[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16740-16741]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that constituents 
know why their Members vote for and against different things.
  Yesterday, we saw the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, and 
I voted ``no'' on that. Of course, I, like probably every single Member 
of Congress, have businesses in the district that I represent that use 
the Export-Import Bank to further their business, hire their employees, 
and help their community.
  So why would somebody vote against the Export-Import Bank? I am here 
to tell you why.
  We have a tradition in America of a free-market value and its wanted 
standing in the world. It is not by a corrupt system of cronyism and 
political favor, and that is what the Export-Import Bank is to me.
  Unfortunately, while many small businesses in every community use the 
Export-Import Bank, fully 98 percent of businesses don't use the 
Export-Import Bank to do their exporting--98 percent. But that is not 
really the issue. The issue is other things.
  For instance, between 2007 and 2014, more than 51 percent of all Ex-
Im subsidies benefited just 10-10-corporations. One in particular 
benefited from $66.7 billion in subsidies during the past 7 years.
  We can't fix Social Security, and we can't afford our military. But 
we can sure afford for 10 corporations to get 51 percent, because it is 
not really about the small business in your community, generally 
speaking. As a matter of fact, foreign firms that receive most of Ex-Im 
financing are large corporations that primarily purchase exports from 
U.S. conglomerates, not from Main Street businesses.
  Five of the top 10 buyers are state-controlled and rake in millions 
of dollars from their own governments, in addition to Ex-Im Bank 
subsidies that the taxpayers are on the hook for.
  Five of 10 are involved in exploration, development, and production 
of oil or natural gas, these foreign firms collecting subsidies from 
American taxpayers at the same time that this administration is 
restricting domestic oil and gas operations right here at home. 
Consequently, the Federal Government has doubly disadvantaged U.S. 
energy firms through excessive regulation and Ex-Im Bank subsidies 
granted to foreign competitors.
  Now, sometimes in Washington it is not what you know, but it is who 
you know. Of the 16 members of the Ex-Im Bank's 2014 advisory 
committee, half, fully half, were executives at companies or unions 
that directly benefited from Ex-Im financing during their term--fully 
half.
  Does that sound remotely suspicious to anybody?
  Another five members represent companies or unions that received Ex-
Im assistance shortly before they joined, and I will give you an 
example.
  Since 2011, former Energy Secretary and New Mexico Governor Bill 
Richardson has held a seat on Spanish energy company Abengoa's 
international advisory board. Shortly after joining the firm, Mr. 
Richardson was appointed to the Ex-Im advisory board, right around the 
same time the two Ex-Im Bank loans benefiting Abengoa were issued. 
Fascinating coincidence. Those taxpayer-backed loans totaled around 
$150 million.
  Supporters of Ex-Im argue that the advisory committee members being 
associated with their beneficiaries is a positive feature. To the 
contrary, I think it shows that a corporate cronyism atmosphere exists 
at Ex-Im and will continue to exist at Ex-Im.
  The office of the IG and the GAO, the Government Accountability 
Office, repeatedly document mismanagement, dysfunction within Ex-Im, 
including inefficient policies and procedures to guard against waste, 
fraud, and abuse.

                              {time}  1100

  Fully 124 investigations have been initiated between October 2007 and 
March 2014, as well as 792 separate claims involving more than $500 
million, and 74 administrative actions since April of 2009 in which 
bank officials were forced to act internally on the basis of 
investigations by the inspector general.
  The Congressional Budget Office reported that Ex-Im programs actually 
operate at a deficit, because we also are told that it makes the 
American taxpayer money; but we don't really know, because they use 
their own accounting system not used anywhere else. Actually, the CBO 
says that will cost taxpayers $2 billion in the next decade.
  And you wonder why certain Members of Congress don't vote for this 
thing. It is not about the small businesses in our communities that are 
trying to do a good job and play by the rules, because they are doing a 
good job and playing by the rules. But there is a bigger issue here. 
There is more to the story.

[[Page 16741]]

  The new bill that we just passed guarantees an audit every 4 years--
every 4 years. But keep in mind that Ex-Im currently has around 30 open 
investigations, 75 years of combined prison time, 90 criminal 
indictments and complaints, 49 criminal judgments, more than $223 
million in court-ordered fines and restitution, and I could go on.
  Mr. Speaker, the Ex-Im Bank doesn't do everything it could for small 
business, but it does a lot for people that know people in this town. 
That is why it must be reformed or ended.

                          ____________________