Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for the yeas and nays on the motion to recommit to the end that the motion stand disposed of by the voice vote thereon.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina for his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HENSARLING. Okay. The gentleman declines.

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Oklahoma, another valuable member of the House Financial Services Committee, who I know we are on opposite sides of this issue, if the gentleman would like time to speak, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, I have sought time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, I wish to seek time in opposition. Point of Order

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, this is going to be an important debate that we have today because it is a debate about what type of economy we are going to have: an economy based upon fairness, where your prosperity is dependent upon how hard you work on Main Street; or is it dependent upon who you know in Washington? I respect the views of all Members, but if we are ever--ever--to deal with the threat of a social welfare state, we must first take care of the corporate welfare state, and the face of the corporate welfare state is the Export-Import Bank. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We had a rather spirited debate here between those who believe the Ex-Im Bank is about economic development and trade, and those who believe it is about corporate welfare, cronyism, and an unfair economy. For those who claim that the Ex-Im Bank creates jobs, the Congressional Research Service would tend to beg to disagree and citing economists who say they largely rearrange jobs. We know for a fact they have rearranged jobs away from Delta because they have said they have lost jobs when the Ex-Im Bank subsidizes Air India. Valero Refining, in my native Texas, has said they lose jobs in America when the Ex-Im Bank will subsidize a Turkish competitor. Cliffs Natural Resources of Cleveland, Ohio, will say they lose jobs when the Ex-Im Bank subsidizes an Australian competitor, which has caused economist Donald Boudreaux to say, at best, the Ex-Im Bank creates jobs in export industries by destroying jobs in non-export industries. How is that fair? How is that fair, Mr. Speaker? We are told that the Ex-Im Bank makes money for the taxpayers. Well, yes, if you use special insider Washington accounting rules. But if you use fair value accounting, something that the rest of America has to use, the Congressional Budget Office says that it actually loses money, and in fact, it has received an actual bailout from the Federal taxpayers before. We are told they help small business. And you know what? That is true in a number of cases. But yet two-thirds of the benefits go to Fortune 50 companies like Boeing, like GE. They are great companies with great people doing great things. I just wonder why they have to receive taxpayer subsidies? And 40 percent goes to benefit one company, Boeing; that is why it is affectionately called the ``Bank of Boeing.'' So I know it helps some small businesses, but other small businesses aren't too fond of the Ex-Im Bank. We hear from the chairman of Michael Lewis Company in McCook, Illinois: ``Over the long run, Ex-Im subsidies for foreign carriers creates a tilted playing field that means fewer U.S. airlines jobs-- which translates into economic pain for thousands of businesses like ours and our employees.'' That is the voice of small business. Chris Rufer, founder of the Morning Star Company: ``When a company profits from the Bank's support, it pockets the money. If it defaults, taxpayers' pockets gets picked . . . it is private gain at the expense of public pain.'' That too, is the voice of small business. We are told that as long as global competitors do this, well, we have to do it. I mean, that is an argument I hear from my children: everybody else is doing it, so we have to do it. But the truth is, almost two-thirds of the Ex-Im Bank book has nothing to do with a countervailing duty. And almost 99 percent of all U.S. exports, Mr. Speaker, are financed without the Ex-Im Bank. So we need to help our exporters. We need to help our small businesses. But the way we do that is through expanded trade. It is through fundamental tax reform that the National Association of Manufacturers has said is 50 percent of our competitive disadvantage. Let's make a fairer, flatter, simpler Tax Code. Let's have regulatory reform with the REINS Act. Let's pass the Keystone pipeline and drive energy prices down and become more competitive that way. So the arguments of those who propose to support the Ex-Im Bank--and these are good people, and I know they believe in their hearts and heads in what they are doing. But I don't think their arguments bear scrutiny. They don't stand up to the light of day because the true face of the Ex-Im Bank is about cronyism. It is about misplaced priorities. It is about foreign aid. It is about corruption. Again, this is a bank that benefits a handful of Fortune 50 companies that lobby and lobby well. Now, I would defend their First Amendment right to do it. I just wish they would lobby for more competition and more freedom and not subsidy and special privilege. We know that so much of this support, Mr. Speaker, ends up in countries like China and Russia. We asked the chairman of the Export- Import Bank: So we are supposed to compete with China by subsidizing China? And, Mr. Speaker, you know what his answer was? Well, it is complicated. No, Mr. Speaker, it is not complicated; it is stupid. It is stupid for us to subsidize China in the thought that somehow we are going to compete with China. Almost $1 billion to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which Freedom House says is the third worst human rights offender in the world. The cronyism, money to Solyndra, money to Enron, $33 million to a Spanish green energy company that Bill Richardson, former Energy Secretary, sat on the advisory board of the Ex-Im Bank and then sat on the advisory board of the Spanish green energy company. How cozy. The Fannie and Freddie business model. Corruption, the last 6 years, 75 years total prison time, 90 criminal indictments, 49 criminal judgments. One employee just recently pleaded guilty to 19 counts of bribery. Mr. Speaker, the genius of our system, the fairness of our system is about the free enterprise system. It is not about crony capitalism. Your success in America should depend upon how smart you work and how hard you work on Main Street, not who you know in Washington. Crony capitalism is a threat to our free enterprise system. This is America. If you dream big dreams, if you play by the rules, you can make it on Main Street. But not in this Washington insider economy. And there is no better poster child of the Washington crony economy and corporate welfare than the Export-Import Bank. So I have no doubt that an overwhelming number of Democrats are going to support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. They are always happy to allocate credit and our economy as part of a political process. They are always happy to subsidize corporate America, as long as they can also regulate and control it. But that is not fair to the people on Main Street. It is the free enterprise system which is fair. It is the free enterprise system which is moral. It is the free enterprise system which is based on merit. It is the free enterprise system which is empowering to people. It is the only economic system that frees ordinary people to achieve extraordinary results. So, Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is all about. It is about a fair economy for everybody in America: those who can't afford the high- priced lobbyist in Washington, D.C., and those who want to work hard and play by the rules. It is time for us to say ``no'' to crony capitalism, say ``yes'' to free enterprise, say ``yes'' to a fair economy, and reject the Export- Import Bank. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, this amendment essentially guts the Retail Investor Protection Act and puts the Department of Labor, once again, in the driver's seat to deny potentially millions of our fellow countrymen, low- and moderate-income people, the right to have their own financial adviser, the right to have financial advice on a commission basis. In many respects, the gentleman's amendment just gives us an opportunity to vote on the same matter twice, so I am not sure exactly what is being attempted to be achieved with this. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is competition, it is innovation that has brought us something called the $7 trade. And my guess is, Warren Buffett doesn't necessarily need a $7 trade, but there are a lot of good folks, small business people, factory workers in Mesquite, farmers out near Mineola, Texas, good folks in the Fifth Congressional District, when they are planning for their retirement security, when they are trying to preserve their 401(k), their IRAs, they need that. Again, if we adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, we are right back to where we are--denying the ability for low and moderate-income people to have a choice in how they receive their financial advice, even if they will receive it. That is unacceptable, and I would urge a rejection of this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have at least three more speakers.

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is last, but not least, on the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would just urge all Members to vote for freedom, to vote for opportunity, to vote for empowerment of the farmers, the factory workers, the low- and moderate-income people, the single moms, all building a retirement security. Reject the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and vote for H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor Protection Act from the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner). I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), another valued member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the distinguished chairman of our Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), a very important member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.