Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. 124, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise to oppose the previous question so that I might, indeed, offer H.R. 4950 to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 7 years instead of what the underlying continuing resolution would do, which would reauthorize it for 9 years.

I do so for two reasons: number one, the argument of certainty--here is the truth: the fact of the matter is a 9-month extension of the Export-Import Bank is not certainty. Here is the truth: we are already losing business because of the cloud of the debate that hangs over this Chamber with respect to the continuation of the Export-Import Bank, and that is documented, I might add; so we need certainty.

Everybody who comes from the private sector has made that argument on this floor. I come from the private sector. I make that argument.

The truth of the matter is this: the number one advocate for eliminating the Export-Import Bank likes the idea of a 9-month extension because it plays into his hands of getting rid of it.

Now, I take the gentleman from Oklahoma at his word. I know him to be a gentleman of honor and integrity, and I appreciate, deeply, his words in support of the Export-Import Bank, but the Export-Import Bank will be weakened with this language and will be subject to termination at the end of June 30 when it is isolated and left alone.

One of the arguments that is offered for 9 months is to give time for an effort to develop a reform proposal. I know of one such effort underway by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), and he is operating in absolute good faith. There is no question in my mind. He is working hard to get there.

There is equally no question in my mind that the effort to extend the Ex-Im, if we do it for 9 months, will be severely weakened, severely weakened. There is no assurance. There is no certainty that it will go beyond that date. We have a proposal that would do that, which has 201 signatures on it as cosponsors, I might add.

The second reason, the Export-Import Bank makes America stronger. It created 205,000 jobs last year. It reduced our Nation's deficit by $1 billion in October when that amount of money was transferred to the U.S. Treasury. It creates jobs, and it creates good-paying jobs, manufacturing jobs. It enables America to compete in an increasingly global economy.

Most people lose sight of the fact that, just since the year 1980, global trade has increased fivefold. I beseech the House: do not unilaterally disarm.

Here is the truth: 59 other countries, virtually every developed nation on the face of the planet, has an export credit authority, and most of them are larger than ours, expressed either in terms of absolute dollars or percentage of their gross domestic product.

For us to allow the Export-Import Bank to expire is to unilaterally disarm in an increasingly global trade-driven economy. For us to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 9 months is to tee it up for elimination, and you know this in your heart. You know this in your heart because the advocate for doing away with it thinks this is a good idea and has as much said that it tees it up for elimination.

The Export-Import Bank is good for America. It makes America stronger.

It creates jobs. It creates good-paying jobs, and it enables us to compete in a global economy.

I ask you to defeat the previous question so that we might offer a longer-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source