the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 171, the nays are 252. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for amendment number 7 by the gentleman from california, mr. hunter, on which further proceedings were post poned. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173, the nays are 255. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number printed in part a of house report 114-326 by the gentleman from california, mr. denham, on which further proceedings were postponed, noes previsa something -- prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. denham of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having ordered. recorded is members will record their votes by electronic device. a sufficient number having arisen -- this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 248, the nays are 180. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 114-326

by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] fdic -- [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 238. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 14 printed in part a of house report 114-326

by the gentleman from texas, mr. col bersome, on -- culberson. the clerk will redisnate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. culberson of texas. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 116, the nays are 313. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 21 printed in part a of house report 114-326 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in part a of house report 114-326 offered by mr. lewis of georgia. the chair: a vorded vote having

been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 181 and the nays are 248, the amendment is not adopted the printed in part a from the the

gentleman from washington on which proceedings were postponed. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in part a of 116 offered by mr. reichert of washington. clarmente a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 200 and the nays are 228. the unfinished is part 28 by the gentleman from florida, on which further proceedings were postponed and noes were postponed. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in part a in house eport 114-326. the chair: those in request of a recorded vote. members will record their votes by electronic device. by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

scharmente the yeas are 118 and the nays are 310 and the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment consisting of the rules as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted.

the chair: the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania eek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, madam speaker. the clerk: the -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-326 offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, and a member owe polesed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the .entleman from pennsylvania

mr. perry: thank you, madam speaker. i request such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. he gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: thank you, madam speaker. the export-import bank has a portfolio annually somewhere in the tune of $120 billion. i think under the new proposal, $130 billion. 51%, madam speaker, 51 -- fully 51% goes to 10 companies in our country. $120 billion. isn't that fantastic? whether you support or oppose the ex-im, everyone can welcome the fact that the re-authorization we're considering today raises the bank's small business target.

right? 25%. republicans and democrats in both houses, have called on the bank to focus on small business needs more effectively. now, this amendment keeps that 25% small business target in the underlying bill. doesn't change that. but it would then raise the target by 5% a year through the re-authorization period. madam speaker, $120 billion a year, $130 billion a year, 51% goes to 10 companies in the united states. and you think, wouldn't it be great if the town that i represent, the towns that members in this house represent, could be one of those 10 companies? and it's not to disparage any of those 10 companies. we're happy that they're in the united states and we're happy that they're profitable. but these small businesses that are trying to get a leg up, that want to employ their neighbors, that want to enrich their communities, they would like a shot as well. but they don't have legions of lobbyists. they don't have big staffs to

go to the ex-im bank and plead their case. and what that results in is 98% of small businesses, 9 % of trade across our country -- 98% of trade our country is conducted without any help at all from the ex-im bank. wouldn't it be great if we could remedy that and wouldn't it be easy to remedy that? that's what the amendment that i propose does. with this amendment, ex-im still has the flexibility to devote most of its assistance, now 51%, to 10 companies in the country, to large businesses, the big ones will still have the same access to ex-im. all this does is requires the ex-im to take small businesses more seriously. yes, it's a little more work. right, they don't have the lobbyists and the staff that all these big multinational companies do. but isn't it worth it in our small towns to help them, to assist them? we know the bank is more than capable of doing this. in fiscal year 2014, 25% of its

authorization went to small businesses. so the bank easily met its target. but in the three years prior to that, ex-im ignored, literally ignored the small business target that congress enacted and required of them. under this amendment, ex-im has to ensure that it meets its small business target. it has to. if we want to help small businesses like the one in your town, the one in the towns that you represent, we have to make sure that it does that. we need to keep an ambitious targs that -- target that ex-im can reach and encourages the bank to reach it. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield a minute and a half to my friend, mr. mulvaney. correction, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: i rise in opposition to this amendment

and i will be opposing all amendments to this portion of the highway bill. without a doubt, these amendments reflect the latest in a string of tactics by opponents of the ex-im bank to delay and block any re-authorization of the bank from moving forward. this amendment and other anti-ex-im amendments we will soon consider cannot reasonably be see ared as -- be viewed as a constructive effort. as we know well, small businesses are unquestionably ntral to the health of our economy. many small businesses were already directly supported by the programs offered by the ex-im bank. in fact, in fiscal year 2014, out of over 3,700 authorizations, more than 3,300 are, or nearly 90%, directly served u.s. small businesses.

the remaining 10%, many of these authorizations served companies that support vast u.s. supply chains. including in my district. the effort to use small businesses as a pawn in the fight to kill the ex-im bank should be rejected. this amendment must be rejected and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. perry: i yield one minute to my good friend, mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mulvaney: i thank the gentleman and i agree with most of what the ranking member on financial services just said, with the exception of the conclusion. everything that the ex-im bank does for small businesses is actually very productive. here's the question. why isn't the export-import bank meeting its small business requirement? why hasn't it met it for the last three years? it has not met its statutory requirement. one of the things we've not talked about yet is that the amendment also puts a penalty on the bank for not meeting that target. right now it's the law that the bank has to provide a certain

level of services to the small business community. it's failed to do that. as is so often the case, there is no penalty. this amendment would add the penalty. it helps small business, it expands the export bank small business presence, and it actually puts some teeth in the law for a change. i hope that we can support this amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the whip, mr. hoyer, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady. i'm sorry i don't have more time. this is a bill about jobs. the amendment is about killing jobs. as he wants to kill the bank. the gentleman who sponsored this amendment. that's all it is. every one of these amendments will undermine the export-import bank that got 313 votes on this floor. and the gentleman mentions five businesses. what he didn't mention is the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs that they create and maintain.

that's what we're talking about. jobs for average americans. whether they work for large, medium or small businesses, we're talking about jobs for americans. and here you are at the last minute trying to kill it. you had 2 1/2 years to offer your amendments. you had 2 1/2 years to bring this bill to the floor. you chose not to because the minority was going to kill this bill. and i told your majority leader over and over and over again, it had the majority of your party, and you refused to bring it to this floor. onight is the time to say, the majority rules, the 313 will rule. reject every one of these amendments and let's create jobs with the export-import bank. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind members that the comments are to be directed to the chair and not

to other members. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 45 seconds left. per per may i reserve? -- mr. perry: may i reserve? the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from washington who serves on the financial services committee and who has worked tirelessly for this e-authorization, mr. heck. the chair: if the gentlelady would entertain a question. for how long are you yielding, the gentlelady from california? how much time? mr. heck: 20 minutes? ms. waters: no. one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. heck: thank you, madam chair. let's begin with the facts. the facts are this. every single killing amendment being offered tonight is in fact being sponsored by somebody who voted against passage of the ex-im. they don't want to improve the ex-im. they want to kill the ex-im. the fact is that 20% target in current law, with all due respect to one of the previous speakers, is not a requirement. it is a target. stop saying requirement.

words matter. that's misleading and it's wrong. the fact is nearly 90%, 90% of all transactions of the ex-im go to small businesses. i can't help it that a pickle of jars sells for infinitely less than a boeing airplane or that music stands sell for less. the fact of the matter is, 90% of their transactions go to small business. the fact of the matter is, economics 101, please hear me sometime. the boeing arrow plane company has 14,800 businesses in its supply chain. reject the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized because the gentleman is going to reserve to close. ms. waters: i yield to mr. fincher who has been an absolute leader on this issue, one minute. the chair: if the gentlelady

could tell me how much time she is yielding. ms. waters: i yield to mr. fincher one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fincher: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. one more time, let me talk about the facts. the facts are, as the gentleman from washington just stated, 90% of the bank's transactions go to small businesses. 3,340 transactions. the facts are that section 201 in our reform bill that's actually reforming the export-import bank takes the target, not the requirement, but the target from 20% to 25%. what we need to make sure that we're focused on here tonight is not punishing people that want to grow their businesses or not trying to put a cap on people that want to create jobs. again, i'm from a little place called frog jump. this is not about boeing and this is not about g.e. this is about jobs all over this country that don't cost the taxpayer one penny. not one penny, madam speaker.

this is just about killing the export-import bank and killing jobs. it breaks my heart. but we must defeat these amendments and i urge my colleagues to vote no and with that i yield back to the ranking member. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. 45 seconds. mr. perry: madam speaker, the fact is that all the reforms that the kind gentleman just spoke of, they're not going to happen. none of that's happening. the senate threw that in the trash. so what we have is an ex-im bank that has refused to comply with the law over and over again. and the fact also remains that nobody here's trying to kill the ex-im bank. we are. this is the process by which we make it better. and whether or not you sell a jar of pickles or whether you sell an airplane, $120 billion, 51% of it goes to 10 companies, means you'll figure it out. you figure out what that looks like to you. to me it looks like cronyism. that's what it looks like to me.

i come from york, pennsylvania, and instead of creating thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs, we'd like to create tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs by requiring the bank that's encumbering the united states taxpayer to work with small businesses, the businesses in our towns, instead of just going to the big businesses in this country. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california has 30 seconds remaining. ms. waters: i simply say to the gentleman from pennsylvania, you figure it out. evidently you don't know anything about what ex-im does and the jobs that it provides. i yield one minute to a leader with courage, mr. lucas, on this issue. the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady has 15 seconds remaining. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman, mr. lucas. mr. lucas: madam speaker, my colleagues, i would urge you to reject this amendment and all the amendments. this process should have happened six months ago. it should have happened in committee. it should have happened in regular order. but we weren't allowed to do

that. we've been forced into this position. reject this amendment, reject these amendments. and then let's begin the process of real reform. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. perry: on that qui a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in art b of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 113-326 offered by mr. mull veiny of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 512, the gentleman from south carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: parliamentary inquiry before you start my time. the chair: the gentleman will state the parliamentary inquiry. mr. mulvaney: you state number two. is that mulvaney number 2 or mulvaney number 1? the chair: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house eport 114-326. mr. mulvaney: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mulvaney: we hear that the place to do this was in committee. fine. that doesn't mean the principles are wrong. -- the fact that we didn't do it six months ago does not make a good amendment a bad amendment the amendments will stand on their own merit as this one

will. what this amendment does is simple. one of the things we've heard about the bank is we need the bank to meet foreign competition that 1,700 other countries have export credit facilities and if we don't have one of our own, we'll unilaterally disarm and not be able to compete in the global marketplace. i happen to disagree with that. i happen to have some faith that american fwoods are good enough to compete overseas without the subsidy. but that's fine. let's take that for the sake of discussion and say we don't want to union latrlly disarm. what this amendment does is make sure we don't. this amendment says, if you want to use the export-import bank, you have to establish that you're competing with a foreign export credit facility. fairly simple. goes to the heart of why some say we have the bank. so why not say, ok, look, we will have this thing. until we convince other countries to get out of this business which we are doing and are obligated by law to be

doing, not by target but by law, we have the responsibility to do that, since 2012. yet this administration has refused to do that. but until we get a chance to enno, sir the law and get other countries to disarm, let's not unilaterally disarm and let's make sure that in order to wruse the export-import bank you have to be meeting specific and identifiable competition from other facilities. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: i yield to myself one minute. this amendment, offered by one of the leading opponent of the ex-im bank would chop the ex-im bank's mission in half by eliminating the bank's role in providing financing to fill market gaps that the private sector is unable to meet. this would overwhelmingly harm the small businesses that use the bank and that often have the

hardest time securing the financing they need through the private sector alone. for example, when u.s. small businesses are seeking to export, commercial banks often refuse to accept foreign receivables as collateral for a loan without an ex-im guarantee. without ex-im, these small businesses would be unable to extend terms to foreign buyers and would have to ask for cash in advance. in these cases, sales would almost always go to a firm from another country that can count on the backing of the -- of its own official export credit agency. i urge all members to oppose this amendment which would undermine the bank's important role and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: how much time did each of us consume in our opening statements? the chair: two minutes for the gentleman from south carolina, and one minute for the gentlewoman from california.

mr. mulvaney: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: i will yield one minute to the gentleman from washington. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. ms. waters: one and a half minutes for mr. heck. mr. heck: two quick points. let's not leave this issue of the irregular order and nature of what we're doing. let's all remember one thing. not only are all the people who are advancing moment amendments here today opponents of the ex-im and want to kill it, but they also, many of them, sat in the committee and voted against an amendment to the budget views and estimates that suggested that re-authorization of the ex-im ought to be subjected to regular order. they have already made their position clear. no regular order. they not only don't want regular order, they don't want the ex-im. it's not 700 and however many

countries that have export credit authorities, it is only 59, it is every other developed nation on the face of the earth. the chinese have not one but four export credit authorities and in the last two years they have financed as much as our export-import bank has in its 81-year history. let me leave you with this one thought. i know a lot of you on that side of the aisle read "the wall street journal." i hope you saw the business section two days ago. the headline is, china rolls out first large passenger jet. "wall street journal." i warned here about a year ago they were developing the c-9-1---- the c-919. it's pictured here. they have the c-929, a double aisle, wide body airplane under development. do you really want to strike this death blow to the heart of america's manufacturing

business? please vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman -- the chair: the gentlewoman eserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker. i think it's worth considering how we got to this point. considering that under regular committee order, we should have take then bill up six months ago. three months ago, many of us went to the point of plead -- went from the point of pleading to demanding, pressing harder and harder to bring to th to a focus. ultimately, that was not the option. we were obligated to use a rather old but important rule in order to bring this legislation to the floor. as some of my colleagues have noted, a super majority of the house voted for it.

313 members. a majority of the republican conference, a majority of the majority, voted for it. yet now we're at a point where we're rebattleling all these amendments. if you can't win by playing by the rules, then how do you win in this place? if we defeat all of these amendments, will things mysteriously happen in the next process? we'll have to fight that off? that's why i ask my colleague, play by the rules. remember what we accomplished last week. understand the real purpose of these amendments. if it was to perfect the bill, then the authors would have been working with us six months ago. or three months ago. or a few weeks ago. but that wasn't the option provided. so now, a second time, we have to fight our way all the way through these shrns. -- these issues. please, demonstrate you care

about economic competitiveness in this country. demonstrate that you care about workers in this country. reject all these amendments, let's move the process over with, let's finish this for real. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: i yield to the gentleman, mr. schweikert for twomens. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schweikert: i stand behind the microphone hopefully helping many of you who support the ex-im bank to stand behind your previous rhetoric. if i remember this, as you said, the older, was it -- old, or was it archaic process, i notice the rule you brought allowed me to bring my reform amendment because you were reforming the -- oh, that's right. you didn't. you did not allow us to have that voice, those reforms. it was not a process. so now guess what's going on. we happen to have regular order, an opportunity to walk up and say we have some little ideas

that we believe make the institution better. to my friends on the left, ok, 59 credit enhancement, surety enhancement organizations. all this amendment does is says if you're competing against someone who is using another country's credit enhancement, you get to use ours. isn't that what you are asking for reform wise? if you want to level the playing field what a great idea. if they're using it, we get to use it. if they're not using it, we don't have to. that is reform and that matches up with the rhetoric i was hearing around here last week of how you were reforming the institution. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the final one minute. mr. fincher: thank you, madam

ranking member. again, we continue to make these great speeches and get all wound up, but we don't talk about the facts. the facts are, bank customers already have to certify. the facts are that all the people offering the amendments want to kill the export-import bank which creates thousands of jobs. the facts are that we could have done this in committee a year ago. the facts are none of us wanted to be here tonight having this debate because we wanted to do this in regular order. but mr. speaker, the facts are that if we allow these amendments that are just aimed at killing the export-import bank, then thousands of people will lose their jobs and our competitors all around the world are going to benefit. we must vote no. we need to defeat this amendment. i appreciate my buddy if south carolina offering it but i think

it's in the wrong order and we need to defeat it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mulvaney: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: you have one and a half minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you very much. let's look at the facts. the bank is required to look at this. they're not required to consider it. there are examples, factual examples of the bank looking into whether or not there were any countervailing efforts done by foreign credit facilities and just ignoring that. yes, the law does require it but there's no teeth in the law. this amendment would allow taos do that another fact new york 2012, this body required the export-import bank to start getting out of the business of competing with export-import banks overseas in the airline industry. law, sign here. signed by the senate. signed by the president. completely ignored by this administration this amendment woult fix that. those are the facts, mr. chairman, for my friend from tennessee.

the facts are, the administration is not following the law. we've seen that from time to time, haven't we, mr. fincher? we have a chance to rectify that this afternoon, mr. chairman, by passing this amendment and focusing the bank on what everybody seems to agree is a very important core duty of competing with export credit facilities overseas and i would recommend approval of the amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the no -- in the opinion of the chair, the noes appear to have it. mr. mulvaney: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in 114-326. house report for what purpose does the

gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. mulvaney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-326 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield now to mr. stutzman of indiana such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stutzman: i rise today in support of private lenders crowded out by the export-import bank. i thank my friend, mr. mulvaney, for his work in reforming the export-import bank and introducing this particularly important reform. this amendment is pro-american, and pro-jobs, and is entirely consistent with the policy of ex-im's last authorization. last year, mr. speaker, earlier

this year, and earlier this year, i worked in good faith to reform the export-import bank. the bank's authorization lapsed in large part because the white house and the bank's proponents would not take yes for an answer. they refused to work with us on changes, just like they are again tonight that would prevent any single business from dominating the bank's activity or to prevent the bank from crowding out private lenders. that latter point is the one that this amendment will address. this amendment requires loan applicants receiving more than $10 million to certify that they had originally sought out and been denied by two private lenders. this requirement doesn't block anyone from getting a loan. it only requires that they go to traditional banks first. this provision is similar to one required for some small business administration financing as well. mr. speaker, one of my central objections to government lending

programs are that their capacity to to -- is their exatsity to destroy and replace private markets. the government inevitably misallocates resources and jobs, ultimately making our industries less competitive and reducing jobs in the long term. apparently the authors of the bank's prior re-authorization also agree to that point. because according to the ex-im's charter it is, quote, the policy of the united states that the bank in the exercise of its functions should supplement and encourage and not compete with private capital, end quote. let me emphasize that last point. the wang bank should not compete with private capital. unfortunately, i have heard from lenders in indiana who say absent ex-im, they would be finance manager exports. if the bank is going to exist at all, the role of the bank should only be as a lend over last resort. the bank is only intended to fill gaps in the private lending

market. any larger role the bank plays is a violation of its own charter. . granting the bank a larger role would exacerbate market distortions that will ultimately fail countries and the businesseses that rely on them. this amendment simply ensures that export-import bank stays within its bounds. if the bank is truly a lender of last resort, this amendment will not affect its lending. if it is in fact competing with private lenders, despite clear congressional intent, then this amendment will start to correct the problem. mr. speaker, the world is watching. developing countries are deciding whether to pursue american-style capitalism or chinese-style central planning. as speaker ryan put it last week on this house floor, he said, we should be exporting democratic capitalism, not crony capitalism. the bank is going to be -- if this bank is going to be re-authorized, we should at least make a real effort to let private lenders have the first

opportunity to finance exports. i know that many of ex-im's proponents agree, the bank is not a long term solution to foreign competition. even ex-im chair fred hawkburg agrees, telling us earlier this year in committee that, in a perfect world, there would be no export credit agency of the united states. if our priority is long-term economic growth and employment, then we must not be tempted to rely on central planned exports the way that china and europe do. mr. speaker, this is a commonsense amendment and i would ask my colleagues to support the amendment and at this time i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. chair, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: i yield to myself one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: this amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina is yet another attempt to undermine the re-authorization of the ex-im

bank. requiring multiple denials of assistance from the private sector to be provided as a recondition of obtaining finances, the ex-im bank would not exist if they had to go before someone and require that they look at their application 10 times, 15 times. so, this would be burdensome. it would be tire time consuming. and -- time consuming. and unlikely -- more likely unworkable for potential users of the ex-im bank. the fact is, private sector banks don't generally issue letters of rejection. likely making compliance with the amendment impossible. i also take issue with the provisions included in the amendment that are designed to intimidate potential users of the bank who would be liable if they were found to have not adequately determined whether private sector financing may have been available to them. so i urge members to oppose this amendment, which would impose new restrictions on u.s. businesses alone, putting them

at a unique disadvantage. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. stutzman: reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from washington one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. ms. waters: we'll yield to the gentleman two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. of all the arguments against the export-import bank, this is my favorite. ayn rand would be thrilled, i'm appalled, of all the arguments, private lenders will be crowded out. private lenders will be displaced. private lenders, woe is me, you're taking away our business. and yet no one ever, not once, has answered the question, why is it then that the american bankers association and the independent community bankers association are among the strongest supporters of this?

because the truth of the matter is markets aren't perfect. mr. heck: and they don't work in certain circumstances. where don't they work? they don't work with low-cost items, jenny's pickles, manhattan music stands, traffic cones. why? because a small bank doesn't have the wherewithal to correct across an international border and a big bank isn't going to bother with that low volume of a transaction. a big bank isn't going to bother with jenny's pickles or man has it music stands. it's not worth it to them. and that's why they see that markets aren't perfect, there are certain instances where they fail, and that's why they support re-authorization of the export-import bank. you know, we actually ought to be very proud of it. sometimes it's used as a point of criticism. you know, they only finance one or two -- 1% or 2%, who needs them, it's such a small amount? i take that as a point of

pride. we're laser-focused on exactly where the need is, where the market isn't perfect. we're not subsidizing. we're in fact compensating for an imperfect market. perhaps it's china that is subsidizing, with their export credit authorities, which again in the aggregate loan more -- loaned more in the last two years or financed more than we have in our 81-year history. we're laser-focused where the market doesn't exactly work. small cost items, large lived capital items, that's the other issue. who's going to collect across an international border? i urge you to vote no because the private sector wants you to vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, inquire of the time remaining. the chair: the gentleman has one minute. mr. mulvaney: i recognize the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman. i thank the chair.

as a rank and file member, that is a member who's not on the financial service committee, i want to stand in strong support of this amendment. there's a lot of us that are looking for a way forward in this. and this reform would allow that to happen. we don't know whether the private sector would work or not. because those who are seeking lending aren't forced to ask. i find that laughable that some say that this would be too onerous on a bank or someone seeking lending. that's the same people who think that dodd-frank regulations are ok. aren't too onerous. i think that's ridiculous. last week we were afforded the choice of an unreformed ex-im bank or no ex-im bank. this amendment and the ones being brought up tonight like it offer us a third way. commonsense reforms that would allow the private sector to work and then allow the ex-im bank to be a function of last resort. preserving the jobs that we all

care about. no one on this floor, republican or democrat, wants to kill a job. that's ridiculous. as a rank and file member off committee, i stand in support of the mulvaney amendment and ask for support. yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from's time from south carolina has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kinzinger: i thank the ranking member for yielding. i just want to address a statement that was made a little earlier. from my friend from indiana. he quoted the chairman and said, in a perfect world we would not need ex-im. i agree. in a perfect world we wouldn't need nuclear weapons. in a perfect world, nobody would have nuclear weapons. but nobody in this chamber is suggesting that we unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons in order to live by the politics of purity. i had dinner the other day with a friend of mine who has a manufacturing company and he told me, it's a small manufacturing company, they

export drilling components to third world countries to help them drill for their own energy resources, he informed me that he's actually lost 15% of his business since this charter has expired. that's real money. that's real exporting. that's a real situation that affects real people's lives. look, i understand that people want to amend this. and i think they have a right to desire to amend this. and the place to amend this would have been in the committee, that i'm not on, by the way. it would have been ant opportunity to amend it, to have a full debate and bring the amended bill to the floor of the house of representatives to debate. that didn't happen. i urge my colleagues to vote against this and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield one minute to mr. lucas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the final one minute. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the ranking member. i just simply note to my colleagues, why did we get to this point? why should we vote against this

amendment? why should we vote against all 10 amendments? because 100 years ago our friends, our predecessors, set up a system so if a speaker or chairman thwarted the will of the body, there would be a way for the membership to bring it forward and pass it. but the system had to be created so streamlined that that same force or forces working to prevent the body from working its will could not overcome it. last week we demonstrated that rule worked. but unfortunately we today are demonstrating they didn't quite think everything through. because we're revoting or we're voting on 10 issues on a subject matter that was solved last week. my colleagues, if you enjoy being here this evening, if you enjoy listening to this debate all over again, i'm sorry. the proponents didn't do this. we thought we had won by playing fair and square last week. furthermore, we would have

loved this debate six months ago. six months ago. i yield back, mr. speaker. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to. ms. waters: requesting a recorded vote, the yeas and nays. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 , further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. mulvaney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-326 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i thank the chair and recognize myself for such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mulvaney: thank you. i want to, before i go on to the next amendment, i want to briefly put a closing point on the last discussion. responding to the gentleman from, mr. washington, mr. heck. of course the bankers love this. what does a banker love any less than a guaranteed loan? as for jenny's pickles we've heard about many, many times, i point out to everybody that the last amendment was limited to loans that were greater than $10 million. not really, really small businesses. those are exactly the type of private sector market loans we're looking for. and in fact if i wanted to sum up why you should support the last amendment in one sentence it would be, can't we at least maybe give the private sector a chance first on loans of this size? another opportunity to do that now, mr. chairman. on this next amendment. which would prohibit the export-import bank from doing any business with companies that are owned or have other

ties to sovereign wealth funds in exs of $100 billion -- in excess of $100 billion. i'll give you an example of how the export-import bank is being used now. a business in indonesia was seeking bids for a power plant. one of the american manufacturers was in the bidding and the bid request came in as follows and says that the buyer shall finance the project using 30% equity and 70% debt. an export credit agency shall cover at least 50% of the debt financing, bidder shall propose a lender which w.h.o. will cover the loan without -- who will cover the loan without guarantee from the government of indonesia and without collateral. what was this, mr. chairman? in this was a foreign government saying, we would like to buy your stuff and if we don't pay you, we'd like your taxpayers to be on the hook. that's exactly what this is. and that's why so many of these international requests for proposals have exactly that requirement in it. these foreign governments don't want to be responsible if they can't pay. they want this government to be responsible if they can't pay.

and that means they want our taxpayers to be responsible if they can't pay. we figured, let's go ahead and let that be, mr. chairman. for a little bit. but if you have a sovereign wealth fund in excess of $100 billion, then maybe you should be on the hook. maybe our taxpayers should not be. maybe you're big enough to actually guarantee your own debts. seems like a fairly reasonable thing, as you're sitting here and try to figure out ways to protect the taxpayer. i encourage folks to support this particular amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. chair, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: i yield to myself one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: i rise in opposition to yet another poison pill amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. the amendment seeks to create an odd linkage between the world sovereign wealth funds and the provision of export credit financing.

given the fact that even if these funds involved themselves a great deal in the provision of export financing, which i understand they do not, i would assume they would be more interested in financing their own country's exports and not the exports of american goods and services. in any event, i want to be very clear about one thing. the purpose of the u.s. export-import bank is to support american jobs by boosting u.s. exports. the bank exists to serve american interests, so when we withhold financing from the potential foreign purchaser of a u.s. product or service, we're only hurting ourselves. this is not a serious amendment and i urge members to oppose it. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognize. mr. mulvaney: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady from wisconsin who served on the financial services

committee, ms. moore, for one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: i oppose this amendment. this amendment incorrectly assumes the funds have some special linkage to export financing. sovereign wealth funds do not have a link to export financing this egentleman is certainly thinking about one of his favorite companies, delta, who complains about the export-import bank while ignoring the oecd and existing mechanisms established to address this. for example the open sky clause. i repeat, sovereign wealth funds do not have a direct link to export credit financing. i i gree with the gentlelady from california -- i agree with the gentlelady from california that this cannot be taken seriously. i urge members to oppose it and i yield back to the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from south

carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from washington one minute. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. heck: it is -- the truth is, the export-import bank has transferred money into the treasury to reduce the deficit. it's also been suggested that these amendments somehow constitute reform as opposed to the underlying bill. not true. this is the biggest package of reforms ever enacted for ex-im. it does the fol logue. odd cod fi the chief risk officer and risk management committee, provide and require external audits and fraud controls. provide upgrades in modernization of i.t. long overdue. it expands loss reserves to 5% resm deuces exposure of the portfolio from $140 billion to

$135 billion. it has a pilot program shifted to the private sector. s that reform bill without the amendments. these amendments are designed to kill the bill. vote no on the bill, volt for reform, vote no on the amendments. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the squom reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: may i inquire as to the time remaining. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina has three minutes the gentlewoman from california, two. mr. mulvaney: i yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rokita: looking at reforms last week, those reforms either already existed, have been in place an been ignored by the ex-im bank, we've been waiting several years since the last time i voted againsts the ex-im bank for these reforms and they don't do it. or it's ignorance or malfeasance

with regard to tra tegsal or standard business or bank practices. i stand in favor of this amendment because this proposal would prevent the ex-im bank from providing any foreign company that benefits from joint support when that company also has a sovereign wealth fund over $100 billion. why would we want to subsidize a joint venture that has or could have that backing, that state backing from its own country? now if we enacted this reform for fiscal year 2014, applying this provision would have resulted in an estimated reduction of approximately $3.1 billion or only 15% of the bank's total authorization, far from killing it, but again, allowing a needed reform that isn't in the underlying legislation we dealt with. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. fincher: again, i know, great public speeches but this is the biggest package of reforms since president reagan. the bank actually returns on an average $500 million to $1 billion to the treasury every year. it's not costing the taxpayer a dime. and these are a few companies, abro industries in south bend, indiana. auburn leather company in auburn, kentucky. metropolitan air technology, chicago, illinois. advanced protection technologies, clearwater, florida. several companies, mr. speaker, that will not be in business if we kill the export-import bank. and all you hear from the opposition are excuses trying to kill the export-import bank. it's a shame when the facts don't matter, mr. speaker, but the facts are, this doesn't cost the tax payers. the facts are, we are doing more to reform the bank than has been

done in 40 years. this is a reform package, a republican reform package. let's put the politics aside and do what's best for our constituents and folks back home. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i thank the speaker and gentlelady. once again, let's turn this amendment down. let's turn back all these amendments. if anything, this amendment appears to try to fix the problem that one company has in one sector, in one region of the world. some people might define that as crony capitalism. others might call it an earmark. let's turn this back. let's turn all these back. let's get on with our business. i'm sorry we have to go through this this evening. i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: i recognize the

gentleman, mr. schweikert, for one minute. whoip the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schweikert: to my friend from tennessee, let's do the facts. simple amendments because without it you've all decided to subsidize the uber wealthy in the world. think about it. you have made a decision to use our import credit facility, our constituents' credit, subsidize great wealth around the world. that's what you've decided to do here. i thought there was a battle here between the right and the left and the left always says, we're for the little guy. here's your chance. if you want to -- if you want some basic reforms that, are you thrilled with the con soacht a sovereign wealth fund coming out of indonesia, malaysia? we're going to guarantee the loan instruments on the back of our taxpayers? i mean, come on. at some point the absurdity of the argument saying, well, you had a chance to do this last week, no we didn't.

you chose to do a closed rule. you did. you had every opportunity to do an open rule and give us the chance to put these actual reforms in. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. speakers are remined to address their comments to the chair. the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for 30 seconds. the gentlewoman is recognized or 30 seconds.

ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman, for your indulgence. obviously they don't get what a commonwealth fund is. it's just a balance of payments between countries. i think it's a dilatory argument. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: i have one minute remain, mr. chairman? the chair: yes. mr. mulvaney: i recognize myself for that minute. i've heard arguments that this is a convoluted linkage. no, it's pretty straightforward. the bank shall not extend credit to a transaction that benefit from support from a foreign government if the foreign government has a sovereign wealth fund of at least $100

million. 23 you're involved with a sovereign wealth fund you don't get money. this is to protect one customer -- that's absurd. this is to protect 150 million american taxpayers. the last thing i heard was this is not serious. yes it is. any time we have the opportunity to put american taxpayers in front of foreign taxpayers, i think that would be fairly serious. i would encourage support of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman has 15 seconds left. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. walters: mr. chairman and members -- ms. waters: mr. chairman and members this desperate attempt this last-minute attempt to try and kill ex-im is laughable. i am asking all of the members of this house to simply see it for what it is and vote against it. vote no on these amendments. on this amendment. the chair: all time has expire

thsmed equestion is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mulvaney: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has requested a roll call vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. mulvaney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 prinned in part b of house report 114-326 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina.

mr. mulvaney: i recognize smeist for one minute. the chair: -- i recognize myself for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mulvaney: we have heard how much money the treasury gets from the export-import bank, how profitable it is for the american taxpayer. that's great. then let's get rid of the connection between the export-import bank and the guarantee the tissuery give to it. let the export-import bank rise and fall on its own balance sheet. not put the tax pay own the hook. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman veckniced for one minute. ms. moore: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strident opposition to this amendment. i think this amendment tells the

story that they really are trying to destroy the export-import bank as opposed to reforming it. how can you deny borrowing authority to a lending institution and say you're serious about having it stay alive? the bank has been a -- has done a fantastic job of managing risk by keeping its overall debt rate below one quarter of one percent, far better than the private banks. the export bank re-authorization includes the creation of a permanent chief risk officer role establishing a risk management committee, enhancing the bank's loan loss reserve arkse among other reforms. the underlying bill makes the bank safer and better run before. making this amendment transparently unnecessary. members should oppose this anti-ex-im amendment. i yield back to the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves this egentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california

is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. fincher: i thank the ranking member once again. i do think, to the gentlelady's comments, this does show an attempt to kill the bank. again, because you go back home to our districts and a lot of times, we're on the tail end of jokes, being congressmen and congresswomen and sometimes they talk about us being a little slow. so let me go over the facts one more time for the gentleman from south carolina. the bank doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny. we're doing more in the way of reforms than since president reagan. it returns $500 million to $1 billion a year back to the treasury. now i know that they have take then position to kill the bank. but this kills jobs. this is about jobs in tennessee.

jobs in california. jobs in oklahoma. jobs in illinois. this is not a level playing field. china, russia, all of these other countries are just hoping that we make the mistake and we don't re-authorize the charter of the export-import bank. let's be responsible adults. let's not play politics as usual. and worry about these outside groups and our political scores, mr. speaker. isn't it sad that we would worry about some score with an outside group more than our districts? and more than our constituents that have jobs because of the export-import bank? we should be ashamed of ourselves. i again urge my colleagues to vote no on all of these amendments and let's get to the serious business of the people's house. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina voiced. mr. mulvaney: i recognize and yield three minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of mr. mulvaney's amendment. to shield taxpayers from bailing out the import export bank. now, i've been -- import export bank. now, i've been here -- export-import bank. now, i've been here and heard my friend comment, i think he said, the import export bank doesn't cost -- export-import bank doesn't cost taxpayers one penny. ok, thasms the quote. doesn't cost -- ok, that was the quote. doesn't cost one penny. but what this amendment does is guarantee that the export-import bank won't cost the taxpayer one penny because the taxpayer won't be on the hook. then i heard my good friend from tennessee say, if we pass this amendment, it's going to kim the bank. you can't -- it's going to kill the bank. you can't have it both ways. either it kills the bank if you don't have a back stop because it costs the taxpayers money, or it doesn't cost the taxpayers any money and this amendment won't kill the bank. you can't have it both ways.

it does not work that way. listen, this makes sense. the export-import bank, it helps the 10 largest businesses in america. why do moms and dads and families in wausau, wisconsin, or hayward, wisconsin, frog jump, tennessee, the suburbs of chicago or rural oklahoma, why do those moms and dads who make $50,000, $6,000 a year, why are they -- $60,000 a year, why are they back the stop for these biggest corporations? that shouldn't be the way it is. let's take the back stop of that taxpayer, those american families, let's tampa bay take them off the hook. let's let the bank -- let's take them off the hook. let's let the bank, let them stand on their own. let them make that guarantee on their own. in our communities, our banks make loans to small businesses every single day. i know the gentlelady from

wisconsin knows that. and there's not a taxpayer back stop to those loans. if though don't don't pay those loans back, the bank loses. why are the biggest corporations getting the back stop of the american taxpayer? this one makes sense. this one makes sense. let's all stand together and say, the american taxpayer, the american family is not going to back up the biggest banks. let's get away from the crony capitalism. it's not going to kill the bank. it's a good amendment. this is the place and the time for reform. maybe it should have happened six months ago. but with regular order it gets to happen today. let's stand together for american families and against crony capitalism. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i'd like to inquire as to how much time i have left. the chair: the gentlewoman has 2 1/2 minutes. ms. waters: thank you. i will yield one minute to the

gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kinzinger: i thank the ranking member again. you know, it's interesting, in these great conversations, good debate, nobody has said that this doesn't make money for the taxpayers. they try to make the link and everything else. and that's fine. my friend from wisconsin just said, well, if this amendment kills the bank, it's because etc., etc. this amendment is aimed to kill the bank because it's a poison pill amendment on ex-im. i mean, that's what all these amendments are. they're attempting to -- a last-ditch effort to destroy something that has really, frankly, provided a lot of jobs in my district and provided a lot of exports for my district. we talk about protecting taxpayers, protecting taxpayers from what? an extra $500 million? are we protecting them from a smaller deficit? it doesn't make sense. i'm not sure why certain folks have made in the hill to die on. there's a lot of better hills to die on, to fight, to argue in this. but i'll tell you a quick story. i went to ethiopia six months ago or so and i flew to eeth

openia on a boeing dream -- ethiopia on a boeing dreamliner. i know a lot of people like to call out names of big companies. but i didn't go on an airbus. the fact that i was on a boeing dreamliner means parts in my components are made in my district which means that there are people who have a job because ethiopian airlines bought a boeing. let's kill this amendment. save the bank. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. mulvaney: i'll reserve to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to myself the balance of the time, mr. chair. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. waters: i have listened carefully to the arguments being made on the opposite side of the aisle. and i listened carefully to mr. duffy. evidently he does not know or does not understand that those big corporations that he talked about are hiring small

businesses in his district. he does not understand that these are the suppliers to these big companies. these are the families who are benefiting from the jobs and the contracts that they've been able to get. evidently listening to my friends on the opposite side of the -- on the opposite side of the aisle, they really don't understand the ex-im bank. they really don't understand its support for our ability to export, thus creating jobs. while on the one hand they talk about how great our country is and how competitive we are, how competitive we need to be, they don't understand that just as mr. fincher said, other countries such as china are just hoping that we cannot reopen this bank. they are just hoping that we will not support our exporters. because they're going to support their exporters 100%.

so if you care about jobs, if you care about contracts, if you care about small businesses, you will not be opposing this bank. as a matter of fact, there are those who would say, i'm surprised that maxine waters is such an advocate for the ex-im bank. we did not expect her to be. but i want you to know, i have worked with the chamber of commerce. i have held meetings in my district. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: all time has expired for the gentlewoman from california. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: i thank the chairman. a couple different things. i am a little surprised, mr. chairman, to hear some of the advocates here today. because some of them, including the most recent speakerer, were against the bank when there was a different party in charge of the white house. i hear today that this is supposedly about jobs. jobs being created. by the way, that's a claim that not even the export-import bank makes on its own. it's never come into our committee and said, we create jobs. comes into our committee and

says, we support jobs. not sure what that means. e've asked them. they're not really sure how to count it. in fact, there's really good evidence that they're counting it wrong. let's say for the sake of argument that they do create jobs. they also destroy jobs. every time the government gets involved in the market and creates jobs someplace, we destroy it someplace else. it's just much harder to see. so it's very difficult for to us say, look, this job was destroyed by the export-import bank. but i tell you this. my local banks in rural south carolina can't go to the treasury and borrow money for free every time they want to. if they could, they might be able to create some mob jobs as well. we have a distortion to the market, mr. chairman, plain and simple. that's all this is. are there going to be winners? absolutely. there's a lot of them, as a matter of fact. in fact, you can go buy stock in some of them. are there losers, absolutely. and you'll never see them. you'll never see them. they're in union county, south carolina, maybe, i don't know because we'll never see the jobs that are not created because of the distortion created by the bank.

we have a tremendous opportunity not to kill the bank, if the bank is as profitable as we say it is, they should be fine. by the way, mr. kinzinger from illinois said no one's getting up to say the bank doesn't make money, here i am. the bank doesn't make money. first of all, if you made it count right it wouldn't make any money. but in my lifetime we have had to bail this institution out to the tune of billions of dollars. how soon we forget those types of things, mr. chairman. this amendment is not designed to kill the bank. it's designed to get the taxpayers off the hook in case the bank makes the same mistakes today it's made in the past. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. waters: request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. spur spur -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 114-326. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. mulvaney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 114-326 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 512, the gentleman from south carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, when i was on a working group last year under the auspices of the chairman of the financial services committee, with, amongst other people, the good gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, who left us for dinner -- no, there he is. one of the things that the opponents and proponents of the

bank could all agree on, was the fact that the bank was poorly run when it came to managing its risk. specifically it has what bankers call market concentration. it puts too much, too many of its eggs in one basket. in fact, one particular industry, aircraft and avionics, takes up more than 30% of the bank's portfolio. we had a banker on that committee that worked with us and he said, no self-respecting private sector bank would ever allow that to happen. that's simply bad management. it's not credible management. it's not responsible management to the shareholders. the bad news here, of course, mr. chairman, is the shareholders are the people who pay us. what does this amendment do? it tries to bring some of the private sector sanity into the export-import bank and say, look, you're going to have to abide by rules that ensure diversification of risk both within industries and across

companies. if this were really a bank and not just a political extension of the current administration they would probably be doing this. if the bank was run by a banker and not a political bundler, the bank would probably already be doing this. but since it is a political extension of this administration, since it is run by a political bundler and not a banker, it falls to us to make sure that the bank follows some commonsense rules about to whom it lends and how much it lends to them. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. chair, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. for five minutes. ms. waters: i yield to myself one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. waters: yet again the gentleman from south carolina is offering an amendment designed to kill the ex-im bank and comprise its

re-authorization -- compromise, rather, its re-authorization in the highway bill conference. by imposing arbitrary caps on the bank's ability to meet the needs of american exporters, regardless of the sector they represent, the amendment would starve certain sectors of the financing they need, resulting in a needless loss of u.s. jobs. i'm concerned the amendment would also create incentives for businesses to be the first in line to get the limited amount of financing that is available for that particular sector or industry and would also undermine its mandates to serve sub-saharan africa, small businesses and renewable energy exports. given the bank's extremely low default rate, it's hard to envision how this amendment would help the bank better manage its portfolio. so i urge members to reject this poison pill amendment so that we can re-authorize the ex-im bank without delay.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from wisconsin. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. moore: thank you, madam ranking member. i tell you, mr. chairman, these amendments are getting more and more strange. as the evening wears on. you know, we heard, you know, the favorite indictment of this bank, i think, is that it picks winners and losers. and yet here's an amendment that does exactly that. it puts these artificial caps n sectors, you know, the bank, mr. chairman, this bank is demand driven. if the world demands shifts, why would we create barriers to u.s. firms meeting that demand? these capps just mean that the u.s. can't compete for growing market trends.

this is a poison pill amendment so that -- and i urge the members to reject this so we can re-authorize the bank immediately. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: i rise in opposition o the amendment to mr. mulvaney. his amendment puts a statutory quotas on industry sectors. it ignores market forces. the amendment would mirror the rench quota system, which is ineffecttive. andon