Protecting American Jobs and Exports Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 722 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for fiscal year 2015. The rule is a structured rule which provides for the consideration of a short-term continuing resolution keeping the government funded until December 11, 2014.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the adoption of a technical amendment by Chairman Rogers and makes in order an amendment by Chairman McKeon. That amendment provides the authority for the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or individuals.

For this amendment, the rule provides 6 hours of debate equally divided between Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule corrects a technical error and puts in place the base rules of the House regarding media access to the hearings and meetings of the Benghazi Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend Chairman Rogers for bringing a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the House. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is frustrating that we are forced into acting on a short-term continuing resolution when we spent much of this year, both in committee and on the floor, updating congressional funding priorities for fiscal year 2015.

This House has done its work. I wish I could say the same for the other body. While the Senate has chosen not to pass even one appropriations bill on the floor, this House has passed seven.

While the Senate Appropriations Committee has passed eight of the 12 appropriations bills out of committee, the House Appropriations Committee has approved all but one. If the Senate would work with us, I believe we could pass all of our bills on time.

The CR we are considering today is a clean bill continuing the funding of government operations at last year's levels. It includes only 36 so-called anomalies all within the total level of funding.

These changes are necessary to address current immediate needs like addressing the Ebola crisis, funding programs to counter regional aggression toward Ukraine and other former Soviet Union countries, and funding to ensure appropriate treatment of veterans and continued oversight of the VA.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill extends the Export-Import Bank through June 30, 2015. I know some of my friends will disagree with me; however, I believe the Export-Import Bank provides a vital service. In an era when foreign governments are directly subsidizing industries, our companies are in need of a level playing field. I believe the Export-Import Bank does that.

In my home State of Oklahoma, since 2007, financing provided by the Export-Import Bank has supported over $1.1 billion in sales by U.S. companies that would not have existed otherwise; in addition, the Export-Import Bank has returned over $2.6 billion to the United States Treasury since 2008.

Finally, and most significantly, the McKeon amendment would provide the President with the authority he has requested to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. The amendment ensures congressional oversight by requiring detailed progress reports on a plan, a vetting process, and procedures for monitoring unauthorized end use of provided training and equipment. It would also require the President to report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy.

Mr. Speaker, when we look back on what brought us to this point, there are at least three significant failures that we can point to: first, former Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki was given the opportunity to create a multiethnic, multisectarian, inclusive State of Iraq, but, instead, he squandered it; secondly, President Obama didn't insist forcefully enough to keep a residual American presence in Iraq; and, third, Mr. Speaker, when ISIL expanded out of Syria and into Iraq, both Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Obama were slow to respond.

When Ramadi and Fallujah fell to ISIL, their indecisive leadership allowed and encouraged this terrorist organization to assert itself in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, the salient discussion is not about the past and how we got here but about the future and what we must do now.

I agree with the President that ISIL represents a clear and present danger

that must be dealt with, confronted, and destroyed. I am willing to give the President the authority and the funds needed to accomplish this mission. This amendment gives the President what he has requested while maintaining an appropriate role for Congress, but I do disagree with the President on several important issues.

I don't believe that he has the inherent authority to use military force in Syria, and nothing in this amendment authorizes him to do so.

I believe that going to war on the authorizations that were passed in 2001 and 2002, which dealt with very different times, places, and peoples, is shaky, at best. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a vast majority of my colleagues, including myself, were not even here in Congress when those authorizations were approved.

When we return in November, I hope that we repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations and replace them with ones that reflect the views of this Congress not the Congress of the last decade.

Additionally, I disagree with the President's choice of tactics. Regardless of whether he intends to use them or not, I believe the President was far too quick to rule out options and tools that he, in fact, may need later. War is the most unpredictable of all human enterprises. History shows that it is vital for a commander to maintain as much flexibility as possible.

I also do not believe that the authority and resources the President has requested will be nearly enough to achieve the mission he has outlined. It is going to take far more from our country, our allies, and our friends on the ground to destroy ISIL than envisioned in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the President can succeed in the effort to destroy ISIL without bipartisan, popular support, and I hope he will take this opportunity to build on that. We are not Republicans or Democrats in war, but Americans first. The Commander in Chief has asked for our support in the underlying legislation. He should get it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I am going to disagree with my friend about who has and who hasn't done their job and who has been open and who hasn't been open in terms of how they have operated on the floor.

The reality is this House majority has repeatedly brought appropriations bills to the floor and moved them across the floor. Unfortunately, our counterparts and the Democratic majority in the Senate have not been able to do that for whatever reason. It's a little hard to have an appropriations process when the United States Senate will not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor largely because the majority on that side is evidently afraid of voting on any sort of amendments to an appropriations bill.

Now, if you actually look at the record in terms of who has been open and who hasn't, I remind my friends that the Democrats' 2006 manifesto, ``A New Direction for America,'' states:

Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure

that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.

The fact remains that when Democrats took control of the House they did just the opposite. Throughout the 111th Congress, in the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of a closed process.

On the contrary, under Republican control, the House has returned to consideration of appropriation bills under an open process, with 22 open rules. This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments during the appropriations process, 189 of which were offered by our Democratic colleagues. Contrast that to the United States Senate, where that process has not happened at all.

When you compare the record of the Republican majority to the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis will show Republicans are running a much more open, transparent House of Representatives.

Let me also, if I may, Mr. Speaker, turn to the issue of the Benghazi Select Committee. I know that has caused considerable concern, I think, largely based on misunderstanding.

Clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, which applies to all standing committees and the select committees, mandates that the meetings of the select committee be open to the public, including the press, unless there is a vote conducted in open session to close such a meeting. The rule today only ensures that the logistics for media covering the hearing follow the standing rules of the House. There is no change to the rules governing public access to the meetings of the select committee.

Might I, just for the Record, Mr. Speaker, actually read the relevant portion of the rules here--``(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(12) of clause 4 of Rule XI shall be considered to be written rules adopted by the select committee as though pursuant to such clause''--essentially applying to the select committee our own rules. That is the only thing that is being done here. It is a technical amendment, certainly no effort to short-circuit the process or make it less transparent.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to respectfully, once again, disagree with my friend from New York on the appropriations process. The reality is we have brought bill after bill to this floor. Every Member has had the opportunity to offer any amendment on seven different bills and to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on their final disposition. The Senate hasn't brought any. And, frankly, at some point the Senate's failure to do its job begins to impact our ability to do ours, because it is very difficult to get time on the floor and use it knowing there is not anything going on on the other side. And that is just the reality of it.

So, if my friends can talk the Senate into beginning to move, I think they would actually find the House, which is already far ahead of them, would continue to work with them and we would actually begin to pass bills. But until the Senate will bring a bill to the floor of any kind for an appropriation, very difficult for us to get our work done over here.

Now I want to address myself, if I may, to my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern. There is much in what he says that I agree with. Frankly, I think he is correct when he says that we need at some point a full authorization, a full debate, full discussion. He is absolutely right, and I want to commend him for the action he took in his amendment on Iraq in July that we voted on. I was very happy to vote it. So I think, in substance, I find very little to disagree with in what my friend has to say. I do point out a couple of things, though.

First, and I think my friend is aware of it, the Speaker has actually taken the position that we need a full authorization debate and discussion. And I am told that he conveyed that to the President and actually said he thought this institution, our country, which I know is what we care about supremely, and the President himself would be better off under such discussion. That is a viewpoint that I agree with, and I think many Members on both sides of the aisle and with both points of view on the issue also hold that opinion. So this is actually a decision that has been largely made, in a sense, by the President.

We are trying to respond in a short period of time to what the President has asked us to do, and I think that is an important point to remember in this. This is not a fight on this floor between Democrats and Republicans or even for proponents. I think it is, at another level, a difference in perception about what authority the President has, his view versus probably Congress' view on a bipartisan basis.

I think it is a challenge in terms of timing. It is extremely difficult for the leaders of either Chamber to look like they are undercutting the President at a time of danger and when he has come with this request. We have set 6 hours of debate aside for a reason. If you will remember, the President's original request was simply to drop this measure in the continuing resolution and have no vote and no discussion at all. It was actually our side and your side that insisted that it be pulled out and that a vote and discussion occur. When we come back--again, I share my friend's opinion--I would be prepared to do it before the election. I see no particular need in waiting, but I don't get to make that decision.

At the end of the day, we are giving the Commander in Chief what he is asking for. I think we are trying to be both responsible and helpful. We have actually curtailed considerably what the President asked for. We noted specifically that this does not authorize the use of military force in Syria. We have required reviews. I suspect we will be revisiting this issue again--I certainly would hope so--and I look forward to working with my friend to make sure that we do.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend.

In reclaiming my time, if I may, I don't presume to speak for the Speaker. I know that we have this vote largely because the Speaker wanted to make sure that we had a vote, and I know the request that he made of the President. Look, I am not condemning the President on this either. I understand all Executives try to tell you they have the authority to do everything they want. Ours do when we have a Republican, and Democrats do.

All I can say is, at the end of the day, I think we have a robust debate, and we have an opportunity to register opinion. But I want to continue to work with my friend and make sure that we have precisely the kind of debate and discussion and vote that his own amendment in July actually envisioned, because I think my friend is correct. I think this is an issue of constitutional propriety, and I think it is an issue, ultimately, of war and peace, and I think we ought to all vote on it. I would be happy if we did it before the election, but I will work with my friend to make sure that we do it as quickly as possible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my good friend, a fellow member of the Appropriations Committee and a fellow subcommittee chairman.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just wanted to quickly note that I actually agree with a very good deal of what my friend from Texas has to say.

I do want to correct him on one item. The amendment we are talking about is not like the authorizations of 2001 and 2002, mostly because it is very finely tailored to limit the executive branch.

It actually runs out on December 11 or earlier if we actually pass a National Defense Authorization Act and deal with the Syrian issue in that context; so it is very limited in terms of time, very limited in terms of scope. It explicitly states that it does not authorize military action in Syria.

With all due respect, I would suggest that most of my friend's disagreements are with this administration. They are largely disagreements with the President. The Speaker is doing what he can to provide an opportunity for us to debate and express that in the continuing resolution, and I will work with my friend from Texas to make sure that we have a fuller, more robust debate because I think the country deserves that, and I think my friend is right to demand it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my friend from Washington for his kind words. I couldn't agree more with him about the Export-Import Bank. I think it is a very important institution that ought to be reauthorized, and I intend to work with my friend to make sure that happens when the time comes.

I don't think, as a rule, reauthorization in a continuing resolution is a good idea. I think it is much more appropriate, particularly for a matter this controversial and this serious--and, again, I agree with the substance of what my friend says--that we go through a normal committee process and that we come to the floor and have a full debate. I don't think this is the appropriate vehicle for that.

While I look forward to working with my friend on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, I doubt that it is going to happen in this particular vehicle so, hopefully, in the new Congress, as we make persuasive arguments, as my friend has advanced, we will find that we get the broad bipartisan support we need to do that reauthorization.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I do want to revisit, in closing, this issue of appropriations and openness, and I want to remind my friends on the other side of some recent history.

In 2010, when my Democratic colleagues controlled the House, they only considered two appropriations bills. At that time, by the way, they also had control of the Senate. I presume it would have been easier for them to have cooperated with a Democratic Senate than for us, but perhaps not because they only got two appropriations bills done the last year they were in the majority.

My colleagues deviated from the longstanding practice of open rules for appropriations bills by making in order only 40 amendments that year. You heard that correctly. Democrats considered two of 12 bills, with only 40 amendments made in order.

This year, Republicans have considered seven of 12 bills, considering 404 amendments, 189 of them which were offered by my Democratic colleagues. I will let the American people decide who has the better record on actually bringing appropriations bills to the floor and opening them up for full consideration by this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of those who spoke today for the sincerity and the thoughtfulness of the debate. I particularly know that we probably find ourselves on common ground in wanting to make sure the government doesn't shut down, pass a continuing resolution.

It is interesting to me that that was not the subject of a great deal of contention; so I would hope that is something that brings us together. It is something that, certainly, the Speaker wants to accomplish, but the President and the majority leader want to accomplish that as well. Surely, we can find a bipartisan amendment for that.

Obviously, the great issue of the day and this week is going to be this discussion over the Syrian matter, and, again, I want to congratulate my colleagues for the seriousness with which they are approaching this.

I think we have all learned some very hard lessons in the last 13 years, and I am pleased that the amendment that would bring to the floor--an amendment, by the way, the President didn't particularly want.

I would recall for the Record that the President wanted this authorization for active title 10 authority for him to train Syrians to simply be dropped into the continuing resolution. It was the Speaker with the support of the Democratic leadership as well that wanted to make sure that we had a separate vote and discussion on this issue. I think that is a very good thing.

Now, I agree with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I would prefer a much more robust and fuller discussion, and I hope we reach that point. I think that is exactly the course that the Speaker recommended to the President.

He said:

I think the institution that I preside over will be better

served, I think you will be better served, and I think the

country will be better served if we have that debate.

I know the Speaker made every effort to get to that point. Others have a different point of view. I respect the President. Like most Chief Executives, he has had to take some very expansive views of his authority under the Constitution.

I recognize some people, frankly, are concerned about having this vote ahead of an election. Personally, I would prefer to do it ahead of an election, but I don't get to make those decisions, and I think the Speaker has done the best that he can do in reconciling all the conflicting opinions between the Senate, the House, and the executive branch and has managed to bring us at least something that is a serious debate and will be taken seriously by the country; moreover, I am particularly pleased that my chairman, Mr. Sessions, on the Rules Committee made sure that we will have not a cursory debate but 6 hours of debate.

If any Member wants to voice their opinion, 6 hours is an awful lot of time. I suspect they are going to have the opportunity to come down here and do that, and I hope they will.

I think what we are going to see is probably a bipartisan opposition to the amendment and bipartisan support. Frankly, in issues of war and peace, that is probably the better way for us to proceed; so I think it is a challenging situation. I think all concerned are trying to work together and do the right thing and to present clarity.

I just want to go on record once again, personally, as hoping that as soon as possible that we come back--the President asked for broad authority--that we repeal the '01 and '02 resolution, something the President has asked us to do himself before, and work together and present a more precisely defined and limited resolution that gives him the authority to act robustly in the defense of our country, to punish people who commit the barbarous acts that we have seen in recent weeks, and to do the things that are necessary with the full bipartisan support of Congress to secure the security of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution upholds the primary responsibility the American people have sent us here to do, ensuring the continued funding of the government. While not my first choice, passage of a continuing resolution is better than any of the alternatives; additionally, it provides the President the additional authority he has requested to degrade and destroy ISIL.

I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the excellent Representative of Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when James Madison declared the Congress' ``power over the purse'' in the Federalist Papers as the most ``complete and effectual weapon,'' he warned of ``dishonorable stagnation.'' I fear we have achieved that. Rather than doing the hard work of coming up with long-term fiscal solutions for our Nation, we have resorted, once again, to short-term measures.

In the 4 years since Republicans took control of the House, not a single regular appropriations bill has been signed into law; instead, we have had manufactured crises, brinksmanship, fiscal cliffs, near defaults on the national debt, massive omnibus bills, and government shutdowns.

This continuing resolution may avert a national crisis in the short term by funding the government until December 11 of this year, but it is further demonstration the House majority has failed to do their most basic job.

They have been so obsessed with suing the President, investigating the nonexistent scandal in Benghazi, and holding more than 50 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act that they have not done the routine work of Congress, funding the government. It is clear that under the current House majority our ``power of the purse'' has turned into ``dishonorable stagnation.''

Not only has the House majority found new ways to procrastinate on finding long-term solutions, they insist on passing the most closed rules in a single Congress ever; in fact, just last week, they celebrated the 75th closed rule, which makes this their diamond jubilee. They continue to pass closed rules which stifle debate and impedes the work of this Chamber.

Through this tactic, half of the country's Representatives have been silenced by the House majority. Even though Democrats received over a million more votes than Republicans did in the 2012 election, we are shut out. Our Nation's districts have been so gerrymandered, our representative democracy has been skewed beyond recognition.

I also oppose the inclusion of section 2 in the continuing resolution. That provision, which further excuses the Select Committee on Benghazi from adopting written rules to govern its work, does not belong in a rule for a must-pass funding bill; rather, the Benghazi Select Committee, just like every other committee of the House, should be required to meet, debate, and vote in open session on its basic rules and procedures that will govern its work.

The House majority previously tried to free the Benghazi Select Committee from this responsibility when it passed H. Res. 567 and established the committee last May. Four months later, they have realized on the eve of the select committee's first hearing that H. Res. 567 was not adequate; and so they inserted at the last minute a provision that, rather ironically, now excuses the select committee from the express requirement contained in clause 4 of rule XI for committees to adopt written rules to assure that meetings open to the public may be covered by audiovisual which means ``in conformity with acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, and decorum.''

When H. Res. 567 was brought to the floor for a vote in May, 186 Democrats voted against it. Let me reiterate that what this bill was doing is excusing the Benghazi Select Committee from having written rules like every other committee of the House is required to do. Not a single Republican joined us in voting against what we normally do.

Many of us objected to the creation of the Benghazi Select Committee in the first place as an unnecessary and partisan pursuit. Seven different congressional committees issued nine separate reports that answer the key questions about what went wrong in Benghazi.

Many of us believe that, to the extent any legitimate questions remain, the standing committees of jurisdiction along with Select Committees on Intelligence are fully capable of addressing those and overseeing the implementation of the needed reforms. It is unfortunate that not everyone seems to have the same confidence in the work of their colleagues.

We also objected because H. Res. 567 skews the process by failing to equalize majority and minority representation and resources and by seeking to excuse the select committee from following the basic requirements that apply to other committees of the House.

Basically, that says that we on the minority side have been shut out again. No guarantees and no discussion at all of fairness or openness either in resources, ability to see documents, or to call for witnesses.

I offered an amendment to address many of these concerns, but the effort failed. After much debate about whether even to participate in the select committee's work, Democrat members of the House ultimately agreed to do so in the hope that Republicans would fulfill their promises of a bipartisan, fair, and transparent process.

Just as we were guaranteed an open process at the beginning of the term, we have been had yet once again.

Inserting a last-minute provision in the rule on this must-pass funding bill will allow a select committee to avoid negotiating over or adopting the basic rules and procedures, and it does not honor the promise of openness. It will not win the public's trust. You cannot continually shut out half the Congress.

The Benghazi Select Committee, like every other committee in the House, should be required to meet, debate, and vote in open session on the ground rules that will govern its investigation. What the CR does is fund the government, and the rule for it should not be a means for the House majority to change language governing the highly political Benghazi Select Committee.

Programs and services all over the country cannot continue to run, as we are going to be asking them to do, on a month-to-month basis. They need certainty and reliability, which they clearly aren't getting.

Instead of investing in emerging technologies or medical research, of which we used to be at the forefront, the majority lurches from stopgap to stopgap, and now that strategy has caught up with us. Running the United States Government in 3-month tranches is a true recipe for disaster.

The CR does extend funding for operations of all Federal agencies, programs, and services until December 11

of this year and provides funding at the current annual rate of just over $1 trillion. However, it does include changes to existing law that are needed to prevent catastrophic, irreversible, or detrimental changes to government programs, specifically to address current national or global crises.

Regarding Ukraine, the CR continues the current flexibility with the State Department and USAID to respond to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Congress and the United States must continue to support the Ukrainian people in their fight for a free and democratic country. It is with some delight that we welcome Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to our Chamber later this week.

The CR also increases funding to address the disability claims backlog at the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as to investigate claims about medical care. We all agree that when our troops come home they deserve the best medical care, and this increase in funding will help to ensure that we provide just that.

Finally, regarding our involvement in confronting the rising threat to the Islamic State, or ISIL, while I am disappointed in the process that led to the continuing resolution, I do agree the House must debate at least one portion of the President's plan. We as Representatives need to debate if or how we arm rebel forces in Syria as well as other tactics in the broader effort. However, I have deep concerns about the ever-louder drumbeat toward war.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan claimed the lives of 6,640 of our men and women in uniform and critically wounded 50,450--50,450 come home to an already stressed VA system that cannot adequately care for them. The true cost of a war is not just in dollars, but in lives taken and destroyed, and I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the path before us.

Mr. Speaker, with this continuing resolution, we have an opportunity to avoid a short-term crisis, but if we continue to postpone the fundamental work of Congress, the Nation's economy will be at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I know we have had this debate before and this discussion before, blaming everything on the Senate, but the fact is we have not done our job here in the House.

There were several appropriations bills that had committee approval, but none of us ever had the chance to vote for them. They were never brought to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds because I can't resist it, although I am so fond of Mr. Cole, but we can't really blame it on the Senate that we have not done our work over here.

The House was able to find the time to vote 55 times to kill the health care bill, which is providing health insurance for 8 million Americans who didn't have it before. For goodness shakes, we could do that once a week, but we couldn't do the appropriations bills.

Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that makes two changes: first, it would strike a special waiver for the Benghazi Select Committee that lets them avoid the transparent and deliberative process of debating and voting on their own written rules for media access, which every other committee has to do; second, we would bring up the bill introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 7 years, bringing certainty and stability to an agency that helps to create jobs in the United States.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the majority's insistence on brinkmanship and short-term solutions threatens the Nation's economy, and regular appropriations bills have been replaced with fiscal cliffs, temporary stopgap measures, massive omnibus bills, and government shutdowns.

It is far past time that this Chamber's majority party does the good work of government and works to provide stability to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, today we have Democrats on the Financial Services Committee here where we have gathered on the House floor to talk about the Export-Import Bank, which supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and levels the playing field so that American businesses, large and small, can compete successfully in the global markets.

Tomorrow, Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership will leave town for a 5-week congressional recess, and legislation to renew the Export-Import Bank hasn't even seen a vote in our committee. When we return in September, there will be just 10 legislative days to renew the bank before its charter lapses on September 30.

This ideological push to abolish the Ex-Im Bank is an irrational crusade to destroy an agency that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and propels economic recovery without costing taxpayers a dime. The result could be the end of an institution that, over the past 5 years, has supported 1.2 million private sector American jobs, and over 200,000 jobs last year alone.

Additionally, the Ex-Im Bank reduced our deficit by returning over $1 billion to taxpayers last year alone through interest and fees. Still, critics of the bank say it is a risk to taxpayers, that it picks winners and losers, and that it interferes in the free market and, therefore, creates a less efficient economy. For all of those reasons, it should be abolished, they say.

But first, let me say, this notion that there is such a thing as pure free enterprise, that if left to its own devices would flourish with total efficiency and self-discipline and allocate resources and spread risk in such a way that accrues to the benefit of everyone in society, this notion of just pure free enterprise simply doesn't exist.

In fact, I thought one of the lessons we learned from the recent financial crisis is that markets must be embedded in systems of governance. The idea that markets are self-correcting, many of us thought, had received a mortal blow.

Regardless of the outcome, Republicans have already created uncertainty for thousands of American companies trying to compete against businesses in China, Korea, and across Europe, all of which have their own version of the Ex-Im Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter from Mr. Steve Wilburn, who is the CEO of the

green energy company FirmGreen, who lost $57 million in contracts because of uncertainty surrounding the future of the Ex-Im Bank.

At this time, and before us sharing this information with you, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I will read into the Record a letter from Steve Wilburn, CEO of the green energy company FirmGreen, who lost a $57 million contract because of uncertainty surrounding the future of the Ex-Im Bank. I will read you excerpts from his letter.

Mr. Wilburn attended the Ex-Im Bank panel I organized in April, and last month we invited him back to be one of our Democratic witnesses at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on the Ex-Im Bank. He is among the best witnesses we have ever had at a hearing.

In his letter, Mr. Wilburn explains that FirmGreen's export potential has been directly affected by the uncertainty of reauthorization of Ex- Im Bank U.S. and the aggressive financial terms offered by the Korean Ex-Im Bank.

Attached to his letter is another letter from a company in the Philippines, Green Energy Solutions, informing him that his business lost a $57 million contract. The letter begins: ``Dear Mr. Wilburn, in view of the uncertainty of the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank and project finance structure you proposed have become problematic. We have made the decision in May, this year not to proceed with your project offering.''

Mr. Wilburn goes on to say: ``In summation, as a combat-decorated veteran, small business owner, job creator, exporter, and concerned citizen, I believe we should not unilaterally disarm and abandon the very governmental agency that allows U.S. manufacturers and other U.S. exporters to fairly compete on the world's trading stage.''

Mr. Speaker and Members, the main criticism of the bank that I would like to discuss right now is the assertion that the bank is the embodiment of corporate welfare, benefiting a handful of large companies, which they claim represents crony capitalism.

Last April, I held a panel on the Ex-Im Bank which included a number of small business owners from across the country. They came here to Washington to discuss their work with the bank and how the bank helped their companies compete in the global marketplace. Every one of those panel members were extraordinarily decent people, hardworking business owners who create jobs and pay taxes and have families and a civic sense of duty. And this is why I am so offended by this label of ``crony capitalists'' that critics like to attach to users of the bank.

Those of us who know what it is like to live behind a label understand how they work. Once you are able to put a label on something or to someone and it sticks, then you could be done with them. And if enough people can be convinced that customers of the Ex-Im Bank are crony capitalists, well, there is nothing left to do but get rid of them.

It is so important to note that while a good amount of the bank's support goes to large companies, the vast majority of Ex-Im transactions--nearly 90 percent--help small businesses. In fact, if the Ex-Im Bank were abolished today, it would affect small- and medium- sized businesses just as much, or more, as large exporters--perhaps more, given the distinct challenges and risks small businesses face when looking to export.

Moreover, large U.S. exporters that benefit from high dollar values of Ex-Im financing also have large domestic supply chains which consists largely of small- and medium-sized businesses that benefit indirectly but in very important ways from Ex-Im support.

At a later time, I will be entering into the Record excerpts from Brek Manufacturing and Hansen Engineering.

This letter is from Mr. Greg Lay, vice president of Hansen Engineering. I will read this letter first from Hansen Engineering:

Hansen Engineering company is one of many small businesses

in the South Bay area of Los Angeles, California, that is

dependent on Boeing contracts to support the business. Ninety

percent of our contracts support Boeing aircraft, either

directly or indirectly, through our prime aerospace companies

throughout the world. My company staffs approximately 60

employees who live in the South Bay and surrounding areas and

depend upon the support of Boeing for the well-being of their

families.

Without the reauthorization of Ex-Im Bank, it would be

impossible for us to have a big impact on the health of our

businesses and its employees and their families.

Next we have a letter from Brek Manufacturing:

Brek Manufacturing company is a small business in

California with 170 employees who have a critical interest in

foreign sales of Boeing commercial aircraft. The Export-

Import Bank plays an important role as an intermediary in the

sale of these aircraft.

This letter is to express our support for the Ex-Im Bank,

as it is key to securing additional sales of Boeing

commercial aircraft.

He goes on to say:

Our representatives who support the military should also be

concerned with the Ex-Im Bank because of the role it plays in

supporting jobs and companies like ours, both large and small

across the country.

He further states:

We supply critical aircraft structural components which are

key to successful, safe air transport and air defense. There

are many others like us who represent thousands of high-

skilled and well-paying positions with good benefits.

Please express our support for the Ex-Im Bank to your

colleagues. We are counting on them to do the right thing and

support American manufacturing jobs.

At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) who is a leader with the bill that would reauthorize the Ex- Im Bank, if we could get the support from the opposite side of the aisle that we need.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), and I thank him for the leadership and the support that he has shown for the Export-Import Bank.

Mr. Speaker, Members, you have heard about businesses in any number of districts that receive the support from the Ex-Im Bank.

I would like to read to you excerpts from a letter from Chairman Hensarling's district. This is from Fritz-Pak, and this letter is about how the Ex-Im Bank helped save his business.

His name is Gabriel Ojeda, president of Fritz-Pak Corporation, and this is the excerpt I would like to read:

During the past 5 years, we have grown our international

sales from 15 percent to over 35 percent of our business. We

now have major trading partners in over 30 different

countries, including Brazil, Russia, India, and Taiwan. Most

recently, we exhibited our products at Bauma International

Trade Fair in Munich, Germany.

So what is Fritz-Pak Corporation today? We are an American

manufacturer of the best concrete admixtures in the world,

and we sell them as far as Yellowknife, Canada, and as far

south as Wellington, New Zealand. We may be small, but we

think big. In an age where everything seems to be made

someplace else, we are thriving here in the USA and in no

small part due to the services provided by Ex-Im Bank.

Lastly, I would like to read excerpts from Mr. Mike Boyle of BES&T in New Hampshire. The CEO and president of BES&T is Mr. Michael Boyle, and he sent us a very good letter last week.

Mr. Speaker, at a later time, we will enter into the Record these letters that we are not able to read this evening. I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the ranking member of the committee very much.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer four elegant, simple, straightforward reasons why it is so critically important that the U.S. Congress reauthorize the Export-Import Bank prior to its expiration on October 1, and they are simply as follows: the Export-Import Bank creates jobs; it helps small businesses; it promotes fiscal responsibility; and it advances economic growth.

With respect to jobs, it has already been cited that in the last 5 years alone, the Export-Import Bank is responsible for the creation of over a million jobs, 205,000 jobs in just the last year.

But here is what has not been said: export-related jobs in America pay 13 to 18 percent more than non-export jobs. So it doesn't just create jobs; it creates good jobs. And it helps small businesses. Nearly 90 percent of all transactions of the Export-Import Bank are with small businesses. And to put a fine point on that, last year, it was 3,413 small businesses, businesses like Pexco in Fife, Washington, which makes traffic signs to promote safety during construction. Pexco recently sold $125,000--a small order by any measure--to the Netherlands, I think it was. Only one entity would guarantee payment because no one else could collect across international borders. And that entity, of course, was the Export-Import Bank.

Stac, another veteran-owned business in Sumner, Washington, with eight employees, they do exporting. They are going to hire three new employees on the basis of their international sales. But do you know what is incredibly frustrating for somebody who comes from the private sector? It is, frankly, the woeful deficiency in understanding, because the small business support that the Export-Import Bank provides does not stop with direct loans and loan guarantees to small businesses because big businesses buy goods and services from small businesses as well.

The greatest airplane maker in the world, Boeing airplanes, uses 15,000 businesses in their supply chain, and 6,600 of them are small businesses.

I was recently on an Alaska flight from Sea-Tac to National Airport in Washington, D.C., and a friend of mine named Eric Hahn, who works at General Plastics in south Takoma, was sitting a couple seats behind me. As everybody was gathering on the plane and shoving their luggage up above and getting seated, Eric jumped up, and he said, ``Denny, do you see this? Do you see this?'' And he was pointing at the plastic between the two overhead bins. He said, ``We made that. We made that.'' General Plastics has 185 employees, another small business.

The Export-Import Bank promotes fiscal responsibility. It has been more than a generation since there was any red penny supporting or subsidizing the Export-Import Bank, in the wake of reforms adopted during the Reagan years. Indeed, last October, more than $1 billion transferred to the U.S. Treasury. If we deauthorize the Export-Import Bank, our deficit is going up. Who wants that to happen? And finally, the Export-Import Bank promotes economic growth.

Let me give you a series of facts. We cannot change these facts by wishing them away. Fact number one: 95 percent of the consumers in the world live outside our borders--95 percent-plus, actually. Another fact: since 1980, global trade has increased something like fivefold-- fivefold. And let me give you another fact: if we in America want to keep our middle class, we had better learn how to sell to the growing middle class throughout the world. And the Export-Import Bank is an outstanding tool to do that.

You know, America's economy is projected to grow by only about 2.4 percent a year over the next 10 years. And do you know what the shame of that is? The shame of that is, it is not fast enough to absorb even the kids coming out of high schools and postsecondary education and colleges. We simply have to grow this economy faster. And there is no better way than to participate in the exploding global economy.

Every developed nation on the face of the planet has an export credit authority. And, in fact, about 60 in all, theirs are larger than ours either in absolute dollars or in terms of a percentage of their gross domestic product. Why? Why would we unilaterally disarm? Why would we unilaterally disarm?

Finally, let me say this. Right now, tonight, as we sit, as we speak, the people of China are pouring billions of dollars into the development of a commercial aircraft. They call it the C-919. They say it will be available for sale within 2 years. Frankly, I think it is going to be longer than that. It will be 3 or 4 or 5 years. But whenever it is, they are going to create even more fierce competition for an industry that is a bulwark of America's manufacturing base, a bulwark. And what about China's export credit authority? It is six times larger in absolute dollars than America's. And as a percentage of GDP, it is 35 times larger.

So I ask the Members of the House, let us not wake up 63 days from now with no export credit authority. This is the 16th time, by my count, we have reauthorized the bank. Almost every time by virtually unanimous support. And there are more than 300 votes on this floor to pass it, if they will bring it to a vote.

In the name of jobs, in the name of small businesses, in the name of fiscal responsibility, and in the name of economic growth, let us reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

I thank you, Madam Ranking Member of the full committee. I am exceedingly proud to be a part of this effort. And I want to you know that when we succeed, it will be due in no small part to the energy that you have provided to help us get this legislation through.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) for H.R. 4950, an outstanding piece of legislation. It extends the Export-Import Bank for 7 years, and it will increase the cap to $175 billion. I think it is an outstanding piece of legislation. And, of course, I am one of the persons who is supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by indicating that the Export-Import Bank is not one of the too big to fail institutions. It wasn't involved in the credit default swaps. It wasn't involved with derivatives. It wasn't involved with no-doc loans. It wasn't involved in all of these exotic products that nearly caused the collapse of the economy.

If the truth be told, the Export-Import Bank was one of the reasons why the economy was able to survive. It has been thriving. It has done well. It pays for itself by virtue of the loans that it makes, by virtue of the fees that it collects, by virtue of the products that it insures. The Export-Import Bank makes good sense.

I find no businesspeople in my community who are in opposition to the Export-Import Bank. It is not too big to fail, and it should not be too small to save. We ought to do what we have done 16 times in the previous 80 years, and that is, reauthorize the Export-Import Bank in a clean bill, and do it with very little fanfare.

Unfortunately, that is not the circumstance that we confront presently. Unfortunately, there are persons who believe that the Export-Import Bank no longer serves a useful purpose.

Well, it serves a useful purpose for the people in my district. And the facts speak for themselves. In my district, between 2007 and 2013, in the Ninth Congressional District, we had a total of 88 export- importers.

We had 39 small businesses, 13 minority-owned businesses, and four women-owned businesses, and we are proud of these businesses that are owned by women because we still contend that when women succeed, America succeeds. The Export-Import Bank is on the agenda to help women succeed.

I would add that there are businesses that have indicated that they are supportive. I have a letter from a company in Houston, the style of it is the South Coast Products Company, and I just shall read an excerpt from their letter. I have many letters to read, but I shall pick a few and just read excerpts.

This one reads--and it is addressed to the Honorable Maxine Waters:

We are a small manufacturer in Texas that exports thread

and valve lubricants primarily to the oil and gas industry.

We have used Export-Import Banks' export credit insurance for

13 years. During that time, our export business has grown by

a factor of 15 because of the security offered by our policy

with Export-Import.

I shall go to the last paragraph which reads, ``Please emphasize to your colleagues that Ex-Im Bank is not corporate welfare''--this is a business, a business that has written this to us--``or a charity of any kind. It facilitates U.S. exports, especially for small businesses like us, while supporting itself. Please do not let them put our livelihoods on the chopping block for their own political gain.''

This is from South Coast Products, a Texas business.

I would also like to read a letter from the Greater Houston Partnership. The Greater Houston Partnership is the preeminent chamber of commerce in my area. It is called the partnership because we do things differently in Texas, and the partnership has also joined in this letter by a good many other entities that I shall name after having read an excerpt from this letter.

It reads:

The Houston region continues to enjoy strong economic

growth driven in large part by the Export-Import Bank. In

order to keep momentum, it is crucial that Congress supports

tools encouraging businesses to expand into new markets and

create new jobs. The Export-Import Bank of the United States

is one of these tools, and we ask that you support this

legislation.

The letter is addressed to me.

It goes on to add:

Small- and medium-sized businesses in our region also

benefit directly from Export-Import. Small businesses account

for nearly 85 percent of Ex-Im Bank's transactions; further,

these transaction figures do not include the tens of

thousands of small- and medium-sized businesses that supply

goods and services to large exporters using the bank.

This is signed by the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, the Baytown Chamber of Commerce, the Brenham/Washington County Chamber of Commerce, the Clear Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Beaumont Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Tomball Area Chamber of Commerce, the Houston East End Chamber of Commerce, the Houston Northwest Chamber of Commerce, Lake Houston Area Chamber of Commerce, League City Chamber of Commerce, Pearland Chamber of Commerce, West Chambers County Chamber of Commerce, and the Wharton Chamber of Commerce.

I close simply with these words: businesses are supportive of the Ex- Im Bank. People understand the necessity for it. We but only need to have a vote on it to get it continued.