[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 29, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5610-H5623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1994, VA ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 
      2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3236, SURFACE 
 TRANSPORTATION AND VETERANS HEALTH CARE CHOICE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2015

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 388 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 388

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1994) to amend title 38, United States Code, 
     to provide for the removal or demotion of employees of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs based on performance or 
     misconduct, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs now printed 
     in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3236) to 
     provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, 
     motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out 
     of the Highway Trust Fund, to provide resource flexibility to 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs for health care services, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled 
     by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the 
     Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Ways and 
     Means, and Veterans' Affairs; and (2) one motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). The gentleman from 
Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.

[[Page H5611]]

                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we are here at the end of the work that we 
have done before our break home for the August recess, where we will 
have an opportunity to go back to the American people and talk with 
them as they are in our homes, our cities, our neighborhoods, our 
schools, our firehouses, and our places of worship; and we will have a 
chance to meet and talk with them about the great work that Republicans 
have achieved and done up here in Washington, D.C., during this first 
half of the year.
  I am very pleased to know that today, as we are preparing to leave to 
go back home for our district work session, that we are going to be 
presenting several bills on the floor that are done to try and move 
forward not only thoughts and ideas that we have for the House of 
Representatives but, really, to work in the spirit of things with the 
other body, the United States Senate, so that we can make sure that the 
American people, their vision, their needs are before the American 
people. That is why I am here today.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, the American people were shocked, once again, 
by the news that dozens of our Nation's veterans were left to die while 
they waited for medical care in the VA. The VA hospital, which is 
located in so many of our communities around this great Nation, has 
simply not performed well and, in several instances, has had shocking 
results. That is also why we are here today.
  In response, Congress passed something called the Choice Act, which 
makes it easier to remove senior executives at the VA who had 
underperformed, who have not done their job properly on behalf of not 
just the taxpayers of this country, but on behalf of a grateful Nation 
who is serving the men and women who have given their very best years 
and lives to this country through their service to the United States 
military.
  We believe that removing people who cannot make wise choices and 
decisions at the VA was the right thing to do. We were trying to put 
the President, his administration, the Secretary, and senior managers 
at the VA not only on notice that we would not tolerate bad behavior, 
poor decisions, and ineffective management, but that we were going to 
do something about it. By the way, we felt like they were 
underperforming to a deserving crowd, and that is our veterans.
  Well, the President agreed with us, too. The bill was signed into 
law. We got that done last year, the Choice Act. It was a good decision 
by this body when we faced the times where we recognized in not only a 
public way, but in an outpouring of support from veterans who said this 
has to change. The Republican Congress did just that.
  Our chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs from Florida (Mr. 
Miller) very quickly and clearly went and did an investigation on a 
bipartisan basis, looked at the VA, and made these decisions. That was 
what we did a year ago.
  Since then, only two VA employees have been fired for their role in 
what is now known as the waiting list scandal. What is this waiting 
list scandal? The waiting list scandal is a way by which the VA denied 
veterans an opportunity to come and get the health care that they 
needed by stringing them out and then deceiving others--including 
themselves in the VA--about what the waiting times were. They deceived 
not only these people who were given these long dates; they deceived 
the management. They also deceived the United States Congress.
  Well, as happens many times, people find out. Well, we did find out. 
This meant that the deaths that were covered up, the veterans that were 
neglected, and the statistics that were provided to us and others were 
altered.
  One year later, the waiting list grows longer and longer and longer 
for everyone. No doubt, we gave the administration the tools that they 
asked for that they agree with. Only two people have been fired.
  Mr. Speaker, we were sincere about what we did by giving them the 
authority and the responsibility. We expected them to clean it up. I 
look to not only our chairman, Jeff Miller, but we look to the VA also 
to stand up and say they disagreed with that. Not much has happened--
certainly not enough.
  We are back here again. Poor performances and bad actors still 
continue to undermine the VA. They continue to undermine not only the 
scheduling, they undermine the service; they undermine the quality that 
should be available to our veterans. As a result of this, the ability 
that we think we are providing to our veterans is diminished. The care 
for our veterans, wounded and sick veterans, continues to lag.
  Republicans are back at the table. Our young chairman, Jeff Miller, 
has stayed at the table. He has stayed working on this issue on a 
bipartisan basis with the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
by knowing what is happening all across this country, learning more 
about not just the facts of the case, but the stories that come from 
the veterans themselves, the stories that may come from people who are 
inside the VA. They are important to us learning what is really 
happening.
  Because the VA has a long and well-documented history of failing to 
hold employees accountable, we are back here today with another bill. 
That is right, another bill that we are going to handle on the floor by 
this Republican House with Democrats on a bipartisan basis, to make it 
easier to remove or demote employees who do not do their job and who 
need to be out of that organization.
  We are going to give this organization exactly what they are asking 
for again. We are going to give the VA and their new Veterans Secretary 
the ability to clean up their mess. We are trying our best to hold them 
accountable yet, at the same time, expect them to do the right thing.
  Yesterday, in testimony, we had our chairman say he has confidence in 
the Secretary; he has confidence that the Secretary can adjust and make 
these changes, but the law needs to be updated and changed.
  That is why we are here today, to give the VA the tools that they 
need--just like when I was a manager in the private sector, I needed 
the tools to run my organization properly and effectively--the ability 
to move employees that were not doing their job--perhaps it is a bad 
fit--or to get rid of employees or even fire them if they are not only 
not performing their job, but deceptively trying to harm patients in 
the process.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would send a clear message to employees of the 
VA, and we intend to do that today. We are going to send a very clear 
message to them that they either perform properly or, if they are 
harming our effort to help our veterans, it is time for them to leave. 
If they are not up to doing the task very well, this Department will be 
given the opportunity, the law, and the leverage to do just that.

  This bill would send another important signal also. If you choose to 
demonstrate the moral courage necessary to stand up for veterans and to 
blow the whistle on those who are not, we want to make sure that you 
are protected, that you can come forth inside your own organization of 
the VA to report and root out bad behavior. We must fix this.
  Mr. Speaker, too many times, the testimony yesterday revealed that 
these VA facilities in location after location after location around 
this country are deathtraps for our veterans.
  These elder gentlemen, veterans who go to seek help, they know it is 
a deathtrap; and that is why we need to also address this, for the 
safety of men and women who have protected this great Nation.
  Congress needs to make it clear--and we can today--that supervisors 
at the VA cannot retaliate against whistleblowers.
  If there is somebody in the organization who is willing to tell the 
truth and come forward, you cannot retaliate against them because they 
are going to tell the truth about the poor service and responsibility 
toward aiding our veterans. It will not be tolerated.
  Every Member of this body will have an equal opportunity today to say 
that is the right thing to do because this is what the Secretary is 
asking for.

[[Page H5612]]

  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know that, when our 
veterans are treated poorly, this bill would help them; when our VA 
employees understand that somebody who was going to turn a blind eye 
before now, we will no longer do that.
  We are going to give the VA the tools to root out the problems, to 
make this better, so that we can honestly look at our men and women and 
say: Thank you for your service; this grateful Nation does care about 
you.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for sweeping cultural changes at the VA. It 
is time to remove the bureaucrats who will make excuses, who will hide 
things, and who will make circumstances dangerous and worse for our 
veterans.
  It is time to hold senior executives accountable when the VA 
underperforms, and that is why I am joining the American Legion, the 
VFW, and other veterans associations in supporting H.R. 1994. That is 
what the testimony revealed yesterday at the Committee on Rules when we 
heard from not only the chairman of the committee, but others about the 
importance of this bill.
  This rule would also provide for debate for H.R. 3236, the Surface 
Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015. 
We have two specific purposes that we are here for: first, for the VA; 
and, second, to make sure that we authorize an extension for the 
Federal surface transportation program through October 29.
  It is a well-known understanding that our young chairman, Bill 
Shuster, of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has been 
working and working and working. We indicated last year in November 
and, again, in December that we would allow an extension to this date 
from last year; and Chairman Shuster said he thought he could have a 
deal by now.
  Well, as it turned out, the United States Senate is debating that 
this week. They are going through a weeklong process to determine what 
they would like their transportation bill to be like. The bottom line 
is a thousand-page bill that has not yet passed, that we do not know 
the substance of, and we are not going to agree with sight unseen.
  Our young chairman, Bill Shuster, has asked that we offer a very 
polite and reasonable option, and that is give us an opportunity to 
review this. They have done the hard work, the United States Senate. We 
will do the same, and we will get that done by October 29.

                              {time}  1300

  It would also avoid a shortfall that would keep the VA from closing 
hospitals across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the substance of what this rule and the 
underlying legislation is all about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bills, H.R. 3236, the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care 
Choice Improvement Act, and H.R. 1994, the VA Accountability Act.
  Yet again, we have a grab bag rule that covers multiple bills on 
wildly different subjects--in this case, transportation and veterans 
care--in one bill; and yet we have a closed rule that is pushing 
through a last-minute deal that kicks the can down the road yet again 
on highway reauthorization when there is reason to believe that, if we 
simply stayed in town and worked another week, we might be able to work 
with the Senate to get to an end point with regard to a long-term 
reauthorization.
  The closed rule here limits the discussion of alternatives on the 
issue of transportation funding. Even worse, the bill has two entirely 
unrelated aspects. I have never heard of a crazier name than the 
Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act.
  This is part of the problem of this body over the last several years. 
Republican leadership has moved towards doing more and more omnibuses 
and minibuses. That means combining disparate bills--transportation, 
veterans--into one bill, which isn't healthy for the accountability of 
this body among the electorate.
  If you vote against this bill, for instance, because you don't like 
the transportation provisions, does that mean you are against veterans? 
If you don't like the veterans provisions and you vote against this 
bill, does that mean you are against transportation? How easy it would 
be to simply have two votes on each of these bills so Members on both 
sides of the aisle can vote their conscience and our constituents can 
hold us accountable.
  Of course, it is necessary to give the VA the authority to transfer 
$3.3 billion for healthcare services. There is strong agreement on both 
sides. We could run the bill through on suspension. We wouldn't even 
need to open it up for a rule. It would pass with more than a two-
thirds vote. But there are problematic additions attached to that part 
of the bill. It is also combined with yet another temporary fix for our 
Nation's highway system, instead of trying to stay in town another week 
and work on a more permanent fix to help meet the needs of the 
transportation arteries of our country.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, 54 percent of our Nation's major roads and 
bridges are rated poor or mediocre. Forty-five percent of Americans 
don't have access to public transit. Congestion produced by our 
legislative failures here wastes valuable time and money and detracts 
from the growth of the American economy. It is estimated Americans will 
lose 8.4 billion hours and 4.45 billion gallons of gas over a decade. 
That means the average consumer is wasting $800 a year and 5 full days 
of their life away from their kids, away from their family, simply 
sitting in traffic. Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable.
  My constituents are no strangers to traffic. If you have been to Fort 
Collins, one of the largest cities in my district and home to one of 
our great universities, you will find that on highway 25 my 
constituents endure gridlocked traffic at rush hour, doubling or 
tripling their commuting times.
  Expansion of highway 25 and high-speed rail along highway 70 and 
highway 36 have been given completion dates of decades from now--60 
years, in some cases. Try to imagine being told your doctor wants to 
slowly break down blockages in your arteries over a period of 60 years. 
You won't make it that far.
  Our communities need to do something about traffic now. Tourism and 
commerce are the lifeblood of Fort Collins, Boulder, and our mountain 
communities like Vail, Frisco, and Breckenridge. For these towns to 
survive and thrive, we need to tackle our transportation funding needs 
head-on.
  From our other speakers, you will hear a lot about the Export-Import 
Bank, the one item that somehow, with this grab bag that includes 
veterans and transportation, there is a strong bipartisan majority for 
reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. In fact, 67 Senators in the 
Republican-led Senate voted to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, and 
yet somehow that item didn't make the grab bag.
  If Congress fails to act, one of the most important items is it will 
result concretely in the loss of tens of thousands of American jobs and 
make American companies less competitive for exports at a time when 
global competitiveness and the global economy is more important than 
ever, which was left out of this grab bag of bills.
  I understand ideological issues with the Export-Import Bank. In a 
perfect world, I would agree with my colleagues who argue we shouldn't 
need to do this kind of effective subsidy for exporters; but if other 
countries are doing it and it is permissible under WTO and trade rules, 
we would truly be idiots to unilaterally disarm and not engage in a 
legal practice that facilitates the credit of American exporting 
businesses. Effectively, it would lead to the exporting of more jobs 
overseas and making American companies less competitive in selling 
their products.
  So, by all means, let's have the discussion around multilateral 
adjustments to the type of credit facilities that countries can engage 
in with exporting countries, but let's not look at unilateral 
disarmament that makes America less competitive and destroys jobs.
  You will hear a lot about how simple it would be, my colleagues would 
indicate, to simply get this done before we leave. Isn't it worth 
another week of our time to save tens of thousands of American jobs?

[[Page H5613]]

  The second part of the rule, H.R. 1994, the VA Accountability Act, 
one of the main problems with it is it would create a culture of fear 
that would imperil the services our veterans need and deserve.
  The tragedy in the Phoenix VA system is an example. It became known 
because of a few courageous whistleblowers. Had this legislation been 
in place, this tragedy could have been swept under the rug for many 
more years.
  Without whistleblowers and strong whistleblower protections, the VA 
hospital debacle in my State of Colorado, in Aurora, could have even 
been a worse situation, if you can imagine that.
  This legislation is not just bad for whistleblowers, it is also 
unconstitutional. Supreme Court case law has clearly outlined the due 
process that employees have before their jobs are taken away. This bill 
turns its back on due process and allows any VA employee to be fired on 
the spot for retribution.
  The limited process provided in this legislation is far below the 
constitutional requirements, which is why the President has promised to 
veto this bill. All this bill is attempting to do is destroy the 
whistleblower and professional civil service system and, thus, the 
livelihood of thousands and the quality of service to our veterans.
  The appropriate action is to get the VA to do their job through 
appropriate legislation which creates true accountability, which this 
bill fails to achieve, or discuss how we might reform the dollars we 
allocate to the VA to best serve our veterans, however possible.
  We will debate an alternative today by my colleague, Mr. Takano of 
California, that would retain due process but allows the VA to 
immediately fire any employee who poses a health or safety risk to 
veterans. Additionally, it prevents employees from staying on paid 
administrative leave--even being bounced around the VA--by limiting the 
time to 2 weeks, a similarity to one of the positive aspects of the 
bill before us today.
  Mr. Takano's legislation, for example, would have allowed the VA to 
immediately fire those responsible for the Phoenix scandal and kept in 
place the whistleblower protections that allowed us to find out about 
the Phoenix scandal.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I admire the gentleman very much. We work very well together. But I 
think it is a misstatement to say that this bill would allow people to 
be fired on the spot at the VA. That is certainly, I don't believe, 
true at all. I believe it would have to be with cause, and the VA would 
have to have a reason.
  There is nothing in this legislation where we would empower people to 
do things that would not follow proper Federal law nor established 
rules of procedure for the employee to have the proper amount of 
protection. But what is stated and understood is, where an employee has 
been underperforming, misperforming, or has violated their oath of 
office, where they have a diligence to people under their care or where 
they have done intentional deeds and then tried to cover it up, that 
would be cause, and that is what this is about.
  This is not about firing someone on the spot. I think it would be a 
misstatement to try and characterize this important legislation that 
has been well thought through, as well as worked out with the VA, as 
being from that perspective.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to allow the House to vote on reauthorizing the 
Export-Import Bank, as proposed by Mr. Fincher yesterday. It is the 
same exact language that passed the Senate by a vote of 67-29.
  Mr. Speaker, the Export-Import Bank allows American businesses to 
compete in global markets and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the Democratic whip, to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank Mr. Polis from Colorado for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule. This is our last day in session 
before we leave for 5 or 6 weeks. We then will have 13 days before the 
end of the fiscal year. We have a number of things that the American 
public expects us to do that enjoys almost universal support on this 
floor, one of which enjoys a significant majority of support on this 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Speaker of this House, John Boehner. 
``Above all else,'' he said as he assumed the Speakership, ``we will 
welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, engage in it--openly, 
honestly, and respectfully.''
  ``As the Chamber,'' he went on to say, ``closest to the people, the 
House works best when it is allowed to work its will.'' He then said, 
``I ask all Members of this body to join me in recognizing this common 
truth.'' Al Gore, the former Vice-President of the United States, would 
observe, however, that is an inconvenient truth.
  It is an inconvenient truth because the chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee, representing the minority of this House, is opposed 
to the Export-Import Bank. He has been opposed to it since we adopted 
it in 2012, with an overwhelming majority of votes from both sides of 
the aisle--as a matter of fact, a unanimous vote from the Democratic 
side of the aisle and over 140 Members from the Republican side of the 
aisle--just 3 years ago.
  This rule makes in order, as the gentleman noticed, two bills, one of 
which I vigorously oppose but won't spend a lot of time on. While the 
gentleman is probably correct that it is not immediate firing, it is a 
substantial undermining of the Civil Service Act adopted so that we 
would not have a patronage, politically ridden system, but a civil 
service system based on merit.
  This bill then makes in order an extension of the highway bill, which 
certainly we ought to do. It is somewhat ironic that we say it is a 3-
month extension. We passed a 5-month extension. I voted for the 5-month 
extension. Everybody ought to know that we fund it for 5 months, of 
course. We call it a 3-month extension. I hope that will satisfy 
Senator McConnell so that he can then pass it.
  We then provide for $3.3 billion so that we will make sure our 
veterans hospitals and medical care stays in operation. Both of those 
could have been passed on this House floor by unanimous consent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  We now leave for another month the Export-Import Bank, which is 
responsible for the creation and retaining of jobs in America.
  We all talk about jobs in America, but the Speaker has said, again, 
that the failure to pass this bill is losing jobs right now. And yet my 
Republican friends, in tipping their hat to the chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee, say we are not going to consider that, as 
they did last month in July. I know we haven't gotten out of July yet, 
but we will go through August, and then we will go through September.
  Mr. Fincher tells me he thinks that bill will be brought to the floor 
in some form or another in September, but it will have cost us jobs and 
competitiveness overseas with the 60 countries that have an export-
import bank that are making sure that the purchases of their goods made 
in their countries are cheaper than the goods sold in our country. That 
costs American jobs.

                              {time}  1315

  We ought to reject this rule, and we ought to do what the Speaker of 
the House said we ought to do; treat one another with respect, and let 
the House work its will.
  There are 240-plus, maybe 250, maybe 260, maybe 270 votes. You only 
need 218 to pass the Export-Import Bank on this floor.
  I will yield to anybody who says: No, Mr. Hoyer, you are wrong; it 
doesn't have the majority vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. I will yield to anybody on this floor who will say: Mr. 
Hoyer, you are wrong.

[[Page H5614]]

  Apparently, there is nobody on the floor who is going to suggest that 
the will of this House, as represented by a majority that would vote on 
this bill, would not be for extending the Export-Import Bank, saving 
American jobs, making sure that America is competitive in the 
international markets.
  My colleagues, reject this rule. Exercise our responsibility to the 
American people and to American workers, and let's pass the Export-
Import Bank today before we go home.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for not only his words 
and the spirit of what he said, but I want him to know that, several 
years ago, as he approached me as I became chairman of the Rules 
Committee, I assured the gentleman that I would do my very best, within 
my ability, and he has done also, as well as his team that also sits at 
the Rules Committee.
  I want to thank the distinguished gentleman because part of what our 
job is, yes, to represent our Speaker and the things that are done, but 
also to make sure the spirit in which we do it is done properly, and I 
appreciate the gentleman. I think his spirit was good today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Oversight and Government Reform 
committee and a former member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, two of the things a proud and confident and 
responsible nation will do--no matter how challenging--are, one, to 
invest in its future and, two, to care for its veterans. This bill 
pretends to do both. Actually, it does neither.
  Yes, it will keep the highway bill on life support for another short-
term extension. It used to be 5 months. Now, it is going to be 3 
months.
  Yes, it will allow the VA to make internal fund transfers to keep our 
hospitals open through September, but once again, in another act of 
serial irresponsibility, Congress is ignoring its duty to do its job of 
passing a long-term transportation bill.
  It leaves our communities and States in suspension. It recklessly 
adds unnecessary construction costs to our taxpayers and lets potholes 
get deeper and bridges more dangerous. We need a long-term 
transportation bill--6 years, not 3 months.
  Regarding the VA, do we meet our obligations to provide for the 
health care of our veterans through internal fund transfers? Our 
veterans and our VA need a fully funded budget. It needs funds, not 
fund transfers.
  Veteran healthcare demand shot up 10 percent, but the budget is only 
up 2.8 percent, shackled by mindless and destructive sequester caps. We 
should end them.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not written to address problems; it is 
designed to deny they exist.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not an example of Congress doing its job; 
it is yet another example of Congress evading its responsibilities.
  I will vote ``no.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from 
Colorado, and let me thank my good friend from Texas as well. Let me 
use a great philosopher's statement of a couple of decades ago: ``Can 
we all get along?''
  As I stand here, on the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health 
Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 that is now with the rule before 
us, it is obvious that we are trying to take a divergent pathway.
  I was one of the first Members of Congress to go down in front of my 
veterans hospital to stand and to demand quality health care for our 
veterans, to ask that the system be fixed. I take no backseat, along 
with other Members, to ensuring that our veterans get what they need, 
and stand in line to make sure that they are not defaulted on by the 
American people.
  H.R. 1994 eliminates the due process rights of whistleblowers who 
have been key to drawing attention to any manipulation or coverups 
taking place. They are bringing back to the floor this bill, calling it 
an accountability bill; but, in essence, it is to go after hard-working 
employees and fire them and eliminating their opportunity to explain or 
to have due process. That is not the American way.
  This is not a bill that helps veterans. In fact, it takes away 
consistent, long-working employers who see something and say something, 
and so I am voting ``no'' on the bill and this rule.
  Then the surface transportation had a wonderful opportunity to do a 
6-year bill, to look for pay-fors that Members could bring together and 
support; yet my metro, the Houston metro, will be suffering. Our 
highways and other surface transportation entities, safety will be 
suffering. Employees will not be paid.
  Here we go again with a short-term opportunity. I remember doing a 6-
year transportation bill, where I opened up the hike and bike trails of 
my community in Houston.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would offer to say that a highway bill, 6 years, 
or a surface transportation bill for 6 years is a bipartisan American 
way to do things.
  Why don't we do that for the American people and do it now? Vote 
``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security, I rise to 
speak on H.R. 3236, Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care 
Choice Improvement Act of 2015,'' which reauthorizes federal-aid 
highway and transit programs for three months--through October 29, 
2015--by transferring $8.1 billion from other federal funds to the 
Highway Trust Fund to cover projected trust fund shortfalls over that 
time period.
  The bill also allows the Veterans Affairs Department (VA) to use $3.4 
billion provided last year for the Veterans Choice health care program 
to pay for care provided since May 1 to veteran patients by non-VA 
providers under VA Care in the Community programs.
  The bill also is intended to give the VA the funding flexibility 
needed to prevent the possible closure of some VA hospitals in coming 
weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of this 90-day temporary extension, I would have 
strongly preferred that we were debating a comprehensive, fair, 
equitable, and long-term transportation reauthorization bill the nation 
desperately needs. We have had two years to do so.
  Democrats want such a bill as does the President, but apparently our 
friends across the aisle do not since they have spent the last two 
years wasting time on advocating policies wanted by no one except for 
the right-wing extremists of the Tea Party.
  But I reluctantly support this emergency but temporary measure 
because as the Department of Transportation has reported, if we do not 
act now highway trust fund balances by the beginning of August will 
reach dangerously low levels and result in a reduction of payments to 
states by an average of 28 percent.
  Many states have already begun to cancel or delay planned 
construction projects, threatening 700,000 thousands of jobs, including 
106,100 jobs in my home state of Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, the Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 during the 
Eisenhower Administration to help finance construction of the 
Interstate Highway System, which modernized the nation's transportation 
infrastructure and was instrumental in making the United States the 
world's dominant economic power for two generations.
  Our national leaders then understood that investing in our roads and 
bridges strengthened our economy, created millions of good-paying jobs, 
and improved the quality of life for all Americans.
  It is currently composed of two accounts that fund federal-aid 
highway and transit projects built by states. Federal funding from the 
trust fund accounts for a major portion of state transportation 
spending.
  The Highway Trust Fund is financed by gasoline and diesel taxes, 
which until the last decade produced a steady increase in revenues 
sufficient to accommodate increased levels of spending on highway and 
transit projects.
  However, those tax rates--18.4 cents/gallon federal tax on gasoline 
and a 24.4 cents/gallon tax on diesel fuel--have remained unchanged 
since 1993 and were not indexed to inflation so the value of those 
revenues has eroded over the years, and, combined with the fact that 
vehicles have been getting increasingly better mileage, the revenues 
deposited into the Highway Trust Fund beginning last decade have not 
kept pace with highway and transit spending from the trust fund.
  Consequently, since 2008, Congress has periodically had to transfer 
at the 11th hour

[[Page H5615]]

general Treasury revenues into the trust fund to pay for authorized 
highway and transit spending levels and avoid a funding shortfall.
  The total amount to date is more than $54 billion.
  Obviously, this practice is economically inefficient and injects 
uncertainty in the highway construction plans, projects, and schedules 
of state and local transportation agencies, not to mention the anxiety 
it causes to workers and businesses whose economic livelihood is 
dependent on those projects.
  Mr. Speaker, the last transportation authorized by Congress for 4 
years or more, SAFETEA-LU, expired on September 30, 2009, at the end of 
FY 2009.
  Because Congress and the Administration could not agree to a new 
reauthorization, it was necessary to resort to stop-gap temporary 
extensions on no less than eight occasions spanning a period of 910 
days before Congress finally enacted the Moving Ahead for Progress in 
the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21 Act) on July 6, 2012, which reauthorized 
highway and transportation programs through Fiscal Year 2014, a little 
more than two years, or until September 30, 2014.
  MAP-21 was intended as a short-term measure to give Congress and the 
Administration breathing room to reach agreement on a long-term 
reauthorization bill.
  Yet, as Mr. Levin, the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, has often pointed out, since gaining the majority in 2010, 
our Republican colleagues have failed to take any action to sustain the 
Highway Trust Fund over the long-term and shore up vital infrastructure 
projects and has not held even a single hearing on financing options 
for the Highway Trust Fund.
  Instead, House Republicans have wasted the nation's time voting to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act at least 59 times, waging a War on 
Women, pursuing partisan investigations into Benghazi, the IRS, and the 
trying to overturn President Obama's executive actions that make our 
immigration enforcement laws less inhumane.
  Instead of doing their job, House Republicans big new idea is to 
attack the President for doing his job.
  Mr. Speaker, it is long past time for this Congress, and especially 
the House majority, to focus on the real problems and challenges facing 
the American people.
  And one of the biggest of those challenges is ensuring that America 
has a transportation policy and the infrastructure needed to compete 
and win in the global economy of the 21st Century.
  To do that we have to extend the reauthorization of current 
transportation programs and to authorize the transfer of the funds to 
the Highway Trust Fund needed to fund authorized construction projects 
and keep 700,000 workers, including 106,100 in Texas on the job.
  But that is only a start and just a part of our job.
  The real work that needs to be done in the remaining days of this 
Congress is to reach an agreement on a long-term highway and 
transportation bill that is fair, equitable, fiscally responsible, 
creates jobs and leads to sustained economic growth.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the 
Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government 
Sponsored Enterprises.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, 64 
Senators voted to renew the Export-Import Bank's charter, which expired 
on June 30. More than 240 Members are on record supporting the Bank, 
and according to The Wall Street Journal, there are many more.
  As I quote, ``some Republicans estimated that as many as 300 of the 
434 current House Members'' would support a measure similar to the one 
that passed the Senate; yet despite this overwhelming support, we have 
been denied a vote on the House of Representatives to renew the Export-
Import Bank.
  Last year, Ex-Im helped underwrite over $27 billion in U.S. exports. 
It supported thousands of small businesses and about 164,000 jobs 
across our country. Since 2009, the Bank has supported over 1.3 million 
jobs. The Bank does all of this at no cost--no cost--to the American 
taxpayer. In fact, the Ex-Im Bank sent over $675 million to the 
Treasury last year--actual dollars--to help pay down the deficit.
  According to a letter sent by CBO just last week, using accounting 
standards, reauthorizing the Ex-Im would save taxpayers $2.3 billion 
over the next 5 years; yet American companies have been disadvantaged. 
They have been unilaterally disadvantaged of having the export 
assistance that over 60 different nations are providing their export-
import banks.
  Only 1 of the top 10 exporting countries in the world does not have 
an export credit agency now that can finance export deals--just one--
and that is the United States of America. That is because this Congress 
failed to do what every other Congress has done since FDR, and that is 
to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  It creates jobs, creates money for the Treasury. It helps small 
businesses.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule. Let's bring 
it to the floor today for a vote.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2015]

          Small Businesses Bear Burden of Ex-Im Bank Shutdown

                (By Nick Timiraos and Kristina Peterson)

       Washington.--Political opponents have managed to shut the 
     U.S. Export-Import Bank for the most of the summer by arguing 
     it rewards politically connected corporate giants.
       But the bank and its supporters say the burden of the 
     agency's shutdown for now will hit small businesses that lack 
     the resources of industrial titans such as Boeing Co. and 
     General Electric Co.
       ``Small businesses are the ones that are going to be hurt 
     first and the most,'' said Rep. Denny Heck (D., Wash.), a 
     proponent of reauthorizing the bank's charter.
       The Ex-Im Bank, a federal agency that finances exports, 
     stopped accepting new loans at the beginning of July after 
     Congress allowed its charter to expire. While a majority of 
     lawmakers in Congress support reauthorizing the 81-year-old 
     agency in some form, conservative Republicans who control key 
     leadership positions have so far prevented a vote in the 
     House of Representatives.
       Supporters had pinned their hopes on reopening the bank as 
     part of a bill extending highway funding that expires Friday. 
     But House and Senate leaders have had trouble agreeing on 
     that transportation measure before their annual August recess 
     that begins this week, which means they are likely to leave 
     Washington without addressing the Ex-Im Bank.
       The bank's backers have sought to rally support in recent 
     weeks by highlighting the potential for lost sales at small 
     businesses, a group that is both politically sympathetic and 
     close to lawmakers in almost every congressional district.
       President Barack Obama has called on Congress to 
     reauthorize the agency, and most of the bank's supporters 
     expect lawmakers to follow suit later this year. On Monday, 
     64 senators voted for an amendment to reopen the bank, and 
     some Republicans estimated that at least 300 of the 434 
     current House lawmakers would vote similarly, given the 
     chance.
       ``At some point we'll miss out on a business opportunity 
     that will be of such magnitude that it will catch the 
     attention of the public, and we'll respond,'' said Rep. Frank 
     Lucas (R., Okla.), who supports the bank's reauthorization.
       Additional opportunities to resuscitate the agency will 
     arrive when Congress passes a spending measure needed to 
     avoid a partial government shutdown by Oct. 1 or if the House 
     and Senate negotiate a long-term highway bill in the fall.
       Still, some lawmakers said the way in which the bank has 
     missed multiple opportunities to stay open exposes the 
     political challenges ahead. ``I wouldn't hold my breath that 
     it's going to get funded in September,'' said Rep. Matt 
     Salmon, an Arizona Republican who supports the bank.
       Big businesses say closing the bank for good will leave 
     them at enough of a disadvantage against European and Asian 
     competitors, which benefit from export-credit agencies at 
     home, that they will move production abroad. For now, they 
     say they are getting along fine.
       ``This is not something that creates near-term financial 
     risk for Boeing,'' said Dennis Muilenburg, the company's 
     chief executive, on a conference call with reporters last 
     week.
       Indeed, one risk for the bank is that its absence hasn't 
     had any immediate shock. ``The Export-Import Bank expired,'' 
     said Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), one of the bank's loudest 
     critics, at a recent rally on Capitol Hill. ``You notice the 
     sky hasn't fallen?''
       Critics of the bank say Washington shouldn't be picking 
     winners and losers, and that any hardship for businesses is 
     part of a necessary recalibration.
       The bank says that view is short-sighted. ``When our 
     charter lapses, you won't read about massive layoffs in the 
     paper. Small businesses don't put out press releases when 
     they lose out on a sale,'' Fred Hochberg, chairman of the Ex-
     Im Bank who in the 1990s worked closely with entrepreneurs as 
     an official at the Small Business Administration, said before 
     the bank closed last month.
       Around 90% of loans backed by Ex-Im Bank last year went to 
     small businesses, the highest level in more than a decade. 
     Small businesses represent a much smaller share of loans by 
     dollar volume, around 25%, because Ex-Im backs expensive 
     loans for aircraft and other industrial equipment makers.

[[Page H5616]]

       Some businesses and their workers say that count overlooks 
     firms that don't export directly but feed into supply chains. 
     Yanke Machine Shop Inc. in Boise, Idaho, was one of 22 
     different U.S. companies that fulfilled an order for 150 
     pieces of construction equipment worth $37 million for a 2013 
     engineering project in Cameroon.
       ``What a lapse does is it kills opportunity. You've got to 
     have opportunity before you have work on the floor,'' said 
     Dirk Christison, who works in customer support for the heavy-
     steel fabrication company.
       At risk could be deals like one that Ray Garcia Jr., the 
     principal of an energy consulting firm that arranges 
     investment for infrastructure projects in Latin America, has 
     put together to export American equipment for a $300 million 
     gas-to-liquid plant in Paraguay.
       He said the project is one of three in South and Central 
     America that is now in limbo. ``We have spent two years 
     developing these projects just to have the rug pulled out 
     from under us for political reasons,'' said Mr. Garcia, a 
     self-described conservative Republican from Houston.
       Mr. Garcia said that without Ex-Im, the deal would go to a 
     foreign company or large multinational, leaving his U.S. 
     manufacturers without contracts. ``Small businesses that do 
     not have $1 billion in capital to facilitate projects like 
     these do benefit and can compete on a global platform armed 
     with Ex-Im Bank,'' he said.
       Ex-Im's Bank limbo state stands in contrast to those of a 
     similar agency. When the Small Business Administration last 
     week stopped accepting new loans under its flagship program, 
     which reached its borrowing limit on Thursday, the House and 
     Senate quickly passed an extension.
       Because existing loans aren't imperiled by the Ex-Im Bank's 
     shutdown, the lapse created a ``soft landing'' for most 
     customers, said Gary Mendell, president of Meridian Finance 
     Group in Santa Monica, Calif., which arranges financing for 
     exporters. ``We've been telling customers to see if you can 
     stand tough until the end of July,'' he said.
       As the prospect of Ex-Im Bank's reauthorization grows more 
     distant, Mr. Mendell said more firms will run into difficulty 
     as their working-capital loans or credit insurance expires. 
     An overlooked casualty, he added, is that small businesses 
     that have never exported have virtually no financing options 
     right now.
       ``If the private sector were interested in doing this, they 
     would be doing it by now,'' said Mr. Mendell.
       Even the bank's critics have taken note of the potential 
     plight of small firms. On the eve of the agency's shutdown 
     last month, Sen. David Vitter (R., La.), expressed alarm that 
     financing for thousands of small businesses might be at stake 
     and said the agency should come up with a way for those 
     companies to secure financing from the SBA.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial Services Committee and 
a leader in the effort to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the Chamber to 
reject the rule so that we might, indeed, offer an amendment to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for three reasons.
  One, it is the will of the United States Congress; two, it does good; 
three, if we don't do it, great harm will be visited upon the American 
economy.
  It has already been, I think, very clearly demonstrated it is the 
will of this body, both in the Senate and here.
  I do want to remind you that, for 81 years, 16 times, Democrats and 
Republicans, no matter how conservative or how liberal, the United 
States has reauthorized the Export-Import Bank. It does good. That is 
why they do it.
  In fact, I would respectfully suggest that the votes were there in 
Rules Committee yesterday to allow this amendment. The good gentleman 
from Texas who chairs--and he is a gentleman; he is a good gentleman--
opened up his comments by saying 9,000 jobs in and around his district 
in the State of Texas, attributable to the Export-Import Bank, they 
hang in the balance.
  It does good--last year, 164,000 jobs supported by the Export-Import 
Bank, $675 million transferred to the Treasury. It reduces the deficit. 
It creates jobs. Why don't we want more of this? Call me crazy, I 
guess.
  If we don't do it, harm will come to us. Read this morning's Wall 
Street Journal. Small businesses already--not prospectively--are 
already suffering job loss in States throughout this great country.
  The fact of the matter is not reauthorizing does constitute 
unilateral disarmament. About 3 weeks ago, two academics, one from 
Canada, one from New York, concluded the big winner if we fail to 
reauthorize. It is China. They are rubbing their hands. They are 
rubbing their hands.
  Listen, this isn't about software or apples or film.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. It is about our manufacturing base. Who says 
we don't need more good manufacturing jobs? We need more good 
manufacturing jobs.
  Let me conclude on this note. Ominously, and without drama, hear me, 
from my heart to your ears. In the very near future, major 
manufacturers will announce that they are offshoring certain 
manufacturing capacity because they have to, to compete in a global 
economy. The global economy has increased fivefold since 1980.
  Get in the game, people. Reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Defeat 
the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his kind 
words, not only of truth, but also I want to thank him for coming up 
and being with several other Members who sat through hours' worth of 
debate and discussion.
  Mr. Heck served honorably well yesterday, and he does again today, 
and I thank him very much.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague from Texas, we have so 
many speakers on our side of the aisle--in fact, both sides of the 
aisle--folks like Mr. Fincher and others who want to reauthorize the 
Export-Import Bank.
  If he has additional time, I know that our Members would also 
appreciate the opportunity to talk about it, as our time is running 
short.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule so that we can bring up, as my 
colleagues have said, something that ought to be done in a bipartisan 
fashion, with little significant opposition, and that is the 
reauthorization of an entity that helps drive the American economy, put 
Americans to work, and helps us to compete in an increasingly 
competitive global environment, and that is the Export-Import Bank.

                              {time}  1330

  In 2012, Ex-Im was passed with 330 votes in the House, 78 in the 
Senate, 60 percent of Republicans in both bodies supporting the Export-
Import Bank, joining Democrats in doing so.
  There is so much partisanship that invades and infects this place. 
But when it comes to American jobs, supporting American manufacturers, 
putting hard-working Americans to work in jobs that have higher wages, 
we have great discussions here about the growing inequality in wages.
  We don't all agree on the solutions. But one solution we ought to 
agree on is the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank because we 
know export jobs pay higher wages. This ought to be a no-brainer.
  There are 59,000 jobs in my own State of Michigan as a result of the 
Export-Import Bank and the work that they do. In the last 6 years, 
there have been $200 billion in exports.
  We can have big disagreements on how we ought to deal with income 
inequality in this country, but we ought not have any disagreement when 
we see the Export-Import Bank, which delivers money to the Federal 
Treasury, helps us deal with that problem, puts Americans to work, and 
makes us more competitive. We ought to do this in a bipartisan fashion, 
and we ought to do it now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I 
appreciate the way he framed this rule debate.
  Mr. Speaker, we have sort of a hodgepodge here of items that really 
deserve careful, sustained attention. There is no reason to lump this 
together. These are important items. And, sadly, the way it has been 
structured shuts down debate.

[[Page H5617]]

  There is no room under this rule for the Ex-Im Bank. I appreciate 
person after person coming to the floor, acknowledging that there is 
broad bipartisan interest in the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank and 
no rational reason to reject it. It is going to have serious 
consequences, as my friend from Washington pointed out.
  But there is another area that we are discussing here today that 
could also make a huge difference for our economy because we are 
dodging again our responsibilities to deal with a country that is 
falling apart as it is falling behind.
  My friend from Texas was too polite. The reason we don't have a 6-
year reauthorization is because the House has not met its 
responsibility to outline how we pay for it. We are still trying to pay 
for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars.
  Now we have got legislation that actually mirrors what Ronald Reagan 
did in 1982, when he called upon Congress to come back, raise the user 
fee 125 percent, and be able to put hundreds of thousands of Americans 
to work, and maintain our roads and bridges and transit. We are not 
doing that.
  We have legislation in Ways and Means that has the broadest support 
of any major piece of legislation in Congress--organized labor, 
business, contractors, truckers, AAA, engineers--all committed to 
raising the user fee. They say: Charge us more so that we are going to 
be able to thrive.
  My friend from Colorado pointed out that the American public is 
paying now in congestion, in damage to their cars.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Work next week. Fund the transportation bill. Let the 
committee know what parameters they have and be able to revitalize and 
rebuild this country. It is time for us to step up.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues are making really, really 
good points about what we need to do.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bill Shuster, and the Republican 
majority is committed to doing exactly what they have talked about: 
getting our work done.
  In fairness, it has taken the United States Senate until this week, 
and they have a 1,000-page transportation bill that we are not simply 
going to say: Let's just agree to that.
  It is going to come over to us after they have done their work. With 
great respect, we are trying to make sure that we are continuing the 
funding. We are using mechanisms that would be available.
  The right thing to do is to measure three times and saw once. We are 
not going to accept, by unanimous consent or another agreement, a 
1,000-page bill.
  On the Republican side, we read bills before we pass them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Heck), a leader in the bipartisan efforts to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and a member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the first, 
most immediate damage as a result of our failure to reauthorize the 
Export-Import Bank will be visited upon small businesses.
  It occurs to me that a little bit of color in that regard would serve 
us well, giving the benefit of the doubt to those who are opposing our 
opposition to the rule so that we can reauthorize the Export-Import 
Bank.
  Let me give you the data. The Export-Import Bank has approximately 90 
percent of its transactions going to small businesses, about 90 
percent.
  Most of us tend to think about those as all direct loans, but they 
aren't. The fact of the matter is the bulk of them are what we would 
call accounts receivable insurance.
  But there are also revolving lines of credit. There are also loan 
guarantees, not actual direct loans. And these, again, are small 
businesses.
  These are businesses like Manhasset Specialty Company in Yakima, 
Washington, which makes music stands and has a global market. Thirty-
five percent of its sales are exports, and a good portion of them are 
assisted by the Export-Import Bank.
  In my district, Pexco in Fife, Washington, makes traffic control 
equipment. They are growing their export business with the assistance 
of the Export-Import Bank. So it is the small businesses that first 
will feel the damage.
  But for those of you who say, yes, but the biggest share of the 
dollars go to big businesses, let's go back to Economics 101.
  A lot of people point to Boeing. Ladies and gentlemen, Boeing does 
not manufacture airplanes. If that surprises you, please pay attention 
to what I am about to say.
  Boeing does not manufacture airplanes. They design them. They 
assemble them with the assistance of 15,000 businesses in their supply 
chain, about half of whom are small businesses.
  In the tiny town of Puyallup, relatively speaking, in my district, 
there are 17 businesses within the city limits whose principal customer 
is Boeing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Small businesses will be hurt first. Over the 
long term, big businesses will be hurt.
  I did not say earlier lightly. I did not say earlier in hyperbole 
that we will have major announcements causing grievous damage to the 
manufacturing base of America. We cannot allow that to happen.
  We simply must, for the sake of small businesses and for the sake of 
our manufacturing base, reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. It reduces 
the deficit. It creates jobs.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
and defeat the previous question so we can bring forward the bipartisan 
effort to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  Now, again, I have a great deal of sympathy and respect for my 
colleagues who believe that these kinds of back-door subsidies have no 
place in a global trade regime. That is a reasonable and defensible 
viewpoint.
  The proper avenue to advocate for that is multilaterally. There are a 
lot of ways that companies have and will and governments have and do 
try to give themselves a nationalistic advantage in international 
trade.
  In the competition between Airbus and Boeing alone, books could be 
written about the efforts of both sides--whether it is our side through 
military contracts; whether it is their side, Europe--to give back-door 
allowable subsidies that put their own companies at an advantage.
  If we unilaterally fail to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, we are 
putting American exporters at a disadvantage because the dozens of 
other countries that engage in these allowable kinds of credit 
facilities will still do so to the detriment of American jobs and 
American businesses.
  We recently had a debate in these very Chambers about trade promotion 
authority. Soon there will be discussions about TPP and T-TIP.
  Where was that discussion around TPA in the instructions to the 
President about credit facilities and Export-Import Bank and what would 
and wouldn't be allowable?
  These kinds of discussions need to be had multilaterally. To 
unilaterally disarm makes no sense.
  Even if one ideologically believes that we should not be engaging in 
these efforts, surely what is more important and what trumps that is to 
make sure that this is not a part of the global trade regime.
  So long as it is, for America not to engage in this allowable 
practice of credit facilities extended through the Export-Import Bank 
puts American jobs at a disadvantage, will lead to further outsourcing 
of American jobs and hurt American businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule covers two significant, but wholly unrelated, 
bills.

[[Page H5618]]

We have heard arguments here in this limited time, this limited debate, 
about Federal highway funding, about veterans' care and VA workers, 
about the Export-Import Bank.
  I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that many viewers are confused as to what we 
are even talking about or how is it even possible that, in 1 hour, we 
are covering the transportation needs of our country, the VA system, 
and a program allowable under trade rules that helps make American 
companies more competitive.
  Unfortunately, rather than continuing our work next week, the 
majority has put several pieces of disparate legislation into a grab 
bag in a smoky backroom manner that, unfortunately, will continue to 
fail to address the most important transportation concerns or the 
already expiration of the Export-Import Bank before this body goes home 
for a month.
  It is unfortunate that, under this rule, this institution is not even 
allowed to bring forward an amendment we know would pass to reauthorize 
the Export-Import Bank.
  It is a shame that veterans' issues have somehow been combined with a 
highway issue and a minibus that detracts from transparency.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank not only the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), but 
also our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle who I thought 
most generously fought this battle today.
  The bottom line is that they know and we know, Mr. Speaker, that we 
are addressing two vitally important issues that Congress must step up 
to the plate on.
  One is a request that comes directly from the VA, for us to fund a 
gap of $3.4 billion that is necessary to fund hospitals of the VA to 
make sure that they are able to provide services to our veterans. It is 
critical. To vote against that I think is a mistake.
  I think to vote for a chance where Republicans are trying to balance 
the needs through not only the appropriators--Hal Rogers, our chairman, 
Jeff Miller, our Veterans Committee chairman, are trying to come 
together, Mr. Speaker, to put together the money and the need to run 
the business based upon a reality discussion with the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs of their need to run the business, to have the money, 
but also to have the managerial abilities to move their employees that 
are not performing satisfactorily, employees who do have an oath as 
healthcare providers to do their very best and to be honest about the 
scheduling and the proper procedures necessary to our veterans.

                              {time}  1345

  What this rule is about and the underlying legislation is vital--
vital--to our Nation's veterans. That is why we are here today.
  Now, secondly, we are here because Republicans want to make sure that 
we are faithful. We understand that, in each of our congressional 
districts, that we are active and involved to try and ensure that the 
roads and bridges and railways and ports and all these activities that 
deal with infrastructure and transportation are continuing down a 
pathway without us getting frustrated, without us throwing up our hands 
and giving up, but actually to work with the existing chairman, who is 
doing an awesome job, Bill Shuster, to make sure that we are putting 
forth the money--Paul Ryan, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee--
trying to find the money necessary, lots of hard work, hours of 
discussion, moving towards a correct target.
  In this process, we have our colleagues on the other side of this 
wall--who are literally there now as they are working in the Rotunda--
to move legislation; we are allowing them that time because they are 
moving a transportation bill as we speak, but it is a 1,000-page bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not in favor and I think my colleagues in here are 
not in favor and Bill Shuster is not, which is really what matters, as 
the chairman, to say give me a shot at looking at the bill when they 
finish it.
  Speaker Boehner is saying let's make sure we deal with the things 
that must be dealt with before we go on our work time back home for the 
month, where we go back home and deal with the American people, because 
we plan to do this. That is what we are doing.
  This is not unusual; it is perfectly normal, but I think we are doing 
a heck of a job and the right thing to address the issues--veterans, 
straight up, money, the ability to run their business right, so that we 
know we have done what we can do; and, secondly, to move 
transportation.
  I think every single Member of this body, Democrat and Republican, 
should support these because they are worthy ideas about moving us 
forward, our country. We can look at the American people straight on 
and say we have addressed two of the issues that were on our plate.
  I urge adoption of the rule. I know that our colleagues want to get 
moving today, so I am going to look forward to debate that will follow. 
I urge support of the underlying legislation in the bills.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule and support the 
gentleman's motion to defeat the previous question--in order to allow 
for a vote on the Export-Import Bank reauthorization.
  Re-authorizing the Export-Import Bank is an economic imperative and 
letting it lapse before Congress goes on Recess is completely 
irresponsible and inexcusable.
  The bank is an unbridled, market-driven success story which has broad 
bipartisan support in both Houses of this Congress as well as support 
from the majority of Americans.
  The bank supports hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs in this 
country. If we fail to act, we will shut off a lifeline for many of our 
small businesses and exporters.
  In my District alone, the Bank has supported thousands of small 
business and manufacturing jobs. These are good jobs in a very high-
need area that would not have been possible without the Bank, and which 
now are in danger.
  Mr. Speaker, we should let the will of the people work its way and 
allow a vote on the Reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 388 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       Strike section 2 of the resolution and insert:
       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3236) to 
     provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, 
     motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out 
     of the Highway Trust Fund, to provide resource flexibility to 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs for health care services, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled 
     by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the 
     Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Ways and 
     Means, and Veterans' Affairs; (2) the amendment specified in 
     section 3 of this resolution, which shall be considered as 
     pending following the conclusion of such debate, shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be separately debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or 
     their respective designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
     division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 of this 
     resolution is as follows:

       Page 3, after the table of contents, insert the following:

                      TITLE V--EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

Sec. 5001. Short title.

Subtitle A--Taxpayer Protection Provisions and Increased Accountability

Sec. 5101. Reduction in authorized amount of outstanding loans, 
              guarantees, and insurance.
Sec. 5102. Increase in loss reserves.
Sec. 5103. Review of fraud controls.
Sec. 5104. Office of Ethics.
Sec. 5105. Chief Risk Officer.
Sec. 5106. Risk Management Committee.
Sec. 5107. Independent audit of bank portfolio.
Sec. 5108. Pilot program for reinsurance.

            Subtitle B--Promotion of Small Business Exports

Sec. 5201. Increase in small business lending requirements.
Sec. 5202. Report on programs for small and medium-sized businesses.

                Subtitle C--Modernization of Operations

Sec. 5301. Electronic payments and documents.
Sec. 5302. Reauthorization of information technology updating.

[[Page H5619]]

                     Subtitle D--General Provisions

Sec. 5401. Extension of authority.
Sec. 5402. Certain updated loan terms and amounts.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

Sec. 5501. Prohibition on discrimination based on industry.
Sec. 5502. Negotiations to end export credit financing.
Sec. 5503. Study of financing for information and communications 
              technology systems.

       At the end of the bill, add the following:
                      TITLE V--EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

     SECTION 5001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Export-Import Bank Reform 
     and Reauthorization Act of 2015''.

Subtitle A--Taxpayer Protection Provisions and Increased Accountability

     SEC. 5101. REDUCTION IN AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING 
                   LOANS, GUARANTEES, AND INSURANCE.

       Section 6(a) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635e(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Applicable amount defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `applicable amount', for each of fiscal years 2015 
     through 2019, means $135,000,000,000.
       ``(3) Freezing of lending cap if defaultrate is 2 percent 
     or more.--If the rate calculated under section 8(g)(1) is 2 
     percent or more for a quarter, the Bank may not exceed the 
     amount of loans, guarantees, and insurance outstanding on the 
     last day of that quarter until the rate calculated under 
     section 8(g)(1) is less than 2 percent.''.

     SEC. 5102. INCREASE IN LOSS RESERVES.

       (a) In General.--Section 6 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 
     1945 (12 U.S.C. 635e) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Reserve Requirement.--The Bank shall build to and 
     hold in reserve, to protect against future losses, an amount 
     that is not less than 5 percent of the aggregate amount of 
     disbursed and outstanding loans, guarantees, and insurance of 
     the Bank.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date that is one year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5103. REVIEW OF FRAUD CONTROLS.

       Section 17(b) of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act 
     of 2012 (12 U.S.C. 635a-6(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Review of Fraud Controls.--Not later than 4 years 
     after the date of the enactment of the Export-Import Bank 
     Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2015, and every 4 years 
     thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall--
       ``(1) review the adequacy of the design and effectiveness 
     of the controls used by the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States to prevent, detect, and investigate fraudulent 
     applications for loans and guarantees and the compliance by 
     the Bank with the controls, including by auditing a sample of 
     Bank transactions; and
       ``(2) submit a written report regarding the findings of the 
     review and providing such recommendations with respect to the 
     controls described in paragraph (1) as the Comptroller 
     General deems appropriate to--
       ``(A) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
     and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
       ``(B) the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.''.

     SEC. 5104. OFFICE OF ETHICS.

       Section 3 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Office of Ethics.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established an Office of 
     Ethics within the Bank, which shall oversee all ethics issues 
     within the Bank.
       ``(2) Head of office.--
       ``(A) In general.--The head of the Office of Ethics shall 
     be the Chief Ethics Officer, who shall report to the Board of 
     Directors.
       ``(B) Appointment.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of the Export-Import Bank Reform and 
     Reauthorization Act of 2015, the Chief Ethics Officer shall 
     be--
       ``(i) appointed by the President of the Bank from among 
     persons--
       ``(I) with a background in law who have experience in the 
     fields of law and ethics; and
       ``(II) who are not serving in a position requiring 
     appointment by the President of the United States before 
     being appointed to be Chief Ethics Officer; and
       ``(ii) approved by the Board.
       ``(C) Designated agency ethics official.--The Chief Ethics 
     Officer shall serve as the designated agency ethics official 
     for the Bank pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App. 101 et seq.).
       ``(3) Duties.--The Office of Ethics has jurisdiction over 
     all employees of, and ethics matters relating to, the Bank. 
     With respect to employees of the Bank, the Office of Ethics 
     shall--
       ``(A) recommend administrative actions to establish or 
     enforce standards of official conduct;
       ``(B) refer to the Office of the Inspector General of the 
     Bank alleged violations of--
       ``(i) the standards of ethical conduct applicable to 
     employees of the Bank under parts 2635 and 6201 of title 5, 
     Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(ii) the standards of ethical conduct established by the 
     Chief Ethics Officer; and
       ``(iii) any other laws, rules, or regulations governing the 
     performance of official duties or the discharge of official 
     responsibilities that are applicable to employees of the 
     Bank;
       ``(C) report to appropriate Federal or State authorities 
     substantial evidence of a violation of any law applicable to 
     the performance of official duties that may have been 
     disclosed to the Office of Ethics; and
       ``(D) render advisory opinions regarding the propriety of 
     any current or proposed conduct of an employee or contractor 
     of the Bank, and issue general guidance on such matters as 
     necessary.''.

     SEC. 5105. CHIEF RISK OFFICER.

       Section 3 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635a), as amended by section 5104, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Chief Risk Officer.--
       ``(l) In General.--There shall be a Chief Risk Officer of 
     the Bank, who shall--
       ``(A) oversee all issues relating to risk within the Bank; 
     and
       ``(B) report to the President of the Bank.
       ``(2) Appointment.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of the Export-Import Bank Reform and 
     Reauthorization Act of 2015, the Chief Risk Officer shall 
     be--
       ``(A) appointed by the President of the Bank from among 
     persons
       ``(i) with a demonstrated ability in the general management 
     of, and knowledge of and extensive practical experience in, 
     financial risk evaluation practices in large governmental or 
     business entities; and
       ``(ii) who are not serving in a position requiring 
     appointment by the President of the United States before 
     being appointed to be Chief Risk Officer; and
       ``(B) approved by the Board.
       ``(3) Duties.--The duties of the Chief Risk Officer are--
       ``(A) to be responsible for all matters related to managing 
     and mitigating all risk to which the Bank is exposed, 
     including the programs and operations of the Bank;
       ``(B) to establish policies and processes for risk 
     oversight, the monitoring of management compliance with risk 
     limits, and the management of risk exposures and risk 
     controls across the Bank;
       ``(C) to be responsible for the planning and execution of 
     all Bank risk management activities, including policies, 
     reporting, and systems to achieve strategic risk objectives;
       ``(D) to develop an integrated risk management program that 
     includes identifying, prioritizing, measuring, monitoring, 
     and managing internal control and operating risks and other 
     identified risks;
       ``(E) to ensure that the process for risk assessment and 
     underwriting for individual transactions considers how each 
     such transaction considers the effect of the transaction on 
     the concentration of exposure in the overall portfolio of the 
     Bank, taking into account fees, collateralization, and 
     historic default rates; and
       ``(F) to review the adequacy of the use by the Bank of 
     qualitative metrics to assess the risk of default under 
     various scenarios.''.

     SEC. 5106. RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--Section 3 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 
     1945 (12 U.S.C. 635a), as amended by sections 5104 and 5105, 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Risk Management Committee.--
       ``(1) Establishment--There is established a management 
     committee to be known as the `Risk Management Committee'.
       ``(2) Membership.--The membership of the Risk Management 
     Committee shall be the members of the Board of Directors, 
     with the President and First Vice President of the Bank 
     serving as ex officio members.
       ``(3) Duties.--The duties of the Risk Management Committee 
     shall be--
       ``(A) to oversee, in conjunction with the Office of the 
     Chief Financial Officer of the Bank--
       ``(i) periodic stress testing on the entire Bank portfolio, 
     reflecting different market, industry, and macroeconomic 
     scenarios, and consistent with common practices of commercial 
     and multilateral development banks; and
       ``(ii) the monitoring of industry, geographic, and obligor 
     exposure levels; and
       ``(B) to review all required reports on the default rate of 
     the Bank before submission to Congress under section 8(g).''.
       (b) Termination of Audit Committee.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board 
     of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States 
     shall revise the bylaws of the Bank to terminate the Audit 
     Committee established by section 7 of the bylaws.

     SEC. 5107. INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF BANK PORTFOLIO.

       (a) Audit.--The Inspector General of the Export-Import Bank 
     of the United States shall conduct an audit or evaluation of 
     the portfolio risk management procedures of the Bank, 
     including a review of the implementation by the Bank of the 
     duties assigned to the Chief Risk Officer under section 3(1) 
     of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended by section 
     5105.
       (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and

[[Page H5620]]

     not less frequently than every 3 years thereafter, the 
     Inspector General shall submit to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives a written 
     report containing all findings and determinations made in car 
     rying out subsection (a).

     SEC. 5108. PILOT PROGRAM FOR REINSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635 et seq.), the 
     Export-Import Bank of the United States (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Bank'') may establish a pilot program 
     under which the Bank may enter into contracts and other 
     arrangements to share risks associated with the provision of 
     guarantees, insurance, or credit, or the participation in the 
     extension of credit, by the Bank under that Act.
       (b) Limitations on Amount of Risk-Sharing.--
       (1) Per contract or other arrangement.--The aggregate 
     amount of liability the Bank may transfer through risk-
     sharing pursuant to a contract or other arrangement entered 
     into under subsection (a) may not exceed $1,000,000,000.
       (2) Per year.--The aggregate amount of liability the Bank 
     may transfer through risk-sharing during a fiscal year 
     pursuant to contracts or other arrangements entered into 
     under subsection (a) during that fiscal year may not exceed 
     $10,000,000,000.
       (c) Annual Reports.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter through 
     2019, the Bank shall submit to Congress a written report that 
     contains a detailed analysis of the use of the pilot program 
     carried out under subsection (a) during the year preceding 
     the submission of the report.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect, impede, or revoke any authority of the 
     Bank.
       (e) Termination.--The pilot program carried out under 
     subsection (a) shall terminate on September 30, 2019.

            Subtitle B--Promotion of Small Business Exports

     SEC. 5201. INCREASE IN SMALL BUSINESS LENDING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2(b)(1)(E)(v) of the Export-Import 
     Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635(b)(1)(E)(v)) is amended by 
     striking ``20 percent'' and inserting ``25 percent''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter.

     SEC. 5202. REPORT ON PROGRAMS FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED 
                   BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 8 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 
     1945 (12 U.S.C. 635g) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(k) Report on Programs for Small and Medium-Sized 
     Businesses.--The Bank shall include in its annual report to 
     Congress under subsection (a) a report on the programs of the 
     Bank for United States businesses with less than $250,000,000 
     in annual sales.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to the report of the Export-Import 
     Bank of the United States submitted to Congress under section 
     8 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635g) for 
     the first year that begins after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

                Subtitle C--Modernization of Operations

     SEC. 5301. ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AND DOCUMENTS.

       Section 2(b)(1) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(M) Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Export-Import Bank Reform and 
     Reauthorization Act of 2015, the Bank shall implement 
     policies--
       ``(i) to accept electronic documents with respect to 
     transactions whenever possible, including copies of bills of 
     lading, certifications, and compliance documents, in such 
     manner so as not to undermine any potential civil or criminal 
     enforcement related to the transactions; and
       ``(ii) to accept electronic payments in all of its 
     programs.''.

     SEC. 5302. REAUTHORIZATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
                   UPDATING.

       Section 3(j) of the Export-Import Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635a(j)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by striking ``2012, 2013, and 2014'' and inserting 
     ``2015 through 2019'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``(I) the funds'' and 
     inserting ``(i) the funds''; and (3) in paragraph (3), by 
     striking ``2012, 2013, and 2014'' and inserting ``2015 
     through 2019''.

                     Subtitle D--General Provisions

     SEC. 5401. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 7 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 
     1945 (12 U.S.C. 635f) is amended by striking ``2014'' and 
     inserting ``2019''.
       (b) Dual-Use Exports.--Section 1(c) of Public Law 103-428 
     (12 U.S.C. 635 note) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
     2014'' and inserting ``the date on which the authority of the 
     Export-Import Bank of the United States expires under section 
     of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635f)''.
       (c) Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee.--Section 
     2(b)(9)(B)(iii) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635(b)(9)(B)(iii)) is amended by striking ``September 
     30, 2014'' and inserting ``the date on which the authority of 
     the Bank expires under section 7''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the earlier of the date of the enactment 
     of this Act or June 30, 2015.

     SEC. 5402. CERTAIN UPDATED LOAN TERMS AND AMOUNTS.

       (a) Loan Terms for Medium-Term Financing.--
       Section 2(a)(2)(A) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 
     (12 U.S.C. 635(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

``(iii) with principal amounts of not more than $25,000,000; and''.
       (b) Competitive Opportunities Relating to Insurance.--
     Section 2(d)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
     U.S.C. 635(d)(2)) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000,000''.
       (c) Export Amounts for Small Business Loans.--Section 
     3(g)(3) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635a(g)(3)) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000,000''.
       (d) Consideration of Environmental Effects.--Section 
     (a)(1)(A) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635i-5(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000 or 
     more'' and inserting the following: ``$25,000,000 (or, if 
     less than $25,000,000, the threshold established pursuant to 
     international agreements, including the Common Approaches for 
     Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and 
     Social Due Diligence, as adopted by the Organisation for 
     Economic Co-operation and Development Council on June 28, 
     2012, and the risk-management framework adopted by financial 
     institutions for determining, assessing, and managing 
     environmental and social risk in projects (commonly referred 
     to as the `Equator Principles')) or more''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

     SEC. 5501. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION BASED ON INDUSTRY.

       Section 2 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (6 U.S.C. 
     635 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Prohibition on Discrimination Based on Industry.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in this Act, the Bank 
     may not--
       ``(A) deny an application for financing based solely on the 
     industry, sector, or business that the application concerns; 
     or
       ``(B) promulgate or implement policies that discriminate 
     against an application based solely on the industry, sector, 
     or business that the application concerns.
       ``(2) Applicability.--The prohibitions under paragraph (1) 
     apply only to applications for financing by the Bank for 
     projects concerning the exploration, development, production, 
     or export of energy sources and the generation or 
     transmission of electrical power, or combined heat and power, 
     regardless of the energy source involved.''.

     SEC. 5502. NEGOTIATIONS TO END EXPORT CREDIT FINANCING.

       (a) In General.--Section 11 of the Export-Import Bank 
     Reauthorization Act of 2012 (12 U.S.C. 635a-5) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Secretary of the Treasury (in this section referred to as 
     the 'Secretary')'' and inserting ``President''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``(OECD)'' and inserting ``(in this section 
     referred to as the `OECD')''; and
       (ii) by striking ``ultimate goal of eliminating'' and 
     inserting ``possible goal of eliminating, before the date 
     that is 10 years after the date of the enactment of the 
     Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2015,'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Secretary'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``President''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Report on Strategy.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of the Export-Import Bank Reform 
     and Reauthorization Act of 2015, the President shall submit 
     to Congress a proposal, and a strategy for achieving the 
     proposal, that the United States Government will pursue with 
     other major exporting countries, including OECD members and 
     non-OECD members, to eliminate over a period of not more than 
     10 years subsidized export-fmancing programs, tied aid, 
     export credits, and all other forms of government-supported 
     export subsidies.
       ``(d) Negotiations With Non-Oecd Members.--The President 
     shall initiate and pursue negotiations with countries that 
     are not OECD members to bring those countries into a 
     multilateral agreement establishing rules 3 and limitations 
     on officially supported export credits.
       ``(e) Annual Reports on Progress of Negotiations.--Not 
     later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the 
     Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2015, 
     and annually thereafter through calendar year 2019, the 
     President shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives a report 
     on the progress of any negotiations described in subsection 
     (d).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of subsection

[[Page H5621]]

     (a) shall apply with respect to reports required to be 
     submitted under section 11(b) of the Export-Import Bank 
     Reauthorization Act of 2012 (12 U.S.C. 635a-5(b)) after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5503. STUDY OF FINANCING FOR INFORMATION AND 
                   COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS.

       (a) Analysis of Information and Communications Technology 
     Industry Use of Bank Products.--The Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States (in this section referred to as the ``Bank'') 
     shall conduct a study of the extent to which the products 
     offered by the Bank are available and used by companies that 
     export information and communications technology services and 
     related goods.
       (b) Elements.--In conducting the study required by 
     subsection (a), the Bank shall examine the following:
       (1) The number of jobs in the United States that are 
     supported by the export of information and communications 
     technology services and related goods, and the degree to 
     which access to financing will increase exports of such 
     services and related goods.
       (2) The reduction in the financing by the Bank of exports 
     of information and communications technology services from 
     2003 through 2014.
       (3) The activities of foreign export credit agencies to 
     facilitate the export of information and communications 
     technology services and related goods.
       (4) Specific proposals for how the Bank could provide 
     additional financing for the exportation of information and 
     communications technology services and related goods through 
     risk-sharing with other export credit agencies and other 
     third parties.
       (5) Proposals for new products the Bank could offer to 
     provide financing for exports of information and 
     communications technology services and related goods, 
     including--
       (A) the extent to which the Bank is authorized to offer new 
     products;
       (B) the extent to which the Bank would need additional 
     authority to offer new products to meet the needs of the 
     information and communications technology industry;
       (C) specific proposals for changes in law that would enable 
     the Bank to provide increased financing for exports of 
     information and communications technology services and 
     related goods in compliance with the credit and risk 
     standards of the Bank;
       (D) specific proposals that would enable the Bank to 
     provide increased outreach to the information and 
     communications technology industry about the products the 
     Bank offers; and
       (E) specific proposals for changes in law that would enable 
     the Bank to provide the financing to build information and 
     communications technology infrastructure, in compliance with 
     the credit and risk standards of the Bank, to allow for 
     market access opportunities for United States information and 
     communications technology companies to provide services on 
     the infrastructure being financed by the Bank.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Bank shall submit to Congress a 
     report that contains the results of the study required by 
     subsection (a).
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       (21) This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered; and 
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1300.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 180, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 483]

                               YEAS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

[[Page H5622]]



                               NAYS--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Carney
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Costa
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Levin
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Pelosi
     Price, Tom
     Wilson (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1416

  Mr. LOWENTHAL and Ms. KELLY of Illinois changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BARTON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was not present during rollcall vote No. 
483. I would like to reflect that on rollcall vote No. 483 I would have 
voted ``no.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dent was allowed to speak out of order.)


                   Washington Kastles Charity Classic

  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I am gathered here today with some of my 
colleagues because we participated in the Washington Kastles Charity 
Classic. We had a wonderful time for charity.
  I just wanted to mention this. The Washington Kastles, who were 
founded in 2008 and is the tennis team for the city of Washington, have 
made more than $1 million in charitable donations.
  The Charity Classic is an extension of those efforts, with 100 
percent of the ticket proceeds benefiting Tragedy Assistance Program 
for Survivors, or TAPS, the DC Public Education Fund, and Food & 
Friends.
  Fans can choose which organization they support. It is a great cause.
  We had a tennis match, Stars v. Stripes. I am sorry to report that 
the Stars defeated the Stripes, having been in the Stripes the last 3 
years. They finally won one, but we are very excited for them. It is 
nice to be talking about something other than golf on the House floor.
  I also wanted to acknowledge one person with us here today, Martina 
Hingis, who is in the audience. She is up there in the gallery. She 
just won Wimbledon Doubles Championship, women's and mixed doubles. She 
won both the women's doubles title and the mixed doubles title. She is 
on the Washington Kastles.
  We just wanted to acknowledge all the folks who played: 
Representatives Scott, Dold, Yoder, Bustos and Beatty. Where is Jared 
Huffman with the big serve? He is back there.
  We had a wonderful time. Senator Flake, Senator Merkley, and the rest 
of the Kastles could not be with us today. They are traveling. But we 
just wanted to thank them all for this wonderful effort. We need more 
tennis.
  At this time we would like to present this trophy, this cup, from the 
Stripes to the Stars, who defeated us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). Without objection, 5-
minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243, 
noes 183, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 484]

                               AYES--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson

[[Page H5623]]


     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Carney
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Engel
     Levin
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Price, Tom

                              {time}  1427

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________