Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 158 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 158 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7217-H7231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK REFORM AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the House
will proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill (H.R. 597) to
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and for other
purposes, which the Clerk will report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R.
3611 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 597

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Export-
Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2015''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--TAXPAYER PROTECTION PROVISIONS AND INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY

Sec. 101. Reduction in authorized amount of outstanding loans,
guarantees, and insurance.
Sec. 102. Increase in loss reserves.
Sec. 103. Review of fraud controls.
Sec. 104. Office of Ethics.
Sec. 105. Chief Risk Officer.
Sec. 106. Risk Management Committee.
Sec. 107. Independent audit of bank portfolio.
Sec. 108. Pilot program for reinsurance.

TITLE II--PROMOTION OF SMALL BUSINESS EXPORTS

Sec. 201. Increase in small business lending requirements.
Sec. 202. Report on programs for small and medium-sized businesses.

TITLE III--MODERNIZATION OF OPERATIONS

Sec. 301. Electronic payments and documents.
Sec. 302. Reauthorization of information technology updating.

TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Extension of authority.
Sec. 402. Certain updated loan terms and amounts.

TITLE V--OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 501. Prohibition on discrimination based on industry.
Sec. 502. Negotiations to end export credit financing.
Sec. 503. Study of financing for information and communications
technology systems.

TITLE I--TAXPAYER PROTECTION PROVISIONS AND INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY

SEC. 101. 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 default rate 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. 102. 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. 103. 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--

[[Page H7218]]

``(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. 104. 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. 105. CHIEF RISK OFFICER.

Section 3 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C.
635a), as amended by section 104, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(l) Chief Risk Officer.--
``(1) 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. 106. 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 104 and 105, 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. 107. 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(l)
of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended by section
105.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and 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 carrying out subsection (a).

SEC. 108. 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.

TITLE II--PROMOTION OF SMALL BUSINESS EXPORTS

SEC. 201. 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. 202. 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.

[[Page H7219]]

TITLE III--MODERNIZATION OF OPERATIONS

SEC. 301. 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. 302. 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''.

TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. 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
7 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. 402. 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
11(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.

TITLE V--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 501. 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. 502. 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-financing 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 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 (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. 503. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and

[[Page H7220]]

ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their
designees.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, this is going to be an important debate that we have
today because it is a debate about what type of economy we are going to
have: an economy based upon fairness, where your prosperity is
dependent upon how hard you work on Main Street; or is it dependent
upon who you know in Washington?

{time} 1445

I respect the views of all Members, but if we are ever--ever--to deal
with the threat of a social welfare state, we must first take care of
the corporate welfare state, and the face of the corporate welfare
state is the Export-Import Bank.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the
chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of the Financial
Services Committee
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work that my
chairman has done. I chair the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee,
the subcommittee that has jurisdiction directly over this.
In the last conference when I was vice chair of that committee, we
started a work group looking at various reforms that could happen, and
that continued on into this term. We had a number of us on all sides of
the issue that were working together.
The real problem arose, though, when those of us who felt that we
needed to move in a direction where we were transferring that liability
from the taxpayer back to businesses--when we felt that we were
proposing some of those reforms, those who were most benefiting from
the program said: Absolutely not. Not a direction we can go. Cannot be
a phaseout. Cannot be a sunset. Cannot be a change to make these
recourse loans. Cannot make them only loans as opposed to grants. In
other words, it was business as usual.
It might be a good business decision to transfer business liability
and risk to somebody else, but it is a bad idea to transfer that
additional liability to the U.S. taxpayer.
I think that we have a couple of issues in front of us, Mr. Speaker,
as was talked about yesterday. First is the issue of the Ex-Im Bank and
the entitlement mentality that has grown up, and that is just a symptom
of it.
As the chairman has said, if we cannot take care of and tackle this
entitlement mentality within the business community, how in the world
are we going to have the moral standing to tackle that same entitlement
mentality on the social side of our spending?
So it is sad to believe, in my mind, that some people think that this
is the only or the best program that we can put forward for the U.S. to
remain competitive on the world stage.
We know that we have put ourselves at a disadvantage through the
regulatory environment that has been created not only under this
administration, but under previous administrations as well. We know
that the tax regime that we have is also a huge problem.
I just ask that my colleagues oppose this effort to make sure that it
is status quo in Washington, D.C.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House took a historic and bipartisan vote
in support of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. We showed that
Democrats and Republicans can work together to overcome the obstruction
caused by an ideologically driven minority that put its own
uncompromising principles over the needs of the American people.
The 4-month shutdown of the Export-Import Bank engineered by the
chairman of the Financial Services Committee has led to hopelessness,
uncertainty, and fear for the many workers across this country whose
livelihoods rely on the support of the Ex-Im Bank.
As reports continued to pile in on the loss of jobs caused by the
Bank's shutdown, the chairman has remained deliberately indifferent to
the harm inflicted on the lives of these Americans. The cost of this
indifference is more than 100 transactions worth more than $9 billion
that have been indefinitely put on hold pending the Bank's
reauthorization. Unfortunately, many of these contracts have now been
lost for good.
Today we are showing the small-business owners and their employees
that this indifference does not extend to the whole House of
Representatives. Supporters of the Bank care about them, about their
jobs and their communities.
It is high time we reopened the Ex-Im Bank for business. Instead of
shipping jobs abroad, let's start shipping American exports again.
Let's put America back to work and pass this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the distinguished chairman of
the House Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong disapproval for this bill
for the Export-Import Bank. This is a profound debate we are having. It
is about what kind of economy we are going to have. Are we going to
reward good work or good connections? I think there are plenty of other
ways to expand opportunity in this country, and corporate welfare is
not one of them.
The biggest beneficiaries of this bank, two-thirds of their money
goes to ten companies and 40 percent goes to one company. And this bank
does cost money. Just ask the Congressional Budget Office when they use
real scorekeeping.
Do you remember Fannie Mae? Do you remember their accounting? Do you
remember when they told us they weren't going to cost any money? Until
they did. And it cost us billions.
The other excuse, Mr. Speaker, that I just don't buy is that other
countries do this and so should we. We shouldn't acquire other
countries' bad habits. We should be leading by example. We should be
exporting democratic capitalism, not crony capitalism.
There is this criticism of those of the free enterprise system who
compare it to competition like a sport where the critics of free
enterprise say there is a winner and there is a loser, just like a
boxing match or a football game.
Well, that is true when it comes to crony capitalism. That is the
case when it comes to corporate welfare because, in that case, the
winner is the person with the connections, it is the company with
power, and it is the company with clout.
The loser is the person who is out there working hard, playing by the
rules, not knowing anybody, not going to Washington, and hoping and
thinking that the merit of their idea and the quality of their work is
what will win the day. That is what is rewarded under a free enterprise
system.
Free enterprise is more about collaboration. It is more about
transactions of mutual benefit where everybody benefits, the rising
tide lifts all boats, equality for all, and equal opportunity. That is
free enterprise. That is small d, democratic capitalism. This thing is
crony capitalism. I urge it be rejected.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a member of the Financial
Services Committee and the ranking member of the Monetary Policy and
Trade Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the reauthorization of
the Ex-Im Bank. I just want to take a moment to recognize her tireless
work on behalf of the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank.
Ms. MOORE. I thank you so much, Madam Ranking Member.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to support this
bipartisan initiative to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. The
Export-Import Bank is about three things in this country that we need
to be debating here more often, and that is jobs, jobs, and jobs.
Getting the bill to the floor for this historic vote is about something
the country also needs more of, and that is bipartisanship.

[[Page H7221]]

I am very distressed, Mr. Speaker, to continue to hear the debate
that somehow the financing of the Export-Import Bank is contributing to
the welfare state and that, if we are to tackle the social welfare
programs under Social Security, we have got to get rid of this
corporate welfare.
I am distressed to continue to hear that defeating the Export-Import
Bank is a backdoor approach to ending Social Security. If you listen
very carefully, colleagues, you are going to hear this over and over
again.
I do want to thank Representatives Hoyer, Lucas, Waters, Heck,
Fincher, and the House Members on both sides so that we can now go back
to our districts, look U.S. workers in the eyes and say that we are not
giving them welfare, that we are giving the thousands upon thousands
upon thousands of people in the chain an opportunity to work for a
living. This is not a Democrat or a Republican victory, but a victory
for all our workers.
I would ask that the body vote for the reauthorization of the Export-
Import Bank. I hope the Senate takes our example and we send this to
the President for his signature. Our work and our businesses should not
have to wait one more day to reignite this powerful engine of job
creation.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price), the distinguished chairman of the House Budget
Committee.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult and an important issue. With all due
respect, I urge my colleagues to proceed with caution regarding a
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, particularly under the
procedural motion that has been used to get this bill to the floor
today.
Many Members, including myself, have real concerns that we are
sidestepping the important work of our committees, in this case, both
the Financial Services Committee and the Rules Committee.
This leaves no room for amending or altering the legislation to
better reflect the overall will of the House. This bill is, in fact,
not even a product of the House. It is the exact same text that was
taken from the Senate, and, just like this one, it bypassed the
committee procedure over there as well.
By shortchanging the process, this effort is shortchanging the debate
that we should be having about legitimate disagreements over the
Export-Import Bank, and, thereby, we are shortchanging the American
people.
For example, we know that, by statute, 20 percent of the Export-
Import Bank's authorizations are supposed to go to small businesses.
Yet, today only 1 percent of 1 percent of small businesses are actually
aided by the Bank.
We also know that, when the Ex-Im subsidizes foreign corporations, it
runs the risk of undermining American business. It is estimated that
the Export-Import Bank has led to the loss of 7,500 jobs in the
American airline industry alone and a loss of over $684 million in
revenue.
These are serious concerns at a time when we should be fostering a
climate of healthy economic opportunity and growth right here at home
rather than a system that effectively chooses winners and losers.
It may not necessarily be the intention of my colleagues who
supported this discharge petition effort to undermine the legislative
process or to diminish the importance of our committees or, above all,
to limit what we can and should be having here, a healthy debate over
legitimate policy disagreements.
But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what is occurring.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this process and
to stop this dangerous precedent from taking root.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Heck), a tireless advocate for our exporters who
has never missed an opportunity to fight for the Export-Import Bank and
the American workers it supports.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, watching the nonstop ideological warfare waged on the
Export-Import Bank over the last nearly 3 years reminds me of my very
favorite Will Rogers adage: People feel about Congress the same way
they do when baby gets hold of the hammer. And that is, in fact, what
we have been treated to.
But the fact of the matter is today we have an opportunity to turn
that adage on its ear and do something that the American public will
feel good about Congress for, for today we have an opportunity to vote
for jobs, 164,000 in just last calendar year supported by the Ex-Im,
good-paying jobs, send-your-kid-to-college jobs, buy-a-home jobs, take-
a-vacation jobs, and have-a-secure-retirement jobs.
Mr. Speaker, tonight we have an opportunity to strengthen and protect
the manufacturing base of America, because the truth of the matter is
it is not unrelated to our national defense infrastructure. The same
entities that make up our manufacturing base keep us safe, and we
should not forget that.
Tonight we have an opportunity, indeed, to vote for reform of the
Export-Import Bank despite the fact that it has a default rate that is
the envy of commercial banks and a collection rate as well.
Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is we can vote to increase loss
reserves, improve risk management, modernize and update their IT, and
notwithstanding what was said by the gentleman from Michigan, it also
has a pilot recourse program in it on the reinsurance for payment side.
Tonight we have an opportunity to vote for a reduction of the
deficit. Yes. The Ex-Im for a generation has transferred cash--the heck
with your theoretical accounting model--transferred cash into the U.S.
Treasury, $675 million just last fall.
Let me say it again. Tonight we have an opportunity to vote for jobs.
No more Waukesha, Wisconsins, Ms. Moore, no more Waukesha, Wisconsins,
where an entire factory is being shuttered because we have failed to do
our job in reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, the leader, the
whip, and especially I want to thank my friends, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma
and Mr. Fincher of Tennessee, for their profile in courage. It was,
indeed, a profile in courage to do the right thing. Tonight we have an
opportunity to put American jobs first. Tonight we have an opportunity
to put America first.
I don't know about you, but I came here from the private sector. I
don't reside in some kind of fantasy plot within an Ayn Rand novel. I
live in the real world, and in the real world we solve problems. This
will solve problems. Vote ``yes''.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee that held a number of key hearings on the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I stand to express opposition to the
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
As we look at these weighty issues, I think it is important that we
look at both the liability and the accountability in this factor.
When you look at the reliability, whenever we make decisions about
spending money, we are talking about pulling money out of somebody's
wallet and giving it to somebody else.

{time} 1500

And, in this case, as we look at liability, we are taking every
American's wallet and putting it on the line and saying: Should we or
should we not create liability for more individuals across the
heartland? And for mom and dad, I just don't think that is the right
equation. I fundamentally disagree with it.
If these are such good loans and they are so profitable, then do them
in the private sector. You don't need the Federal Government to do
them.
And when it comes to accountability. Let's remember, this is a bank
that just this year had a bank employee who plead guilty to bribery--
bribery of all things. The inspector general of the bank testified
before our committee that they expect even more actions. And the
inspector general on one project could not even validate more than $500
million in spending. And I can tell you, as the chairman of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, they have not been
transparent in giving us the information.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

[[Page H7222]]

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), a member of the
Financial Services Committee.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership.
I rise in strong support of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
There is never really a good time to commit economic suicide, and now
would be especially a bad time. The Export-Import Bank creates jobs by
supporting exports, and it costs taxpayers nothing--zero. In fact,
since 1992, the Ex-Im has returned nearly $7 billion to the U.S.
Treasury.
Killing the Ex-Im Bank would be especially bad right now. Export
demand is falling because of our strong dollar and economic headwinds
in China and Greece and Europe. We have to remember that there are 85
different export-import banks around the world from China to Canada,
all of which are supporting exports more than we are. We are in a
competitive world. They say when you lose a job, it goes somewhere
else. But what the opposition isn't saying is that it is going
overseas.
I support the Export-Import Bank, and we should vote for
reauthorization.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), chairman of the Capital Markets
Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
In June of this year, after 81 years of doling out taxpayer-funded
welfare for megacorporations, the American people said enough, and
Congress let the Export-Import Bank expire.
Yet, today, through a little known and little used legislative
maneuver being used to circumvent the will of the American people, they
are resurrecting this fund for corporate welfare.
The Export-Import Bank transformed the role of government from a
disinterested referee in the economy into a biased actor that uses your
taxpayer dollars to tilt the scales in favor of its friends, and it
mocks the American Dream by making victims of the startups that dare to
compete.
If we promoted responsible government policies, responsible budget
policies, expanded free markets, lowered and simplified the income
taxes, and repealed onerous regulations, American businesses would
thrive in the global markets. But none of that is on the table today on
what we are about to consider.
Instead, the proposal before us is the resurrection of a bank that
embodies the corruption of the free enterprise system. Yes, we have the
opportunity today to save capitalism from cronyism. Yes, we have the
opportunity to protect the American taxpayer and the American Dream and
to preserve free enterprise. We have the opportunity today to keep the
Export-Import Bank out of business. We should take each of those
opportunities.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a member of the Financial
Services Committee.
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the ideologically perfect world of Ayn
Rand novels, there is no Ex-Im Bank for the United States or any other
country. In the real world, Germany has an export credit agency. China
has one. Canada has one. They are all much bigger than ours.
When I gave 100 speeches for George McGovern, they accused us of
favoring unilateral military disarmament. Now, we see some who are in
favor of unilateral economic disarmament. Our products face tough
competition, and sometimes the order goes to whomever has the best
financing. Ninety percent of Ex-Im Bank's loans go to small business
and the other 10 percent help Big Business buy from American suppliers.
Two hundred and fifty Members of this Congress support Ex-Im Bank, with
particular courage among the 40-something Republicans who signed the
discharge petition.
As co-chair of the CPA Caucus, let me tell you, the Ex-Im Bank makes
a substantial profit under generally accepted accounting principles.
That is why they have been able to transfer $7 billion to the Treasury.
Ronald Reagan said: The Export-Import Bank contributes in a
significant way to our Nation's export sales.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland), a valuable Member of the House Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 597, to the Export-Import Bank, and to
the process Members have used to circumvent regular order and the
amendment process of the House.
I have more Delta employees in my district than any other district in
the United States. Their jobs are at risk because the Export-Import
Bank picks winners and losers in the American economy.
When the Ex-Im Bank finances a Boeing airplane for Emirates
Airlines--as if Emirates Airlines would need any financing--the Bank is
telling pilots and flight attendants and mechanics and others in my
district that their jobs don't matter to the government. That is wrong.
My colleagues from Washington State and other areas want you to
believe that they are fighting for the jobs in their district, and I am
sure they are. I am here fighting for the jobs of my constituents. My
colleagues want their constituents to have jobs, but not my
constituents.
Well, I have news for my colleagues. I care about everyone's job. I
care about Boeing jobs, I care about Caterpillar jobs, and, yes, I care
about Delta jobs. I want the free market and the quality of U.S.
products to dictate who gets contracts. This is how America was built--
quality products made by quality employees stamped ``Made in America.''
Three years ago, Congress directed the Export-Import Bank to focus on
an economic impact analysis to ensure the Bank knew the consequences of
their lending decisions. Unfortunately, the Export-Import Bank acts as
if they are above the requirements of Congress. Instead of following
the law, the leadership at the Export-Import Bank colluded with Boeing
to design an economic impact analysis to keep the status quo in place.
Mr. Speaker, if you don't believe me, the House Financial Services
Committee has the emails to prove it. These are the bureaucrats that my
colleagues are up here protecting. It is shameful, truly shameful.
To add insult to injury, my colleagues refuse to allow to offer
amendments to defend my constituents. These are the very same people
who cry ``regular order'' yet won't deny the Members to have an ability
to fight for their constituents.
I ask everybody for a ``no'' vote.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), also a member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of allowing the
majority of the Congress to work its will and reauthorize the Export-
Import Bank.
The Bank has supported more than 1.3 million private sector American
jobs since 2009, with nearly 90 percent of its transactions directly
supporting small businesses. The Bank is an unbridled, market-driven
success story that I am proud to support.
Three months have passed since a small group of Tea Party Caucus
members threw common sense out the window and surrendered to an
ideological drive to shut down the Bank despite warnings from across
the private sector of the devastating consequences for our economy,
American small-business exporters, and their employees.
Today, I stand side by side with my colleagues from across the aisle
to fight for them, including Ventech Engineers International, based in
my area of south Texas. Ventech manufactures small, pre-built oil
refineries for export supplying fuel to remote and impoverished areas.
Ventech cannot create more jobs or assist in our national security
objectives without financing provided by the Bank.
We cannot allow a small minority of the minority Chamber to block job
creation and weaken our international priorities.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

[[Page H7223]]

California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican majority
leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding.
We are having a debate, a healthy debate, but I don't think this is
the structure or the forum in which we should have a debate about this
because we don't have the option for amendments. I think there is a
better way to do this.
People have two views about the argument today. But the real question
of the debate we are having comes down to this: Do we let government
pick and choose who it gives special taxpayer loans to or not? I
believe our constituents know very well what the right choice is. They
don't want their tax dollars backing up loans for any businesses. That
is not the government's job. The private sector can and should do that.
Our economy does best when the government is left out.
When government gets involved trying to centralize power and money in
itself, corruption is inevitable. The Ex-Im Bank is a perfect example
of this, and this is my concern. An inspector general is investigating
at least 31 cases of fraud of the Ex-Im Bank, and this fraud has wasted
millions of taxpayer dollars.
But it doesn't stop there. A former Ex-Im Bank employee, Johnny
Gutierrez, pleaded guilty this year to taking bribes on 19 different
occasions to help applicants get loans from the Ex-Im.
Another Ex-Im Bank employee was indicted for taking $100,000 in
bribes to help a Nigerian businessman get loans from the Ex-Im.
And we all remember a Congressman, William Jefferson, who was
sentenced to 13 years in prison for taking bribes to help a company get
loans from the Ex-Im.
You see, there is a pattern, a pattern that won't be solved today,
regardless of what side you are on.
Since 2009, in fewer than 6 years, there have been 49 criminal
judgments against Ex-Im Bank employees or people who benefited from the
Ex-Im. Many of these people have gone to prison for it. In fact, if you
add them all up, that is 75 years they are serving.
Now, I wish I could tell you that was my only complaint and problem
and it ended there, but it does get worse. A large number of loans of
Ex-Im guarantees aren't even for American companies. The Bank actually
uses taxpayer money to back up loans for companies owned by governments
of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others.
These loans to corporations outside of America don't always go well.
Do you remember NewSat? That is an Australia company that lost $139
million in taxpayer-backed loans. NewSat's CEO allegedly diverted
company funds to his yacht company.
So the question, Mr. Speaker, is when does the corruption become too
bad? When is it that too many people take bribes? How many taxpayer
loans must be issued by fraud?
So the question I have before this House is, if we are serious, if we
want to really make a difference, let's have a process that can change
things, let's have a process that can offer amendments, let's have a
process that offers an honest debate, and let's not be shy about what
the problems are because I think the American people expect more.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
There is a better way to do this. It is called regular order through
the committee process, bring it to the floor, and make amendments.
However, when that doesn't prevail, the rules allow for what we are
doing today, which is exceedingly important.
I would say this: the Ex-Im Bank does not take deposits; it makes
deposits, and it makes deposits that help us with our deficit. The
numbers have been called to our attention: in 2013, about $1 billion;
in 2014, $675 million. But the Ex-Im Bank has done something more
important than all of these things that have been called to our
attention for the most part.
I think one of the most significant things that it has done is it has
caused us to do something that we couldn't do for ourselves, and that
is create the bipartisanship necessary to span the chasm of
partisanship that has manifested itself in this House for too long.

{time} 1515

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), another valuable member of the committee.
Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that someone has been missing from this
debate. It is the forgotten man or woman--the everyday taxpayer--who is
being asked to carry a risk that those in the private sector will not.
In 2008, we learned a tough lesson about privatizing profits and
socializing losses. During the good times, many in Congress cheered on
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their shareholders prospered while
executives made millions; but when the good times ended, the taxpayers
were forced to bail out Fannie and Freddie to the tune of $187 billion.
The Federal Government is today the guarantor of more than $3
trillion in loans backed by numerous agencies. This level of taxpayer
leverage is not sustainable, and we must begin to identify parts of the
portfolio that can be transitioned away from taxpayers.
Given that 98 percent of our exports are made without the Export-
Import Bank, the Bank is one agency that is suitable for transition
over time to the private sector.
However, in the immediate future, Congress must act to protect
taxpayers. For example, in this reauthorization, Congress could insist
that these loans be fully collateralized, just as is the practice in
the private sector.
Congress could also require exporters, which profit from the Bank's
lending to foreign purchasers of their products, to guarantee the
repayment of all or of even a fraction of these loans.
If phased in smartly, reforms like these would mitigate the potential
for the type of $3 billion bailout that the Ex-Im Bank sought in 1987,
and they would also incentivize our trade representatives to actually
initiate negotiations with our trading partners to eliminate all
government-supported export subsidies and protect the taxpayer from
potential losses, which is just as they were supposed to do in the last
reauthorization.
Without these commonsense reforms, it is the taxpayer--the forgotten
man or woman--and not the entity that made the profit who is on the
hook for the loss. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
so that real reform proposals for this institution may be pursued.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the ranking member for allowing me to speak.
Mr. Speaker, in my district, which are the suburbs of Denver, 18
small companies benefit from the Export-Import Bank and the guarantees
and the support that it provides--hundreds and hundreds of jobs. These
are jobs in plastics, scientific equipment, food manufacturing, wood
products, and electrical equipment. Those are the forgotten people in
this argument. Those are real jobs, real people.
Mr. McCarthy said there were two questions. I think the two questions
are:
Should the United States unilaterally disarm at the expense of
American businesses and U.S. jobs? I think the answer is a resounding
``no.''
The second question is: Should ideology trump reality? The reality is
that we are just going to give these jobs to countries all across the
globe instead of having them here in America. That is wrong.
I urge the passage of H.R. 597.
I thank Mr. Heck; I thank Mr. Fincher; and I thank Mr. Lucas for
bringing this forward. Let's pass this bill today.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), another valuable member of the committee.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever had one of those instances in which you
are listening and you are trying to find a way to say, ``I believe much
of the argument we are hearing here is intellectually disingenuous''?
The fact of the matter is every year there are trillions and
trillions of dollars of surety and import-export credit

[[Page H7224]]

that moves through the markets, and it doesn't have a government
guarantee. It does not have a guarantee from our taxpayers.
Look, this institution still has a $32 million loan from pre-Castro
Cuba on their books. When they tell you ``Oh, we have this tiny number
of charge-offs,'' what they are telling you is a lie.
Do you remember the hearings we had when we had the discussions as to
what their impairments were? They just stared back at you because they
didn't want to have that discussion, because every other financial
institution has to honestly say, ``Here are our impairments. On this
one, it was oil. We only had this level of charge-off.'' What they are
not telling you is that they are still carrying loans that have sat on
their books, without a payment, for 50 years.
To every citizen of this country, understand that, when this piece of
legislation passes, you have just been put on the hook. Your credit has
just been put on the hook for these types of loans.
That is what you intend to do to your taxpayers? That is what you are
going to do to your constituencies?
This piece of legislation also purports to have reforms in it. As for
the reforms, if they are not already doing these things, they should be
locked up already because much of this is the most basic level that you
would expect from any financial institution.
Then I come to another tab from the GAO and see repeat, after repeat,
after repeat where it has already been the law and they have been
ignoring it. Yet we are going to re-charter them again--an organization
to which we are going to claim we are providing reforms when they are
the very reforms from the last time we did this that they did not
follow.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the ranking member for yielding and for her
leadership on this issue, along with thanking Mr. Heck, Ms. Moore, Mr.
Fincher, and Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Speaker, the Ex-Im Bank used to be bipartisan legislation. It is
so interesting to hear the outrage expressed by Members on the other
side for a program that was supported repeatedly by President Ronald
Reagan. Where was your outrage then? I don't recall the outrage back
then because then it was fine.
I also have heard that this is not the appropriate venue for this
debate. This is the Congress of the United States of America, and I
suspect that the American people think this is a perfectly appropriate
venue.
The rule that we have utilized to bring this issue to the floor of
the House is a rule that you wrote that allows Members of this body, by
discharge petition, to bring legislation to the floor, supported by
Republicans and Democrats.
We are using the rules of the House that you wrote. This is not an
inappropriate venue. This is an argument about jobs for the American
people, and I will use every venue available to me to fight for jobs
for the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 13\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 18\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade
Subcommittee.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to come back up here to talk again a little bit about this
process.
We were starting to talk about what had happened through the
committee. There is a work group that was put together both in the last
Congress and in this Congress that came up with some, I think, very
interesting things: reforms. Included in the reforms was: How do we
extract ourselves out of this?
You see, here is what happened the last time.
The last time the Bank was reauthorized, it was through a short-
circuited system much like we are experiencing today. It did not go
through regular order. It did not have all of the backing that it
needed. It was kind of jammed down on everybody on the House floor.
To let that smooth over a little bit, there was a requirement that
the U.S. Treasury start a negotiation with the Europeans about one
specific product: the wide-body aircraft. That is what maintains a vast
majority of the business of the Export-Import Bank.
But here is the thing: The U.S. Treasury ignored that directive. They
ignored the law as they were compelled to go in and start talking
about: How do we unwind ourselves internationally from this mess that
has been created?
Then, I think, there is a logical question to ask, Mr. Speaker: If
they are willing to ignore that part of the law, what part of the law
that we are trying to reform now are they willing to ignore?
My guess is all of it because, as I was talking about and as we were
floating these ideas of various reforms of making these recourse loans,
of making sure that--oh, I don't know--a bank examiner could come in
and actually allow this ``Bank'' to pass any banking standards as their
portfolio weighting is way off, they could never pass any kind of exam
that any traditional bank would have to go through.
Every time any of those kinds of commonsense reforms were proposed,
the word came back from down on high--from those big companies that
utilize this bank--and they said, ``No way. No way are we going to
allow this to happen.'' So, truly, the characterization of this being
regular order is way out of line, in my opinion.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), who is also a member of the
Financial Services Committee.
Mrs. BEATTY. I thank Ranking Member Waters.
Mr. Speaker, here is what I know.
The American people are clamoring for us to do our job and work
together to help hard-working American families get ahead. We can do
that today by reviving the Export-Import Bank, a job-creating
organization that reduces the Federal debt--with no subsidies, with no
taxpayers' money.
Last night my caucus and some Republicans joined together to force
today's vote on reviving the Export-Import Bank. Why? Because it
creates jobs. It helps small businesses, female-owned businesses.
It is so important today for us to do this. I know it firsthand, Mr.
Speaker, because, in my district alone, there are 14 businesses,
including eight small businesses, one minority owned and one female
owned. The Export-Import Bank supports some $71 million in exports--and
here is the key--at no cost to American taxpayers.
We have heard a lot today, some misinformed, some misleading. So here
is what I think, as the evidence is clear, Mr. Speaker: Let us renew
the Bank's charter without delay.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, in order to help equalize the time, I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I have to speak fast.
The Export-Import Bank is good for America, and the arguments against
it, in my opinion, are un-American.
This is the perfect Republican dream. It reduces the deficit. It adds
to the Treasury. It creates jobs. It costs taxpayers nothing. It is
unilateral disarmament to not recharge and reauthorize the Export-
Import Bank. I support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of reauthorizing the Export-
Import Bank of the United States.
In the darkest corner of the anti-empiricist wing of this Congress
lies the plan to kill the Export-Import Bank.
Opponents of the Bank do not care that it supports small businesses
and creates jobs.
Last year, nearly 90% of the Bank's loans benefited small businesses,
and those loans supported more than 164,000 jobs.
Opponents are loath to admit that it reduces the federal budget
deficit.
Ex-Im returned $675 million to the Treasury last year and more than
$1 billion in each of the previous two years.

[[Page H7225]]

Opponents disregard the Bank's support for American exports.
Every other industrialized nation has an export-import bank, and this
unilateral disarmament would cede American competitiveness.
I ask that my colleagues reject this blind pursuit of ideological
purity, and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the Ex-Im Bank.
Hundreds of families in New York's Capital Region face uncertainty
after one of the largest employers had to move jobs to France because
its contracts needed a government-backed loan guarantee that the Ex-Im
Bank would have provided.
I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their
leadership. It is too bad that it took procedural gymnastics to finally
receive a vote on a bill with such broad, bipartisan support. Look what
we can accomplish when we work together to do what is best for the
thousands of people we each represent in this body.
The Export-Import Bank equals jobs. Let's get it done. Let's put
people before politics.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank.
You have two types of people. You have practical people who care
about real solutions for American workers and American businesses, and
you have slaves to ideology. Practical people want the Ex-Im Bank
reauthorized.
This is supporting good-paying, family-sustaining manufacturing
export jobs, and the people in opposition are slavishly adhering to
this ideology that hurts America. In this case, the Ex-Im Bank returns
a profit to the American people and it reduces the deficit and the
debt. We ought to reauthorize it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1530

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
bipartisan Export-Import Bank reauthorization.
The Ex-Im Bank was founded by FDR to increase the competitiveness of
American exports. It provides significant capital for U.S. companies
and provides opportunities for U.S. jobs, allowing our companies to be
competitive with companies overseas.
It provides confidence to businesses and investors, allowing them to
compete in the global marketplace. In Rhode Island alone, The Bank has
helped 26 businesses with a combined export value of $134 million.
The Ex-Im Bank is a vital part of our Nation's economic
infrastructure, and I urge my colleagues to support its
reauthorization.
Mr. HENSARLING. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
597, the renewal of the United States Export-Import, or Ex-Im, Bank.
In Pennsylvania, the Ex-Im Bank is essential to the economic health
throughout Pennsylvania's Fifth District, supporting 11,000 jobs. The
Bank supports 40,000 jobs across the commonwealth in nearly 300
companies, adding $7 billion to Pennsylvania's economy since 2007.
Exporters in my district range from powdered metal companies to
technology firms and to those involved in the manufacture of rubber and
plastic products. All of these businesses provide jobs which sustain
our local communities. Since 2007, exports from the Fifth Congressional
District in Pennsylvania have amounted to more than $1.3 billion,
supporting thousands of jobs in rural Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, the Ex-Im Bank is not a burden on the taxpayers. In
fact, in 2013, The Bank covered its own expenses before directing more
than a billion dollars into the U.S. Treasury.
Now, I was proud to join a bipartisan group of my colleagues to bring
renewal of The Bank to the floor today and to cast a vote in favor of
the bill's passage.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said the closest thing
to eternal life on Earth is a government bureau.
How rare is it that we actually reduce government around here? Yet
here we are debating resurrecting a defunct agency that has already
gone out to pasture.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle are central planners.
They believe in the type of politicized economy for which the Ex-Im
Bank has become a poster child. So they are actually being consistent
in their position.
What I can't understand is how Members who preach limited government
are willing to turn over the floor of the House to the minority party
for the purpose of rechartering a bank whose authority has lapsed.
If we simply did nothing, we would have less government. Taxpayers
would face less exposure. There would be less corruption. And the
economy would be less politicized.
So, by all means, vote how you want. Please, if you support
resurrecting this agency, just spare us all the notion that you are
actually here to reduce the size and scope of government.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, with all the
gridlock and all the partisanship and inability of this Congress to fix
things and get things done, we are looking at a great opportunity here
where Democrats and Republicans have come together to fix things.
The simple truth is that this Ex-Im Bank doesn't cost the taxpayers a
penny. It creates tens of thousands of jobs all across the country, and
it yields a $7 billion profit for deficit reduction in this country.
Life should be so good if we had a few more agencies like that. We are
doing such great work for the American people.
Let's reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee of the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly address my good friend from
Minnesota's comments that this Ex-Im Bank doesn't cost any money. The
truth is it does. We bailed it out to the tune of $3 billion in the
1980s.
That same argument was made that Fannie and Freddie don't cost the
taxpayers any money. Well, it doesn't cost taxpayers money until it
does. It is a government backstop. It is a government guarantee.
You see how hard it is: when you are going to take away a government
subsidy, man, do businesses fight like you know what to make sure you
can't take it away. They love their subsidies, and they will lobby and
they will work to make sure to get what they think is theirs.
I tell you, I am tired when I hear some of those Presidential
candidates talk about cronyism and those who look out for corporate
welfare and they try to point their finger to this side of the aisle.
If you open your ears and listen to this debate, ask yourself: Who is
fighting for corporate welfare? Who is fighting to make sure that you
have a guarantee in the Ex-Im Bank that supports 80 percent of the
dollars to big, massive American businesses? It is Democrats. Democrats
partner Big Government with Big Business, and that is what is happening
right here.
Picking winners and losers, the story of Delta: Delta has to compete
with airplanes that are subsidized in foreign markets by the American
taxpayer. They can't compete. So we picked Boeing jobs over Delta jobs?
Who are we in this institution to say what job is better?
Let's let the market work. Let's not be the ones that come in and
dictate what works and what doesn't.

[[Page H7226]]

To think that we are going to set up a system that the Democrats--my
friends will say this is about all American jobs. But it is only about
American jobs if it meets our political criteria in that if you are
dealing with carbon and I don't like carbon and if you are a carbon
job, the Bank won't support those who are involved in a carbon export.
That is wrong.
Let's stand together. Let's work together. Let's fight for the
American taxpayer and take away this government subsidy.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished leader who
has been a steadfast advocate on behalf of the interests of American
workers and who has made reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank a top
priority.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank.
As a former ranking member on the State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, I saw
on a regular basis how important this was to our economy and to small
businesses in America.

So here today we are coming to the floor in a bipartisan way to
create good-paying jobs. How many good-paying jobs? 1.5 million since
the year 2007.
We are here to reduce the deficit. How much are we reducing the
deficit? In the past two decades, $7 billion in money has come in to
reduce the deficit.
So we are creating good-paying jobs, reducing the deficit, fueling
our economy, and we are respecting the entrepreneurship and the
optimism of small- and moderate-sized businesses across the country.
Yes, there are some big businesses that benefit, but most of them
have subcontractors that need the work of the Ex-Im Bank.
So when we talk about making it in America, I want to recognize the
great leadership of our whip, Mr. Hoyer. Make it in America, this is
what this is about. Make it in America so that people can make it in
America but that, also, we can find markets abroad for our products
made in America.
Thank you, Mr. Hoyer, for your leadership on that and on the
reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. Because of all of that work, the
term ``Made in America,'' that label continues to have the great
prestige and quality that we have always known it to have.
I want to salute Mr. Denny Heck. He is just remarkable. In 24 hours,
he had 187 cosponsors of his bill earlier this year. That is so
remarkable. Then in a short time after that, he had even more. Thank
you for all the work that you have done to bring us to today.
To the Republicans who are supporting this, to Mr. Fincher, thank you
for your leadership and your courage to give us this opportunity today.
I want to thank Maxine Waters. This has been a long haul, as many of
you know. Over that period of time, for one reason or another, there
were not hearings in the committee of jurisdiction that could focus on
the advantages of the Ex-Im Bank. So she had roundtable after
roundtable, bringing in experts on what this meant to our economy,
listening to the public, hearing from small businesses about what this
meant to them.
Who would have ever thought that Maxine Waters, the ranking member on
the Financial Services Committee, would be the champion for big-,
moderate-, and small-sized businesses in our company? We would have
thought it, and now the world knows.
So, Maxine, thank you for your perseverance. You really did such a
wonderful job keeping this issue alive. I recognize the great
leadership we have at the Ex-Im Bank with Mr. Hochberg and the others
who were there, the other hardworking people who are there who know
about markets.
This is important because many banks that small businesses might go
to for a loan or loan guarantees, they are not used to dealing with
markets abroad and that is why this is such an important link between
entrepreneurship, creativity, innovation in our country, and how to
expand markets for all of that throughout the world.
So I am really happy. Congratulations to the House of
Representatives. Today, we are creating good-paying jobs. We are
reducing the deficit. We are honoring entrepreneurship, and we are
doing it in a bipartisan way.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The gentleman
from Texas has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from
California has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.
Whip Hoyer has a long record of advocating on behalf of our Nation's
exporters and their workers. With his leadership, we are here today on
the verge of finally passing legislation to reopen the Ex-Im Bank.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I listen to this welfare-state rhetoric. The
American public ought to know that 147 Republicans voted to reauthorize
the Export-Import Bank just a few years ago under the leadership of Mr.
Cantor and myself.
It was not until the ideological--how do I say what has happened in
the House of Representatives--when we retreated from bipartisanship and
working together, we retreated from pragmatism and we repaired to
ideological hideboundness. Those are pretty tough words, I understand
that.
You have 147 Republicans and every Democrat, 330 Members of the House
of Representatives, voting to reauthorize this bill just a few years
ago. This rhetoric that I hear now that somehow this is selling out to
the welfare state is a little difficult for me to believe.
I know it has become an issue for some hardline groups, and this is
not just for big business or medium business or small business. This is
for American jobs, the little people.
Do big people provide jobs for little people? Yes, they do. Do we
want that done? Yes, we do. Should we, therefore, be competitive with
the rest of the world who offers subsidies so their corporations, so
their medium-sized businesses, so their small businesses can create
jobs for people?
Mr. Speaker, 330 of us voted to reauthorize this just 3 years ago,
but we have had some immaculate awareness that this is somehow preening
to the welfare state.
Let us come together as practical people with common sense who want
to be competitive with the rest of the world. Let's pass this bill. The
House is for it. The majority is for it. It has been bottled up, which
has not allowed the majority to work its will.
Today, through the courage of Mr. Lucas, Mr. Fincher, and others, the
majority will work its will. Isn't that wonderful.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Export-Import Bank means jobs in
the United States of America. From 2007 to 2015, in Ohio, it supported
363 exporters, 263 small businesses, and more than $3 billion in value
of Ohio exports. Superior Holdings, First Solar, Port Clinton
Manufacturing, A.J. Rose Manufacturing, and so many other Ohio
companies want to export. They require Ex-Im to do so.
Frankly, in today's world markets, no serious nation can compete
without the Export-Import Bank. More than 50 countries have an Export-
Import Bank: China, Japan, Germany, India, Korea, France, Brazil, and
other competitors.
I support reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank. It means jobs, and it means
business for the USA.

{time} 1545

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, one of America's greatest promises is the
promise that, if you work hard and play fair, your opportunities are
endless. Thousands of business owners throughout this country have
lived by this mantra and sought new opportunities abroad.
When Congress allowed the charter of the Export-Import Bank to expire
over

[[Page H7227]]

the summer, we took away an important tool for American business owners
and their employees. They depend upon it. This is about jobs.
Many small companies throughout my region and in my district have
relied on Ex-Im Bank. I will name one: Number 9 Hay in a small town
called Ellensburg in eastern Washington. A hay company in Ellensburg,
Washington, with the support of Ex-Im Bank, was able to expand its
business, hire employees, and sell in foreign markets. Otherwise not.
This story is a story of success, of jobs for the small hardworking
businesses of America that create 85 percent of our jobs. If we don't
act, businesses of all sizes and the people they employ will be
threatened.
I support this measure.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how
much time we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur).
Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Speaker, before I came here, I spent 30 years in
the private sector and built a business from about 100-odd people to
today about 6,000. I learned that you need capital to grow a business.
The Ex-Im Bank provides just that.
Now, if the private sector could provide that, well, this would be a
different discussion, but the private sector doesn't. The Ex-Im Bank
provides a necessary resource for companies doing business overseas. In
fact, I have had lenders tell me they will not loan if the Ex-Im Bank
is not already involved.
The Ex-Im Bank supported $27.5 billion worth of U.S. exports last
year and 164,000 jobs. To not reauthorize it is to be shortsighted. I
urge my colleagues to remember this is a Republican bill. It deserves
our support.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. The Ex-Im Bank is a critical
resource for Rhode Island manufacturers looking to expand into new
markets.
Over the last 8 years, the Ex-Im Bank has provided more than $20
million to Rhode Island companies for insured shipments, guaranteed
credit, and disbursed loans.
I am pleased that, after 4 months of inaction, the House is finally
voting to reauthorize this critical institution. I thank my colleagues
for their support.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise in support of this
legislation that would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. In my
district alone, the Bank's activities have supported thousands of jobs
and over $600 million in export sales.
The financing provided by the Ex-Im has provided critical support to
a wide array of industries in Pennsylvania, ensuring that products
ranging from major energy components to help LNG exports, to
locomotives, to cement equipment, to computers, to electronics, to
aircraft are able to continue to be manufactured by Pennsylvania
workers.
Developing countries, as we know, don't have very well formed capital
markets, and they need this financing to help them buy American
products. As our sole credit agency, the Bank provides the security
U.S. firms need to access burgeoning markets. It strengthens our trade
balance, and it helps to sustain our global market share. It does all
this while still returning money back to the U.S. Treasury.
Importantly, this bill incorporates essential reforms that will
significantly improve the Bank's risk management and transparency and
provide our small businesses with an even greater share of lending
support.
For those who talk about Ex-Im Bank creating winners and losers, I
would argue that, by letting the Bank's authority lapse, we have indeed
created winners and losers. The losers are now American job creators.
The winners are countries like China, Germany, France, Brazil, and the
U.K. that continue to support their exporters and welcome the
opportunity to increase their market share and domestic manufacturing
base in the absence of U.S. competition.
Let's not unilaterally disarm our ability to assist our exporters.
Let's show the American people that we continue to govern in a
bipartisan and rational manner. Let's pass this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge we support this legislation.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), another important member of the House
Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk so far today
about the Bank, about what the Bank does. We have heard a lot of talk
about small business, a lot of talk about the Bank leveling the playing
field, a lot of talk about the Bank being that lender of last resort
when no one else will step into the breach to help American businesses.
Supposedly, that is what this is all about.
That is not what this is about. We had a discussion in the committee
earlier this year where I actually suggested amendments that would
focus the Export-Import Bank on small business, that would allow the
Export-Import Bank to expand its use as a lender of last resort, but
that would limit the Bank to true uses to level the playing field, when
we really were competing with export credit facilities overseas.
A representative of the United States Chamber of Commerce sat in our
committee and said he would oppose every single one of those
amendments. Small business is not what this is about. Leveling the
playing field is not what this is about. Being a lender of last resort
is not what this is about. This is about doing the bidding of the very,
very large corporations that have a very, very large lobbying presence
in Washington, D.C. That is what this is about. I am just surprised to
see who is for it.
We had a chance to actually fix the Bank. No amendments were allowed
today. We had a chance to actually focus on small business, a chance to
focus on the Bank's role as a lender of last resort, a focus on what
the Bank should be doing.

But we will miss that, Mr. Speaker, because we are doing the bidding
of other folks. Vote as you will, but let's be honest about what this
is and what this is not.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Fincher), my good friend, for his leadership on this bill.
Coming from Illinois' 10th Congressional District, we are the fourth
largest manufacturing district in the Nation. The Export-Import Bank is
a bank that does finance many small businesses. In fact, 86 percent of
the loans that happen in Illinois' 10th Congressional District in the
Export-Import Bank go to small businesses.
Yes, Boeing does utilize the Export-Import Bank, and they say,
whenever a Boeing plane lands, 19,000 small businesses land with them.
There is no question that we talk about jobs and the economy. I hear it
constantly. I know my colleagues do all across this body because I have
had the opportunity to talk to them. They are talking to their
constituents. It is still about jobs and the economy and the
uncertainty that is out there.
I had a conversation with a small-business owner who said, ``You know
what? I can't go to my local community bank and get financing for a
tractor that I want to send over to France or Germany.''
Consequently, if we don't reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, they
are going to take those jobs and they are going to move them overseas.
That is the last thing in the world we want, Mr. Speaker.
We want to talk about good, high-paying jobs right here at home. We
want to talk about manufacturers that have the ability to be able to
create products right here at home, create

[[Page H7228]]

more jobs right here at home, and send those products all over the
world. The Export-Import Bank allows us to do that.
We need to level the playing field and not unilaterally disarm. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Export-Import Bank and
``yes'' to American jobs.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to give my support to this
valiant effort to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank in an effort that I
believe puts first the best interests of American manufacturers,
innovators, and entrepreneurs.
We had a vote this year on the TPA, the trade promotion authority.
Many of my colleagues that are arguing against the Ex-Im Bank
unapologetically stated their intent to give the President new,
expansive authority to export U.S. jobs overseas, this amounting to
millions of jobs sent overseas, all in the name of trade and
globalization.
If you want to talk big business, I ask my friends that are against
the Ex-Im Bank to look at that vote. Many of those in that contingent
who voted for the trade promotion authority--and are going to vote for
the big trade deal we have coming up--are now trying to say there is
something inherently wrong with trying to underwrite U.S. exports
through the Ex-Im Bank, although the vast majority of Bank loans
support small business.
In my district alone, in eastern San Diego, you have nine companies--
no Boeings, no GEs. Over 400 jobs, $60 million in exports, all
underwritten by the Ex-Im Bank.
I have heard a lot of people quoting Ronald Reagan. Here is what he
said about the Ex-Im Bank:
``Exports create and sustain jobs for millions of American workers
and contribute to the growth and strength of the United States economy.
The Export-Import Bank contributes in a significant way to our Nation's
export sales.''
I urge my colleagues to support this effort.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank everybody on both
sides of the aisle for their hard work in getting this very important
thing done.
I flew to Ethiopia about 6 months ago, and I flew on a Boeing
airliner--there is a lot of talk about Boeing here--but I didn't fly on
an Airbus. What that represented to me was a lot of jobs that Boeing
provides to people, but a lot of jobs in my district of small suppliers
that supply to Boeing. I think that is something that has been lost in
this whole debate.
There has been a lot of negativity, a lot of negative talk. I want to
tell you about something positive, and that is the thousands of people
who work in my district who don't have to worry about getting a pink
slip tomorrow or the next day because they know that their
manufacturing job is secure because of our future and our powerful
ability to export around the globe.
While I know this has been a controversial process and I have respect
for everybody on all sides of this issue, I would beg my colleagues,
let's move forward in a bipartisan way. Let's reauthorize Ex-Im Bank,
and let's go ahead and move ahead with the business of the American
people.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to quote
President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1985:
``Why won't the Congress stop its export subsidies to a handful of
corporations which account for less than 2 percent of US exports?''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the Export-Import Bank, which supports hundreds of thousands of
American jobs, returns a profit to the United States Treasury, and
ensures U.S. exporters can compete on a level playing field in the
global market.
I came to Washington as a small-business owner, dedicated to
expanding job opportunities for western New Yorkers. Unfortunately, due
to misinformation and misguided outside interests, Bank opponents have
shut down a government program that directly aids American jobs.
The Export-Import Bank supports thousands of jobs in western New York
and numerous small businesses in the 27th Congressional District. These
companies provide real jobs in western New York, good-paying jobs that
will be lost if the Ex-Im Bank is not reauthorized soon.
The fact is exports drive job growth in the United States. When a
company sells abroad, their employees, suppliers, and communities grow
at home. Reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank is vital for manufacturers of all
sizes to grow and prosper in a competitive world economy. That is why I
fully support reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how
much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 6\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of
my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), a member of the
Committee on Financial Services.
I want to just take time to thank him and Representative Lucas for
their courage and their leadership in making this vote possible today.

{time} 1600

Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
yielding. A lot of times we don't see eye to eye, but we have a fair
and spirited debate. This time we do, and I appreciate her willingness
to support me in this effort.
We have talked a lot today about many different things, but I am
going to end on the note of facts. And so many times in Washington, the
facts get lost.
A few minutes ago, my colleague from Wisconsin, a friend of mine, one
of my colleagues from Wisconsin, who probably will be the next Speaker
of the House, stood up and, really, spoke against our efforts in trying
to save the Export-Import Bank.
I was reminded of just a few years ago, of a couple of very serious
votes that happened in the House: one was the automotive bailout, and
one was TARP.
I have a quote from the gentleman from Wisconsin:

The TARP vote was necessary in order to preserve this free
enterprise system. If we fail to do the right thing, heaven
help us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say, none of us are perfect. I am a long way
from perfect. You ask my wife and she will tell you.
But we are here to make the government work better, make it more
accountable, make it smaller, and make sure the environment in the
country is better for job creation and the job creators to create jobs.
That is what the Export-Import Bank does.
The facts are, it doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime. The facts are, it
returns money to the Treasury every year. The facts are, this is a
Republican reform bill. We are fixing almost everything that has been--
almost every problem that has been raised we are addressing in this
reform bill.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. Eighty years old; 60 other
countries have them. This is about us being competitive all around the
world and making sure that we keep American jobs here at home.
I urge my colleagues today, on both sides of the aisle, let's put
American workers first. Let's make sure that we are working for the
folks back home in our districts. Let's put these politics aside for
today and put the country forward.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We had a rather spirited debate here between those who believe the
Ex-Im Bank is about economic development

[[Page H7229]]

and trade, and those who believe it is about corporate welfare,
cronyism, and an unfair economy.
For those who claim that the Ex-Im Bank creates jobs, the
Congressional Research Service would tend to beg to disagree and citing
economists who say they largely rearrange jobs. We know for a fact they
have rearranged jobs away from Delta because they have said they have
lost jobs when the Ex-Im Bank subsidizes Air India.
Valero Refining, in my native Texas, has said they lose jobs in
America when the Ex-Im Bank will subsidize a Turkish competitor.
Cliffs Natural Resources of Cleveland, Ohio, will say they lose jobs
when the Ex-Im Bank subsidizes an Australian competitor, which has
caused economist Donald Boudreaux to say, at best, the Ex-Im Bank
creates jobs in export industries by destroying jobs in non-export
industries.
How is that fair? How is that fair, Mr. Speaker?
We are told that the Ex-Im Bank makes money for the taxpayers. Well,
yes, if you use special insider Washington accounting rules. But if you
use fair value accounting, something that the rest of America has to
use, the Congressional Budget Office says that it actually loses money,
and in fact, it has received an actual bailout from the Federal
taxpayers before.
We are told they help small business. And you know what? That is true
in a number of cases. But yet two-thirds of the benefits go to Fortune
50 companies like Boeing, like GE. They are great companies with great
people doing great things.
I just wonder why they have to receive taxpayer subsidies?
And 40 percent goes to benefit one company, Boeing; that is why it is
affectionately called the ``Bank of Boeing.''
So I know it helps some small businesses, but other small businesses
aren't too fond of the Ex-Im Bank.
We hear from the chairman of Michael Lewis Company in McCook,
Illinois: ``Over the long run, Ex-Im subsidies for foreign carriers
creates a tilted playing field that means fewer U.S. airlines jobs--
which translates into economic pain for thousands of businesses like
ours and our employees.''
That is the voice of small business.
Chris Rufer, founder of the Morning Star Company: ``When a company
profits from the Bank's support, it pockets the money. If it defaults,
taxpayers' pockets gets picked . . . it is private gain at the expense
of public pain.''
That too, is the voice of small business.
We are told that as long as global competitors do this, well, we have
to do it. I mean, that is an argument I hear from my children:
everybody else is doing it, so we have to do it.
But the truth is, almost two-thirds of the Ex-Im Bank book has
nothing to do with a countervailing duty. And almost 99 percent of all
U.S. exports, Mr. Speaker, are financed without the Ex-Im Bank.
So we need to help our exporters. We need to help our small
businesses. But the way we do that is through expanded trade. It is
through fundamental tax reform that the National Association of
Manufacturers has said is 50 percent of our competitive disadvantage.
Let's make a fairer, flatter, simpler Tax Code. Let's have regulatory
reform with the REINS Act. Let's pass the Keystone pipeline and drive
energy prices down and become more competitive that way.
So the arguments of those who propose to support the Ex-Im Bank--and
these are good people, and I know they believe in their hearts and
heads in what they are doing. But I don't think their arguments bear
scrutiny. They don't stand up to the light of day because the true face
of the Ex-Im Bank is about cronyism. It is about misplaced priorities.
It is about foreign aid. It is about corruption.
Again, this is a bank that benefits a handful of Fortune 50 companies
that lobby and lobby well. Now, I would defend their First Amendment
right to do it. I just wish they would lobby for more competition and
more freedom and not subsidy and special privilege.
We know that so much of this support, Mr. Speaker, ends up in
countries like China and Russia. We asked the chairman of the Export-
Import Bank: So we are supposed to compete with China by subsidizing
China?
And, Mr. Speaker, you know what his answer was? Well, it is
complicated.
No, Mr. Speaker, it is not complicated; it is stupid. It is stupid
for us to subsidize China in the thought that somehow we are going to
compete with China.
Almost $1 billion to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which
Freedom House says is the third worst human rights offender in the
world.
The cronyism, money to Solyndra, money to Enron, $33 million to a
Spanish green energy company that Bill Richardson, former Energy
Secretary, sat on the advisory board of the Ex-Im Bank and then sat on
the advisory board of the Spanish green energy company.

How cozy. The Fannie and Freddie business model.
Corruption, the last 6 years, 75 years total prison time, 90 criminal
indictments, 49 criminal judgments. One employee just recently pleaded
guilty to 19 counts of bribery.
Mr. Speaker, the genius of our system, the fairness of our system is
about the free enterprise system. It is not about crony capitalism.
Your success in America should depend upon how smart you work and how
hard you work on Main Street, not who you know in Washington.
Crony capitalism is a threat to our free enterprise system. This is
America. If you dream big dreams, if you play by the rules, you can
make it on Main Street. But not in this Washington insider economy. And
there is no better poster child of the Washington crony economy and
corporate welfare than the Export-Import Bank.
So I have no doubt that an overwhelming number of Democrats are going
to support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. They are
always happy to allocate credit and our economy as part of a political
process. They are always happy to subsidize corporate America, as long
as they can also regulate and control it. But that is not fair to the
people on Main Street.
It is the free enterprise system which is fair. It is the free
enterprise system which is moral. It is the free enterprise system
which is based on merit. It is the free enterprise system which is
empowering to people. It is the only economic system that frees
ordinary people to achieve extraordinary results.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is all about. It is about a
fair economy for everybody in America: those who can't afford the high-
priced lobbyist in Washington, D.C., and those who want to work hard
and play by the rules.
It is time for us to say ``no'' to crony capitalism, say ``yes'' to
free enterprise, say ``yes'' to a fair economy, and reject the Export-
Import Bank.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. NORTON. I am.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Norton moves to recommit the bill H.R. 597 to the Committee on
Financial Services.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is
withdrawn.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to claim time in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas seek
recognition?

[[Page H7230]]

Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, I wish to seek time in opposition.

Point of Order

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma will state his
point of order.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, in order to seek time in opposition, wouldn't
the gentleman or gentlewoman have to be opposed to the motion to
recommit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Time in opposition is reserved for an
opponent.
Mr. LUCAS. So, Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to reaffirm that
whoever ultimately claims the time is, indeed, in opposition to the
motion to recommit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ascertain that before
granting recognition.
Does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition in opposition to the
motion to recommit?
Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, I have sought time in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Oklahoma, another
valuable member of the House Financial Services Committee, who I know
we are on opposite sides of this issue, if the gentleman would like
time to speak, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield for a brief response?
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to
respond. I think that probably it is better that you finish the
discussion.
Mr. HENSARLING. Okay. The gentleman declines.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to yield back?

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. MULVANEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas yield to the
gentleman from South Carolina?
Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina for
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. MULVANEY. If this is not dilatory, what is the effect of passing
this motion to recommit?
I so often hear the preface, ``This doesn't send it back to
committee; it doesn't kill the bill.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If adopted, the motion would recommit the
bill back to committee.
Mr. MULVANEY. So passing this motion to recommit would send this bill
back to committee?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. MULVANEY. For how long?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion does not put a time limit on the
committee to consider the bill.

{time} 1615

Mr. MULVANEY. Fair enough.
Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. MULVANEY. Does the person offering this motion represent to this
body that they are in favor of this motion in order to qualify?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman qualified by stating her
opposition to the bill.
Mr. MULVANEY. Fair enough.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas may continue.
Mr. HENSARLING. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would say we are having a
debate on the underlying bill that has been vigorously debated on both
sides.
The motion to recommit, if people are genuinely interested in looking
for an opportunity for an amendment process that was denied as the
discharge petition came to the floor.
I have served under many committee chairmen on the Financial Services
Committee. I have never known one to bring a bill through committee
that was not supported by a majority of their members, and I did not
bring this bill because it was not supported by a majority of
Republican members.
I understand the ability to use this discharge petition; and if
people are looking for opportunities to amend, I wish it would have
been done in the discharge petition.
But if it is the will of the House to send this to committee, the
committee has had three different hearings on the Ex-Im Bank already--a
couple of them in conjunction with the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee--and I would be happy to have even more hearings on the
subject and listen to the new points that have been brought about by
this debate.
I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of making another
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. MULVANEY. The reason I am confused is, I do so often hear that
introduction, the MTRs won't kill; it won't send it to committee; it
will proceed immediately forthwith to the House for a vote.
So here is my question on a parliamentary inquiry basis. If the MTR
is passed, I understand from your previous ruling that the bill goes
back to committee. Is it amendable in committee? Or does it immediately
return forthwith to the House for a vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill would return to the committee for
its consideration.
Mr. MULVANEY. And the committee has full control over that piece of
legislation?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The committee would have the bill before it
again.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the gentleman from
South Carolina making his parliamentary inquiries. I think it has
helped clarify the matter.
At this point, if it is the will of the House to send this back to
committee, I look forward to the vote and would be very happy to
reconsider this in committee.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
I wish the Chair would clarify that there will be a vote taken on the
motion to recommit and that, should that fail, this will not go back to
the committee under any circumstances. Is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the motion is not adopted, the bill will
not return to committee.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Well, if I may, you just said what I
said in reverse. And I just wanted it to be clear.
As the chairman of the committee tried to state that he would be
willing to hold hearings and do what he has not done as we have tried
to consider this, that if, in fact, this body does not support it going
back to committee, he has no opportunity to try to do what he has not
done in the process. Is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the motion is not adopted, the Chair
plans to proceed. The next step would be the question of passage of the
bill.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes 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 and the
order of the House of today, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.

Vacating Demand for Yeas and Nays on Motion to Recommit

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
request for the yeas and nays on the motion to recommit to the end that
the motion stand disposed of by the voice vote thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the ordering of the yeas
and nays is vacated, and pursuant to the earlier vote by voice, the
motion is not adopted.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.

[[Page H7231]]

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. 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.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. HENSARLING. Since I withdrew the request for the yeas and nays on
the motion to recommit, then would it be possible for the ranking
member, the gentlewoman from California, to withdraw her request for
the yeas and nays on the underlying bill, should she so choose?
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, that is wishful
thinking on the part of the chairman. I will not.

____________________