United States Export Finance Agency Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

And I thank Mr. McHenry for his work on the committee. Mr. Chair, I say to Mr. McHenry: There is still time to get well.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I have been the majority leader in years past, the minority whip in years past, and now again the majority leader. During all of those years, I have been a strong supporter of the Ex-Im Bank.

Mr. Cantor, who was the majority leader, and I worked together the last time we brought this bill to the floor for reauthorization. There were 42 Republicans, many of whom served on the Financial Services Committee, who signed a discharge petition, a Republican discharge petition, because the chairman of the committee refused to bring this bill to the floor.

Mr. Chair, this bill enjoys the support of the United States Chamber of Commerce, wide support among the business community throughout America, support of the labor movement--the AFL-CIO and labor unions-- all over America, and the support of millions of workers who are producing products here in America.

I have an agenda. I call it Make It In America. This is critical to that because all of our competitors around the world have an agency similar to the Export-Import Bank that facilitates their products being sold in competition with ours.

If we fail to reauthorize this piece of legislation, and if we fail to effect the reforms that have been included in not only dealing with the amount of money that they are authorized to lend but also the fact that we will not be locked into the inability of either a President or a Senate to confirm members of the Ex-Im board, but we will be able to act.

This legislation, therefore, is better than we have done before.

I thank Maxine Waters for her untiring leadership on this issue, and I also congratulate my friend Denny Heck, a member of the committee from Washington State who has been as tenacious and faithful in his support of ensuring the reauthorization when we had the discharge petition, and this time, as anybody in this House. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Heck, for his leadership on this issue.

When that bill was discharged, some of you may remember, even though the Republican leadership would not bring it to the floor, it had to be discharged. Forty-two Republicans signed the discharge petition, led by Mr. Lucas and Mr. Fincher from Tennessee.

Mr. Lucas is still here. I hope Mr. Lucas will vote for this bill when he has the opportunity to do so one more time.

I had made the point with Mr. Cantor that I believed that the majority of Republicans would support the reauthorization. And, in fact, they did. The majority of Republicans, when the vote came, voted for the bill that had been refused by Mr. Hensarling to bring it to the floor.

So this is not as if it is some partisan piece of legislation. I would hope the Republicans would have the courage--although I see them too often marching in lockstep to their party principle rather than their own principle. I am disappointed with that, Mr. Chair, because this is a piece of legislation that will protect and create hundreds of thousands of jobs and because it will make us more competitive.

We make some of the best products in the world, period. But we need to be price competitive because people will be inclined to buy, perhaps, a less quality product because it is cheaper.

That is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is overwhelmingly in support of this. That is why the administration is in favor of reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank.

They say they want it clean. The President was initially, during the course of his campaign, opposed to the Ex-Im Bank. Then he talked, frankly, to some people in manufacturing who said: Mr. President, if we don't have an Export-Import Bank, you said you want to create jobs, but you are going to lose jobs.

So he changed his mind. Then, unfortunately, he appointed somebody to head up the Ex-Im Bank who was totally against it, a guy named Scott Garrett from New Jersey. The good news is the Senate said, because it supports the Ex-Im Bank, they are not going to take Garrett, so his name was withdrawn.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate Chairwoman Waters for bringing this to the floor. I urge every Member of this body to support it. Don't snatch partisanship from the jaws of bipartisanship every time you get the opportunity.

Let's try to reflect to the American people that business and labor are together, and, yes, even Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, are together because this is good for American jobs. It is good for people who want to make it in America.

That is what Ms. Waters, the chair of the committee, has been arguing, and Mr. Heck, and Gwen Moore, who chaired the subcommittee when we took it out last time, and others who have fought so hard for this bill.

Our economy depends on strong export growth, not just for large businesses, but small and medium-sized businesses in communities across the country. It is not just the exporter. It is all the secondary small businesses that provide products for those large exporters.

For this reason, the Export-Import Bank has traditionally had strong, bipartisan support. A majority of Republicans just a few years ago supported this bill. Not this exact bill. This bill should have that kind of support, too.

There is not a single provision in this bill that those on the other side of the aisle can legitimately label a poison pill. That doesn't mean it is exactly like they want it. We don't always get everything we want. But the central part of this bill ought to be supported by every one of us.

The last time this came up, one Democrat voted against it. He is no longer with us--not because of his vote on this bill. But I point out to you that we are overwhelmingly for this bill. Business wants this bill.

Usually, you don't see the Democrats saying yes to business groups. This is for jobs for working Americans. That is why this bill has the strong and unified support of the business community.

I am disappointed, frankly, that Republicans have decided to make this bill partisan. Frankly, Mr. McCarthy was for this bill before he was against this bill--not this bill. He was for the Export-Import Bank before he was against it, if you look at the Record. He is going to vote against it this time.

Mr. Scalise voted against it last time, as did Mr. McCarthy on the reauthorization that I just mentioned that was discharged out of committee, as did Mr. McHenry. All three of them opposed this bill in the past.

So it is not a question of these amendments. For whatever reasons, they are opposed to this bill. That is a shame. There is no reason for supporters of American exports on both sides of the aisle not to come together and support the Ex-Im Bank's reauthorization.

My hope is that what this House will do today is send a strong message of support for the Export-Import Bank. Tell the rest of the world we are going to compete. Tell the rest of the world we are going to compete on an even playing field. Tell the rest of the world we are going to support our exporting community.

Indeed, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, during the 4-year period from 2015 to 2019 when the Ex-Im Bank lacked a quorum needed to do its job properly, our country gained 80,000 fewer manufacturing jobs and lost $119 billion in manufacturing output, all because we didn't fix the quorum, which is now fixed in this bill. Let me repeat that: 80,000 fewer manufacturing jobs and $119 billion in lost output.

This fixes that. If you vote against this bill, you may be voting against $119 billion--probably more because of inflation, maybe $150 billion--to the good. Not government spending, increased output, increased economic activity, and increased jobs of 80,000, probably more.

Countries all around the world have export credit agencies, as I have said. In fact, China has three export credit agencies that provided more support in just 1 year than the Export-Import Bank has provided in its entire history.

What do you say by a ``no'' vote? We are going to retreat from that competition. We are not going to play. Who does that advantage? China. Who does that advantage? Every one of our other competitors. Who does that disadvantage? American workers.

Mr. Chair, we need to give our exporters a fair, fighting chance by providing export financing to American business. That is what this bill does.

It is not a partisan bill. It is not a Republican bill or a Democratic bill. Those of you who say you are probusiness and proworker and want to build jobs, that is why the President of the United States decided he is for reauthorization. He may not like a provision or two in this bill, but the administration says they are for reauthorizing this.

This gives you the opportunity to do that. Take it. This is not going to be a partisan bill for any of us. Take this opportunity to stand up as the majority of your colleagues did the last time this reauthorization came to the floor, and as they have done every time it has come to the floor.

Join me, my colleagues, in voting for American workers, American manufacturers, suppliers, subcontractors, little businesses, small businesses, and medium businesses. This is good for America. Vote ``yes.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, by the way, Mr. McHenry is my friend. He and I have a good working relationship, and I appreciate that friendship. I regret that he is opposing this bill. I know there was an attempt to reach a bipartisan agreement.

In candor, I think everybody on this floor needs to know there were outside business concerns about that agreement, so it was not simply a partisan act. It was that those who see this as a job creator thought that some of the provisions that were put in the so-called compromise would be harmful to job creation and to the sale of exports across the sea.

But the reason I really rose--and I thank Madam Chairwoman for yielding--is to say, yes, the President said he was going to veto this; yes, the majority leader in the Senate said he is not going to bring things up. That is unfortunate, but the statement I made is accurate.

The President of the United States says he is for the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. That is a change in his position during the course of his campaign in 2016. It is a change because he was convinced that the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank is good for America, good for jobs, good for business, good for working men and women in this country. And so he has repaired, also, to partisanship.

There are no poison pills in here. There may be some things you wanted that are not in this bill; there may be some things in this bill that I would have liked that are not in this bill. But the central point of this is this reauthorizes the Bank.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman.

It takes care of the challenge that we had when there was no quorum, and the fact that we had no quorum was all about politics.

Don't make this about politics as well. An estimate of 80,000 jobs, $150 billion lost because we didn't have a quorum. Let's not twist in the wind.

This bill has 95 percent agreement. The gentleman who spoke before me said he voted for this last time. There is no change that, in my opinion, warrants a change in heart.

I know that there is some upset that the bipartisan bill that was agreed to didn't fly, but it didn't fly mostly because the outside came in and said: This will not help us; this will not affect the end that we want. That record ought to be clear, Mr. Chairman.

So the chairwoman worked on bringing a bill to the floor that will help. She has done that. I hope my colleagues will put their partisanship behind them, put protecting, frankly, their positioning in terms of negotiation behind them and vote for this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source