Denny Heck

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am going to get an enormous frustration off my chest today, the obsessive-compulsive focus of this Chamber on the Ts: trade, trade promotion authority, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and trade adjustment authority. This view that we can distill our entire Nation's future trading prospects to one trade agreement or the TPA leading up to it is wrongheaded, it is myopic, and it does not serve our self-interest. The fact of the matter is, in order for us to be successful in a global economy, we must be much more complex and nuanced in our view. Infrastructure--we don't even spend two-thirds of the money generated by the harbor maintenance tax, which is generated by trade, on improving the ports so that we can have more trade. Where is that issue? The International Monetary Fund, 5 years hanging loose the reform. We are Nero; Rome is burning. No reforms to the IMF--and what is the consequence? This is real. This isn't abstract. I didn't make this up. China forms the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa form the BRICS Bank--all of this while we sit and watch Rome burn. Lastly, the Export-Import Bank is a deficit-cutting, job-creating machine--$6 billion to reduce our deficit, 164,000 thousand jobs in the country just last year. Ninety-five percent, as has so often been said, of the world's population lives outside the borders of the great country of the United States of America. If we want to keep our middle class, we are going to have to learn how to sell into their middle class and engage in global trade, but it is more complex than just one trade agreement or IMF or what we do with the infrastructure investment. It is all of these things. Yes, at the top of that list, the Export-Import Bank, a deficit- cutting, job-creating machine, we need to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank--1 day left--because the layoff notices are going out next week. People will lose that which they value more than anything in life, save their family; and that is the opportunity to be self-sufficient and provide for themselves. Ladies and gentlemen, I beseech you, vote against the previous question, bring up H.R. 1031, reauthorize the Export-Import Bank in the name of cutting deficits and creating jobs.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so that we might, indeed, get to H.R. 1031, the Promoting U.S. Jobs through Exports Act of 2015. H.R. 1031--which, as it has been indicated, reauthorizes the Export- Import Bank--is a deficit-cutting, job-creating machine. And why is it important that we get to it? Because, indeed, the charter of the Bank expires in 5 legislative days. Last week, I was at home and had occasion to be channel surfing, and I came across, inarguably, one of the top 10 movies in all of the history of American cinema, ``Blazing Saddles.'' And there is this wonderful scene where the actor, Cleavon Little, rides into town, and he is not met very favorably by the townsfolks. They all pull their guns on him. And in response, he pulls his revolver, and he puts it to his head, and he says, Stop, stop, or I will shoot myself. Well, of course, what he was doing, given the situation, was completely turning logic on its ear and confusing everybody in his presence. And that is how I feel about this. Those who want to end the Export-Import Bank purport to be in favor of cutting the deficit. But the Export-Import Bank has reduced the Federal deficit by $6 billion over the last 20 years. Those who want to terminate the Export-Import Bank say they are in favor of faster economic growth. But the Export-Import Bank supported 164,000 jobs just last year alone in virtually every congressional district in this great land. Make no mistake, if the Bank expires, we will lose jobs; and we will lose jobs immediately here and there and everywhere. And stop and think about that. What is more important than a job? It is the means by which we provide for ourselves. We are self-sufficient. Is anyone suggesting we have too many jobs? Is anybody suggesting that work isn't worthwhile?

Mr. HECK of Washington. I will never forget when former Vice President Mondale once said, You want to know how important work is in this society? Stop, ask yourself what is the first thing you ask somebody when you meet them. ``What do you do?'' Work is important. Jobs are important. The Export-Import Bank creates jobs. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Reauthorize the Export- Import Bank. We have 5 legislative days to go.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I have a simple ask: let the Export-Import Bank answer the call. 2,655--2,655--that is how many small businesses called the Export-Import Bank last year and asked for their assistance in selling American-made goods and services around the globe. That is how many businesses the Export-Import Bank said yes to, without any impact on taxpayers--no cost to taxpayers whatsoever--in order to help those 2,655 businesses be competitive in a global market. The truth is, in each district--Democratic districts, Republican districts, urban, rural, coastal, interior--each district is rich with businesses large and small. Every Member has small businesses that are the result of hard work, families pulling together to build something of value and worth that can be assisted by the Export-Import Bank-- brand-new business as well, not just those that are intergenerational. These are the businesses that create jobs and employ millions of our loved ones and our neighbors and our family. When they want to export their goods and services, who do they call? They call the Export-Import Bank. Alliance Rubber Company is just one of the 2,655 small businesses that made that call. Alliance is the largest manufacturer of rubberbands in America. It is a women-owned small business located in Hot Springs, Arkansas. They employ a whole 156 employees. Alliance plans to add 15 employees within the next year, but without exports, they will be cutting 10 jobs--our family members, our neighbors. Add 15 or cut 10? It seems like the choice is obvious to me. Here is what another company said: ``Thanks to credit insurance available through the Ex-Im, we have hired a salesman dedicated to growing international sales. Growing our traffic and safety business internationally will mean more jobs in our Fife facility and more business for our local vendors.'' That is in my district, Fife, Washington. The company is Pexco, another one of the 2,655 businesses. There are Pexcos in Republican districts and in Democratic districts all over this country. There are Alliance Rubber companies in Republican Districts and Democratic districts. And if you listen to these business leaders, it makes sense to help them do what they are doing. Who will answer the call after June 30? Well, unfortunately, not local banks or even the big banks. If you don't believe me, ask them. They are the ones that usually refer the businesses to the Export- Import Bank. We have 10 days left, 10 legislative days to act before the help on the other end of the line is gone. Companies have 15 business days to make the call and see how they can sell their goods and expand their exports to foreign customers. If you are a small business looking to export, call 1-800-565-EXIM, 1-800-565-3949. That is why the Bank is there. That is why it should remain. As a matter of fact, Chairman Hensarling's own witness--I couldn't make this stuff up--who testified against the Bank as a small-business owner last week told her hometown newspaper this later: ``The fact is that there are a lot of small businesses and large businesses that need the Bank right now, and to pull that rug out from under them would be devastating.'' I couldn't make this up. Hold a vote, Mr. Speaker. Hold a vote. Give your colleagues the opportunity to vote for our small businesses and the jobs they provide. They are the backbone of this community and this economy and this Nation; 2,655 of them and counting. Let the Export-Import Bank answer the call.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about rap sheets these days. We hear of a lot of young people defined simply by their brushes with the law. But for this man, Billy Frank, Jr., his story was so much more than the crimes for which he was arrested--not convicted I might add. His rap sheet, Martin Luther King's rap sheet, Rosa Park's rap sheet, and Congressman John Lewis' rap sheet are just a piece of a larger narrative about the struggle for social justice. Billy Frank, Jr., was the Pacific Northwest's foremost advocate for restoration of Native American fishing treaty rights, a dream he lived and saw realized. He cherished clean water and salmon, and he was a key voice in the recovery of the Puget Sound, the largest estuary in the United States of America. Billy was also a proud patriot. He served in the United States Marine Corps where, ironically, he was a member of the military police. Billy passed away a year ago May 5. But he really isn't gone. His story is here in the Halls of Congress, in which he was so often seen and which he roamed on behalf of his beloved causes, including protecting the Puget Sound, our fisheries, and the cause of clean water. His story is in the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, which we now protect to give our wildlife a clean and sustainable place to live and which was made possible by a great former Member of the House of Representatives, Norm Dicks. Billy was born, raised, and grew up at Frank's Landing, which was literally just a hop, skip, and a jump from the wildlife refuge and is where his family lived for perhaps thousands of years. He fished in the Nisqually River, which snakes through the Nisqually Wildlife Refuge, and that is the location of where he was arrested more than a dozen times--well, okay, it was actually 59 times. The bill I introduced this week, H.R. 2270, will rename that refuge after Billy Frank, Jr., and it will also make the place of the signing of the Treaty of Medicine Creek a National Historic Site. It will make sure that the story of that site is told, especially by the descendants of those who lived that history. Those tribes will be involved in the development and the understanding behind that site and what it means to them now and before. Mr. Speaker, Billy was often asked, How do you do this? How do you effectively advocate on behalf of clean water and salmon--as he did-- over so many decades? Billy always had the same answer. He would say, ``Tell your story. Tell your story.'' So when people go to the Billy Frank, Jr., Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, they will be able to see why--why--he held fish-ins. They will see why he risked arrest so many times. They will see why he ultimately worked with others to help protect his home and the home of the fish. They will see why he did all these things. Like many young people today, he fought for what he believed in, and later in his life he worked with lawmakers to build consensus. In fact, he was a master consensus builder. How do I know this? Well, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He actually won the extremely prestigious Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism award, and he has had not one but two books written about him. So my hope is that when people drive by the sign that directs them to the refuge, maybe they will feel a little bit of that Billy Frank, Jr., magic. Maybe they will wonder who he was, what he did, and find out about his story. For those of us who knew him, it will be a great reminder of a hero. In fact, I would count Billy Frank, Jr., a man I knew many decades and loved, more than a hero. He was truly a great man. He was the Pacific Northwest equivalent of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King, Jr. or Desmond Tutu. That is how great a man he was. Here is what Billy said: ``I don't believe in magic. I believe in the Sun and the stars, the water, the tides, the floods, the owls, the hawks flying, the river running, the wind talking. They are measurements. They tell us how healthy things are because we and they are the same. That is what I believe in. Those who learn to listen to the world that sustains them can hear the message brought forth by the salmon.'' Billy Frank, Jr., and his stories have to be told, and that is why I invite my colleagues today to join in cosponsorship of H.R. 2270. Join me and all the members of the Washington State House delegation, and Mr. Cole and Ms. McCollum, the co-chairs of the Native American Caucus, in cosponsoring the Billy Frank, Jr., Tell Your Story Act.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, next week we will be out of session and back in our districts, and many of us will be visiting small businesses, appropriately because it is National Small Business Week. We should visit small businesses; we should, frankly, whenever we are home. Meanwhile, only 25 legislative days remain before a tool used and cherished by America's small businesses disappears. Only 25 more legislative days before this business tool for small businesses vanishes altogether. Only 25 more legislative days, and the Export- Import Bank will shut its doors to our Nation's small businesses unless we hold the vote. Mr. Speaker, hold the vote. Hold the vote today. Hold the vote if you champion America's small businesses succeeding in global competition. The votes are here. Mr. Speaker, hold the vote.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, in a gesture of reaching across the aisle, let us be clear that prior to this bill's arrival at the Rules Committee, it was Mr. Pittenger and myself who worked in a collaborative and in a bipartisan way, hard for nearly the last 2 years, to get it to this point where we might have an opportunity to vote upon it. I cannot exaggerate to you how saddened I am, how much I regret, and how surreal I find it that I stand here now and ask my colleagues to please vote ``no'' against my bill, oppose the bill that I have worked so hard on for nearly 2 years. Its content, prior to its arrival in Rules, had been laid out commonsensically: codify the Credit Union Advisory Council; codify the Small Community Bank Advisory Council; and create a nonbank advisory board for the appraisers, the title insurers, the real estate agents, escrow company, all people that the Bureau regulates and with whom they should have an iterative conversation going with respect to the proposed regulations. It wasn't easy getting here even before Rules. There was a lot of back and forth, a lot of compromising along the way. We had to allay fears from the consumer groups that this was a Trojan horse. We accepted amendments; we broadened the bill; we did a lot of things together, but with a collaborative spirit and the support of the ranking member, we did pass the bill out of committee 53-5, and then a torch was put to it. A torch was put to it. As has been described, the bill now includes a so-called pay-for amendment to lower the cap of available funds to CFPB by $45 million by the year 2020 and $100 million by the year 2025. It is bad policy; it is bad precedent, and it is completely unnecessary. The amendment was inserted under color of being a pay-for. Well, I have got a couple problems with that. The first is obvious. CBO projection is $9 million. We are talking about a cap that cost $45 million and $100 million. It is a multiple of it--or $75 million to $100 million by last count. The second, of course, is the fact about how the rule is applied, which has been heralded here, and, in fact, genuflected as an important rule to provide for pay-fors when there are expenditures caused by proposed legislation. The motivation is, frankly, inscrutable to me. I honestly don't know how you do it with a straight face. Literally, a matter of hours ago, voting for $300 billion, with a ``b,'' with no PAYGO or pay-for and to stand up here and say, Well, we absolutely have to have a pay-for for $9 million over 10 years, but $300 billion was okay, I say sincerely: I don't know how you do that with a straight face. Frankly, there is so much about this that I find surreal. Much in the debate was about questioned architectural practices by the agency. The truth of the matter is GSA took over construction, what, 2-plus years ago? If that is the issue, write an amendment to the GSA budget; don't punish CFPB. It has been argued that this funding is unique; therefore, it has to be curtailed, unrelated to the underlying purpose of the bill. Maybe that is true. Check the history. It was a Republican who wanted it funded by the Fed--Mr. Shelby, I believe. That may be unique in that way. It has been suggested CFPB is nonbudgeted--again, unrelated to the underlying purpose of the bill. Well, guess what, so is every other bank, regulator, agency in the Federal Government: the FDIC, the OCC, the Fed itself, FHFA, and NCUA. They are all nonbudgeted; but, no, let's pick this one out of the pack and punish it. There is so much about this that is surreal to me. I believe that there is a bit of a trial under way here today, and we are laying a marker down on April 21 on whether or not we are actually going to be able to function in a bipartisan way. We did. It took hard work, 18- plus months with Mr. Pittenger, 53-5 in committee; and now, as I say, we are putting a torch to it. We are going to decide. This is a test. Are we going to use the CFPB as a piggybank to pay for all other manner of agendas? Are we going to ask them to swallow this poison pill in the goal of getting a bipartisan bill passed? It is a test of whether or not we are going to do that. It is an experiment to see how radically--and it is radical--we can change bills and still keep ``yes'' votes in the name of consistency, although there is certainly no consistency between the pay-fors provided in this proposed legislation and that for legislation that passed last week. By the way, in addition to the estate tax and the sales and use tax totalling over $300 billion, we did two CFPB bills last week, too. Nobody offered pay-fors on those, so it isn't consistent. This is surreal, standing here, asking you to oppose the bill that I have worked so hard on with Mr. Pittenger. It is surreal. I am reminded of my favorite passage in ``Through the Looking Glass.'' If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrariwise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? This is surreal; but I say my strongest assertion that what is the most sad about this--and I have said this in Rules, and I am going to say it now--you know, you know you are killing this bill. You are killing it and evidently don't care, 18 months of hard work out the window to do something good and worthwhile, but you know you are killing the bill. You know you are killing it because you are not passing here veto-proof; and the administration has, as the ranking member suggested, already issued the Statement of Administration Policy. I will go one further. This bill will never see the light of day in the United States Senate. You are killing the bill that we worked on for 2 years to help nonbank businesses have a better structured institutionalized relationship, which is as it should be, and you are doing it by inconsistently applying a House rule for which you grant waivers left and right when you were of a mind. This is good legislation. My friend from North Carolina has worked hard. Frankly--and I will say it--he deserves better than this. This bill deserves better than this. The businesses that are regulated by CFPB deserve better than this, than to kill this bill, which is what you are assuredly doing. Vote ``no'' on my bill.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Madam Speaker, ticktock, ticktock. The countdown has begun. Beginning tomorrow, there are exactly--count them--30 legislative days left before the Export-Import Bank is gone--vanished, disappeared--and each day that we fail to address this vital institution for American jobs, we let the obstructionists win. We let this bipartisan, eight decade champion of American exports go away. The irony of it all is, as my dear friend from Texas, Congressman Green, once observed, if we didn't have an Export-Import Bank, we would all be scurrying around, trying to figure out how to invent it in order to compete with every other developed country in the world that has an export credit authority. Ticktock. Ticktock. American companies are, unfortunately, already hurting. It is happening now. We don't have to wait for May or June or July 1, which is the day the bank will disappear if we do not reauthorize it. I am speaking in the present tense. Export contracts are being lost now-- today--as we speak. Production lines are slowing. Labor needs are being reevaluated. Let me be clear: American corporations and companies are already losing deals to our global competitors because of this pointless fight. It is hurting companies now. American companies are being penalized because, yet again, unfortunately, Congress procrastinates; yet we have a bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. We have two bills with substantial, broad, deep, bipartisan support--250 Members out of 435, to put a fine point on it. There are 60 for Congressman Fincher of Tennessee's bill and 190 for Congresswoman Waters', Congresswoman Moore's, and my bill. Again, every other developed nation on the face of the planet has an export credit authority, and most of them are larger as a percent of their gross domestic products than ours is. To allow it to expire is to engage in nothing short of--and this is not hyperbole--unilateral economic disarmament. Ticktock. Ticktock. Small businesses are the ones that will be hurt first. Now, I know a lot of the focus of debate about the Export-Import Bank is Boeing. Yes, Boeing will be hurt. That is for sure. Although, I enjoy reminding people that the Boeing Company assembles airplanes, and what they depend upon is the supply chain of 12,000 businesses and vendors-- thousands of whom are, in fact, small businesses. Nearly 90 percent of all of the Export-Import Bank's transactions are to provide loans or loan guarantees to small businesses. They are the backbone of our economy. Everybody knows it. Nearly one in three jobs created in the last decade was created by small businesses, and they will be hurt first, small businesses like STAC, Inc., in Sumner, Washington. It is a veteran-owned business that provides industrial tapes and adhesives and a host of other fasteners. They predict, as their owner told me personally, that they could hire 40 percent more staff as a consequence of their exports. The truth of the matter is that there is a STAC in every congressional district in America--in every town, in every city, in every community, in every neighborhood--and they need and use the export credit agency of this Nation, the Export-Import Bank, just like the businesses of every other developed nation in the world. The rest of the world is growing a middle class. We all know it. If we want to keep and expand ours, then we are going to have to engage in global trade with one of the tools known as the Export-Import Bank. We have to sell in to their growing middle class. Counting tomorrow, 30 legislative days to go--ticktock, ticktock.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to hear that the chair of the committee has seen the light and will follow the lead of the gentleman from Tennessee, and I am looking forward to him signing on to Congressman Fincher's Export-Import Bank reauthorization bill. In fact, I wish I could stand here and support this in the name of consumer protection, but it isn't. When we had this hearing, the most common thread was that we needed more information about what is happening out here. Well, unfortunately, since that hearing, we have received more information. Indeed, The Seattle Times ran an unbelievably in-depth article detailing some of the worst practices among manufactured home lenders, some of those practices which contributed to the subprime bubble and meltdown: not verifying borrowers' income, pushing borrowers into unaffordable loans, aggressive debt collection, driving up costs through hidden add-ons, overappraising homes, all of these things. If you do nothing else, read this essay, which I flat predict today-- write it down--is going to win a Pulitzer Prize. Write it down. It has been suggested that lenders could not make a living were they held to 8 points over prime, but that doesn't square with reality. What is reality? Take out the largest lender, who averages 7 points over prime, average all the rest, and it is 3.8 percent over prime. Don't tell me lenders can't make a living in the manufactured home market unless they are given 10 points over prime. They are making a living. In fact, they could double it and still be approximately what the single largest does. This bill is about relaxing an awful lot of consumer protections among our most vulnerable population, requirements to do housing counseling, a ban on teaser rates, early provision of disclosures, large font statement of the consumers' rights. This bill would go backwards on those measures and would expose the most vulnerable among us to exploitation. As a consequence, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 650 in the name of consumer protection.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I, indeed, rise to oppose the request for a previous question in order that we might get on with the task of deliberating on reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Just to remind people, the Export-Import Bank provides loans or loan guarantees to the foreign purchasers of American-made goods and services--American-made goods and services. This venerated institution has been around for 80-some years, it has been enthusiastically supported by every single President since; Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, all have supported reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. This federally chartered Bank disappears in 103 days if we do not act. If the House continues to refuse to place it before the committee of jurisdiction for a hearing, refuses to place it before the committee of jurisdiction for a markup, refuses to consider it on this floor, the Bank will disappear in 103 days. The problem is that is not when the damage is done. The damage is already beginning because of the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the Export-Import Bank. Air Tractor, a company in Texas, which manufactures airplanes for use in firefighting and agriculture, lost a multimillion dollar order to Africa because they were told: We don't know if the Bank will be around. Last year, FirmGreen, a California-based firm that was founded by a wounded Vietnam veteran, lost a multimillion dollar deal overseas because they were told there is too much uncertainty, there is too big a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the Export-Import Bank. Ladies and gentlemen in the House, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say to Terry and Stacie Cochran, the owners of a business in eastern Washington that have grown their business from one-third based on exports to two-thirds based on exports as a consequence of their relationship with the Export-Import Bank. I don't know what I would say to Terry and Stacie if this cloud of uncertainty continues to hang and the Bank goes away. I don't know what to say to STAC, a business located in my district in Sumner, Washington, an idea in a gentleman's head--also, by the way, a veteran--who formed a business to sell adhesives into the marketplace that now employs 8 or 10 people with a significant export business. Why? Because of the Export-Import Bank. I don't know what to say to Manhasset, of all places in Yakima, Washington, one of the world's leading music stand manufacturers. Indeed, 90 percent of the transactions, approximately, of the Export- Import Bank are for small businesses. The damage is being done now in the absence of action and the failure of this House to take up this issue. The real damage is long term, and it is significant, and it is material. I talked the other day on the floor about the fact that commercial airlines is basically a manufacturing duopoly. We all know that. One is based in France. It is Airbus.

Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. Airplane manufacturing currently is a duopoly, a French-based business and an American-based business, which I want to remind people is the heart and soul of engineering manufacturing in this country, it is the heart and soul of it. It is not going to remain the case, in any event, because, as we all know--and if we don't, we should--China is right now in the process of developing a wide-body commercial aircraft for entry into the world marketplace. I think it is tentatively named the C919. China's export credit authority, which I remind the Chamber every other developed nation on the Earth has, is multiple in size of America's export credit authority, the Export-Import Bank. They are literally--not figuratively--they are literally sitting over there, rubbing their hands in glee, waiting for this Chamber to refuse to act because when their airplane comes online in 2 to 8 years, they are going to jump into this market like there is no tomorrow. The damage to the heart and soul of our manufacturing sector cannot be exaggerated; indeed, to remind you, every advanced economy on the face of the planet has an export credit authority, and if we allow ours to expire, it is tantamount to unilateral disarmament. An amazing array of groups support this. Everybody from--yes, believe it or not--the Sierra Club, to the Chamber of Commerce, to the International Association of Machinists, to the National Association of Manufacturers. Everyone supports our bill; yet we dither. In summary, to repeat, the Export-Import Bank is a job-creating machine, 1.2 million jobs in the last 5 years. The Export-Import Bank is a deficit-reducing machine, $6.9 billion to reduce our deficit. It doesn't cost us anything. There are no Federal taxpayer dollars involved. It is a superperforming agency. It creates jobs; it reduces our deficit--and significantly--and it goes away in 103 days if this Chamber fails to act. I oppose the demand for the previous question so that we might get on with the business of strengthening America's economy.

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Green's repeated reference to the United States Chamber of Commerce's point of view prompted me to believe that entering their actual words, that of the Chamber's, into the Record would be a constructive addition to this debate. So I read from their letter: ``Failure to reauthorize Ex-Im would put at risk more than 150,000 American jobs at 3,000 companies that depend on the Bank to be able to compete in global markets. Ex-Im is especially important to small- and medium-size businesses, which account for more than 85 percent of Ex- Im's transactions. Tens of thousands of smaller companies that supply goods and services to large exporters also benefit from Ex-Im's activities. ``Other countries are providing approximately 18 times more export credit assistance to their exporters than Ex-Im did to U.S. exporters last year.'' Further, the ``reauthorization of Ex-Im would benefit taxpayers by reducing the deficit by hundreds of millions of dollars. Far from being a subsidy, Ex-Im has generated $2.7 billion for taxpayers in the last six years, mostly through fees collected from foreign customers. Eliminating Ex-Im would increase the U.S. budget deficit.'' I am going to repeat that. ``Eliminating Ex-Im would increase the U.S. budget deficit.'' ``Ex-Im's overall active default rate hovers below one-quarter of one percent, a default rate lower than commercial banks. ``The U.S. Chamber, the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations, and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending America's free enterprise system, urges the House to pass long-term Ex-Im reauthorization as expeditiously as possible.'' Those are verbatim words from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's position on the long-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Why? Because they know that the failure to do so 103 days from now will materially damage the U.S. economy and will reduce the numbers of jobs. I urge you to support the long-term reauthorization of the Ex-Im.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. If we want to keep and grow our middle class, we need to learn how to sell into the growing middle class of the rest of the world, and that requires the Export-Import Bank. The Export-Import Bank is a job-creating machine, a deficit-reducing machine, and a superperformer. The votes are here. It is 190, by the way--not 189--and 58 on that side of the aisle. There is a part of me, a voice in me that wants to shout: Let my people go. The votes are here. It is not scheduled for a hearing. Let Mr. Hastings offer his amendment. Let's reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the previous question in order that I might support Mr. Hastings' effort to offer the amendment to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Here is why. The Export-Import Bank is a job-creating machine. Over the last 5 years, it has created--by good and scientifically-based estimates--about 1.2 million well-paying jobs, good-paying jobs, the kind of jobs that you can have and buy a home and send your kids to college and that touch every congressional district in the State. The Export-Import Bank is a job-creating machine. The Export-Import Bank is also a deficit-reducing machine. Not one red penny in the last generation has been used to subsidize it. In fact, $7 billion has been transferred to the Treasury to reduce the deficit. It was $1 billion 2 years ago, $675 million last year, and a projected $8 million this year. The Export-Import Bank is a deficit- reducing machine. In addition to that, it is a superperformer, by any private sector measure. I come from the private sector. How they conduct their business is the envy of the financial services sector. It has a default rate of less than--you are hearing this correctly--.175 percent and a collection rate over 50 percent. It is a superperformer; yet the Export-Import Bank goes away in exactly 105 days--poof, gone, vanished. The gentleman from Texas asked a very good question, a fair question: Why now? Well, the answer is: The clock is ticking, tick tock, tick tock. There are 105 days to go; yet the committee of jurisdiction has not had a hearing, has not scheduled a markup, and has issued no notice for either. In fact, when we had the committee oversight plan before us, what did the committee chair do? He opposed a neutrally worded amendment that said, Let's take up the Export-Import Bank and subject it to regular order. That is all. Let's go through regular order. There is no intent to take up the Export-Import Bank--no hearing, no markup, a rejection of regular order. That is why now. It has been said, erroneously, that the Export-Import Bank primarily benefits Big Business--principally, aerospace. That is so wrong on so many levels, I cannot exaggerate it. To begin with, 90 percent of the transactions of the Export-Import Bank go to small business, but it also fails to understand something, this argument coming from people who are supposed to understand the private sector. Take a company like Boeing, a pride of America. Please remember, ladies and gentlemen, there are only two companies on the face of the planet that produce large airplanes, and America has but one of them. Do you know what they rely on? 12,000 businesses in their supply chain, many of which are small. Here is the fact. Last week, I was home in a town called Puyallup, which most people can't even pronounce. It is a beautiful community of 38,000 people. It is not anywhere near Renton or Everett, where the airplanes are manufactured. Do you know how many small businesses there are in the confines of the city limits of Puyallup that supply the aerospace industry and benefit from the Export-Import Bank? Seventeen, small businesses everywhere, but it is also stand-alone small businesses. Another in my district is called Pexco. They produce traffic cones and the like that they sell internationally. Ex-Im financed $2.3 million of their product last year. I had a couple in my office just a few weeks ago from eastern Washington. I don't even represent them. They have agricultural products, mint extract and mint oil. Before they began working with the Export-Import Bank, one-third of their gross revenues were in exports. They began working with them, and their domestic side has grown. Now, it is two-thirds. I had another agricultural interest in the office. They said that 5 years ago, 5 percent of their business was export. They did not use the Export-Import Bank. They began using it, and it is now 50 percent. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, let us remember that there are 60 developed nations on the face of the Earth, and if we allow our Export- Import Bank to expire, we will be the only one on the face of the planet without an export credit authority. Let me tell you, China is rubbing their hands in anticipation because, in addition to Airbus--remember, we are 2 to 8 years away from China manufacturing a wide-body airplane. They can't wait for the Export-Import Bank to expire so they can capture market share. Why in the world would we unilaterally disarm? Remember this: We are only 5 percent of the world's population.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, part of the wonder of being a kid is discovering the world around us, you know, feeling the trunks of trees, picking up sticks, going to the beach, and picking up whatever you find, overturning rocks and looking for creatures. But around the Puget Sound and on the Atlantic coast and the Pacific, marine disease is ravaging sea stars, just like this, 20 species dying quickly, literally melting away. When disease like this breaks out, how are we going to stop it? The truth of the matter is we have absolutely no system in place to respond--none. So today I introduce the bicoastal, bipartisan Marine Disease Emergency Act. The Marine Disease Emergency Act speeds up the process to address these outbreaks, providing the right resources and the right time to the scientists and researchers so that they can respond quickly. Responding fast is crucial to preventing widespread exposure or, worst case scenario, extinction. I ask my colleagues to please join me in supporting the Marine Disease Emergency Act.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, Gandhi once famously said: ``Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.'' Jermaine Kearse has been making plays in Washington State for more than 10 years, first as a Lancer at Lakes High, then as a Husky at the University of Washington, and since 2012 as, of course, a Seattle Seahawk. You may very well have seen his game-winning catch in the NFC Championship game in the end zone. But that game wasn't a cakewalk for Jermaine by any means. There were interceptions and there were drops. It was on the sidelines, however, that one of Jermaine's injured teammates said to him to forget about it and to remember that there are still plays to be made here. Ever want to give up? Ever think it is too hard? Ever think the odds are stacked against you? Remember the will of Jermaine Kearse and the Seattle Seahawks. Tell yourself there are still plays to be made. Congratulations, number 15. Lakewood and the entire 10th Congressional District are very, very proud of you and, frankly, we can't wait to see you fly in Glendale and make the New England Patriots shake and the earth move. Go, Hawks.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the gentlewoman from Washington State. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge, thank, and pay tribute to the service of Richard ``Doc'' Hastings on behalf of the people of this country and Washington State. I have had the privilege to know Doc more than 35 years, and with perverse reference to Mr. Rogers' earlier comments, I even knew him when he had hair. I had the great privilege to serve in the Washington State House of Representatives with him. We overlapped by 6 or 8 years in the seventies and eighties, and as somebody who wears a different colored jersey--his is red and mine is blue--and this is me engaging in understatements as we had materially different world views--with Doc, it was never, ever, ever, ever personal. He always has a kind word and, frankly, a ready smile for people. Doc is now finishing up 10 terms--20 years in this Chamber. I don't know that I have ever adequately thanked him for being the very first person to come to my office and extend his hand in friendship and offer to help me in any way he could 2 years ago--something he probably doesn't even remember, so natural an act it was for him but, frankly, so meaningful for me. Lest I leave the wrong impression about all of these differences that Doc and I have--oh, and we do--I also want to assuredly assert that he can be every bit as good an ally as he can be an honorable adversary. The gentlewoman from Washington State has mentioned several of the ways in which Congressman Hastings has worked collaboratively with all of us, over a long period of time, on behalf of the interests of Washington State: cleaning up Hanford Reservation. I cannot help but note his signature on a letter advocating the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank--a very meaningful gesture on his part and of tremendous economic importance to our State--and even more generic issues. As a former U.S. Army Reserve veteran himself, Doc is always front and center, standing proud and tall to do what he can on behalf of the men and women who have served in uniform in this State. I also want to reiterate the gentlewoman from Washington State's acknowledgment of Congressman Hastings' skill over the presiding of this Chamber. Most people don't understand what an incredible skill that is to do it with such seeming ease, not just to have command of the rules and of the parliamentary procedures. The very manner in which you comport yourself, Congressman Hastings, is truly a thing to be admired. You did it with grace. Speaking of grace, more than a year ago, one of my dear, dear friends and mentors--someone who also wears my colored jersey--former Governor Booth Gardner, passed away. Congressman Hastings was one of the very first people to take the podium to acknowledge the kindness that Governor Gardner extended to Congressman Hastings' family, a gesture which he would be very familiar with because it comes so naturally to him as well. It is a privilege to know you. It is a privilege to have served with you lo these short 2 years, but I am very proud to have done so. I am proud to have known you all of these years, and I am proud to call you friend, Doc. Most importantly, on behalf of all of the people of Washington State, including the people of the 10th Congressional District, we thank you for your fine, fine public service and for your dedication to all of these issues that you have worked on so ably and in such a dedicated fashion for so many years. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the gentlewoman from New York. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise to oppose the previous question so that I might, indeed, offer H.R. 4950 to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 7 years instead of what the underlying continuing resolution would do, which would reauthorize it for 9 years. I do so for two reasons: number one, the argument of certainty--here is the truth: the fact of the matter is a 9-month extension of the Export-Import Bank is not certainty. Here is the truth: we are already losing business because of the cloud of the debate that hangs over this Chamber with respect to the continuation of the Export-Import Bank, and that is documented, I might add; so we need certainty. Everybody who comes from the private sector has made that argument on this floor. I come from the private sector. I make that argument. The truth of the matter is this: the number one advocate for eliminating the Export-Import Bank likes the idea of a 9-month extension because it plays into his hands of getting rid of it. Now, I take the gentleman from Oklahoma at his word. I know him to be a gentleman of honor and integrity, and I appreciate, deeply, his words in support of the Export-Import Bank, but the Export-Import Bank will be weakened with this language and will be subject to termination at the end of June 30 when it is isolated and left alone. One of the arguments that is offered for 9 months is to give time for an effort to develop a reform proposal. I know of one such effort underway by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), and he is operating in absolute good faith. There is no question in my mind. He is working hard to get there. There is equally no question in my mind that the effort to extend the Ex-Im, if we do it for 9 months, will be severely weakened, severely weakened. There is no assurance. There is no certainty that it will go beyond that date. We have a proposal that would do that, which has 201 signatures on it as cosponsors, I might add. The second reason, the Export-Import Bank makes America stronger. It created 205,000 jobs last year. It reduced our Nation's deficit by $1 billion in October when that amount of money was transferred to the U.S. Treasury. It creates jobs, and it creates good-paying jobs, manufacturing jobs. It enables America to compete in an increasingly global economy. Most people lose sight of the fact that, just since the year 1980, global trade has increased fivefold. I beseech the House: do not unilaterally disarm. Here is the truth: 59 other countries, virtually every developed nation on the face of the planet, has an export credit authority, and most of them are larger than ours, expressed either in terms of absolute dollars or percentage of their gross domestic product. For us to allow the Export-Import Bank to expire is to unilaterally disarm in an increasingly global trade-driven economy. For us to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 9 months is to tee it up for elimination, and you know this in your heart. You know this in your heart because the advocate for doing away with it thinks this is a good idea and has as much said that it tees it up for elimination. The Export-Import Bank is good for America. It makes America stronger. It creates jobs. It creates good-paying jobs, and it enables us to compete in a global economy. I ask you to defeat the previous question so that we might offer a longer-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the ranking member of the committee very much. Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer four elegant, simple, straightforward reasons why it is so critically important that the U.S. Congress reauthorize the Export-Import Bank prior to its expiration on October 1, and they are simply as follows: the Export-Import Bank creates jobs; it helps small businesses; it promotes fiscal responsibility; and it advances economic growth. With respect to jobs, it has already been cited that in the last 5 years alone, the Export-Import Bank is responsible for the creation of over a million jobs, 205,000 jobs in just the last year. But here is what has not been said: export-related jobs in America pay 13 to 18 percent more than non-export jobs. So it doesn't just create jobs; it creates good jobs. And it helps small businesses. Nearly 90 percent of all transactions of the Export-Import Bank are with small businesses. And to put a fine point on that, last year, it was 3,413 small businesses, businesses like Pexco in Fife, Washington, which makes traffic signs to promote safety during construction. Pexco recently sold $125,000--a small order by any measure--to the Netherlands, I think it was. Only one entity would guarantee payment because no one else could collect across international borders. And that entity, of course, was the Export-Import Bank. Stac, another veteran-owned business in Sumner, Washington, with eight employees, they do exporting. They are going to hire three new employees on the basis of their international sales. But do you know what is incredibly frustrating for somebody who comes from the private sector? It is, frankly, the woeful deficiency in understanding, because the small business support that the Export-Import Bank provides does not stop with direct loans and loan guarantees to small businesses because big businesses buy goods and services from small businesses as well. The greatest airplane maker in the world, Boeing airplanes, uses 15,000 businesses in their supply chain, and 6,600 of them are small businesses. I was recently on an Alaska flight from Sea-Tac to National Airport in Washington, D.C., and a friend of mine named Eric Hahn, who works at General Plastics in south Takoma, was sitting a couple seats behind me. As everybody was gathering on the plane and shoving their luggage up above and getting seated, Eric jumped up, and he said, ``Denny, do you see this? Do you see this?'' And he was pointing at the plastic between the two overhead bins. He said, ``We made that. We made that.'' General Plastics has 185 employees, another small business. The Export-Import Bank promotes fiscal responsibility. It has been more than a generation since there was any red penny supporting or subsidizing the Export-Import Bank, in the wake of reforms adopted during the Reagan years. Indeed, last October, more than $1 billion transferred to the U.S. Treasury. If we deauthorize the Export-Import Bank, our deficit is going up. Who wants that to happen? And finally, the Export-Import Bank promotes economic growth. Let me give you a series of facts. We cannot change these facts by wishing them away. Fact number one: 95 percent of the consumers in the world live outside our borders--95 percent-plus, actually. Another fact: since 1980, global trade has increased something like fivefold-- fivefold. And let me give you another fact: if we in America want to keep our middle class, we had better learn how to sell to the growing middle class throughout the world. And the Export-Import Bank is an outstanding tool to do that. You know, America's economy is projected to grow by only about 2.4 percent a year over the next 10 years. And do you know what the shame of that is? The shame of that is, it is not fast enough to absorb even the kids coming out of high schools and postsecondary education and colleges. We simply have to grow this economy faster. And there is no better way than to participate in the exploding global economy. Every developed nation on the face of the planet has an export credit authority. And, in fact, about 60 in all, theirs are larger than ours either in absolute dollars or in terms of a percentage of their gross domestic product. Why? Why would we unilaterally disarm? Why would we unilaterally disarm? Finally, let me say this. Right now, tonight, as we sit, as we speak, the people of China are pouring billions of dollars into the development of a commercial aircraft. They call it the C-919. They say it will be available for sale within 2 years. Frankly, I think it is going to be longer than that. It will be 3 or 4 or 5 years. But whenever it is, they are going to create even more fierce competition for an industry that is a bulwark of America's manufacturing base, a bulwark. And what about China's export credit authority? It is six times larger in absolute dollars than America's. And as a percentage of GDP, it is 35 times larger. So I ask the Members of the House, let us not wake up 63 days from now with no export credit authority. This is the 16th time, by my count, we have reauthorized the bank. Almost every time by virtually unanimous support. And there are more than 300 votes on this floor to pass it, if they will bring it to a vote. In the name of jobs, in the name of small businesses, in the name of fiscal responsibility, and in the name of economic growth, let us reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment to carry forth an important issue of public safety to provide legally-constituted marijuana businesses access to banking services. To do otherwise is to render them an all-cash sector of the economy, which is fraught with peril. If you supported the Rohrabacher amendment to the Commerce-Justice and Science Appropriations which passed clearly, then you will support this as well. It brings forth the terms and conditions of the Department of Justice and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Yesterday morning, on the very front page of USA Today was an article setting forth the dangers of all-cash businesses in our States that have approved legally marijuana-related businesses. In the words of the Attorney General: You don't want just huge amounts of cash in these places. They want to be able to use the banking system. It is a public safety component. Huge amounts of cash, substantial amounts of cash just kind of lying around with no place for it to be appropriately deposited is something that worries me, just from a law enforcement perspective. If you support public safety, if you supported the Rohrabacher amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill, you will support this amendment as well. In the interest of public safety, you will do this. Because in the words of the Department of Justice, the two most important terms and conditions: keep marijuana out of the hands of children and keep cash out of the hands of gangs and the cartels. To oppose this amendment is to support that, and I know you don't want that. So, I urge you in the strongest terms to support this amendment, this bipartisan amendment, as was adopted earlier on the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have a new and improved amendment at the desk.

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a referendum on public safety. It follows the exact intent-- but is technically perfected--of the earlier amendment that was offered, and I thank the gentleman from the majority for pointing out its technical flaws. They have been corrected. It is a referendum on public safety. If you want to render an all- cash sector of the economy in the 23 States that allow for medical marijuana and in the two States that allow for the adult recreational use of marijuana, you will make them unsafe. That is for certain. I entreat you to pick up yesterday's USA Today and read the excellent article, including the citation of several security experts, about what will happen with a certainty, inevitably, if we do not take this measure. If you want to keep marijuana out of the hands of children and if you want to keep cash out of the hands of gangs and cartels, you will support this amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).