[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 157 (Monday, October 26, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7178-H7183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 597, REFORM EXPORTS AND EXPAND THE 
                          AMERICAN ECONOMY ACT

  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I call up 
motion No. 2, to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 450, providing for the consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 597) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the 
United States, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentleman sign the petition?
  Mr. FINCHER. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee calls up a 
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration 
of House Resolution 450, which the Clerk will report by title.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XV, section 2(d)(1), I 
make a point of order that this motion is not timely brought.
  The rule specifically says that, ``On the second and fourth Mondays 
of a month,'' which is what we are today, ``immediately after the 
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, a motion to discharge that has been 
brought on the calendar for at least seven legislative days shall be 
privileged if called up by a Member whose signature appears thereon.''
  We had the pledge and the prayer earlier today. We also then had 
intervening activity in the House, and this motion is no longer timely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. MULVANEY. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that we took up 1-
minute speeches; we received a message from the Senate; and you, 
yourself, approved the Journal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I think my friend from South Carolina, the 
gentleman, is out of order. This is regular order. We are moving on as 
procedure.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, while you are continuing, I would like you 
to consider one thing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. MULVANEY. The rule is very explicit. The rule does not say that 
we may not take--the rule says that we must proceed immediately. I 
recognize the fact that on occasion 1-minute speeches are not 
considered business of the House, that receiving messages from the 
Senate are not considered business of the House, and, on occasion, a 
Journal is not considered business of the House even though, from time 
to time, we do vote on it.
  The rule does not say that we cannot do other business. The rule says 
we can't do anything, that we must proceed immediately after the Pledge 
of Allegiance, and that if the motion is brought at any other time it 
is untimely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
this point of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The rule does not say that the motion to discharge must be--it just 
says that it can be--brought up immediately.
  Today's proceedings are consistent with previous occasions where the 
Chair has entertained 1-minute speeches on discharge days, and those 
speeches proceeded by unanimous consent.
  On those grounds, the point of order is overruled.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Does the language of section 2(d)(1) not specifically 
say ``shall be privileged if called up''? It is not ``may.'' It is 
``shall . . . if. . . . ''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule is not so limited. The motion would 
be in order if it were to be brought up then, and it is also in order 
to be brought up now.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.

[[Page H7179]]

  

  Mr. MULVANEY. If 2(d)(1) says that it shall be in order if brought up 
at this particular time but the Chair is ruling that it may be in order 
at other times, what rule is the Chair relying on for that 
determination?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is nothing in the rule that requires 
the motion to discharge to be brought up immediately following the 
Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Further point, Mr. Speaker. The only way that it is 
privileged is that if it was brought up immediately after the pledge.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is also following prior practice 
of the House in entertaining the motion.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I'm sorry, and Mr. Speaker, when you were giving your 
decision before, I was reading the rule.
  Would you please restate the basis for your decision.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has entertained 1-minute speeches 
on previous discharge days. Those speeches proceeded by unanimous 
consent. On those grounds, the point of order was overruled.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, you did not address, then, my issue on 
receiving a message from the Senate or approving the Journal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has entertained numerous 
parliamentary inquiries on a matter on which the Chair has already 
ruled.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Would the decision have been different if we had not 
made 1-minute speeches?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond to a hypothetical 
question.
  The Clerk will report the title of the resolution.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Fincher) will be recognized for 10 minutes and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Even though discharge petitions have rarely been invoked in modern 
history, they nevertheless embody democracy and its fundamental 
principle of majority rules, a principle that the gentleman has already 
talked about earlier. This discharge process offers the only means by 
which a majority of House Members can secure a vote on a measure that 
is opposed by the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction and House 
leadership.
  What makes the gentleman's remarks a few minutes ago particularly 
ironic is the fact that the discharge rule evolved from a precursor 
rule adopted in 1910 as part of the Cannon revolt. The Cannon revolt 
was a revolt against Speaker Joseph Cannon. It was a remarkable event 
in the history of this House and is relevant today in more ways than 
one.
  Speaker Cannon was, at the time, the longest-serving Republican 
Speaker in the history of the House, serving as Speaker from 1903 to 
1911. Referred to as ``Uncle Joe,'' Speaker Cannon ruled with an iron 
fist. Historians have not painted him as a great legislator. No.
  Historians have painted him as a great obstructionist. He blocked 
legislation, including child labor laws and the right for women to 
vote. What was his reasoning for blocking this progressive legislation? 
``I am tired of listening to all this babble for reform,'' he said.
  Several times, Republicans tried unsuccessfully to curb Speaker 
Cannon's broad powers, which included his chairmanship of the Rules 
Committee and his power to dole out committee assignments, among other 
powers. But that changed in March of 1910 when 42 Republicans joined 
with the Democrats introducing a resolution containing a rules package 
that would strip Speaker Cannon of his many powers.
  Speaker Cannon tried to filibuster this revolt, speaking from the 
chair for 26 straight hours while allies tried to round up additional 
allies who were out celebrating St. Patrick's Day, but it didn't work. 
Speaker Cannon finally ruled the resolution out of order, but the House 
overruled the Chair, thereby adopting far-reaching reforms, including 
the precursor of today's discharge rule.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in returning power to rank-and-file 
Members by voting on the motion to discharge and supporting American 
jobs.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the gentleman from Tennessee 
and the passion that he brings to this debate. He has long been a 
champion of the Export-Import Bank. We have had a respectful 
disagreement over the substance of the issue, but at this moment I 
don't care to spend much time on the substance of the issue because we 
are debating a discharge petition.
  Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting history lesson that my colleague 
and friend introduced the House to, and I have no reason to doubt that 
it is an accurate history lesson. I will note for the Record that 
apparently somehow Mr. Cannon managed to get a building named after 
him.
  But the point I would make is this: whether the gentleman from 
Tennessee and others have disagreed with process at the Financial 
Services Committee--I know that they do--but the question before us, 
Mr. Speaker, is why punish the entirety of the House?

  Those who are bringing forth this discharge petition had the 
opportunity to allow Members on both sides of the aisle to offer 
amendments. People who were not on the Financial Services Committee 
could have had the opportunity to offer amendments, but not under this 
particular discharge petition.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the real complaint I have here is, regardless of 
what complaints or beefs they may have against me personally or against 
the process of the Financial Services Committee, why punish the 
entirety of the House?
  We hear so much about regular order and about empowering rank-and-
file Members. Well, then, why aren't rank-and-file Members, then, 
empowered to offer amendments? We were told that it was simply to 
discharge a single piece of legislation. Then why not, at this point, 
let the House work its will?
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't appear to happen. I 
perfectly understand that one man's economic development is another 
man's corporate welfare, and I think that debate will happen tomorrow. 
But here, right now, simply because there is a rule to have a discharge 
petition that would disqualify any Member from offering an amendment 
doesn't mean we should necessarily avail ourselves of it.
  The Constitution allows us to create debt. It doesn't mean it is a 
good thing for us to do that as we face yet another debt ceiling vote 
in front of us.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would simply hope that Members would vote down 
this discharge petition, and if they believe strongly in it, then bring 
back another one, but at least allow Members on the floor to offer 
amendments. Republicans, Democrats, and people from all committees 
should be able to offer the amendments if that was the purpose of the 
discharge petition.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend from Texas, there were 3 years 
to do exactly that. It wasn't done.
  I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding, and I thank him 
for his courage and Mr. Lucas' courage for working within the rules to 
bring this matter to the floor. It is an important matter.

                              {time}  1845

  Since July, businesses and workers across the country have been 
asking Congress to reopen the Export-Import Bank so that they could 
compete on a level playing field in overseas markets. This is about 
jobs and a competitive America. Opening the Export-Import Bank, Mr. 
Speaker, is about creating and keeping jobs here in America.
  A motion on the floor tonight will demonstrate that a majority of 
this House supports taking action to pass a multiyear extension of the 
Bank's charter authority. We will have a

[[Page H7180]]

chance to show the American people that Congress can work together, 
Democrats and Republicans, to get something done that helps businesses 
and workers compete and create jobs.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my friends and 
colleagues to support Mr. Fincher of Tennessee on his motion in his 
effort to subject this issue to regular order. This is regular order. 
This is the only regular order that we are going to be given to have a 
chance to take up this job-creating legislation. I know this for a 
fact. It is not speculation.
  On February 12, they offered an amendment to the views and estimates 
on the budget that said, in part, the committee will work to consider 
reauthorization of the Bank through regular order that lets all sides 
be heard, and the leadership of the committee said, ``Vote `no.' '' 
There was never an intention to subject this issue to regular order. 
Now is our chance to do that.
  Support the gentlemen from Tennessee and Oklahoma and vote ``yes'' on 
this.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank Mr. Fincher, I 
thank Mr. Lucas, I thank Ms. Waters, I thank Ms. Moore, and I thank 
Denny Heck.
  Vote for this motion to put a bill on the floor that the majority 
supports. That is democracy.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, and I 
appreciate the leadership of my chair on this issue.
  It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, we have two issues that we are dealing 
with today:
  First is the issue, itself, of the Export-Import Bank and the 
entitlement mentality that has grown up here in the United States. It 
is sad to me that some believe that this is the only, or the best, way 
for the U.S. to compete on the world stage when, in fact, we know it is 
not.
  We are at a competitive disadvantage, not because we may or may not 
have an Export-Import Bank, but because of our regulatory environment, 
because of our tax environment, and because of all of the other 
barriers that have been thrown up by this Congress, including health 
care and a number of other things that have made our companies less 
competitive.
  The other issue is the way that we are dealing with this issue as it 
is coming to the floor and how it has reached the House floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to know which committee chair of another 
committee would approve of having the process be short-circuited out of 
their committee. Would it be the Energy and Commerce Committee? the 
Ways and Means Committee? Because I can tell you I have not been real 
happy, as a small business owner on some of the lack of progress that 
we have made on that. Maybe it would be the Ag Committee. Why did it 
take so long for things to reach the floor? How about any other 
committee that we are all dealing with?
  The simple fact is that my subcommittee, Monetary Policy and Trade, 
where this jurisdiction lies, had three joint hearings with the 
Oversight Committee on this particular issue. There was a sunset that 
was put in. It was intentionally put in so that there would be a 
review. The review happened, and the determination of my subcommittee 
and this committee was that it did not warrant further action.
  So, again, as we are looking at this tool that has been infrequently 
used, it doesn't restore regular order, as has been claimed. No. In 
fact, it upends the balance of power in the House. It skirts the 
committee process and gives the minority the control over the House 
floor.
  A discharge petition was brought to the House floor under the guise 
of job creation. In reality, it serves to revive and retrench a 
dependency mentality.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), who has done great work on this supportive 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee for his hard work.
  I would remind the previous speaker that this is actually a 
Republican-led discharge petition for Ex-Im Bank.
  We could have avoided this. None of us celebrate being here right now 
as Republicans. But the time to deal with the issue of Ex-Im Bank was 
on the committee. Unfortunately, this could have gone through the 
committee, this could have been voted on in committee, and it could 
have come to the floor in what people would consider a more regular 
order way than this. However, that didn't have the opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, my district is the 16th District of Illinois, and I will 
tell you what, they are not worried about discharge petitions and 
things when people talk about regular order and internal politics and 
what is going on here. What they care about is the fact that it is a 
heavy manufacturing district, and they want to be able to go to work 
tomorrow. They are worried because people live with the threat of pink 
slips, and many people actually get pink slips.
  Unfortunately, in July, the charter for Ex-Im Bank expired, which put 
a lot of the manufacturing suppliers of the aerospace industry at a 
disadvantage in my district compared with those that supply to Airbus 
and other companies around the world. Pride in our exports and pride in 
our manufacturing is something that we should have pride in, and we 
should fight beyond what it means for a party label or beyond what it 
means for floor politics.

  Mr. Speaker, the opponents of reauthorization live in a world where 
the politics of purity trumps the realism of today and of the 
economics. Here is the reality: in my district, thousands of jobs, 
millions of dollars of exports, and many, many people rely on this to 
be reauthorized.
  Mr. Speaker, I know this is not easy, as Republicans, to do this, but 
it is the right thing to do. So I stand and I ask my colleagues on the 
Republican and the Democrat side of the aisle to put partisanship 
aside, to do the right thing, and to discharge this resolution.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a valued member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  I hope you are all listening to some of the use of the language. I 
appreciated the history lesson. But has it been lost on you, the irony 
part of this discussion that, hey, we are going to do a discharge 
petition, which is part of the rules, because we don't feel we are 
having a voice. Oh, by the way, we are going to draft a rule--draft a 
rule--that you can't offer amendments, that you can't have a 
discussion.
  For those of us who have worked on this issue for years, who have sat 
through dozens of hearings in multiple years, who actually have things 
we believe that make it better, the brilliance here is lock it down. So 
you are going to complain that you are not being treated fairly, and 
then the answer to not being treated fairly is, let's write a rule that 
no one gets a voice, that it is purely up or down. Is that lost on 
anyone here?
  The reality of it is the vast majority of the trade from this country 
has access to surety bonds and trade credit. It is a fraction of a 
fraction of a fraction that actually asks for a taxpayer subsidy, a 
taxpayer guarantee. If you wanted to solve this problem tomorrow, you 
could recharter the Ex-Im Bank so that it continues to exist but get 
the taxpayers off the hook and let them do just as now Fannie and 
Freddie are trying to do where they buy their reinsurance in the 
market.
  There are solutions here, if I was allowed to offer an amendment. But 
you have all chosen to write a rule that keeps those of us who have 
worked on this issue for years from being able to have that discussion. 
Is that irony lost on anyone here?
  You know there is a better way to do this than extending this type of 
crony capitalism and leaving our taxpayers on the hook for hours and 
hours of hearings we have had where you have heard the bad acts that 
are going on in this agency--the fraud, the mis-accounting.
  Why are we going to let that move forward? Because if you have read 
the

[[Page H7181]]

reforms that are in here, you would understand they already should be 
doing these. It is an outrage they are not.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters).
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, Members, I would like 
to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher) for yielding and 
for his leadership in initiating this very successful discharge 
petition in order to finally make possible the opportunity to vote to 
renew the charter of the Export-Import Bank.
  For almost 2 years now, as ranking member of the Financial Services 
Committee, I have been working very hard with Leader Pelosi, Whip 
Hoyer, and my colleagues Gwen Moore and Denny Heck. We have all been 
working hard to secure long-term reauthorization of the Bank. And 
today, after many months of obstruction by a vocal minority of this 
body, which led to a shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank, this House will 
finally get the opportunity to vote to do just that.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, this discharge petition is not a 
rejection of regular order. Although rarely used, the discharge 
petition exists under House rules for the very purpose of ensuring that 
the will of a determined majority may ultimately prevail over an 
obstructionist minority, and that is exactly what is happening today.
  Republicans and Democrats have come together to support the 
reauthorization of a proven job creator. We have come together to end 
the unilateral disarmament that has harmed our exporters, their 
domestic suppliers, and the many American workers across this country 
whose jobs are supported by the Bank. We have come together to show 
that compromise is possible if you are willing to work it.
  So, again, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his work. I urge 
the Members to vote in favor of the motion. We have come together as 
Members of Congress to do the work of the people. Let's get on with the 
business of doing it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), another valuable member of the House 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  I want to pick up on where my friend from Arizona left off regarding 
the comments about my good friend and colleague from Washington 
regarding regular order. It is not regular order. If we have regular 
order, we have amendments. I have an amendment that would protect small 
business. I don't get a chance to do that. We would under regular 
order.
  But let's not forget, there is not just one committee that is getting 
rolled here. Rules Committee is getting rolled. And if this was to 
follow regular order and go to rules, every single one of you would be 
able to offer amendments in that committee. They would probably get 
shot down, as mine have since I have been here, but at least you could 
offer them.
  Furthermore, if it went to Rules Committee, you could have debate; 
you could participate and debate on the issues.
  What is getting ready to happen here in a few minutes is Mr. Fincher 
will control 1 hour of debate, he will speak for 5, and then yield 
back, denying every single one of you in this Chamber the opportunity 
to speak for at least half an hour each side on this particular issue.

  This is not regular order, Mr. Speaker. This is shoving something 
down the American people's throats.
  Let's have regular order. Let's have the amendments. I have got some 
ones you might actually enjoy. Let's have the debate. But let's not kid 
ourselves into thinking this is regular order because it is not.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. How much time 
do I have remaining? I want to reserve the right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  A lot of discussion, passionate discussion about jobs tonight.
  But I would point out to my Democratic colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, where was this passion when ObamaCare was passed? The 
Congressional Budget Office says that it is going to cost this economy 
2.5 million fewer jobs.
  Where was this passion when H.R. 30 came to the floor that would 
repeal this 30-hour definition of full-time employee? According to one 
study, 2.6 million Americans making under $30,000 are at risk of having 
their hours cut due to the ObamaCare 30-hour rule.
  Where was the passion on the other side of the aisle when H.R. 351, 
the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, came? That is 
estimated to put up to 45,000 unemployed Americans back to work on 
liquid natural gas export projects.
  Where was the passion when S. 1 came, the Keystone XL pipeline? The 
State Department's environmental impact statement said: ``During 
construction, proposed project spending would support approximately 
42,100 jobs.''
  But we didn't hear much from our friends on the other side of the 
aisle when this was going on.

                              {time}  1900

  But, again, I think, too often, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are always happy to subsidize what they can regulate and control.
  I would say to my friends on my side of the aisle that I respect your 
opinion, and I hope you respect mine; but I think there is a better way 
to promote exports. I think there is a better way to promote jobs. It 
has everything to do with regulatory reform. It has to do with the 
REINS Act. It has everything to do with fundamental tax reform, which, 
according to the National Association of Manufacturers, is half of our 
competitive disadvantage. It has everything to do with litigation 
reform. We have greater remedial costs than do our green energy 
European competitors.
  There is a better way, and there is a more fair way to come to this 
floor. As for whatever you think of the process of the Financial 
Services Committee, if this is going to come to the floor, every Member 
ought to be allowed to have an amendment, and we should reject this 
discharge petition.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, why are we here tonight? Why 
are we compelled to engage in this process?
  The circumstances, perhaps, might be a little bit like 1910. Do you 
remember 1910? A dictatorial Speaker who was so totally in control and 
who so totally refused to accept input from the membership made himself 
chairman of the Rules Committee, too. He stymied the legislative 
process. He brought it to a stop.
  What did our predecessors do 100-plus years ago?
  They finally rose up together and threw him out, and they created a 
process by which no dictatorial chairman, no dictatorial Speaker would 
ever be able to fully thwart the will of this body.
  It is amazing. That is what we are here for. It is to continue one 
century later the responsible actions that they put into place.
  Now, some of my friends have asked, ``Why don't we have thousands of 
amendments?'' Think about 1910--a dictatorial Speaker, a dictatorial 
committee chairman. Under no circumstances was Uncle Joe going to allow 
any input. So, when they created this process, they had to make sure 
that the bill could come to the floor for consideration in a way that 
would not allow it to be manipulated by that same dictatorial attitude. 
We are operating under the present version of that rule.
  If we had wanted unlimited amendments, we should have spent an 
unlimited amount of time in the committee of jurisdiction, working on 
those amendments, but that opportunity never availed itself. Had that 
opportunity availed itself, we wouldn't be here; but we are here. We 
have a bill that reflects, I believe--and that a majority of us in this 
House believes--what is in the best interest of America's workers and 
America's

[[Page H7182]]

businesspeople in our competitive spirit.
  I simply say to you that to talk about the things we should be doing 
tonight that should have been done a month ago or a year ago seems most 
inappropriate. So, my friends, in a moment, let's honor the people who 
were on this floor in 1910. Let's say, ``Joe, you can't have your way 
then or now.'' Let's pass the discharge; let's pass the rule; and let's 
get on with the bill debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Fincher) to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 450.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246, 
nays 177, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 569]

                               YEAS--246

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers (NC)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Knight
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rogers (AL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--177

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Culberson
     Denham
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Carson (IN)
     Crawford
     DesJarlais
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Payne
     Pearce
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Takai
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1924

  Messrs. SHUSTER and JOYCE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to discharge was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 569, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 450

       Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this 
     resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in 
     the House of the bill (H.R. 597) to reauthorize the Export-
     Import Bank of the United States, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of H.R. 3611, as introduced, shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 597.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation here tonight about 
what we are doing and how this happened and what we are going to do 
next.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are here tonight, I didn't sign up to 
come to Washington from Frog Jump, the place I live, to do discharge 
petitions. The reason I did come to Washington was to work for my 
district and try to make sure that hardworking men and women all over 
this country and my district have jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what the Export-Import Bank does. It helps 
create thousands of jobs, specifically, 200,000 jobs each year.
  Now, let me be clear because there has been a lot of misconception or 
misperception, whatever you want to say, about what this costs the 
taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, this is at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer. In 
fact, the Export-Import Bank returned $675 million to the U.S. Treasury 
in fiscal year 2014. In 2013, it returned more than $1 billion, Mr. 
Speaker.
  This is not a minority procedure, this is not a Democrat procedure 
that is happening tonight. This is a Republican-led position. This is a 
Republican reform bill that we are doing.

[[Page H7183]]

  


                              {time}  1930

  More reforms than have been done in probably 50 years. I haven't 
looked specifically, but I think President Reagan did a lot, and other 
Presidents have done them.
  But this is about jobs, Mr. Speaker. Think about this. We go home to 
our districts every weekend, and we talk to constituents every weekend. 
Think about constituents that come up to us and say: Congressman, have 
you balanced the budget? We say: No, we are working on it, but we 
haven't done it yet.
  I don't want to offend any of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. I am probably going to, but I don't mean it. Our constituents 
say: Well, Congressman, have you repealed ObamaCare? I say: Well, no, 
not yet, but we are working on it.
  Then they look at us and they say: Tell me, Congressman, you have 
done away with the only thing that we know of that helps create 
thousands of jobs all over this country and possibly would help create 
the job that they had because of some ideology or some conservative 
group that is scoring a Member of Congress, and now I don't have a job, 
and I am on unemployment.
  Mr. Speaker, our constituents and hardworking Americans deserve 
better. They deserve better than Members of Congress playing political 
games because of scorecards.
  I serve under one of the most principled chairmen, probably the most 
principled chairman in Congress, and I agree with him on 99.9 percent 
of everything that we do in our committee. We just happen to disagree 
on this one issue. My chairman is passionate and principled, and I 
never would doubt that.
  Mr. Speaker, I won't take much more time. If America is going to get 
out of the hole we are in as a country, then Congress must start 
working together. Mr. Speaker, we should applaud. We should be happy on 
the day--and I don't want to offend the gentlewoman from California who 
spoke earlier, but we should be happy on the day when Democrats want to 
join Republicans on legislation that helps move the country forward. 
They are clapping, that is awesome.
  We are trying to do what we think is best, and the Export-Import Bank 
doesn't cost the taxpayers a dime. It helps create thousands of jobs 
all over this country and makes sure we don't lose thousands of jobs to 
60 other countries that have these credit agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say. This is regular order, 
this closed rule. I am going to close in 10 seconds, but this is all 
about regular order. We could have had amendments. We could have had a 
thousand amendments in our committee, but we chose to go this route. We 
didn't choose it. Some of us chose to go this route. We are dealing 
with this today. Our constituents deserve better, and we have to do 
better.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. HENSARLING. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House is H. 
Res. 450 which, as I understand it, would establish the rule for debate 
on this Ex-Im reauthorization bill, that it does not make in order any 
amendments.
  The closed rule means that in addition to not having any debate on 
the rule--since all time has now been yielded back, with no other 
Member having a chance to speak--Members have been denied their chance 
to participate in that part of the process.
  My parliamentary inquiry is whether there is any way, at this 
juncture, for Members to amend the resolution, H. Res. 450, to give 
Members an opportunity to offer amendments to the underlying Ex-Im 
reauthorization bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair was about to put the question on 
ordering the previous question.
  If the motion for the previous question was rejected, there would be 
a potential for further debate on, or amendment to, House Resolution 
450.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HENSARLING. So, if the previous question is defeated, then a 
Member who is opposed to the previous question would be afforded the 
opportunity to offer an amendment to H. Res. 450 that would strike the 
text of the closed, no amendments rule and replace it with the text of 
a rule that provided for consideration of the underlying Ex-Im 
reauthorization bill through an open process, with time for debate, 
where any Member--either Republican or Democrat--could offer germane 
amendments to the bill. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond to specific 
hypotheticals, but if the motion for the previous question were 
rejected, there would be potential for further debate on, or amendment 
to, House Resolution 450.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HENSARLING. If the previous question is defeated, may I or any 
Member who votes against the previous question claim time to offer such 
an amendment to create an open rules process for consideration of the 
underlying Ex-Im reauthorization bill where Members on both sides of 
the aisle can offer amendments to the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot judge that at this time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the Speaker.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. MULVANEY. A few minutes ago, in reference to a question raised by 
the gentleman from Texas, you indicated that the amendments would be in 
order if the motion for the previous question failed.

  My question is: Are motions to amend in order before the motion for 
the previous question comes to the floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question has preferential 
standing.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk. I would 
like to have it heard now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question has already been 
moved.
  Mr. MULVANEY. No, it hasn't.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is about to put the question on 
ordering the previous question on the resolution.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Who moved the 
previous question?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Was that seconded?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question does not require a 
second.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk. I would 
simply like to ask what rule the Chair is relying on in denying me the 
ability to bring that amendment now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Clause 4 of rule XVI.
  The question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________