious exclusions from its regulations29 to conform with Supreme Court decisions that have made their unconstitutionality clear, the SBA has not acted on the proposed rule and still uses religious exclusions in determining eligibility for business loans. Several other specific concerns include but are not limited to: l The SBA’s request to become a “designated voter agency” in response to President Biden’s executive order on “Promoting Access to Voting.”30 l The creation of duplicative channels and “pilot programs” for the delivery of business training rather than working through existing counseling partners. The programs are largely duplicative of private, state and local government, and educational system offerings.31 l A push to expand direct government lending.32

— 722 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The Bank does not support small businesses. Most of the Bank’s funding goes to large corporations such as Boeing—a recipient of 68 percent of EXIM’s loan guarantees and 30 percent of EXIM’s overall activities.22 Over the years, 10 large domestic corporations have received roughly 65 percent of the Bank’s total assistance (it is closer to 70 percent today). More than 99.9 percent of U.S. small businesses receive no benefits from EXIM and are often placed at a competitive disadvantage by the subsidies doled out to larger competitors. In fact, the Bank’s support for small businesses has declined from $2.3 billion in FY 201923 to “more than $2.0 billion” in FY 202024 to only $1.6 billion in FY 2021.25 This decline occurred amid a pandemic that hit small businesses especially hard, and it con- tinues today. The Bank is not a good deal for taxpayers. The Bank’s accounting practices are deficient, and the Bank miscalculates its budget savings. While it claims that its operations will save taxpayers $14 billion over the next decade, the Congres- sional Budget Office has found that EXIM programs will actually cost taxpayers $2 billion.26 Numerous audits done by the Bank’s internal inspector general also show that the Bank’s risk analyses, default assumptions, internal reporting procedures, and financial reporting practices are not reliable enough to ensure the safe stewardship of taxpayer funds and responsible management of EXIM’s vast portfolio.27 FAILING TO MEET THE CHINA CHALLENGE These days, to get whatever expansion of government one wants or to jus- tify a new government activity, one has only to declare that more government intervention is needed to help fight China. President Trump used this argument to secure reauthorization of EXIM in 2019. Today, President Biden argues that the Bank could be a powerful weapon in the government’s geoeconomic arsenal against China. The rationale is that this will prevent China from dominating the global market with its subsidies and will boost American jobs and manufacturing. The prob- lem is that cynics who support such policies make no effort to adopt a serious strategic plan to achieve this goal. For instance, how can EXIM help us to fight China while state-owned Chinese companies like China Air have been some of the companies most subsidized by EXIM?28 Furthermore, it has now been four years since Congress instructed EXIM to focus on China, but there has been no funda- mental change in the way EXIM operates or the companies to which it extends taxpayer-backed financing: Deals related to the aircraft industry still dominate the Bank’s portfolio. In addition, there is no evidence that EXIM has altered its intense focus on competing with other governments’ ECAs. If the Bank were serious about com- peting against China, it would be targeting the low-income markets where China — 723 — Export-Import Bank has been making its most important investments. Instead, its obsession with other ECAs has caused EXIM to direct the vast majority of its funding to large foreign companies in higher-income nations. Data available on the OECD website show that the level of ECA financing in high-income countries in 2019 was more than double the amount in low-income countries.29 The same was true for previous years. In other words, EXIM and the ECAs of the OECD are competing in markets where commercial lending is abundant—a trend that continues today. The failure to deliver on its congressionally imposed obligation—however mis- guided that obligation may be—is also noticeable in the fact that EXIM’s China and Transformation Exports Program (CTEP) extended only $141.3 million in financing in FY 2022—a fraction of the $27 billion it is supposed to deliver by the end of 2026.30 The Bank’s efforts have also included a misplaced focus on emerging technologies such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence, which do not need EXIM financing because their foreign sales attract commercial financing without government support. The lack of demand for EXIM products could also be reflected in the Bank’s authorization of $5.2 billion in loan guarantees and sup- port in FY 2022,31 down from its FY 2012 peak of “over $35.7 billion” during the Obama Administration.32 This lack of activity also extends to the semiconductor industry, which has been picked as a focal point for a governmentwide industrial policy effort to counter China’s ambition to dominate that industry. Ironically, at the same time that some want to become more like China to fight China, China’s leaders are realizing that their heavy-handed semiconductor subsidies are weakening the Chinese economy. According to Bloomberg News: Top [Chinese] officials are discussing ways to move away from costly subsidies that have so far borne little fruit and encouraged both graft and American sanctions, people familiar with the matter said. While some continue to push for incentives of as much as 1 trillion yuan ($US145 billion), other policymakers have lost their taste for an investment-led approach that’s not yielded the results anticipated, the people said.33 This development is not surprising to those who understand basic economics. The goal of using EXIM as a weapon against China was a bad idea in the first place. Even if it were a good idea, for it to succeed would have required that EXIM stop serving the clients it has been serving for decades. That has not happened, and it will not happen. CONCLUSION The Export–Import Bank should be abolished because it wastes taxpayer money, adversely affects American businesses, and does not promote economic growth

— 722 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The Bank does not support small businesses. Most of the Bank’s funding goes to large corporations such as Boeing—a recipient of 68 percent of EXIM’s loan guarantees and 30 percent of EXIM’s overall activities.22 Over the years, 10 large domestic corporations have received roughly 65 percent of the Bank’s total assistance (it is closer to 70 percent today). More than 99.9 percent of U.S. small businesses receive no benefits from EXIM and are often placed at a competitive disadvantage by the subsidies doled out to larger competitors. In fact, the Bank’s support for small businesses has declined from $2.3 billion in FY 201923 to “more than $2.0 billion” in FY 202024 to only $1.6 billion in FY 2021.25 This decline occurred amid a pandemic that hit small businesses especially hard, and it con- tinues today. The Bank is not a good deal for taxpayers. The Bank’s accounting practices are deficient, and the Bank miscalculates its budget savings. While it claims that its operations will save taxpayers $14 billion over the next decade, the Congres- sional Budget Office has found that EXIM programs will actually cost taxpayers $2 billion.26 Numerous audits done by the Bank’s internal inspector general also show that the Bank’s risk analyses, default assumptions, internal reporting procedures, and financial reporting practices are not reliable enough to ensure the safe stewardship of taxpayer funds and responsible management of EXIM’s vast portfolio.27 FAILING TO MEET THE CHINA CHALLENGE These days, to get whatever expansion of government one wants or to jus- tify a new government activity, one has only to declare that more government intervention is needed to help fight China. President Trump used this argument to secure reauthorization of EXIM in 2019. Today, President Biden argues that the Bank could be a powerful weapon in the government’s geoeconomic arsenal against China. The rationale is that this will prevent China from dominating the global market with its subsidies and will boost American jobs and manufacturing. The prob- lem is that cynics who support such policies make no effort to adopt a serious strategic plan to achieve this goal. For instance, how can EXIM help us to fight China while state-owned Chinese companies like China Air have been some of the companies most subsidized by EXIM?28 Furthermore, it has now been four years since Congress instructed EXIM to focus on China, but there has been no funda- mental change in the way EXIM operates or the companies to which it extends taxpayer-backed financing: Deals related to the aircraft industry still dominate the Bank’s portfolio. In addition, there is no evidence that EXIM has altered its intense focus on competing with other governments’ ECAs. If the Bank were serious about com- peting against China, it would be targeting the low-income markets where China