[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.
____________________