Export-Import Bank

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source