David Schweikert

Mr. SCHWEIKERT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, to my friend on the other side, there was a GAO report--I think it might now have been a couple of years ago--and these three agencies actually were tagged as having the highest number of vehicles as a percentage of, I believe, employment population that sat idle. Agriculture was close to 30,000 vehicles; Interior, 18,000. There was an actual reason.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from Oregon, one more time, the reference points in the GAO study actually said vehicles that lay idle, and that is why we chose these. There was actually a reason for choosing these three agencies. Mr. Chairman, a couple of data points: Agriculture, 29,818 light-duty vehicles; Interior, 18,752 light-duty vehicles; the Department of Energy, 7,315 light-duty vehicles. We are asking them to do the 10 percent reduction of those vehicle fleets over the 4 years. If technology efficiencies, the new gig economy, however you see it, can't accomplish that through the simplest reforms brought to us by the modern era, we are in trouble. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, not to belabor this one, because actually, in many ways, our friend from Oregon has spoken to this one. I actually believe we may have some misreading of what the previous one says, but we will adjudicate that again maybe over coffee. This is basically a similar concept as we were just discussing but is actually trying to produce some data sets for future policy. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the gentleman from Oregon is going to accept the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, look, I stand behind the microphone right now, hopefully helping many of you who support the Ex-Im Bank, to help you stand behind your previous rhetoric. If I remember, as you said, the older--was it archaic?--process that was brought last week, I noticed the rule you brought allowed me to bring my reform amendment because you were reforming the--oh, that is right. You didn't. You did not allow us to have that voice on those reforms. It was not a process. So now guess what is going on? We happen to have regular order, an opportunity to walk up and say we have some little ideas that we believe make the institution better. To my friend over on the left, okay, 59 credit enhancement, surety enhancement organizations. All this amendment does is it says, if you are competing against someone who is using another country's credit enhancement, you get to use ours. Isn't that what you are asking for reformwise? If you want to level the playing field, what a great idea. If they are using it, we get to use it. If they are not using it, we don't have to. That is reform, and that matches up with the rhetoric I was hearing around here last week of how you were reforming the institution.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, to my friend from Tennessee, let's do the facts. Simple amendment because, without it, you have all decided to subsidize the uber-wealthy in the world. Think about it. You have made a decision to use our import credit facility, our constituents' credit, to subsidize great wealth around the world. That is what you have decided to do here. I thought there was a battle here between the right and the left and the left always said, ``We are for the little guy.'' Here is your chance. If you want just some basic reforms that--are you thrilled with the concept of a sovereign wealth fund coming out of Indonesia? Malaysia? Others? We are going to guarantee the loan instruments on the back of our taxpayers. Come on. At some point, the argument is absurd saying: Well, you had a chance to do this last week. No, we didn't. You chose to do a closed rule. You did. You had every opportunity to do an open rule and give us the chance to put these actual reforms in.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my fellow Members, let's do some basic accounting, something we would all remember from our accounting 101 class. How many times tonight in the debate have we had the discussion: Oh, Ex-Im Bank, its losses are absolutely tiny? I have heard numbers tonight of 1.7 percent. But do any of you remember the hearing with the head of the Export-Import Bank where we asked the question: Can you tell me your impairment? Remember, a charge-off is a loss; an impairment is someone who is not paying. Mr. Chairman, the head of the Ex-Im Bank just stared at us with really angry eyes. He just stared at us. It turns out that the Bank games their losses. This is how they report such a great number. If I turned to you and said, ``Hey, your neighborhood bank has a loan on the books that has sat there for 55 years without a payment,'' wouldn't you think that would have not been in the impairment category that is not reported under their current accounting methodology, but would have been charged off or forced to be charged off? Could you imagine a Dodd-Frank-regulated bank keeping a loan with no payment for 55 years? They still have a $36 million loan to pre-Castro Cuba on their books. We found lots of this sort of stuff because of the accounting methodology. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It just basically says to do what the rest of the financial world has to do and use fair value accounting. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You would be happy to know and my friend from California would be happy to know CBO actually supports fair value accounting. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, may I request how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the good gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, all right. So fuzzy math, even though we now require the International Monetary Fund to use fair value accounting, even though many of you, when you voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, demanded fair value accounting. We now demand Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when they are doing their projections, to use fair value accounting. And a whole bunch of us in this room have voted for that. Let's actually touch on that. Mr. Chairman, forgive me because I am going to try to find the most elegant way to say this. My friend from Tennessee now multiple times has referred to a scorecard. Okay? So how many people are voting for this for donations? Just a theoretical question. I mean, if you are going to impugn, be careful. Many of us have been working on this issue since the day we arrived at this body before it was ever a political issue bouncing up through the blogosphere. This is a problem. Our amendment here, a fair value accounting, has actually been supported by the gentlemen sitting across from me who opposes this. You have all voted. You have all voted to put all of government on fair value accounting. But now all of a sudden, when it is an actual reform to the Ex-Im Bank because we might actually understand the value of risk and what is really going on and actually maybe understand what belongs in the impairment category instead of the charge-off category, we would get some honest information. That is what this amendment will do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from California and my fellow Members who I just pushed out of the way. Look, I know that we are discussing a transportation bill. But if you look at an amendment like this, the understanding of what is coming at us technology-wise, information, its ability to change how we look at moving ourselves, moving people, moving goods, moving freight, the amendment just basically directs the embracing of the information age and the opportunity that provides to actually deal with crowded roads, deal with congestion, and actually provide us some optionality out there. That is one of the reasons I stand behind this microphone and actually sort of stand behind my friend's amendment.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, have you ever had one of those instances in which you are listening and you are trying to find a way to say, ``I believe much of the argument we are hearing here is intellectually disingenuous''? The fact of the matter is every year there are trillions and trillions of dollars of surety and import-export credit that moves through the markets, and it doesn't have a government guarantee. It does not have a guarantee from our taxpayers. Look, this institution still has a $32 million loan from pre-Castro Cuba on their books. When they tell you ``Oh, we have this tiny number of charge-offs,'' what they are telling you is a lie. Do you remember the hearings we had when we had the discussions as to what their impairments were? They just stared back at you because they didn't want to have that discussion, because every other financial institution has to honestly say, ``Here are our impairments. On this one, it was oil. We only had this level of charge-off.'' What they are not telling you is that they are still carrying loans that have sat on their books, without a payment, for 50 years. To every citizen of this country, understand that, when this piece of legislation passes, you have just been put on the hook. Your credit has just been put on the hook for these types of loans. That is what you intend to do to your taxpayers? That is what you are going to do to your constituencies? This piece of legislation also purports to have reforms in it. As for the reforms, if they are not already doing these things, they should be locked up already because much of this is the most basic level that you would expect from any financial institution. Then I come to another tab from the GAO and see repeat, after repeat, after repeat where it has already been the law and they have been ignoring it. Yet we are going to re-charter them again--an organization to which we are going to claim we are providing reforms when they are the very reforms from the last time we did this that they did not follow.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I hope you are all listening to some of the use of the language. I appreciated the history lesson. But has it been lost on you, the irony part of this discussion that, hey, we are going to do a discharge petition, which is part of the rules, because we don't feel we are having a voice. Oh, by the way, we are going to draft a rule--draft a rule--that you can't offer amendments, that you can't have a discussion. For those of us who have worked on this issue for years, who have sat through dozens of hearings in multiple years, who actually have things we believe that make it better, the brilliance here is lock it down. So you are going to complain that you are not being treated fairly, and then the answer to not being treated fairly is, let's write a rule that no one gets a voice, that it is purely up or down. Is that lost on anyone here? The reality of it is the vast majority of the trade from this country has access to surety bonds and trade credit. It is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that actually asks for a taxpayer subsidy, a taxpayer guarantee. If you wanted to solve this problem tomorrow, you could recharter the Ex-Im Bank so that it continues to exist but get the taxpayers off the hook and let them do just as now Fannie and Freddie are trying to do where they buy their reinsurance in the market. There are solutions here, if I was allowed to offer an amendment. But you have all chosen to write a rule that keeps those of us who have worked on this issue for years from being able to have that discussion. Is that irony lost on anyone here? You know there is a better way to do this than extending this type of crony capitalism and leaving our taxpayers on the hook for hours and hours of hearings we have had where you have heard the bad acts that are going on in this agency--the fraud, the mis-accounting. Why are we going to let that move forward? Because if you have read the reforms that are in here, you would understand they already should be doing these. It is an outrage they are not.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, last week, a woman from my community passed away. Her name was Eleanor Benson. We all have a handful of people who actually impact our lives, and this woman is partially responsible for why I'm behind this microphone. She changed my life. She had a passion and energy that could not be stopped, and she will be dearly missed by our community.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank Chairman Royce. He has actually dealt with this and done this very honorably. It has been powerful to watch. There has been amazing testimony given to us. There have been great speakers here. But I fear something very important has not gotten enough understanding and enough focus. Who in this body is going to take responsibility when the Iranian regime is flush with cash and the death and destruction that is coming with that? Who here is going to take responsibility for the displaced people around the region? Who here is going to take responsibility for what some of the experts have told us, the potential financing of a Sunni-Shia war in the region, the amount of death, whether it be the $59 billion the administration talks about or the $150 billion that sits in accounts around the world that is about to be handed back to the regime? I hold up this board next to me so you can see this is more. This is so much more than just the neighbors around Iran. The bad acts have been happening all over the world. Tell me why there is Iranian Revolutionary Guard money, Quds Force money showing up in our hemisphere. Earlier this year I was at a series of meetings in Panama. We had parliamentarians from the region speaking to us, telling us that they are actually seeing Iranian money moving through their banks, financing bad actors in their region, creating death and destruction, trying to finance the overthrows of their governments. That is in our own hemisphere. Are we prepared as a body, particularly those who will vote for this, to step up and take responsibility for the lives that are about to be lost, for the governments that are going to be overthrown and the destruction and displaced people, the refugees, the cascades that are going to come from that? We are about to hand billions and billions and billions of dollars to a regime that is committed to destroying our way of life, but also to destroying their own neighbors. That is what is on the line right now. We are about to execute a vote here that is going to kill, maim, destabilize not only the region; the world. Those who are about to vote for this, I expect you to step up and be responsible for what you have done.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), my good friend. Iran Nuclear Agreement

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I thank Judge Carter. Mr. Speaker, this is something I, actually, have never done; but have you ever had one of those moments in your life when you want to come to the microphone and share it with whomever is willing to listen? This has been a tough few days here. Many of us, as we come to these microphones, have these heavy hearts because we are fearful that what is going on around us may be one of those momentous moments where we remember this for the rest of our lives, where it is one of those votes--one of those debates--where you affect the world. There is another side to this on a personal basis where you realize how incredibly honored, lucky, blessed you are to get to be behind this microphone. Last week, a woman from my community passed away. We all in our lives have those handfuls of people who actually make a difference and affect our lives. She is partially responsible for my being behind this microphone. A woman named Elanor Benson, from Fountain Hills, died last week--I believe at age 95--and she changed my life. I was a 20-, 21-, maybe 22- year-old kid. I was selling real estate in our little town as a way to finance my way through Arizona State University at night. She, in her retirement at that age, decided to take on another job at our little office. She sat me down, and she knew I had an interest in conservative politics. I still to this day remember her looking at me and saying: ``David, I like you. You are going to be the next president of the local Republican club.'' I tried to explain to her there was no way I would have time for such a thing, and she looked at me and said: ``Don't worry. I will help.'' This is a woman who moved to our little community on the side of Scottsdale, I believe, in the late seventies, and had such an impact. For years, I used to believe maybe a third of the town--half the town-- had become involved in politics, mostly Republican politics, because of her passion, her energy. You could not stop her. She got me to be president of the local club and stood by me when I did dumb things and applauded me when I did good things and scolded me when I didn't say the right things and walked me through how to be more sensitive instead of being so caffeinated, which is a family problem. I realized, in the chaos of doing this job, that I failed to tell her how much I loved her and how much she affected my life, because I don't believe I would be here today if it weren't for Elanor Benson, who not only changed my life but who, actually, I believe--with her work at the Fountain Hill Chamber of Commerce, her work for so many causes, her work for her church--made my community a much, much better place. We are all better in our part of Arizona because of her life. It was a life well lived. It was a long life. She was beautiful to the day she passed, and I wish I had let her know how much we cared. So, Elanor, if you are out there, thank you. Thank you for changing my life. Thank you for making my community a better one. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you for the yield, Mr. Chairman. You actually just hit on one of the wonderful ironies and one of the great difficulties we have in our discussions in our own committee. First off, the regulation, the way Dodd-Frank is designed, it is designed for the last problem. It is not forward-looking of what the future looks like. And then there is always the arrogance here in Washington of thinking we know what the future looks like. But there is also a number of professionals in the industry and academia who are now writing about what they call concentration risks. What happens when you tell every bank that they can only hold certain assets? You now have a concentration risk. If something goes wrong in that asset category, the cascade effect is universal. This is now happening up and down our financial system. In many ways, I can make you a powerful argument that the post-Dodd- Frank world is creating a banking system that ultimately is more fragile because of a contagion concentration risk.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well, think about this: How much reform has truly happened at Fannie and Freddie? Where are we at right now? I know the apologists on the left go out of their way to say don't blame the GSEs and their concentration risk and the cascade and the markets they built in subprime paper and don't blame the regulators who are supposed to be watching them. Here we are, 5 years later, and in many ways, the folks who soaked themselves in gasoline are still there.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Let's face it. There is a wonderful irony here. The system has great stress; horrible things happened. Let's turn to the very regulators who were in charge at that time and say: Let's double down with them. Instead of taking a step backwards and understanding we live in the time of information and technology, where we could have used that sunshine to see into our markets, instead, we basically created a command and control regulatory system and handed it back to the same folks who screwed it up in the first place.

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. One of the most painful things, Mr. Chairman, when I first got elected, I was blessed to be on the Financial Services Committee, and I spent that summer trying to read every word of the Dodd-Frank legislation. What you learn is, even reading the legislation, you don't understand all it is going to do because it refers to this agency will make this rule set, this regulator will create this rule set--you start to realize that 2,300 pages is taller than I am--and it is still coming. Mr. Chairman, what percentage of the rule set is finished so far?

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I know Chairman Huizenga has actually taken a look at some of these things. One of the other aspects that almost never gets discussed is that innovation is almost gone, the opportunity for what the next world is going to look like. Think of this, when Apple Pay comes from a technology company and not one of our banking companies, you have got to understand what this law has done. It has basically stifled economic growth, but it has also stifled the very innovation that made our financial markets one of our engines of growth.