[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 60 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2453-H2456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      STOP THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman for this Special Order on an 
important subject, the Export-Import Bank. I was just going to start 
with retelling a story I told at an event not too long ago that I think 
is important.
  The scenario that is going to play out, I think, all across the 
country later this afternoon, there is going to be a guy who works 
second shift at the local manufacturing facility. He is going to go 
out, get in his truck to drive to work.
  Now, remember, he is working second shift, which means he has got to 
miss some of his kids' Little League games, miss some of his children's 
afterschool activities.
  He goes out to get in his truck to go to work, and he looks a couple 
of houses down, and he sees a guy sitting on the front porch, drinking 
a cup of coffee, reading the newspaper. He knows the guy can work, but 
won't work, and is getting his tax dollars.
  He gets in his truck to drive to work, and he happens to turn the 
radio on. It happens to be the news hour. A reporter comes on and talks 
about the Federal Government's got an $18 trillion national debt.
  They have got this program that gives money to favored and connected 
corporations. One of these companies went bankrupt and cost the 
taxpayers a ton of money.
  He hears all that, and he remembers what he saw on the front porch of 
his neighbor's house. Guess what, this guy is ticked off, and he has 
every right to be.
  At the same time he is driving to work, there is a lady driving home 
from work. She teaches second grade at the local elementary school, and 
she has busted her tail all day long helping her students.
  She views her job as a teacher as a mission field, trying to help her 
students get the skill set they need to start on their path to 
achieving the American Dream. She has worked hard all day long.
  She is driving home, happens to have her radio on, happens to be 
tuned in to the same station where the same reporter comes on and talks 
about the Federal Government with an $18 trillion national debt, this 
program that gives money to favored corporations, connected 
corporations. This one company went bankrupt, cost the taxpayers 
millions of dollars.
  She hears all that as she pulls into her driveway on the same street, 
sees the same guy sitting on his front porch, drinking coffee, reading 
the paper. She knows he can work but won't work, and he is getting her 
tax dollars. Guess what, she is just as mad as the second-shift worker, 
and she has every right to be.
  Now, our job, as Members of Congress, is to remember people like the 
second-grade teacher and the second-shift worker and fight for things 
they care about. Here is one: they care about this concept that goes on 
in this town, where connected companies get special deals with their 
tax money, and they want that to stop.
  We now have a chance to do that, to start the process of stopping the 
corporate welfare, and that is what Mr. Buck's Special Order hour is 
all about, stopping the Export-Import Bank from continuing the 
corporate connectedness, the corporate cronyism, and the corporate 
welfare.

[[Page H2454]]

  Our job is real simple. All we have to do is nothing, something 
Congress is usually pretty good at doing. All we have to do is not 
reauthorize this Bank, which loans out billions of taxpayer dollars, 
puts billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, and helps connected 
corporate entities who got every lobbyist in this town hired to fight 
for their cause, at the expense of second-grade teachers and second-
shift workers.
  Let's not reauthorize this thing. Let's show those people we are 
actually fighting for them. Then once we do that, then we can actually 
also get into the social safety net, reform that, require work for 
able-bodied adults, treat taxpayers with respect, help people trapped 
in our social safety net system get to a better life.
  We can reform it all, but let's start with those connected companies 
with the high-paid lobbyists getting the special deals.
  One other thing I will add before turning it back over to the 
gentleman from Colorado, who is doing such a great job on this issue, 
and my good friend from Virginia, who is going to speak as well on this 
issue and doing a great job, this thing is not only bad because it 
loans out money, puts taxpayer money at risk, it is corrupt.
  Just last week, Mr. Gutierrez, a long-term employee at the Ex-Im 
Bank, was indicted on bribery and fraud charges, bribery and fraud 
charges that go clear back to 2006.
  For 7 years, he was scamming people, taking taxpayer money, helping 
himself, taking bribes from companies benefiting from the Export-Import 
Bank.
  Last week, at the first hearing we have had on this issue this 
Congress, we had the inspector general at the Export-Import Bank say 
this--and I will close here. He said there may be more indictments in 
the Gutierrez case. More importantly, he said there may be indictments 
in the 31--that is right--31 open fraud investigations that the Ex-Im 
Bank and the Department of Justice are currently investigating.
  Now, if that is not enough reason to get rid of this thing, I don't 
know what is. It puts taxpayer money at risk--corruption, fraud, 31 
open fraud investigation cases. Everyone knows it is bad.
  All Congress has to do to end it is not a darn thing. For goodness 
sake, maybe even Congress can accomplish that.
  Mr. BUCK. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Brat).
  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to follow my fellow Congressman 
from the great State of Ohio and follow our leader, Ken Buck.
  I am an economist who has been working on international trade policy 
and economics for more than two decades. I support free trade and equal 
treatment under the law. I oppose special privileges.
  Everyone likes free money, and that gets to the crux of this issue, 
and I want to go real slowly over this issue because everyone knows 
there is no such thing as free money or a free lunch. Every economics 
student learns that in their first course in economics.
  Let's just be real clear on that one point and take our time. If you 
get free money, right, if a corporation gets free money or you get free 
money, that is good for you, and you are going to hear a lot of people 
up here saying: Hey, this hurts business, this hurts my company because 
I am getting free money.
  The flip side of that free money is someone is paying the tab for 
that. Guess who that is, that is you. That is the public. That is the 
taxpayer. You are footing the bill for this free money that falls out 
of heaven up here, working through special interests and corporate 
cronies.

                              {time}  1330

  The Export-Import Bank provides cheap, below-market credit to certain 
exporters. ``Below market,'' that means the market system is not 
working, and something has jumped in to distort free markets. Below 
market is just a fancy way of saying ``disguised subsidies.''
  Subsidized exporters and their foreign customers like the goodies. 
For example, Boeing and its airline customers in the United Arab 
Emirates, India, South Korea, Chile, China, Ethiopia, and Turkey, among 
others, appreciate U.S. taxpayers helping to subsidize their planes, or 
any other good you want to name.
  So at first, the Export-Import Bank just looks like a bank that is 
helping our firms export. But then go and look at the size and the 
bottom line of the foreign firms who are offering these products more 
cheaply to their customers, the folks we export to. That is the issue.
  Banks in this country also like this program since they get lighter 
regulation on U.S. Government-backed loans and related products. That 
is a good thing. But, again, the backstop is you, the taxpayer. If this 
system ever fails--and we have just seen failure of a massive order 
with the financial crisis of 2008. And who paid the bill at the end of 
that failure? The taxpayer. You are the backstop for any failure.
  Whenever you hear someone say, Hey, I am getting low interest rates--
what a great deal. The low interest rates are being paid for by you; 
and the risk, which is just as important and is easy to hide, is also 
being borne by you, the taxpayer.
  So the Export-Import Bank does not advance the public interest. 
Export-Import imposes real costs on you, the American consumer, 
taxpayers, and other businesses through risk, market distortions, and 
misallocation of resources.
  Let me bring a little economics into this. Export subsidies don't--do 
not--increase net exports, and there is plenty of economic literature 
to support this claim. Sure, subsidized exports increase. Of course 
they do. But unsubsidized exports--the folks without the deal--drop, 
and imports increase in response. So someone is getting a benefit, but 
there is always someone else that is not receiving the benefit, that is 
being harmed by this free money out of heaven.
  As the Government Accountability Office noted in a study on Ex-Im's 
jobs claims: ``Additional exports may result in jobs shifting from one 
firm to another, without an increase in total employment.''
  Let me read that again. The study claims: ``Additional exports may 
result in jobs''--that is what we care about up here--``jobs shifting 
from one firm''--who loses them--``to another''--who has the free 
money--but ``without an increase in total employment.''
  I think that is what Americans care about. I think you care about 
increasing total employment, and this program does not accomplish that 
goal.
  What is true for employment is also true for production in general 
and for net exports, which are all part of our GDP.
  These economic outcomes are driven by major macroeconomic factors. 
These are the things we should care about. These are the things that 
really do improve our economy: worker productivity, United States 
capital stock, our business climate, and how much we save or borrow. 
Those are the fundamentals that we need to improve if we want to do 
better in the rest of the world. And we should also include the United 
States education system in the mix as well. The Export-Import Bank 
doesn't change any of these fundamental market drivers. It just 
benefits some at the expense of the rest of us.
  America is supposed to embody free enterprise and equal opportunity 
for all people--equal opportunity. ``Equal'' means equal, no special 
deals for anyone. Getting ahead shouldn't require having friends in 
Washington, D.C.
  Besides, how can we address the entitlement crisis and the legitimate 
welfare issues we have on the domestic front, as the gentleman from 
Ohio, Jim Jordan, just noted, and other domestic reforms if we can't 
even tackle a narrow corporate welfare program?
  I will just close by drawing another comparison with the great 
financial crisis we had in '07-'08. Fannie and Freddie had a network 
across 50 States. It was almost a shadow Congress of power that even 
Members of Congress didn't want to go up against because they were so 
powerful.
  And what happened as Fannie and Freddie helped to generate mortgages 
to people who could not pay their mortgages; right? Subsidized rates--
is it sounding familiar? Subsidized rates to folks who didn't have 
incomes, liar loans, and utter financial collapse starting in the 
housing sector, spreading over to the financial sector, all too good to 
be true, all free money falling from heaven, just like I am describing 
here with the Export-Import Bank.

[[Page H2455]]

And at the end of the day, who paid the bill? You did, the American 
taxpayer.
  So the Export-Import Bank is building the same infrastructure 
throughout the country. They are going State by State by State, Member 
by Member by Member, saying: Hey, you have companies who really need 
this special deal. They like the deal.
  We have shown, I have shown: it is good for them, but it is not good 
for you.
  These special interest subsidies need to end, starting with the end 
of the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. BUCK. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
  I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
the opportunity to rise and speak on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I have some serious concerns about the future of the 
Export-Import Bank, particularly with this administration.
  In the past, the Bank has been used to push extreme environmental 
policies from the President to guide how it awards their loans. We all 
know that the President has declared a war on coal; and through his 
administration, he is doing everything he can to prosecute that war on 
coal. We have seen the EPA and other departments in this 
administration, through regulation--not through Congress, but through 
regulation--attempt to shut down the coal industry and bankrupt the 
coal industry. The President, himself, said his goal was to bankrupt 
the coal industry. This, of course, along with the Export-Import Bank, 
is hurting coal companies and costing American jobs as they try to 
compete in the global market.
  I know that American coal has been hurt because the Export-Import 
Bank has awarded loans in countries that do not have to adhere to 
President Obama's leftwing environmental regulations. They don't have 
an EPA in many of these countries, yet we are financing deals there. 
Our current President has proven time and again he will use any means 
necessary to circumvent Congress and the Constitution to promote an 
agenda the American people just don't want.
  So let me give you some specifics on the Export-Import Bank and some 
of their investments:
  For example, in 2013, the Export-Import Bank approved a loan in the 
amount of $694 million in financing for U.S. equipment to develop an 
open-pit iron ore mine in Australia. The mine is owned by the 
wealthiest woman in the country of Australia. Do you really think she 
needs U.S. tax dollar support for this project?

  According to public officials, unions, and the Iron Mining 
Association, these subsidies threaten to displace nearly $600 million 
worth of U.S. iron ore exports and cause a reduction of approximately 
$1.2 billion in U.S. domestic sales.
  The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted a $641 million deal the 
Export-Import Bank made with a Turkish company to build a new fuel-
producing plant. According to the CEO of Valero, a company that exports 
American diesel and gasoline to foreign countries, ``The new Turkish 
refinery will be a direct competitor of U.S. refineries in the global 
market.'' ``It takes away potential export markets.''
  Valero, I might mention, has operations in my district, in my State, 
and in many other States throughout the country.
  Lastly, according to The Heritage Foundation, the Export-Import Bank 
made a $500 million deal with a copper mine in Mongolia that competes 
with excavations in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and Montana.
  The American people elect Congress to write the laws and make the 
laws, not the President. The President is the executive branch. He 
needs to figure this out. The executive branch enforces laws. They 
don't make the laws. That is what we do here in the legislative branch. 
The American people gave Republicans majorities in both Chambers to put 
a stop to the President's radical agenda.
  One other concern I would like to point out is I don't believe the 
government should be in the business of picking the winners and the 
losers. Private investors, you, when you choose to shop, individuals, 
can pick who you want to support.
  We have a vibrant and highly functioning private banking system. We 
should let them determine which loans are made to which companies. When 
the Federal Government inserts itself into the process, you end up with 
a system where Washington special interests drive decisionmaking, not 
free market principles. The Export-Import Bank has become the 
competitor to this private capital and investment.
  And I am a conservative. I believe I support Federal policies that 
encourage free enterprise and entrepreneurship, not to enter the arena 
as a competitor to the private sector. The Federal Government should 
not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Let's let the 
marketplace decide who wins and loses. This is the way free markets are 
supposed to work.
  What has made America great are the traditional values, hard work, 
and free markets. The ability to create jobs in this country, that is 
what has made America great.
  We support businesses. Those businesses that create jobs, they have 
raised more people out of poverty--the businesses and the jobs they 
create have raised more people out of poverty than any other government 
program can or ever will.
  So I wanted to bring these concerns to the attention of the American 
people and this body. This is a serious issue that may or may not come 
before Congress. If we don't act at all, the Bank expires; and it is 
clear from what I have detailed here, there are serious concerns with 
moving forward with the Export-Import Bank.
  Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue.
  Mr. BUCK. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Bribery, corruption, and fraud, throughout my tenure as a State and 
Federal prosecutor, I saw all of these evils and more. I am 
disappointed to say that the words I once used to describe white-collar 
criminals can now be used to define a federally funded entity.
  The Export-Import Bank, or, as some know it, the Ex-Im Bank, has 
taken advantage of our free market system. An institution that once 
stood for economic growth, prosperity, and global expansion now stands 
as a symbol of greed, a pillar of crony capitalism.
  It does not take a trained eye to see that the Ex-Im Bank is exactly 
what is wrong with Washington today. This 80-year-old institution we 
once trusted to expand our ``Made in America'' brand to every corner of 
the globe has failed to live up to its charter and has, instead, 
morphed into something else.
  The Bank does not maintain or create jobs. It does not support small 
businesses as much as its supporters would like you to think. It does 
not level the playing field for U.S. exporters. It is not even a good 
deal for taxpayers. The Ex-Im Bank has become more like a train with no 
conductor at the helm, running faster and faster, heading straight off 
the tracks. As so often happens when accountability is slim and 
punishment is nonexistent, the Ex-Im Bank has become a breeding ground 
for corruption, cronyism, and fraud.
  If you think I am wrong, even President Obama agreed with me back in 
2008. Before he ascended to the White House, Mr. Obama said that the 
Ex-Im Bank was ``little more than corporate welfare.'' The President is 
also on record saying:

       There should be a level playing field for U.S. exporters, 
     allowing them to compete based on the quality and price of 
     their goods and services, rather than on the quality of any 
     officially supported financing.

  You know, Mr. President, the great thing about the Internet is those 
words never go away, no matter how much you change your tune.
  At best, the Bank is handpicking winners and losers. At worst, Ex-Im 
Bank is corruptly accepting bribes, crookedly steering funds to favored 
foreign companies, and chilling the market for our homegrown companies.
  Take, for instance, Delta Air Lines. Delta is suing Ex-Im Bank 
because it feels that it is being cheated out of many of its former 
routes. The airline is on record saying that foreign competitors aided 
by American taxpayer-funded loans from the Ex-Im Bank can now charge 
less per flight because they have purchased Boeing aircraft at cheaper 
prices than our own American companies can.

[[Page H2456]]

                              {time}  1345

  The American taxpayer is subsidizing foreign airlines that compete 
with other American airlines.
  Speaking of Boeing and the Ex-Im Bank's corrupt practices, following 
Delta's suit, Congress mandated that the Bank perform economic impact 
reviews on all large deals. Take one guess who helped Ex-Im craft these 
rules. Boeing. This company received 65.4 percent of the bank's 
taxpayer-backed financing to help sell their jets to foreign companies, 
putting domestic airlines like Delta in a bind. How can Ex-Im justify 
its claims of leveling the playing field and supporting small 
businesses with these practices?
  It only takes a quick glance at Ex-Im's leadership to see how we got 
to this point. The Daily Caller found that fully half of Ex-Im's own 
advisory committee members led businesses that directly benefited from 
Ex-Im financing during their term. Five more members had Ex-Im funding 
reach their organizations before joining the advisory committee. And 
most disturbing of all, if we can have something more disturbing, is 
that the current advisory committee chair is former Democratic Governor 
Christine Gregoire of Washington State--Washington State, which 
receives 43.6 percent of the bank's total funding. I invite you once 
again to take one guess at what company is headquartered in Washington 
State. Yes, you guessed it: Boeing.
  Mr. Speaker, if this is not bad enough, between October 2007 and 
March 2014, there were 124 investigations linked to corruption 
surrounding the Ex-Im Bank. This includes some 792 separate claims 
involving more than $500 million. The Ex-Im inspector general also 
revealed last week that 31 other Ex-Im Bank employees are currently 
being investigated for fraud. That brings us to nearly 40 Ex-Im 
employees who have already been investigated or are currently being 
investigated for fraud.
  During an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing during 
the week of April 15, the Export-Import Bank's inspector general 
revealed that four senior-level Ex-Im employees were relieved of their 
duties last summer. These employees were allegedly steering taxpayer-
funded loans to favored companies in exchange for cash payments and 
other kickbacks. A former Congressman is sitting now in Federal prison 
until 2023 on bribery charges linked to Bank practices. Another former 
Ex-Im employee was indicted in the same scheme for soliciting and 
accepting $173,500 in bribes. The list goes on and on. How can we 
justify allowing a Federal agency to continue to operate in flagrant 
disregard of the law?
  Mr. Speaker, the most recent of these cases features a former Ex-Im 
loan officer, Johnny Gutierrez. You may remember Mr. Gutierrez as one 
of the four Ex-Im employees I mentioned before. He has the dubious 
honor of being the first of these four to be formally charged with 
bribery by the Department of Justice. He allegedly accepted cash bribes 
19 times between 2006 and 2013 to help direct taxpayer-backed loans to 
a Florida-based construction equipment exporter, Impex Association. Mr. 
Gutierrez was apparently very good at his job. He secured between $1 
million and $5 million to finance Impex Association projects in both 
Mexico and the Dominican Republic in June 2007. Similar guarantees were 
also promised to Jamaica and the Turks and Caicos. It is clear this is, 
unfortunately, not an isolated incident.
  It only gets worse, Mr. Speaker. In 2009, former Democratic 
Congressman William J. Jefferson from Louisiana was convicted of 
accepting bribes from U.S. telecom company IGATE and a Nigerian company 
in exchange for selling access to Ex-Im Bank employees. Jefferson was 
even videotaped receiving $100,000 at the Ritz-Carlton hotel right 
across the river in Arlington. When Federal investigators raided 
Jefferson's house, they discovered over $90,000 in cash stashed away in 
his freezer. This does not even take into account the former Ex-Im 
employee, Maureen Scurry, who was indicted for accepting $173,500 worth 
of bribes to help the Nigerian company.
  I don't know about you, but when an internal poll shows that only 
42.1 percent of your employees think the organization's leaders 
maintain a high standard of honesty and integrity, and only 50.2 
percent of employees believe they can disclose violations of the law 
without fearing for their jobs, there is something terribly wrong.
  It is time for a change here in Washington. The Ex-Im Bank is the 
perfect example of what happens when a single agency is allowed to pick 
winners and losers. For too long, Ex-Im employees have been accepting 
falsified documents, failing to record applicants' eligibility, and 
forging mandatory checks on applicants' financial integrity. There is a 
systemic sickness poisoning this agency with greed and corruption. It 
must be stopped, and it must be stopped now.
  This battle may be hard. But it is one I feel deep down that we must 
fight. We cannot allow this corrupt agency to continue picking winners 
and losers, laughing in the face of our laws and degrading our free 
market principles. The Ex-Im Bank is a portrait of exactly what is 
wrong with Washington today, and it is finally time for a change. That 
is why I ask you to join me on June 30 in allowing this pillar of crony 
capitalism to expire once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________