[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16575-16589]
[From the U.S. 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--
       ``(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

[[Page 16576]]

     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.

                 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

[[Page 16577]]

     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 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

[[Page 16578]]

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.
  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

[[Page 16579]]

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.''
  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.

[[Page 16580]]

  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. 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 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican majority 
leader.

[[Page 16581]]


  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.

[[Page 16582]]

  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 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.

[[Page 16583]]

  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.
  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. 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

[[Page 16584]]

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.
  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

[[Page 16585]]

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 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

[[Page 16586]]

(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 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

[[Page 16587]]

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 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.

[[Page 16588]]

  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?
  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.

[[Page 16589]]

  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.
  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.

                          ____________________