U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | Export-Import Bank |
Export-Import Bank
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:98
The special areas of the budget that are of specific benefit to corporate America are literally too numerous to count, but there are some special programs benefiting corporations that usually prompt unconditional support from both parties. The military industrial complex is clearly recognized for its influence in Washington. This same group has a vested interest in our foreign policy that encourages policing the world, Nation building, and foreign social engineering. Big contracts are given to friendly corporations in places like Haiti, Bosnia and the Persian Gulf region. Corporations benefiting from these programs are unable to deal objectively with foreign policy issues, and it is not unusual for these same corporate leaders to lobby for troop deployments in worldwide military intervention. The U.S. remains the world’s top arms manufacturer and our foreign policy permits the exports to world customers subsidized through the Export-Import Bank. Foreign aid, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Export-Import Bank, IMF, World Bank, development banks are all used to continue bailouts of Third World countries heavily invested in by our corporations and banks. Corporations can get special tax treatment that only the powerful and influential can achieve. For instance, pseudo-free trade legislation like NAFTA and GATT and the recent Fast Track legislation shows how much big business influences both congressional leaders and the administration.
Export-Import Bank
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 24:3
As a Congressman, I have repeatedly come to the house floor to denounce the further expansion of the federal government into areas ranging from “toilet-tank-size mandates” to “public housing pet size;” areas, that is, where no enumerated power exists and the tenth amendment reserves to state governments and private citizens the exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. My visits to the floor have not gone uncontested — proponents of an enlarged federal government and more government spending have justified their pet spending and expansionist projects by distorting the meaning of the “necessary and proper” and “common defense and general welfare” clauses to encompass the constitutionally illegitimate activities they advocate. Even the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation during Foreign Operations Appropriations debate were constitutionally “justified” by the express power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”? In other words, where money exists, credit exists — where credit exists, loans exist — where loans exist, defaulters exist — and from this, the federal government has a duty to bail-out (at taxpayer expense) politically connected corporations who make bad loans in political-risk-laden venues?
Export-Import Bank
New Global Economic Plan
9 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 117:9
Second, it calls for more credit expansion by the richer nations, more loan guarantees, and export-import bank credits and, indirectly, by providing credit to the Exchange Stabilization Fund and possibly to the Bank International Settlements.
Export-Import Bank
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 82:6
Genuine free trade would involve low tariffs and no subsidies. Export-Import Bank funding, OPIC, and trade development subsidies to our foreign competitors would never exist. Trading with China should be permissible, but aid should never occur either directly or through multilateral banking organizations such as the IMF or World Bank. A true free trade policy would exclude the management of trade by international agencies such as the WTO and NAFTA. Unfortunately, these agencies are used too frequently to officially place restrictions on countries or firms that sell products “too cheaply” — a benefit to consumers but challenging to politically-favored domestic or established “competitors.” This is nothing more than worldwide managed trade (regulatory cartels) and will eventually lead to a trade war despite all the grandiose talk of free trade.
Export-Import Bank
Fungible Birth Control Funds
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 85:3
This is the reason I do strongly oppose Export-Import Bank money going to Red China. Their violations of civil liberties and abortions are good reasons why we should not do it, and yet they are the greatest recipient of our foreign aid from the Exim Bank. $5.9 billion they have received over the years.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 116, after line 5, insert the following: LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, AND THE TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY SEC. . None of the funds made available pursuant to this Act for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or the Trade and Development Agency, may be used to enter into any new obligation, guarantee, or agreement on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 29, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. CALLAHAN) each will control 5 minutes. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:3
Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that no funds for new obligations, guarantees, or agreements can be issued under the Export-Import Bank under OPIC or under the Trade Development Agency. This again is an attempt to try to slow up the amount of dollars that flow into corporations and for their benefit specifically as well as our foreign competitors.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:4
China, for instance, receives the largest amount of money from the Export-Import Bank. Outstanding liabilities for the Export-Import Bank is now $55 billion. There is $5.9 billion that have been granted to the Chinese.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:11
This is what I am trying to do. I am trying to stop this type of subsidies. So my bill, my amendment would stop any new obligation. It does not close down Export-Import Bank. It allows all the old loans to operate and function, but no new obligations can be made, no new guaranties, and no agreement, with the idea that someday we may truly move to free trade, that we do not recognize free trade as being subsidized trade as well as internationally managed trade with organizations such as NAFTA and World Trade Organization.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 86:13
Sixty-seven percent of all the funding of the Export-Import Bank goes to, not a large number of companies, to five companies. I will bet my colleagues, if they look at those five companies in this country that gets 67 percent of the benefit and look at their political action records, my colleagues might be enlightened. I mean, I bet my colleagues we would learn something about where that money goes, because they are big corporations and they benefit, and they will have their defenders here.
Export-Import Bank
Foreign Subsidies
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 87:6
What I am pointing out is that $5.9 billion that the Chinese now had borrowed from us, from the Export-Import Bank, is a significant obligation that, too, is on the backs of the American taxpayer.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This is a token amount of money being cut from the Export-Import Bank. The President asked for a $120 million cut. This is only $18 million. There was $120 million added over the present request. This is not a project that is a favorite of the President, and he has referred to this as a form of corporate welfare.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:7
If my colleagues look at the corporations that get the biggest subsidies from the Export-Import Bank, they really lobby us.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:10
China gets $6.2 billion, the largest subsidy to any country in the world from the Export-Import Banks. China gets it. So why do we first want to trade with China, then subsidize them as well, and then complain? I would suggest that those who claim they believe in free trade, they need to support this amendment because we are getting into the interference and manipulation of trade, the subsidy to big corporations.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:11
Those who do not like China should vote for this because there is a suggestion that the Export-Import Bank serves the interest of China. So to me it should be an easy vote. The only problem with this amendment is that it is so small. It does not really address the big subject on whether or not the Congress should be in this business. Obviously they should not be. Where do you find the authorization to give subsidy appropriations in the Constitution? It is not there.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:14
Who gets the risk under this situation? The taxpayer. There is a lot of insurance in the Export-Import Bank. The risk goes to the taxpayer, but the profits go to the corporations. What is fair about that? The big corporation cannot lose. So why would the banks not loan to the big special interest corporations?
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:4
There has been a lot of talk today on the previous amendment dealing with jobs, and jobs are important. We have an economy now that is turning downwards and jobs are being lost. In this bill, this particular paragraph and the Export-Import Bank does deal with jobs.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:5
Those in opposition to my amendment make the point that jobs are enhanced in the big corporations like Boeing. That is true, to a degree, but there is a net loss of jobs because the same entity, the Export-Import Bank, literally exports jobs by subsidizing and loaning money to foreign entities that compete with us. Not only does some of this money end up in the hands of our competitors and hurt us here at home, but it ends up in the hands of our potential enemies. This is the reason why we should be out of the business of the Export-Import Bank.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:8
This argument that we create jobs is fictitious. We do not create jobs; we shift jobs, from the weak to the powerful. We do not create a new job by stealing, taking out $75 billion worth of a line of credit from the banks and giving it to special interests. Yes, it looks like they are getting a benefit, but the little guy does not have access to that amount of money. Why should the banks not loan Export-Import Bank money to the large corporations. They are protected. They are insured. Who insures them? The taxpayer. It is a ripoff. The taxpayer suffers all of the risks.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 63:2
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman makes the point that we fund in our Export-Import Bank less compared to other nations. That possibly is true. Mr. BEREUTER. In absolute terms.
Export-Import Bank
Iran/Libya Sanctions Act
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 64:4
Mr. Speaker, I support those portions of this bill designated to prohibit US financing through government vehicles such as the Export-Import Bank. I also have no problem with guarding against sales of military technology which could compromise our national security. Still, on a whole, this bill is just another plank in the failed sanctions regime from which we ought to loosen ourselves.
Export-Import Bank
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. Chairman, the Financial Services committee should reject HR 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support- rather, the majority of Eximbank funding benefits large, politically powerful corporations.
Export-Import Bank
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 91:9
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use them to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject HR 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.
Export-Import Bank
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 3:7
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with tax dollars taken from hard-working Americans, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.
Export-Import Bank
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 12:3
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (EX-IM) which use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large, multinational corporations. Ex-Im exists to subsidize large corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot get market funding reduce economic efficiency and lower living standards. Yet Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 2002 Ron Paul 17:2
The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support — rather, the majority of Eximbank funding benefits large, politically powerful corporations.
Export-Import Bank
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, being a cosponsor of this amendment. I am opposed to the Export-Import Bank because I see there is no benefit to it, it has nothing to do with capitalism and freedom. It has a lot to do with special interests, and I am opposed to that.
Export-Import Bank
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 30:3
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) said if we do not give them these loans, the companies will not get any money and they will have to go overseas. This is a fallacy to believe if all of a sudden we took all of the Export-Import Bank money away from corporations, that they would have no funding. That is not true at all. There is a lot of funding available. It is just that they do not get the benefit, they do not get the subsidy.
Export-Import Bank
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 30:4
What we are trying to do is make it fair to everyone so that the little guy who is competing for these same funds can compete on a level playing field and not give the advantage to the big guys. What happens so often when government gets involved is there are unintended consequences. The original intent was to boost exports and jobs. After 70 years, there are unintended consequences. The world is a more world market. I am not opposed to that. I believe in free trade; but I think this is more protectionism. This is so minor and so modest that anybody who wants to be on record for fairness into curtailing the political power of the Export-Import Bank, has to vote for this. This will be a little bit of help to a few people in order to say to these corporations that if they are going to get tax subsidies for their loans, and they start laying off people, they better lay them off someplace else other than here. That is pretty modest. I have no interest in ever telling a corporation to do this if they were not getting the special benefits from government. That makes the big difference.
Export-Import Bank
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. Chairman, we are here today to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, but it has nothing to do with a bank, do not mislead anybody. This has to do with an agency of the government that allocates credit to special interests and to the benefit of foreign entities. So it is not a bank in that sense. To me it is immoral in the fact that it takes from some who cannot defend themselves to give to the rich who get the benefits. And I just do not see that as being a very good function and a very good program for the U.S. Congress. Besides, I would like to see where somebody gives me the constitutional authority for doing what we do here and we have been doing, of course, for a long time.
Export-Import Bank
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:5
Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support; the majority of Eximbank funding benefit large, politically powerful corporations.
Export-Import Bank
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:15
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare
5 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 53:3
One thing that annoys me the most is when Members come to the floor and in the name of free trade say we have to support the Export-Import Bank. This is the opposite of free trade. Free trade is good. Low tariffs are good, which lead to lower prices; but subsidies to our competitors is not free trade. We should call it for what it is. We have Members who claim they are free traders, and yet support managed trade through NAFTA and WTO and all these special interest management schemes, as well as competitive devaluation of currencies with the notion that we might increase exports. This has nothing to do with free trade.
Export-Import Bank
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare
5 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 53:5
The other reason why economically it is unsound, is that this is a form of credit allocation. If a bank has money and they can get a guarantee from the Export-Import Bank, they will always choose the guarantee over the nonguarantee, so who gets squeezed. The funds are taken out of the investment pool. The little people get squeezed. They do not get the loan, but they are totally unknown. Nobody sees those who did not get a loan. All we see is the loan that benefits somebody on the short run. But really on the long run, it benefits the big corporations. Many times it doesn’t even do that.
Export-Import Bank
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:50
A noninterventionist foreign policy would not condone subsidies to our corporations through programs like the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs guarantee against losses while the risk takers want our military to protect their investments from political threats. This current flawed policy removes the tough decisions of when to invest in foreign countries and diminishes the pressure on those particular countries to clean up their political acts in order to entice foreign capital to move into their country. Today’s foreign policy encourages bad investments. Ironically this is all done in the name of free trade and capitalism, but it does more to export jobs and businesses than promote free trade. Yet when it fails, capitalism and freedom are blamed.
Export-Import Bank
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 97:7
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! In the last three years, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a total subsidy of $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Export-Import Bank
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 27:4
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), which use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large multinational corporations. Ex-Im exists to subsidize corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot get market funding reduce economic efficiency and lower living standards. Yet Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!
Export-Import Bank
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 46:4
On foreign spending, this bill actually provides one billion dollars in foreign aid to Turkey — even though that country refused the U.S. request for cooperation in the war on Iraq. One billion dollars to a country that thumbed its nose at an American request for assistance? How is this possibly an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money? Additionally, this “war supplemental” has provided cover for more of the same unconstitutional foreign aid spending. It provides 2.5 billion dollar for Iraqi reconstruction when Americans have been told repeatedly that reconstruction costs will be funded out of Iraqi oil revenues. It also ensures that the American taxpayer will subsidize large corporations that wish to do business in Iraq by making transactions with Iraq eligible for support from the Export-Import Bank. It sends grants and loans in excess of 11.5 billion dollars to Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Afghanistan — above and beyond the money we already send them each year.
Export-Import Bank
Stop Subsidizing Foreign Shrimpers
July 25, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 92:4
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! From 1999-2002, the United States government provided approximately $2,172,220,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the United States’ current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals approximately $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a subsidy of at least $16,972,220,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers!
Export-Import Bank
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Steel Financing Fairness Act. This bill helps our Nation’s beleaguered steel industry by stopping the Government from forcing American steel workers to subsidize their foreign competitors. Specifically, the bill prohibits the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK) from providing any assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries. The Steel Financing Fairness Act also instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce America’s contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by a prorated share of the IMF’s assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries.
Export-Import Bank
Encouraging People’s Republic Of China To Fulfill Commitments Under International Trade Agreements, Support United States Manufacturing Sector, And Establish Monetary And Financial Market Reforms
29 october 2003 2003 Ron Paul 115:11
Congress can also improve America’s competitive position by ending the practice of forcing American workers to subsidize their foreign competitors through organizations such as the Export-Import Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I have introduced the Steel Financing Fairness Act (H.R. 3072) to accomplish this goal. H.R. 3072 prevents taxpayer funds from being sent to countries, such as China, that subsidize their steel industries. Of course, our ultimate goal should be to end all taxpayer subsidies of foreign corporations and governments.
Export-Import Bank
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:12
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) that use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large multinational corporations. Ex-Im exists to subsidize large corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value uses of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot obtain market funding reduce economic efficiency and decrease living standards. Yet, Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!
Export-Import Bank
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 19:11
Pursuant to the Reagan administration’s policy of increasing support for Iraq, the State Department advises Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger to urge the U.S. Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financial credits. Eagleburger signs a letter to Eximbank saying that since Saddam Hussein had complied with U.S. requests, and announced the end of all aid to the principal terrorist group of concern to the U.S., and expelled its leader (Abu Nidal), “The terrorism issue, therefore, should no longer be an impediment to EXIM financing for U.S. sales to Iraq.” The financing is to signal U.S. belief in Iraq’s future economic viability, secure a foothold in the potentially large Iraqi market, and “go far to show our support for Iraq in a practical, neutral context.”
Export-Import Bank
Financing Operations, Export Financing, And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 60:8
This is corporate welfare. It should be defeated; and, ultimately, if we believe in liberty and freedom, we ought to get rid of the Export-Import Bank.
Export-Import Bank
Introducing The Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders Act
20 october 2005 2005 Ron Paul 107:3
Rather than simply further burdening taxpayers, or increasing the already skyrocketing national debt, my legislation is financed through cuts in corporate welfare and foreign aid programs, which subsidize large corporations and even American businesses’ overseas competitors such as the Export-Import Bank use of taxpayer money to underwrite trade with countries such as Communist China. It is time for the Federal Government to begin prioritizing spending by cutting unnecessary programs that benefit powerful special interests in order to met our constitutional responsibilities to ensure America’s first responders can effectively respond to terrorists’ attacks.
Export-Import Bank
Statement on So-Called "Deficit Reduction Act"
November 18, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 123:7
I also question the priorities of singling out programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps, that benefit the neediest Americans, while continuing to increase spending on corporate welfare and foreign aid. Just two weeks ago, Congress passed a bill sending $21 billion overseas. That is $21 billion that will be spent this fiscal year, not spread out over five years. Then, last week, Congress passed, on suspension of the rules, a bill proposing to spend $130 million dollars on water projects--not in Texas, but in foreign nations! Meanwhile, the Financial Services Committee, on which I sit, has begun the process of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, which uses taxpayer money to support business projects that cannot attract capital in the market. Mr. Speaker, the Export-Import Bank’s biggest beneficiaries are Boeing and communist China. I find it hard to believe that federal funding for Fortune 500 companies and China is a higher priority for most Americans than Medicaid and food stamps.
Export-Import Bank
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
15 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Steel Financing Fairness Act. This bill helps our Nation’s beleaguered steel industry by stopping the government from forcing American steel workers to subsidize their foreign competitors. Specifically, the bill prohibits the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK) from providing any assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries. The Steel Financing Fairness Act also instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce America’s contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by a prorated share of the IMF’s assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries.
Export-Import Bank
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:16
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.
Export-Import Bank
Various Foreign Policy Suspension Bills At the End Of The 109th Congress
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 101:2
The suspension calendar is being used to pass the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which funnels millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to foreign governments. For example, through the Export-Import Bank, Americans are forced to subsidize China’s economic growth with some $4 billion dollars per year. Is this not controversial?
Export-Import Bank
CONGRESS MUST ACT TO HELP SHRIMPERS
19 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 36:4
The problems shrimpers face are compounded by foreign competitors who are taking advantage of the government-created vulnerabilities in the American shrimp industry. Adding insult to injury, the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors through international agencies such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the International Monetary Fund! In fact, United States taxpayers have provided over $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers since 1999.
Export-Import Bank
- Congress continues to ignore Constitution in the appropriations process
29 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
This week the Congress has a full plate, including legislation re-authorizing the Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im. The Ex-Im is one of the mechanisms by which politicians are able to use your tax money to subsidize the actions of big, multinational corporations. Besides being unconstitutional, the Ex-Im Bank runs contrary to free market economics. It is unreasonable that taxpayers should be forced to foot the bill for funding risky ventures by big business. The Ex-Im Bank is the welfare engine for corporate America, paid for on the backs of the American taxpayer. The supporters of Ex-Im readily admit taxpayers have subsidized more than $100 billion of big-business deals in this decade alone.
Export-Import Bank
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 4 ... Cached
For a long time I have advocated getting rid of the Export-Import Bank. It is unconstitutional for the federal government, using your money, to be subsidizing the risky business ventures of corporations. And often, these ventures involve giving large sums of money and aid to oppressive foreign governments, like China.
Export-Import Bank
- Communist China shouldn't be financed by US
10 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
I was pleased to introduce a piece of legislation several months ago which would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only 37 Republicans and three Democrats supported my measure. Apparently, the Congress just wasn't willing to take that big of a step in ending US support of the Communist reign of terror.
Export-Import Bank
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Second, the fast-track backers claimed to be the defenders of free-trade, yet they have no history of ever promoting free market economics and sound money. Instead they prefer to manage a welfare state and use the mechanisms of the Export-Import Bank, the World Bank, foreign aid, and the federal reserve system to benefit their corporate friends.
Export-Import Bank
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 16 ... Cached
The correct solution to this seeming quagmire is one which few in (or for that matter, outside) Washington will promote. The US government should immediately end all taxpayer subsidization of China, including funds funneled through the Export-Import Bank and the World Bank. Congress should immediately require that when the government enters into contracts with companies to develop and manufacture goods critical to our national security, those companies agree to do no business with China.
Export-Import Bank
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
But under our current system, that same businessman can make his move with the knowledge that the taxpayers of the United States will bail him out. This bailout comes from several different mechanisms, like the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. This absurdity that passes for policy is made all the more disgusting when one recognizes that working families, struggling to make ends meet, are being held liable for business decisions that the wealthiest of private investors would likely not cover.
Export-Import Bank
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Several weeks ago we engaged in the annual debate over the level of free trade our citizens could have with China. I always take the position that one should have free markets and allow Americans to trade with whomever they please, but at the same time taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize foreign governments. The crowd I cannot understand is the one that argues against free trade yet supports subsidizing China and other brutal regimes around the world. That is the other half of what we do with OPIC, the Export-Import Bank and other international managed-trade organizations. By propping up the corporations that move to China, not only are we subsidizing bad business decisions, but also using tax dollars to shore up China's economy without their having to feel the pressure of the free market to change their ways.
Export-Import Bank
Confused priorities
04 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
But worse, the president's idea of foreign aid would use American dollars to actually subsidize the foreign competition of American farmers. The president announced Wednesday he wants to cancel competing countries' debt to the United States -- amounting to a $3.5 billion loss for the taxpayers -- from loans we made through government operations, such as the Export-Import Bank. Further, his administration is participating in a $27 billion debt forgiveness initiative by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, of which U.S. taxpayers are principle stakeholders.
Export-Import Bank
Floor Votes Reviewed
06 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 December 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
My final amendment voted upon this year involved ending the further funding of agencies such as the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or "OPIC." These agencies take our hard earned tax dollars and send them, in the form of grants and subsidized loans, to companies doing business in other nations. This massive corporate welfare scheme is often portrayed as having some benefit to US citizens, but let's face it - only the very wealthy and very influential corporate and Wall Street interests truly benefit from such financial shenanigans.
Export-Import Bank
Spy Plane Incident Shows a Need for New Policies
23 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The irony is that we also subsidize the Chinese government and people through the United Nations and our own Export-Import Bank. Americans should be very concerned when their tax dollars are sent to the same regime portrayed as an enemy by our own government. We should not subsidize trade or provide foreign aid to any country, and it is folly to believe those dollars will not be used against us. We just witnessed a terrible example of the danger of foreign aid: the Chinese fighter threatening the lives of our crew carried Israeli missiles built with American aid dollars. Perhaps this incident will make more Americans aware of the perils of arming both our "friends" and our enemies."
Export-Import Bank
Congress Sends Billions Overseas
23 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2001 verse 13 ... Cached
o $753 million for the Export-Import Bank, which subsidizes big U.S. corporations by giving risky loans to foreign buyers of American exports, again at the expense of taxpayers.
Export-Import Bank
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress recently considered several trade-related measures containing massive subsidies for American corporations that sell their products overseas. For example, the Export-Import bank received more than $750 million in appropriations funding last week. The biggest beneficiary of this money is China, which has used Ex-Im funds to build nuclear power plants, expand its state-run airline, and even build steel factories that compete directly with our own struggling domestic steel industry. Undoubtedly the American companies who benefit from contracts with China are happy with these trade subsidies, but American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for corporate welfare that simply benefits some politically favored interests. I introduced an amendment to completely defund the Ex-Im bank, because true free trade cannot flourish when subsidies interfere with healthy market competition. Unfortunately, however, the debate in Washington tends to focus on which nations and companies should be subsidized, rather than whether American taxpayers should pay for trade subsidies at all.
Export-Import Bank
Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized?
28 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 January 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with your tax dollars, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.
Export-Import Bank
Your Taxes Subsidize China
14 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
I offered an amendment before the House of Representatives last month that would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only a minority of Democrats or Republicans supported my measure. Apparently, many members of Congress are happy to bash China, but don’t mind lending her U.S. taxpayer money at sweetheart interest rates.
Export-Import Bank
Your Taxes Subsidize China
14 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Some of your money went to fund a nuclear power plant in Shanghai owned by the China National Nuclear Corporation, a state-run company. Many US-based multinational corporations benefit directly from Export-Import Bank subsidies to China, including Boeing, Westinghouse, and McDonnell Douglas. So it’s not hard to understand that business trumps the feelgood rhetoric condemning China.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.