Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s office this week blasted the state’s congressional Republicans for their “embarrassing” votes against reauthorizing an agency that helps U.S. exports.

A measure to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States received broad bipartisan support in the House Oct. 27. The bill passed 313-118, but Colorado’s four GOP House members voted “no.”

A five-year extension of the bank’s authority is expected to be ironed out in a House-Senate conference committee. That’s an unusual destination for a reauthorization effort that has been routinely granted by Congress for decades.

The bank, established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934, provides insurance and loan guarantees to oversees buyers of American goods. The bank’s authority lapsed in July after House leaders declined to take up reauthorization prior to a summer recess.

Supporters, including Hickenlooper, say the agency provides vital support to businesses and the economy overall.

In a statement to The Colorado Statesman, Hickenlooper’s office expressed dismay over opposition to the bank’s reauthorization by Colorado Republican House members.

“The governor is aware of the vote and believes it to be embarrassing and disappointing that anyone in the Colorado delegation doesn’t see the value of the Export-Import Bank to Colorado companies,” said Hickenlooper spokeswoman Kathy Green. “Every single other industrialized country has a government-backed bank that functions like the Export-Import Bank. It uses no tax revenue and creates thousands and thousands of jobs.”

But some Republicans say the bank primarily benefits large exporters, such as Boeing and General Electric, and call the bank’s operations a form of corporate welfare.

“The Export-Import bank exposes American taxpayers to a substantial amount of risk while only supporting 2 percent of America’s exports,” said Josh Green, a spokesman for Rep. Scott Tipton, a Republican. “It’s hardworking Americans who would have to pick up the bill if a deal that stands to primarily benefit a private corporation and their shareholders goes south, and that’s bad public policy.”

Joining Tipton in casting no votes were fellow Republican Reps. Ken Buck, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman.

Coffman called the Export-Import Bank a “subsidy for corporations” in an emailed statement to The Statesman about his position.

“Why did I vote no on the Export-Import Bank? Simple: Government shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing large corporations by risking the dollars paid by average American taxpayers,” Coffman said.

“Ending the Export-Import bank would be a small but important step in proving Congress can cut a program that in too many instances is simply a conduit for corporate welfare. If we cannot end this subsidy for corporations how can we ever have the moral authority to reform the tax code to make it simpler and fairer to the average citizen?”

Bank supporters, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, say the bank provides a level playing field for American businesses. It offers payment guarantees to U.S. companies doing business oversees. Without the bank, supporters argue, American companies would be at a disadvantage when trying to do business with countries that might not offer contracts to businesses that can’t guarantee their loans.

The bank helped finance more than $27 billion in U.S. exports last year.

“We’re often competing with other companies from other countries that just overtly subsidize their industries and creates a real trade imbalance,” said state Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora.

Carroll, who is challenging Coffman for his 6th Congressional District seat in next year’s election, said she was surprised by Coffman’s vote. Her campaign produced a list of eight businesses in the district that are supported by the bank. Going back to 2007, these companies have amassed export values totaling than $80 million, according to information provided by the Carroll campaign.

“We have real businesses here that have been working with the Export-Import Bank that have tangibly increased the amount of Colorado companies’ exports,” Carroll said. “So I just find (Coffman’s opposition) surprising, because it was an example of something that Congress was doing right.”

Coffman isn’t buying Carroll’s argument.

“Bottom line, the best way to create jobs is to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens for all businesses instead of relying on a government-subsidized loan program that disproportionately benefits our largest corporations,” Coffman said.

— Twitter: @VicVela1