americans' wallet and putting it on the line and saying should we or should we not create liability for more individuals across the heartland? for mom and dad i don't think that's the right ecaution. -- equation. 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. when it comes to accountability, let's remember, this is a bank that just this year had a bank employee who pled guilty to bribery of all things. the inspector general of the bank said they expect even more actions. and the inspector general on one project could not validate more than $500 million in spending. i can tell you as the chairman of the oversight and government reform committee, they have not been transparent in giffling us the information. i urge -- giving us the information. i urge my colleagues to vote no. . ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. loney, a member of the

financial services committee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and her leadership. i rise in opposition -- i rise in strong support of re-authorizing the export-import bank. there is never really a good ime to commit economic suicide and now would be especially a bad time. cost jobs.bank 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. and we have to remember that

there are 85 different ex-im banks around the world from china to canada, all of whom who are supporting exports more than we are. we are in a competitive world. they say when you lose a job, it goes somewhere else. what the opposition isn't saying is that it's going overseas. i support the export-import bank and vote for re-authorization. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from -- a minute and a half to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, chairman of the capital markets subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: in june of this year after 81 years of doling out welfare to mega corporations, the american people said enough and congress let the bank ex expire. is oday, a maneuver

circumventing the will of the american people. you see, the export-import bank transformed the role of government from a disinterested referee in the economy that uses your taxpayer dollars to tilt the scales in favor of your friends and mocks the american dream. you see, if we promoted responsible government policies and expanded free markets and lowered and simplified the income taxes and repealed onerous regulations, american businesses would thrive. but none of that is on the table today. 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. 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 ex-im bank out of business. we should take each of those opportunities. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i yield to mr. sherman from california, and a member of the financial services committee one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the herman: in ealogically perfect world of annrand novels. in the real world, germany, canada has one and all much bigger than ours. when i give 100 speeches for eorge mcgovern athey used of unilaterally military

disarmament. our products face tough competition and sometimes the order goes to whoever has got the best financing. 90% of ex-im bank's loans goes to small business and the other 10% help big business then buy from american suppliers. 250 members of this congress upport ex-im bank among the 40 -something republicans. the ex-im bank makes a substantial profit under generally accepted accounting principles. that's why they have been able to transfer $7 billion to the treasury. ronald reagan said the export -import bank contributes in significant ways to our export sales. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to a valuable member of the house financial services committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. speaker and i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in opposition to h.r. 597 to the export-import bank and the process that they used to circumvent regular order 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 losers in the american economy. when the ex-im bank finances a boeing airline for emirates airlines as if they would need any financing, the bank is telling pilots and flight attendants and others in my district that their jobs don't matter to the government. that's wrong. my colleagues from washington state and other areas want you to believe that they're fighting for the jobs in their districts, and i'm sure they are. i'm 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's jobs and catter pillar's jobs and i care about delta jobs. i want the free market and 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 bank to focus on economic analysis and the bank knew the consequences of their lending decisions. unfortunately the export bank acts as if they are above the requirements of congress. instead of following the law the leadership at the bank ca lewded 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, they refused to allow amendments to defend my constituents. these are the very same people that cry regular order. yet deny the members the ability to fight for their constituents. i ask everybody for a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. hin hosea. >> mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of allowing the majority of the congress to work its will and re-authorize the export-import bank. the bank has supported 1.3 million american jobs since 2009 with 90% of its transactions directly supporting small businesses. the bank is a market-driven

success story that i'm proud to support. three months has passed since a small group of tea party caucus members through common sense out despite the devastating consequences to our economy. today, i stand side by side with my colleagues from across the aisle to fight for them including engineers based in my area of south texas. they manufacture oil refineries supplying fuel. it cannot create more jobs or assist in our national security objectives without financing provided by the bank. we cannot allow a small minority of minority chamber to block job creation and weaken our international priorities. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the distinguished republican majority leader, mr. mccarthy of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: 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 where we or the forum in which we should have the debate about this. because we don't have the options for amendment. i think there's a better way to do this. the argument today and people have two views, but the real question the debate we are having comes down to this, do we let government pick and choose who we give special taxpayer loans to or not? i believe the constituents know what the right choice is. they don't want their tax dollars backing up loans for any businesses. that's not the government's job. the private sector can and should do that and the economy does best when the government is left out. when government gets involved trying to centralize money and

power 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 employee, pleaded guilty this year to taking bribes on 19 different occasions to help out applicants to get loans from ex-im. another ex-im employee was indicted for taking $100,000 in bribes to help a nigerian businessman get loans from ex-im. we all remember a congress, william jefferson was sentenced to 13 years in prison taking bribes to help a company get loans from ex-im. there is a pattern that won't be solved today regardless what side you're on. since 2009 and fewer than six

years, there have been 49 criminal judgments against ex-im employees by people who benefited from ex-im. many people have gone to prison for it. if you combine them all up, that's 7 years they are serving. 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. you know, one of these loans of the corporations outside of america doesn't always goes well. do you remember an australian company that just lost $139 million. the c.e.o. allegedly diverted company funds to his yacht

company. so the question, mr. speaker, when does the corruption come to bat? when is it that too many people take bribes. how many taxpayer loans must be issued in fraud. so the question i have before serious,e is, if we're 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. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i yield one minute to mr. green, the ranking member of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: i thank the gentlelady and there is a better

way to do this and it's called regular order through the committee process, bring it to the floor and make amendments. however when that doesn't prevail, the rules allow us to do what we are doing today. the ex-im bank does not take deposit, it makes deposit and makes deposits that help us with our deficit. the numbers have been called to our attention 2013 about a billion dollars. 2014, $675 million. the ex-im bank has done something more important than what has been called to our attention. one of the most significant things it has done is that it has caused us to do something that we couldn't do for ourselves, and that is create the bipartisanship necessary to has d the chasm that manifested itself in this house for too long. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas.

mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to another valuable member of our committee, the .entleman from pennsylvania mr. rothfus: something has been missing from this debate, the every day taxpayer who is being asked to carry a risk that those in the private sector will not. in 2008, we learned about privatizing. share eered on and the holders pros period. when the good times ended, the taxpayers were forced to bail out to the tune of $187 billion. the federal government is guarantor of $3 trillion in loans. this level of taxpayer leverage is not sustainable. and we must begin to identify parts of the portfolio that can be transitioned away. 98% of our exports are made without the ex-im bank.

however, in the immediate future, congress must act to protect taxpayers. in this re-authorization, congress could insist these loans be fully col at ralized. congress could require exporters who profit to guarantee repayment of all or even a fraction of these loans. if phased in smartly, reforms would mitigate the potential of $3 billion bailout that they sought and would incentivize our trade representatives to initiate negotiations to eliminate all government export subsidies and protect the taxpayers from potential losses just like they were supposed to do. without these commonsense reforms, it is the taxpayer, the forgotten man or women and not the entity who made the profit that was on the hook for the loss. i urge my colleagues to vote no so real proposals may be pursued. i yield back.

. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. perfect mutter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the ranking lady for aluge me to speak. my district suburbs of denver, 18 small companies benefit from the export-import bank and the guarantees and support that it provides. hundreds and hundreds of jobs and these are jobs in plastics, scientific equipment, food manufacturing, wood products, electrical equipment, those are the forgotten people in this argument. those are real jobs, real people. and now 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. second question is, should ideology trump reality? reality is that we are going to just give these jobs to

countries all across the globe instead of having them here in america. that's wrong. i urge the passage of house bill, house resolution 597. i thank mr. heck. i thank mr. fincher. i thank mr. lucas for bringing this forward. let's pass this bill today. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i thank you, mr. speaker. i now wish to yield two minutes to another valuable member of our committee. the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, have you ever had one of those where you're listening and you're 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's 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. this institution still has a loan, $32 million loan, from pre-castro cuba on their books. when they tell you, oh, we have this tiny amount of charge offs, what they are telling you is a lie. do you remember the hearings we had where we had the discussions what their impayments were? they just staired -- stared back at you because they didn't want to have that discussion. because every other financial institution has to honestly say, here's our impairments. this one, it was oil. we only had this level of charge up. what they are not telling you they are still carrying loans that have sat on the books for 50 years without a payment. look, to every citizen of this contry, understand 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's what you intend to do to your taxpayers? that's what you're going to do to your constituency? look, this piece of legislation also reports to have reforms in it. the reforms in it if they are not already doing these things, they already should be locked up because much of this is the most basic level that you would expect from any financial institution. yet i come here to another tab from the g.a.o. and say repeat after repeat after repeat where it was already the law and they have been ignoring it. and yet we are going to recharter them again? an organization we are going to claim that we are providing reforms when they are the very eforms from the last time we did this that they did not follow? that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, and a member of the financial services committee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady, ranking member, for yielding, and for

her leadership on this issue. along with mr. heck, ms. moore, mr. fincher, mr. lucas. the ex-im bank used to be a bipartisan legislation. it's 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. well, 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. it is not the inappropriate venue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kildee: this is an argument about jobs for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kildee: i will use every venue veilable to me -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. and the chair would remind members to direct their remarks to the chair and not to other members of the chamber. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: may i inquire how much time is remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california has 18 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: at this time, mr. speaker, i will yield two additional minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, chairman of our monetary policy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. huizenga: i appreciate the opportunity to come up here and talk about this process. we are starting to talk about

what had happened through the committee. there was a work group put together both in the last congress and in this congress. came up some very interesting things. reforms, included in that reforms was how do we extract ourselves out of this? here's what happened last time. last time the bank was re-authorized, it was through a short-circuited system much like we are experiencing today. they 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. so, in that to kind of get everybody 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, wide body aircraft. and that is what maintains a vast majority of the business of the export-import bank. but here's the thing. 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's been created? i think it's a logical question to ask, mr. speaker. if they are willing to ignore that part of the law, that 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 as we were floating these ideas of various reforms, making these recourse loans, making sure a bank examiner would come in and lao this bank to pass any banking standards. their portfolio waiting is way off. they could never pass any kind of examine that any traditional bank would have to go through. every time any of those kind of commonsense reforms were proposed, the word came back from down on high, from those big banks -- those big companies that utilize this bank said, no way.

no way are we going to allow this to happen. and that's truly the characterization of this being regular order is way out of line in my opinion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from ohio, who is also a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. mrs. beatty: here's what i know, mr. speaker. the american people are clamoring for us to do our job and work together to help hardworking american families get ahead. and we can do that today by reviving the export-import bank. a job creating organization that reduces the federal debt. no subsidy, 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. and it's so important for us today to do this. i know it firsthand, mr. speaker, because in my district alone 14 businesses, including eight small businesses, one minority owned, one female owned, the export-import bank supports some $71 million in exports and here's the key, at no cost to american taxpayers. we have heard a lot today. some misinformed. some misleading. so here's what i think. the evidence is clear, mr. speaker, let us renew the bank's charter without delay. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: in order to help time, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr.

connelly, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. connelly: thank you, mr. speaker. 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. and it costs taxpayers nothing. it is unilateral disarmentament to not recharge and re-authorize the export-import bank. i support the legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. hensarling: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. tonko: thank you. 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's 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 hundreds of people -- 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. cartwright: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, i rise in support of re-authorizing the ex-im bank. you have two types of people, 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 re-authorized. this is supporting good-paying, family sustaining, manufacturing

export jobs and the people in opposition are slavishly adhering to this ideology that hurts america. and in this case the ex-im bank returns a profit to the american people, reduces the deficit and the debt, and we ought to re-authorize it. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i yield to mr. langevin, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 second. ms. waters: the gentleman from rhode island. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this bipartisan export-import bank re-authorization. the ex-im bank was founded by f.d.r. to increase the competitiveness of american exports. it has provided significant capital for u.s. companies and provided opportunities for u.s.

jobs in allowing our companies to be competitive with companies overseas. it provides confidence to businesses and investors, allowing them to compete in the global marketplace. the bank has helped 26 businesses with a combined export value of $134 million in rhode island. the eximbank is a vital part of our nation's economic infrastructure and i urge my colleagues to support its re-authorization. thank you. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 597, renewal of the united states export-import 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 0,000 jobs

across the commonwealth and nearly 300 companies adding $7 billion to pennsylvania's economy. exporters range from powdered metal companies and those involved in the manufacture of rubber and plastic products. all of these businesses provide jobs which sustain our local communities. since 2007, exports in pennsylvania have amounted to $1.3 billion supporting thousands of jobs in rural pennsylvania. the ex-im bank is not a burden on the taxpayers. in 2013, the bank covered its own expenses before directing more than $1 billion in the u.s. treasury. i joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues to bring renewal of the bank to the floor today and cast a vote in favor of the bill's passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida.

mr. desjarlais: the closest thing to eternal life is a government bureau. how rare we reduce government. now my friend on the other side of the aisle they believe on the type of politicized economy for which the ex-im bank has been a poster child. i can't understand how members who preach limited government, willing to turn over the floor of the house to the minority party. if we simply did nothing we would face less government, there would be less corruption and the economy would be less politicized. vote how you want, but please if you support resurrecting this agency spare us the notion that you are actually here to reduce the size and scope of government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized.

ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, members of the house, with all the gridlock and all the partisanship and the inability of this congress to fix things and get things done, we are looking at good opportunity where republicans and democrats have come together to fix things. and 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 and doing such great work for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, at this point, i would like to yield two minutes to the chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee of

financial services, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: i just want to quickly address my good friend from minnesota's comments that this ex-im bank doesn't cost any money. the truth is that it does. we bailed it out to the tune of $3 billion in the 1980's. fannie and freddie don't cost the taxpayers any money? doesn't cost taxpayers money until it does. it is a government guarantee. and you see how hard it is when you are going to take away a government subsidy. businesses fight like you know what so you don't take it away and they will lobby. i'm tired. i hear some of those presidential candidates talk about cronyism and those who look out for corporate welfare and try to point the 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% of the dollars to big massive businesses. it's democrats. democrats partner big government with big business and that's what's happening right here. picking winners and losers. delta has to compete with airplanes that are subsidized in foreign markets by the american taxpayer. they can't compete. we pick boeing jobs over delta jobs? who are we in this institution to say what job is better? let's let the market work and not be the ones who come in and dictate what works and what doesn't. and to think we are going to set up a system and my friends will say this is about american jobs. it's only about american jobs if it meets our political criteria in that if you are dealing with carbon and if you are in a

carbon job, the bank won't be involved in those. that's wrong. let's work together and fight for the american taxpayer and take away this government subsidy. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i yield one minute to the distinguished leader, nancy pelosi, who has been a steadfast advocate on behalf of the interests of american workers and made re-authorization of ex-im a top priority. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and her kind words. i rise in strong support of re-authorization of the ex-im bank. on former ranking member foreign ops on appropriations, i realized how important this was to our economy and small businesses in america. so here today, we are coming to the floor in a bipartisan way to

create good paying jobs. how many? 1.5 million since the year 2007. we are here to reduce the deficit. how much? in the past two decades, $7 billion. $7 billion in money coming in to reduce the deficit. we are creating jobs, good pay ing jobs, fueling our economy and respecting the interviewership and optimism of small and moderate businesses across the country. there are some big businesses that benefit but most of them have subcontractors. 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 people can make it in america, but also we can find markets abroad for our

products made in america. and thank you, mr. hoyer, for your leadership on that and on the re-authorization 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 known it to have. i salute mr. denny heck. he is just remarkable. and 24 hours he had 187 co-sponsors of his bill earlier this year. that is so remarkable and then the short time after that, more, even more. and thank you for all the work you have done to bring us to today and to our republicans who are supporting this, 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. and over that period of time, for one reason or another that we're not hearing in the committee of jurisdiction that could focus on the advantages of the ex-im bank. she had round tables, bringing in experts on what this meant to our economy, bringing in and listening to the public, hearing from small businesses 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 country. we would have thought it, but the world knows. thank you for your perseverance. you did a wonderful job, keeping this issue alive, recognizing the great leadership that we ave at the ex-im bank, recognizing the hard-working

people who are there who know about markets. and 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's why this is such an important link between entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation and how we expand markets for all of that throughout the world. i'm really happy. congratulations to the house of representatives. today we are creating good-paying jobs, we are reducing the deficit and we are doing it in a bipartisan way. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 8 1/2 minutes and the gentlelady from california has 13 minutes. mr. hensarling: i will reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield two minutes to our distinguished whip, mr. steny hoyer. 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i listen to this welfare state rhetoric. the american public ought to know that 147 republicans voted to re-authorize 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?

we retreated from bipartisan working together. we retreated from pragmatism and -- those ideological are tough words. when you have 147 republicans and every democrat, 330 members of the house of representatives voting to re-authorize 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's become an issue for some hardlined groups and this is not just for big business or medium business or small business, this is for american jobs. little people. do big people provide jobs for little people? yes, they do. and do we want that done?

yes, we do. and 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 reate jobs for people. 330 of us voted to re-authorize this just three years ago. awareness had some that this is somehow going to the welfare state. let us come together as practical people, 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 and it has been bottled up which has not allowed the majority to work its will. today for 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas wish to reserve? mr. hensarling: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i thank ranking member waters for this time. u.s. export-import bank means jobs in the united states of america. om 2007 to 2015, in ohio, it supported 236 small businesses and $3 billion in ohio exports. superior holdings, first solar, port clinton manufacturing, a.j. rose manufacturing and so many other companies who want to export. 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, korea, france, brazil. our competitors. i support re-authorization of the ex-im bank. it means jobs and means business for the u.s.a. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas wish to reserve? mr. hensarling:. reserve. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from washington, the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. reichert: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, one of the america's greatest promises is the promise if you work hard, 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-imbanks. i'll name one. number nine 9, small town in eastern washington. a hay company in washington with the sport of ex-im bank, this company was able to expand its business, hire employees, and sell in foreign markets. otherwise not. this story is the story of success, of jobs for the small hardworking businesses of america that create 85% of our jobs. if we don't act, businesses of all sizes and the people they employ will be threatened. i support this measure and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i'd like to inquire how much time we have left on this side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has 9 1/2 minutes. and the gentleman from texas has 8 1/2. ms. waters: thank you very much. i will yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr.

tom macarthur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. macarthur: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. 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. and i learned that you need capital to grow a business. well 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. and 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 of u.s. exports last year, 164,000 jobs. to not re-authorize is to be

shortsighted. i urge my colleagues to remember this is a republican bill. it deserves our support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i thank you. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise today in support of the re-authorize of the ex-im bank. the ex-imbarning is a critical resource for rhode island manufacturers looking to expand in new markets. over the last eight years the ex-im bank has provided more than $20 million to rhode island companies to guarantee credit and disbushes loans. i'm pleased after four months of inaction the house is sinal finally voting to re-authorize is critical institution. i thank my colleagues for their support. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. miss water: i yield to the gentleman from -- ms. waters: i yield to the

gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. charlie dent, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i certainly rise in support of this legislation that would re-authorize 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 ex-imhas provided critical support to a wide array of industries in pennsylvania ensuring the products range from major energy components to help l and g exports to locomotives and cement equipment, to computers and electronics and to aircraft are able to continue to be manufactured by pennsylvania workers. developing countries as we know don't have very warm capital markets and they need this financing to help them buy american products. as our sole credit agency, the bank provides a security u.s. firms need to assess the access burgeoning markets, strengthens our trade balance, and 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 four small business was an even great share of lending support. for those who talk about ex-imcreating winners and losers, i would argue by letting the bank's authority lapse we have created loosers. the losers are now american job creaters and the winners are china, france, bra sill 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 we continue to govern in a bipartisan manner. let's pass this bill. mr. speaker, i urge we support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm very happy now to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina mr. mulvaney, another important member of the house financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. speaker. we have heard a loft talk so far

today about the bank, about what the bank does. 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 in to the breach to help american businesses. supposedly that's what this is all about. that's not what this is about. we had a discussion in the committee earlier this year where i suggested amendments that would focus the export-import bank on small business. that would allow the export-import bank to expand its use as learned 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. 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. 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's what this is about. i'm just surprised to see who is for it. 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 last resort and focus on what the bank should be doing. but we'll miss that, mr. speaker. because we are doing the bidding of other folks. so let's vote as you will. but let's be honest about what this is and what this is not with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from illinois mr. bob dold, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from is recognized for one minute. mr. dold: i thank gentlelady for yielding. i want to thank my good friend, mr. fincher, for his leadership on this bill. come interesting 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. 86% of the loans that happen in illinois' 10th congressional district and the export-import bank go to small businesses. yes, boeing does utilize the export-import bank. they say, whenever a boeing plane lands, 19,000 small businesses land with them. so there is no question 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 thefment they are talking to their constituents. it's still about jobs anti-economy and the uncertainty that's out there. i had a conversation with a small business owner that said 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. so consequently if we don't re-authorize the export-import bank, they are going to take those jobs and move them overseas. that's the last thing in the world that 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 unlaterally disarm. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the export-import bank and yes to american jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. duncan hunter, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hunter: i thank gentlelady for yielding. i'm proud to give my support to this valiant effort to re-authorize the ex-im bank that puts the best interest of american manufacturers, innovators enand entrepreneurs. we had a vote this year on the t.p.a., trade promotion authority. many of my colleagues 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 in overseas all in the name of trade and globalization. if you want to talk big business, i ask my friend against the ex-im bank to look at that vote. many of those in that contingent who voted for the trade promotion authority 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 underwright u.s. exports through the eximbank. although the vast majority of bank loans support small business. in my district alone, eastern san diego, you have nine companies. no boeings. no g.e.s. over 400 jobs, $60 million in exports. all underwritten by the ex-im bank. here's what ronald reagan 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 ex-port import bank contributes in a significant way to our nation's export sales. with that i urge my colleagues to support this effort. with that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. adam kin singer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. kin singer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. 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 six months ago and i flew on a boeing airliner. a lot of talk about boeing here, i didn't fly on an airbus. what that represented to me were 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's something that's been lost in this whole debate. there's been a lot of negativity, a lot of negative talk. i want to tell you something positive. that is the thousands of people that work in my district that don't have to worried about getting a pink slip tomorrow or the nks day -- next day because they know their manufacturing job is secure because of our future and our powerful ability to export around the globe.

so 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 re-authorize ex-imback, and let's go ahead and move ahead with the business of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. 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% of u.s. exports? i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. chris collins, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: i want to thank the gentlewoman from california for yielding. 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 treshry. 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. export-import 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 ex-imis not re-authorized soon. the fact is, exports drive job growth in the united states. when the company sells abroad, their employees, supplierers, and communities grow at hofmente re-authorizing the ex-im bank is vitefoorl manufacturers of all sizes to grow and prosper in a competitive world economy.

that is why i fully support re-authorizing the ex-im bank and urge my colleagues to do the same. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: may inquire as to how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas has 6 3/4 minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from tennessee, representative fincher, a member of the financial services committee and i want to just take time to thank him and representative lucas for their courage and their leadership in making this vote possible today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. fincher: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from california for yielding. a lot of times we don't see eye

to eye, but we have a fair and spirited debate and this time we do. i appreciate her willingness to support me in this effort. we have talked -- we have talked a lot today about many different things but i'm going to end on a note of facts. so often in washington, facts get lost. a few minutes ago, 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. and i was reminded of just a few years ago of a couple of very serious votes that happened in the house. one was the automotive bailout and one was tarp. i have a quote from the gentleman from wisconsin over the tarp vote, was necessary in

order to preserve this free intervise 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 and the country is better for job creation and the job creators to create jobs. that's 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're fixing almost everything that's been -- almost every problem that's been raised, we're addressing in this reform bill. those are the facts, mr. speaker. 80 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. and let's put these politics aside for today and put the country forward. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back to the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is ecognized. >> may i inquire, has the other side yielded back? the speaker pro tempore: the other side's time has expired. mr. hensarling: in that case, mr. speaker, i will close. 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's about corporate

welfare, cronyism, and an unfair economy. for those who claim ex-im creates jobs, the congressional research service would tend to beg to disagree, citing economists who say they largely rearrange jobs. we know for a fact that they've rearranged jobs away from delta because they have said they have lost jobs when ex-im understand dieses air india. bolero refining in my native texas says they use jobs in america when ex-im will subsidize a turkish competitor. cliff's natural resources of cleveland, ohio, will say they lose jobs when ex-im subsidizes an australian competitor. hich has caused some to say it creates jobs in export industries by destroying jobs in nonexport industries. how is that fair? how is that fair, mr. speaker? we're told ex-im makes money for

the taxpayers. well, yes if you use special washington insider accounting rules. but if you use fair value accounting, something the rest of america has to use, the congressional budget office says it loses money. it's 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 2/3 of the benefits go to fortune 50 companies. like boeing. like g.e. they're great companies with great people doing great things. i just wonder why they have to receive taxpayer subsidies. and 40% goes to benefit one company. boeing. that's why it's afeck gnatly called the bank of boeing. i know it helps some small business bus other small businesses aren't too fond of the ex-im bank. we hear if the chairman of

michael lewis company in illinois, over time, it creates a fitted playing field that means fewer u.s. airline jobs. translates into economic pain for thousands of bs -- of businesses leek ours and our employee. that's the voice of small business. chris rupert, founder of the morningstar company, when the company benefits from the support, they pocket the money. when it default. taxpayers pockets' get picked. it's private gain at the expense of public. we're told as long as global competitors do this, we have to do it. that's an argument i hear from my chern. everybody else is doing it so we have to do it. but the truth is almost 2/3 of ex-im's books have nothing to do with countervailing duty. almost 99% of u.s. exports are financed without ex-im. so we need to help our exporters, we need to help our

small businesses, but the way we to that is through expanded trade. it's through fundamental tax reform that the national association of manufacturers has said it's 50% of our competitive disadvantage. let's make a fairer, flatter, simpler tax code. let's have regulatory reform ith the rains act. let's drive prices down. so the arguments who propose to support ex-im, these are good people and i know they believe in their hearts and heads in what they're doing, but i don't think their arguments bear scrutinyful they don't stand up to the light of day. because the true face of ex-im is about cronyism. it's about misplaced priorities. it's about foreign aid. it's 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 western they'd lobby for more constitution and more free tom and not subsidy and special privilege. we know that so much of this, mr. speaker, so much of this support, ends up in countries like china and russia. we ask the chirle -- asked the chairman of the export import bank, we're supposed to compete with china by subsidizing china? -- you know what his answer was? well, it's complicated. it's not complicated, mr. speaker. it's stupid. it's stupid for us to subsidize china in the thought that we'll compete with china. almost $1 billion to the democratic republic of con gow which is the third worst human rights offender in the world this ecronyism. 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 and then sat on the board of the green energy company. how cozy. corruption the last six years. 76 years poe total prison time. 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 aptalism. 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's no better poster child of the washington crony economy than in corporate welfare than the export-import

bank. so i have no doubt that an overwhelming number of democrats are going to support the re-authorize eags of export-import bank. they're always happen to allocate credit and our economy is part -- in our economy as part of a political process. they're always happy to subsidize corporate america as long as they can also regulate and criminal it. but that's not fair to people on main street. it is the free enterprise system that is fair. s the free enterprise system which is moral. s the free enterprise system which is based on merit. s the free enterprise system which is empowering to people. it's the only economic system that frees ordinary people to achieve extraordinary results system of mr. speaker, that's what this debate is all about. it's about a fair economy for everybody in america. those who can't afford the high priced lobbyists in washington, d.c., those who want to work hard and play by the rules, it's time for taos say, no to crony

capitalism. say yes to prix enterprise. say yes to a fairer economy and reject the export-import bank. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 450, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amened. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: bill to re-authorize the export-import bank of the united states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from the district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? ms. norton: i am. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose -- a point of order is reserve the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. norton of the district of columbia moves to recommit the bill h.r. 597 to the committee on financial

services. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for five minutes. ms. norton: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas wish to withdraw his point of order? mr. hensarling: i withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i wish to seek tissue 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 seek time in opposition. >> point of order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> in order to seek time in opposition, wouldn't the

gentleman or gentlelady have to be opposed to the motion to ecommit? the speaker pro tempore: yes. mr. lucas: would it be in order to affirm that whoever claims in oppositiondeed to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: tremendous tchare would ascertain that before yielding time. does the gentleman from texas seek time in opposition. mr. hensarling: i have sought time in the -- in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: if the gentleman from oklahoma, another valuable member of the house financial services committee, i know we're on opposite sides of this issue if the gentleman would like time to speak, i would be happy to ield the gentleman time.

i'm happy to yield you a minute or two. mr. lucas: i think probably it is better that you fin herb the discussion, sir. i yield back to you. mr. hensarling: the gentleman eclines. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman wish to yield back. -- yield back? the gentleman from texas yield to the gentleman from south

carolina? mr. hensarling: i yield to the gentleman from south carolina for his parliamentary inquiry. >> what is the effect of passing this motion to recommit? i so often hear the preface this doesn't send it become to the committee. the speaker pro tempore: 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: for the committee to consider the bill. mr. mulvaney: fair enough. further parliamentary inquiry. does the person offering this motion present to this body that they are in favor of this otion? in order to qualify -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualified by stating her opposition to this bill. mr. mulvaney: fair enough.

thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas may ontinue. yield back the balance of his time? mr. hensarling: again, mr. i would say we are having a debate on the that has been vigorously debated on both sides. the motion to recommit, if people are genuinely interested and looking for an opportunity that amendment process was denied, as it's motion came -- as the discharge petition came to the floor. i have served under many

committee chairmen on the financial services committee. i've 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. 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 ouse to send this to committee , committee has had three different hearings on ex-im already. a couple of them in conjunction with the oversight and government reform committee. i'd be happy to have even more hearings on the subject and listen to new points that have been brought about by this debate. at this time i would yield to the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: for purposes of

making another parliamentary inquiry. do i so often hear that introduction, the m.t.r.'s won't kill the bill, it won't send to committee, it will proceed immediately to the house for a involvement here's my question on a parliamentary inquiry basis. if the m.t.r. 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 forth to the house for a vote? the speaker pro tempore: it returns back to the committee for the committee's 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. mulvaney: thank you. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, again, i appreciate the gentleman from south carolina, making his parliamentary inquiries. i think it has helped clarify the matter. so 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 and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california -- ms. waters: parliamentary inquiry. the wish the chair would clarify -- i wish the chair would clarify that there will recommit taken on the , this t should that fail will not go back to the committee under any circumstances. is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: the motion is not adopted. the bill would not return to the committee. ms. waters: that's, if i may, you just said what i said in reverse. and i just wanted to be clear. as the chairman of the committee tried to state that

he'd 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 had opportunity to try and do what he has not done in the process. is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: if the motion is not adopted, the chair will proceed and the next step is passage of the bill. ms. waters: thank you, mr. chair. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not ahe -- is not agreed to. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, and the order of the house of today, further proceedings

on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i'd ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for the yeas and ays on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman also request unanimous consent that the voice vote will be dispensed? mr. hensarling: yes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the yeas and ays are withdrawn. and the motion to recommit is defeated by voice.

the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the chair -- in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlelady asks for the yeas and nays. ms. waters: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, mr. speaker, particle meantry inquiry -- parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his 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 of california to withdraw the request for the yeas and nays on the underlying bill, should she so choose?

ms. waters: mr. speaker, that is wishful thinking on the part of the chairman. will not. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 491, i call up the bill h.r. 1090, it to amend the securities and exchange active 1934, to provide protections for retail customers and for other purposes. and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 230, h.r. 1090, a bill to amend the securities exchange act of 1934, to provide protections for retail customers, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 491, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services printed in the bill is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read.

after one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in house report 114-313 if offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, or his designee, which shall be considered read and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i briefly yield myself as much time as i may consume. simply to say, mr. speaker, at one time this administration told us, if you liked your doctor you could keep them. now this same administration is telling us, if you like your

financial advisor, you can keep them. the first promise was broken and now they're in the process of breaking the second promise. due to something called the department of labor fiduciary rule. it will take away investment advice from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of low and moderate income people all around the nation who rely upon this advice to save for retirement. this is something that should be done, considered, rather, by the securities and exchange commission. and there's been outstanding work by the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. wagner, who has been at the forefront of protecting retail investors, the small moms and pops planning for their retirement. at this time, mr. speaker, i yield her five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for five minutes. mrs. wagner: i'd like to thank chairman hensarling and subcommittee chair garrett for

their support on this tremendous issue. mr. speaker, today i'm pleased to stand before the house as a sponsor of h.r. 1090, the retail investor protection act. this important legislation that i have sponsored and worked on for three long years now came about after my colleagues on the financial services committee and i, along with members of congress on both sides of the aisle, saw the potential negative effects that this rulemaking from the department of labor could have on millions of americans seeking advice on how to invest their retirement savings. for that reason, we thought it was important to put the securities and exchange commission, the primary and expert regulator for these financial professionals, in charge of studying and writing the rules on this issue. this isn't such a radical idea. in fact, this is what congress intended when they included section 913 in the dodd-frank financial reform bill. mr. speaker, the same legislation received the

support of 30 house democrats last congress and once again i hope that they heed the concerns and the warnings that their constituents have provided them about the dire consequences this rule will have on america's retirement savings. make no mistake there's a savings crisis in this country. about half of all households 55 and over don't have retirement savings at all. how does this happen? unfortunately for many people that single mother of two who gets paid on the 15th and 30 of each month, there's just too much month at the end of the money. after paying groceries, mortgage, medical bills and other expenses and saving for retirement gets pushed off until the next month and the next month and so on. for many american households, a trusted financial advisor is the key link in helping them see benefits early and helping them

realize how to save and grow their investment. the vast majority of those financial proprofessionals already provide advice and recommendations are in the best interest of their clients. unfortunately, this rule making from the department of labor could potentially cut access, limit choice, and raise costs for that kind of financial advice. putting the goal of retirement even further out of reach the department of labor states that this rule simply would require financial advisors to act in the best interest of their customers. well, who would argue with that? unfortunately, then you start to get into the over 1,000 pages of regulatory text, with the exemptions and addendums, it becomes clear it isn't quite that simple. increased compliance versions that will be required under this legislation will make it very difficult for many brokers to continue servicing small accounts which predominantly

belong to low and middle income americans. who are just starting to save and haven't built up their retirement nest egg. 98% of all i.r.a.'s with less than $25,000 are in a brokerage relationship today. for that reason, this rule will actually hurt the very people that it aims to protect. we must not play politics wither that retirement savings. and that is what this administration is going. we have already seen this happen in the united kingdom. they enacted a similar regulation in 2013 and we have seen since then over 300,000 compliants dropped by their financial advisors because their account balances were too small. now the u.k. government is launching an investigation into the advisory gap that exists for those people who do not have significant wealth. with this regulation from the department of labor, the same thing will happen here in the united states of america where

there will be two different class -- two different classes of investors, those who can afford financial advice, and those who cannot. mr. speaker, this is not a wall street issue. this is main street as it gets. washington should not be making it more difficult for americans to save for retirement. instead we need to empower peefl to earn more and save more and have choices. where to get their help in making their financial decisions. unfortunately, the department of labor is following along with everything else we have seen under the obama administration. a top-down, washington knows best for you government, whether it's what you see in your health care that you need, the food you can eat and now who you can talk to for the financial advice for your retirement savings. according to president obama and senator clinton, pardon me, senator elizabeth warren and now

even secretary hillary clinton who are all big supporters of this fiduciary rule, the only person who you actually need to be protected from ultimately is yourself. i strongly disagree. i give the american people a lot more credit than that and i refuse to stand by and let this administration advance another onerous regulation that ultimately takes your freedom and makes decisions for you and brings us closer to a government planned life. mr. speaker, i strongly support h.r. 1090, the retail investor protection act and urge its passage. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield myself such time as i may consume. h.r. 1090 would halt the department of labor's ongoing efforts to protect american retirement savers from

investment advice that conflicts with their best interests. the bill would prohibit the department from promulgate anything rule on the issue until 60 days after the securities and exchange commission finalizes its own fiduciary rule for investment advisors and broker-dealers. the bill would then delay the s.e.c.'s long overdue rule making by requiring the commission to first report to congress a separate economic analysis that among other things considers how a new standard would affect a broker's profits. these delays are unacceptable and ignore the real issue, that the department -- issue that the department is trying to address. conflict red tirmente investment advice that costs our nation's workers and retirees an estimated $17 billion a year. the department's rule making would do so by requiring persons

providing retirement advice to put the interests of their compliants -- clients ahead of their own and abide by a fiduciary duty, the same duty we expect from our doctors, lawyers and trussees. simply put, a financial advisor should not be paid more for recommending one product over another but should abide by a fiduciary standard of care. would you be comfortable if your doctor was paid more for an office visit for recommending one drug over another? or for a lawyer to be paid more for interpreting the law one way or the other? no, of course not. and yet we allow these same conflicts to exist with those providing millions of hardworking americans with advice on their retirement savings. these conflicts encourage advisors to, for example, push a 70-year-old retiree to invest more of her savings in a stock

fund rather than a less risky short-term bond fund simply because the advisor receives 150% more for making the riskier recommendation. such a commonsense update in the law to address these conflicts is long overdue and indeed, at the department, is over five years in the making. during that time the department as pub learned an initial 2010 proposal, solicitted feedback and held public hearings on that proposal and issued even a reproposal -- proposal this past spring. since that reproposal, the public an interested stake holders have had 164 days of public comment. four full days of multipanel public hearings. and ample opportunity to meet with the department which held over 100 meetings with

interested stake holders, not including meetings with members of congress. thanks to the department's diligence and willingness to listen to stake holder concerns, the proposal now enjoys broad support, including support from 95 financial services groups, public interests, civil rights and consumer organization, labor unions and many investment advisors already providing advice to savers under a fiduciary standard. these groups include, from the aarp, public citizens, and the consumer federation of america, to the financial planning coalition, among many others. all of this points to the department's tangible efforts to take a balanced, measured approach to developing a rule that works. and i fully support their efforts to continue to work toward its completion. not only because it is necessary but because it just makes common

sense. what's more, the need to update the law quickly is urgent. hardworking americans lose an estimated $17 billion per year or $27 million per day to conflicted retirement investment advice. and while we should clearly encourage the securities and exchange commission to also update its own rules on investment advice over security, we should not make retirement savers wait any longer for protection by hinting the d.o.l.'s rule making to the s.e.c. as h.r. 1090 would do. i support the labor department's efforts to finalize the rule and urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 1090. i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker, at this point i would like to yield -- mr. hensarling: thank you, mr.

speaker. at this point i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the department of labor's -- >> the department of labor's fiduciary system -- mr. garrett: this rule will have a disparty impact on middle class americans and minorities in this country, many of whom will find it difficult if not impossible to receive guidance from a financial professional for their retirement. this is not me saying this, the department of labor's own analysis said that those who don't work with a profess professional will make mistakes that cost them up to $100 billion. today congress has the opportunity to stand up on behalf of struggling mesh families and support this legislation. we have proof to show that this legislation really is necessary because we have folks coming to washington to testify about it who supported the d.o.l. rule.

they said do not worry. they said if a traditional brokerage firm can't live with a simple fiduciary standard, so be it. other financial professionals, such as them, on and off the web, stand ready to help americans prepare far secure retirement. rebalance i.r.a. omeone went to this company, a modest america, and said will you help. they got this response. until you have at least $100,000 in a retirement account, our service at this time is not really the best solution for you. our fees will absorb too much of your investment return which runs counter to our mandate to help you retire. the same people who say the system will work under the d.o.l. guidelines prove that when people of modest means, americans, who are specifically trying to scrape by each week, each month and put a little bit away, will not have that

investment advice which the department of labor says is necessary to get by and to fulfill the american dreep. retail investment protection act will restore regulation to the market where it belongs with the s.e.c. it will prevent the department of labor from worsening the retirement savings crisis our country is facing. i say support the american dream, support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expyred. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from wisconsin the ranking member of the monetary policy and trade subcommittee on the financial services committee, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: thank you so much, madam ranking member an thank you so much mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1090. i must say, to representative wagner, she is correct when she says that there were 30 democrats, i'm one of them, who

supported similar legislation. but that was before the department of labor reproposed the conflict of interest rules, gave us sort of an unprecedented 164-tai comment period during the reproposal. they withdrew the original 2010, 2010 proposal to put forward the reproposed rule in 2015. ive years and as we discussed, they have committed to making considerable improvements. now, the s.e.c. has yet to be g -- has yet to begin the process of a related rule making. five years after the d.o.l. began the process. they've made it really clear that they don't think they will get to it. i do want to point out, since i have three whole minutes here,

that it has been very difficult to get the majority party to agree to providing the s.e.c. with the needed resources that would in fact enable them to undertake the work that the d.o.l. has already put forward on this. so i don't think we should wait until after the s.e.c. acts to issue a rule. and that this legislation before us would only delay these important consumer protections. the d.o.l. has received a lot of feedback and especially from me. mr. speaker, i have been extremely vocal in highlighting areas, some of them which you have heard on the other side mentioned here today, very vocal on the reproposed rule where i think it needs to be improved. and in fact, led a letter to the department of labor with 96

democratic colleagues signing on to that letter. however, i do think that the time is now. for congress to partner with the d.o.l. with the industry with retirement savers, toward the best possible final rule to encourage and protect retirement savings. now, i want to mention that the overwhelming majority of advisors are good people, with their clients' best interests at heart. in fact, no one in this debate is suggesting that we don't support policy which puts the best interest of the client, first and foremost. but when financial advisors are unscrupulous they have a devastating impact on retirement savers. further, when advisors put clients in products that may be ok with the client but

placement in these products are the primarily by -- d.o.l. rule that is being reproposed seeks to mitigate these conflicts of interest -- conflicts of interest so the best advisors and companies get compliants -- clients and compensation based on the best interests and the outcomes for their clients. i think that this is a backdoor approach to kill the rule, any rule, and it will leave gaping loopholes in federal laws. my advice to my colleagues is that we defeat this bill and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, chairman of the oversight investigations subcommittee of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: i thank you, mr. speaker. we, before this debate, were having a debate on the ex-im bank. i made a point about my friends

across the aisle standing up for big businesses, the cronyism between big government and big business. in this debate they have a chance now to stand with small investors, the men and women around this country who put a little bit away every paycheck to hopefully have a little nest egg for their retirement. to stand with those people, to make sure that when they get to their retirement they have an -- they have a nest egg that's worth something. to make sure that those folks have advice along the way. the way the department of labor rule is structured is that most americans aren't going to be able to get advice from a financial advisor, they're going to be driven to a robo advisor. what that means is they're going to have to go to a website, answer about six to 10 question, and the website will pump out a generic investment suggestion for them. no personally tailored advice from a financial advisor. that also has another effect. think last month or two months

ago, in august, when we had market movement, a lot of people get freaked out and they sell. but if you have an advisor they say, hold on, no, we have a long term plan here. don't sell. don't sell. hold on. we're going to weather the storm together. attacks robo advisor's -- text from the computer going to calm your nerve souse don't sell your portfolio? this -- nerves so you don't sell your portfolio? this doesn't work for the american people. what the department of labor is saying is if you have a lot of money, they can get -- then you can get advice. if you're poor or a middle income american, you're not entitled to the same advice as the wealthy and the powerful. i'm mostly concerned about one other point here. if this rule goes into effect and less americans save and have less return on their investment, when they get to their retirement years, they are going to be more reliant on the government. we want people less reliant. we want people to take more responsibility so they have a nest egg to fund their

retirement years. pay for themselves. the way this is structured, you'll have less people doing that and more people looking to the government for care. and i guess that's a greater debate that we have in this institution. do you want more people relying on the government? i think the only conclusion i can draw with your support for this rule is absolutely yes. that's the wrong approach. we come from a long line of people who believe in self-reliance, in taking care of ourselves and our family. this rule from the department of labor is bad. let's fix it with this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from new york, the ranking member of the subcommittee on capital markets, on the financial services committee, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: i thank the ranking member for yielding and for her leadership on this issue. i, first of all, would like unanimous consent to place into the record over 95 investor protection, consumer protection

groups who adamantly support the position of the department of labor rule that protects investors and consumers. mr. speaker, the department of labor's fiduciary duty rule advances a very simple principle. if you're giving advice to retirement savers and you're being compensated for your advice, then you have to put your customers' interests first. it's worth noting that most investors already think that this is the law. even though it isn't. so the department of labor's rule is a much-needed update of the rules governing investment advice to retirement savers. and i would say we have a particular responsibility as legislators to protect retirement savers.

which is what the d.o.l. rule does. while the proposed rule is not perfect, no rule ever is. the department has been incredibly responsive, very responsive to legitimate concerns that have been raised and they've been more than willing to engage with congress and with industry and with investors to come up with better solutions. but this bill before us would effectively stop the department of labor's rule in its tracks, which is the completely wrong thing to do if you want to protect investors. this bill is also redundant, unnecessary and really reflects a misunderstanding of the law. one of the core principles of the employee retirement income security act or erissa was that investments made for the purpose -- erisa was that investments made for the purpose of retirement security should enjoy special

protections under the law. and what's it this d.o.l. rule does. this by definition means that the protections under erisa are supposed to be different than the protections under ordinary securities laws. they should be more protective of the retirement investor. as a result, the s.e.c. and the department of labor have different responsibilities. and when two agencies have different responsibilities, it is completely appropriate for them to move separately and even to write different rules. this bill would also require the s.e.c. to conduct yet another study, or i would call it a delay, on a uniform fiduciary standard for broker dealers. already required the s.e.c. to conduct a study on this issue in dodd-frank. and the s.e.c. staff recommendation in that study was that the s.e.c. should in fact adopt a uniform fiduciary standard for broker dealers.

requiring the s.e.c. to conduct largely the same study that they already conducted in 2011, i believe they can move ahead with their own fiduciary rule, it's pointless and shows that the true intent of the bill, the underlying bill, is to delay both the department of labor's rule and any future s.e.c. rule which ultimately is there to protect the retirement saver and investor. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and i urge them to vote for investor protections and to protect consumers. a vote -- i urge a very strong no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm now happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. royce, chairman of the house foreign affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the retail investor protection act, and the department of labor's

proposal here is going to harm the very working class americans that the administration claims that it's supporting. this is not hyperbole. this is not a hypothetical. i want to give you the real results of what happened in the united kingdom when it enacted similar regulation in 2013. here are the disastrous results. 310,000 clients were dropped. 60,000 new investors were rejected. an estimated 11 million potential savers were priced out of advice. in the face of these facts, the department of labor continues to insist on applying the failed philosophy of government knows best to retirement savings. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. and thank the gentlewoman from

missouri for her leadership on this. i yield back the balance of my time. mrs. maloney: will the gentleman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from virginia, the ranking member of the education and work force committee, mr. bobby scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you and thank the gentlelady for rising. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 1090, the so-called retail investor protection act. this bill puts an effective end to the department of labor's responsible effort to modernize a fiduciary standard under the employee retirement income security act or erisa that was implemented 40 years ago. as we all know our country's retirement savings land escape has changed sick -- significantly since that time. 40 years ago the majority of retirement assets were held in defined benefit plans and managed by professionals. plans did 401-k

not exist and i.r.a.'s had just been sentenced -- established. today americans have more than $12 trillion invested in 401-k plans and i.r.a.'s and they have to make their own financial decisions. many workers and their families don't have the expertise in managing investment portfolios and so they often have to rely on financial advisors to help them save for retirement. while many of those advisors do right by their clients, others do not. there is a lot of difference, there are a lot of different financial products that americans can purchase. some have extremely high fees, while comparable products and perhaps evens better ones have lower fees. -- even better ones have lower fees. his allowed advisors to push a financial product for which they will reap a bigger profit, even if the product is not in the best interest of their client. it is individuals with modest retirement savings, many of our constituents, who stand to lose the most from receiving

conflicted advice. now, national public radio recently conducted a series that in part highlighted how americans are losing billions of dollars every year out of their retirement accounts because they're paying excessive fees. as a hypothetical example, n.p.r. cited a person who invests $10,000, that investment makes 7% return over the years. over 40 years that investment would be worth almost $150,000. but if you've invested in a fund that charges a 2% annual fee, now you've cut the return down from 7% to 5% and over 40 years your investment will be worth about 70,000, not almost $150,000. that's obviously a big difference and that's the kind of insidious erosion of retirement savings that the department is working to end with their rule. since april the department of labor has been engaged in necessary rule make process.

the department has informed us that over that time it provided american public a total of 164 days to submit comments, they conducted four full days of public hearings and convened over 100 meetings. and that total doesn't account for meeting they've held with members of congress. now the department is completing its work on the rule and is taking into account the thousands of comments it received. here in congress we should just let them finish their job. millions of americans rely on financial advisors for advice on how to protect their hard-earned retirement savings and it's about time that we ensure that those americans are provided advice consistent with their best interests, not what would ultimately be in the best interest and profit for the advisor. i therefore urge colleagues to defeat this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm very happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr.

hultgren, a very important member of the house financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in support of legislation that will protect hardworking americans' access to retirement advice. the labor department is aggressively pushing a flawed rule which might be a political win for the obama administration, but would come at expense of americans trying to save for retirement. this is why i co-sponsored the retail investors protection act. the administration claims they plan -- the plan they have put forward will help people trying to save for retirement. instead it would hurt many of them. the labor department has proposed restricting retirement advice and reducing options for what financial instruments can be use fod save for the future -- can be used to save for the future. the regulatory costs would hit those who have had difficulty saving the hardest. one firm in my district who serve 30,000 customers told me they fear the labor department proposal will make it impossible to offer quality services to low and middle

income customers. the administration clearly has no concept what have these rules will mean for main street investors. and they have chosen to ignore the benefits provided by retirement advisors. my constituents tell me that they save more because of the advice they get. relatively simple advice such as not making irrational decisions in volatile markets is incredibly valuable, especially for less fist skit -- sophisticated investors. furthermore the department's proposal mentions annuities 172 times but the regulatory impact analysis does not examine the impact of those financial products. the department of labor is choosing to ignore congress and the people et claims to protect. i sent a letter to the department of labor and it's been throw month, he has yet to address my concerns.