The Erie Times-News published an editorial on August 27th defending the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) and criticizing my opposition to it. I wanted to take this opportunity to ensure that the public is aware of key facts surrounding the Ex-Im Bank and the reasons why I, together with lawmakers from both parties, object to a reauthorization of this agency.

In 2008, while running for president, then-Senator Barack Obama said the Ex-Im Bank had become "little more than a fund for corporate welfare." I believe those remarks are still true. The Ex-Im Bank hurts American taxpayers and our economy. Like my opposition to other forms of corporate welfare that benefit special interests - such as the Wall Street bank bailouts and the costly ethanol and sugar subsidies - I oppose the Ex-Im Bank and believe that this agency should be wound down.

While its stated mission is to "facilitate exports of U.S. goods and services," in reality, the Ex-Im Bank forces American taxpayers to subsidize Chinese businesses and other foreign governments and corporations when they buy products from favored American companies.

The Ex-Im Bank's defenders claim that its financing is a "free lunch" for American taxpayers with foreign entities paying fees to cover costs. But those fees do not cover the total costs, risks, and potential losses to American taxpayers during economic downturns.

We know Ex-Im Bank undercharges for risk because no private bank is willing to underwrite such transactions under the terms Ex-Im provides. If private banks were willing to accept the terms Ex-Im imposes on taxpayers, then there would be no clamoring to keep the Ex-Im subsidies flowing.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that continuing operations at the Ex-Im Bank will cost taxpayers $300 million over the next five years. This cost to taxpayers is not merely theoretical. The Ex-Im Bank required more than $3 billion in a series of taxpayer bailouts in the 1980s and, some day, it will come calling on the taxpayers again.

While costs can certainly be measured in dollars, they are better told in the jobs destroyed by the Ex-Im Bank. According to Delta Airlines CEO Richard H. Anderson, Ex-Im subsidies provided to Air India on airplane purchases allowed Air India to undercut Delta prices on routes where the two carriers compete and came at a cost of about 1,000 jobs. An Ex-Im loan of $600 million to build a new petroleum refinery in Turkey gives that country's industry an unfair advantage as it competes with our own Pennsylvania refineries that already are struggling.

And, since it is a creature of politics, the Ex-Im bank has predictably been politicized. For instance, restrictions were put in place to prohibit financing to industries that have been demonized like coal-fired power plants, which perversely limits export opportunities for Pennsylvania coal miners. Instead, it is forced to provide arbitrary and excessive financing in politically favored regions of the world.

Supporters of Ex-Im attempt to justify the taxpayer subsidies by arguing that other countries around the world subsidize their exports and, therefore, we must subsidize ours. Yet, somehow 99 percent of American exports manage to be completed without Ex-Im support. And, if "the other guys do it" is the rationale for keeping the Ex-Im Bank, then how many other misguided policies of other countries must we imitate? Shouldn't we, instead, seek to mutually end this economically harmful practice? The last time the Senate debated reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank, I offered legislation that would have required the administration to negotiate a mutual and reciprocal winding down of global export subsidies. Unfortunately, President Obama, unlike presidential candidate Obama in 2008, preferred the status quo.

In light of its inherent unfairness and the risks it creates for taxpayers, I believe it is time to let the Ex-Im Bank expire.