During last Wednesday’s hearing before the House Oversight Committee about the future of the Ex-Im Bank, Representative Jody Hice (R., Ga.) grilled Ex-Im president Fred Hochberg about the agency’s lack of transparency — especially its sloppy data practices.

You can watch the Q & A here:

Embedded video

I’ve followed the issue very closely: alerting readers and lawmakers about the missing dataset from Data.gov back in July 2014, later uploading the proper data set, with my colleagues’ help, to Ex-Im Uncensored because Ex-Im still refused to restore it, and complaining multiple times about the terrible quality of the dataset that was returned to Data.gov.

In the Q&A, Hochberg is, let’s just say, somewhat less than transparent with Representative Hice.

First, he claims that Ex-Im’s data were removed for a few weeks; actually, it was down for about 7 months.

Second, he claims that he personally made the decision to remove the data because subsidized exporters were complaining. Which exporters? Could it have been Boeing, by far the biggest beneficiary of Ex-Im? It wouldn’t be the first time that Boeing directed the bank to work in its interests.

Third, the reason Hochberg supplied for certain information about Ex-Im recipients being withheld is odd. He says it’s to protect subsidized exporters’ “business secrets,” incorrectly stating that information such as business addresses and cost breakdowns were included in the dataset, when the only information that was ever included was the names of the companies involved. This can hardly be considered a trade secret in the first place, and Hochberg provided no example of this information being used in a detrimental manner.

Besides, if you’re an exporter receiving a loan that puts taxpayers on the hook for millions, should you expect the same privacy that a company that doesn’t put taxpayers’ money at risk is getting? I don’t think so.

Taxpayers have a right to access this information and know where their money is going, what it is buying, and which lenders extended the loans. Without the information, how can we be sure that the money is actually going to small businesses as opposed to large companies? How can we verify that the money isn’t benefiting a company located in a country that Ex-Im isn’t allowed to do business with? If exporters aren’t comfortable with the data being made public, they can always borrow money without an Ex-Im guarantee, as the vast majority of exporters do.

Finally, Hochberg sounded particularly out of touch when he was challenged about the poor quality of the Ex-Im data. The congressman noted that many thousands of transactions were incomplete, listed in the wrong place, or inaccurately recorded. In response, Hochberg sounded amused and not at all concerned. I’m not sure why he thinks it amusing that Ex-Im is refusing to be accountable ot taxpayers.

All that said, it is good to know that Fred Hochberg personally decided to scrub some info from the Ex-Im data set — at least we know whom to hold accountable for the lack of transparency.

Over at the Washington Examiner, Tim Carney notes that during that same hearing Hochberg effectively said that Senator Obama’s comment that Ex-Im was a little more than a corporate slush fund was just another example of political dishonesty. The political dishonesty, you’d note, might be just as likely Obama’s insistence now that it’s a useful institution that has to be reauthorized.