Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and for her leadership as ranking member on the Financial Services Committee. I rise in opposition to H.R. 3192. The Democrats have worked very hard to protect consumers and, in fact, in Dodd-Frank, created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has already returned $11 billion to 25 million consumers in just the first 4 years of its existence. Their goal is to protect consumers, and that is what they have done in the new rule that they came out with. Democrats believe that consumers deserve easy-to-understand disclosures of the cost of buying and financing a home. So, in response to the mortgage crisis, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed to streamline and combine the disclosures that consumers get when they are buying a home so it is easier for them to understand. They used to get multiple disclosure forms, some under the Truth in Lending Act and some under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA. Now the CFPB has streamlined them into a new Integrated Disclosure, which is important because it will make it far easier for Americans to understand the loan terms and the fees that they are paying when they buy a home. But implementing a brand-new Integrated Disclosure form will also be complicated, and it will take the industry some time to adjust to the new rules. And industry raised those concerns to us. This bill would give lenders a safe harbor from the CFPB's Integrated Disclosure rule until February 21, 2016. While I think that this bill addresses an important issue because implementing the new Integrated Disclosure forms will be complex, the truth is that the CFPB has already given the industry significant relief on the rule. They have already done it. Along with my colleague and very good friend from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, we led a bipartisan letter which was signed by 254 Members of this body, including Ranking Member Waters, requesting a grace period on the Integrated Disclosure requirement. I include for the Record the letter that the gentleman from Kentucky and I circulated with all 254 signatures, as well as the letter we received in response. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, May 20, 2015. Hon. Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Dear Director Cordray: The undersigned Members of Congress acknowledge that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has done significant work on the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) regulation. Nevertheless, this complicated and extensive rule is likely to cause challenges during implementation, which is currently scheduled for August 1, 2015, that could negatively impact consumers. As you know, the housing market is highly seasonal, with August, September, and October consistently being some of the busiest months of the year for home sales and settlements. By contrast, January and February are consistently the slowest months of the year for real estate activity. We therefore encourage the Bureau to announce and implement a ``grace period'' for those seeking to comply in good faith from August 1st through the end of 2015. Even with significant advance notice, understanding how to implement and comply with this regulation will only become clear when the industry gains experience using these new forms and processes in real-life situations. As the TRID regulation does not provide lenders an opportunity to start using the new disclosure form prior to the August 1st implementation date, market participants will not be able to test their systems and procedures ahead of time, which increases the risk of unanticipated disruptions on August 1st. That is why we believe that a grace period for those seeking to comply in good faith from August 1st through the end of 2015 would be particularly useful in these circumstances. During this time, industry can provide data to the CFPB on issues that arise so that the Bureau and industry can work together to remove impediments to the effectiveness of the rule. Thank you for your time and consideration. If we may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Signed: 254 Members of Congress.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Within 2 weeks, we received a letter back from the CFPB, promising that they would do a grace period. I thank Director Cordray for responding so quickly to the gentleman from Kentucky's concerns and my concerns. The grace period that the Bureau did for the qualified mortgage rule, which they gave earlier, was very successful, and I have no doubt that the grace period for the Integrated Disclosure rule will be just as successful. In fact, the Integrated Disclosure rule took effect last Saturday, which means that the grace period that Director Cordray promised--which this bill would codify--is already in effect. The grace period is happening right now, and that is why this bill is just absolutely not necessary. It is also important to note that the bill would prohibit consumers from suing for improper disclosure during the grace period. Now, that is of deep concern to me because that takes a right away from consumers. I certainly did not come to Congress to vote in any way to limit or roll back consumer protections. So this was something that I am incredibly uncomfortable with because I don't think it is a good idea to suspend both public enforcement and private enforcement through lawsuits at the same time. I don't think that is good policy because it takes away all the guardrails for consumers during this grace period. This is also something that the White House strongly opposes. In fact, they have issued a veto threat on this bill because they feel so strongly about maintaining consumers' private right to sue. And I will place into the Record a statement from President Obama's White House, stating that he is opposed to rolling back any rights of consumers. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, October 6, 2015. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3192--Homebuyers Assistance Act (Rep. Hill, R-AR, and one cosponsor) Americans deserve clear and easy to understand disclosures of the cost of buying and financing a home, which is why the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to streamline conflicting disclosures that were required under the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Know Before You Owe regulation issued by the CFPB almost two years ago fulfills this mandate by requiring mortgage lenders and settlement agents to provide homebuyers with simpler forms that explain the true cost of buying their home at least three days before closing. This summer, the CFPB extended the effective date for these requirements by two months, to last Saturday, October 3, 2015, to provide for a smooth transition and avoid unnecessary disruptions to busy families seeking to close on a new home at the beginning of the school year. H.R. 3192 would revise the effective date for the Know Before You Owe rule to February 1, 2016, and would shield lenders from liability for violations for loans originated before February 1 so long as lenders made a good faith effort to comply. The CFPB has already clearly stated that initial examinations will evaluate good faith efforts by lenders. The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3192, as it would unnecessarily delay implementation of important consumer protections designed to eradicate opaque lending practices that contribute to risky mortgages, hurt homeowners by removing the private right of action for violations, and undercut the Nation's financial stability. If the President were presented with H.R. 3192, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. So while I am very sympathetic to the concerns that motivated this bill, I have to oppose the bill because I believe it is unnecessary. They say the purpose is to codify it. Mr. Cordray responded to Congress' request. They responded to industry's request, and they granted the grace period. We have it. So this bill does nothing but roll back consumer protections. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I applaud my colleagues that signed the letter that led to the relief we have today.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, when the American Public Health Association totaled the cost of gun violence in the United States for 1 year, it amounted to $174 billion, about $363 for every American. And if you consider just the loss of life, more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than have died in all the wars this country has ever fought. Now, once more, in the wake of another mass shooting, too many leaders have responded with indifference. Just move on. But when 32 Americans are killed with a gun every single day, we cannot afford to stand still. We cannot just move on. So far in this Congress, the House has held not one single hearing on gun violence, not one chance to evaluate ways to curb this epidemic of gun violence. Mr. Speaker, we cannot go on like this. Not one more American should die because Congress has failed to act.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank my friend for yielding and for her great leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 461, to create a select committee on investigating Planned Parenthood. I take very seriously the congressional responsibility to investigate wrongdoing and improve transparency, but this panel is not at all about due diligence. It is about purely partisan politics, an attempt to ``Benghazi'' Planned Parenthood. Mr. Speaker, six States have investigated Planned Parenthood and found nothing. Four committee hearings have found nothing. Planned Parenthood has handed over tens of thousands of pages of documents to Congress, and there has not even been a whiff of wrongdoing. Even the chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has said he has no evidence of anything unlawful. This panel would be a waste of Congress' time and taxpayers' money. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and stop this relentless crusade attacking access to health care for women who desperately need it and cannot afford it.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I just urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill that Mr. Poliquin pointed out can make a real difference in the lives of single parents and their children. Again, I thank him for his leadership on it and his very eloquent statement today on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support H.R. 2091, the Child Support Assistance Act, because it will help child support enforcement agencies do their job and will make child support payments more efficient. When a State child support enforcement agency wants to locate a parent who is delinquent on his or her child support payment, the agency requests the parent's consumer report from one of the consumer reporting agencies. This allows the agency to verify the parent's employment and income, which are key factors for child support payments. Current law, however, requires the agency to provide the delinquent parent 10 days' notice before it can even request the consumer report from the credit bureaus. This 10-day head start serves no legitimate policy purpose. In fact, the only thing it does is give delinquent parents time to manipulate their financial position to evade paying their child support obligations. The consequences of this 10-day notice requirement is that some delinquent parents who should be paying child support are not paying all they owe and the money they do pay isn't getting to the families as quickly as it should. This bill would eliminate this loophole by doing away with the 10-day notice requirement. Providing 10 days' notice before pulling someone's consumer report might make sense in some circumstances, but in this situation, it only slows down the wheels of justice and gives delinquent parents an opportunity to further avoid paying their child support obligations. I support this bill that was reported out almost unanimously, with only two people voting against it. I would like to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) as well as Mr. Ellison on the Democratic side for their hard work on this commonsense bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 1839, which is an excellent example of bipartisan compromise that I think we should do more of in this body. I would like to thank Mr. McHenry and Ranking Member Waters for all of their work on this bill on which I am pleased to be the lead Democrat. This bill codifies a longstanding rule that has been recognized in the securities law, known informally as rule 4(1)(\1/2\), which allows investors to resell private restricted securities without registering with the SEC. Rule 4(1)(\1/2\) has long been recognized by the SEC and has been recognized by the Federal courts on numerous occasions as well. But no one has ever bothered to codify this rule, even though everyone is okay with it and supports it, with investors relying on this informal rule. The reason that the SEC and the courts have long recognized this rule is that it fully complies with the spirit of the Securities Act of 1933. These sales are really just transactions between two sophisticated investors. As a result, different law firms have different interpretations of what rule 4(1)(\1/2\) requires and the market has become very fragmented. So I think it is a very good idea to finally codify rule 4(1)(\1/2\) so that everyone knows the rules of the road and investors can have confidence that they are complying with the law when they resell private securities to other sophisticated investors. But this bill doesn't just codify rule 4(1)(\1/2\). It actually improves upon it by establishing minimum standards for disclosure, marketing, and a holding period that will protect investors, foster transparency, and make this market even stronger. This bill addresses several concerns that we heard from investor groups and regulators: First, it requires that the seller provide the buyer with some basic information about the company, which ensures that buyers have the standard information they need before making an investment decision. Second, it prohibits bad actors, such as people who have been banned from the securities industry, from taking advantage of the rule. Third, it prohibits the securities of shell companies from being sold under this new rule, 4(1)(\1/2\). So I am pleased that we were able to work together with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) on this bill and that we were able to add these important investor protections because now we have a bill that will enjoy strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers on the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1553, the Small Bank Exam Cycle Reform Act. This bill allows more small banks to qualify for a longer, 18-month exam cycle. This means that these banks would only have a full, onsite examination every 18 months, rather than every 12 months. The logic behind this bill is simple: small community banks that are both well capitalized and well managed do not need as much regulatory scrutiny as larger, more complex banks. In addition, regulators need the ability to focus their limited resources on the banks that present bigger risks. That is why we have long allowed well-run small banks to have less frequent examinations than larger, more complex banks. This bill simply increases the threshold for banks that qualify for the 18-month cycle from $500 million to $1 billion. Onsite examinations are time-consuming endeavors both for the regulator and the bank, and if the regulator is conducting exams of these well-run banks more frequently than he really needs to, then he is wasting precious government resources. In addition, he is also wasting the bank's resources, because the frequent exams require the time and attention of the bank's executives and staff, and it is costly. Therefore, banks with assets between $500 million and $1 billion that are well capitalized and well managed will receive real, meaningful regulatory relief as a result of this bill. Not only is this bill supported by small banks, it is also supported by the regulators. The OCC has in fact advocated for this change for some time now. I am very glad that we are moving this bill through the House today, and I hope that the Senate will act quickly on the bill as well so that we can get regulatory relief to some very deserving community banks. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I congratulate my colleague, Lacy Clay, for also being the lead Democrat and working very hard on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), who is also the ranking member on the Financial Institutions Subcommittee and the lead Democrat on this bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I yield the gentleman such time as he may consume.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of this bill. I thank Mr. Garrett for his hard work. We worked together on this in the last Congress, and I added an amendment to improve the bill in the markup last year. Markets are constantly evolving, and so too must our regulatory regime. This is especially true when it comes to reporting requirements for small public companies. The process of scaling and streamlining the reporting requirements for these small companies is something that, in order to keep pace with the ever-evolving marketplace, has historically been revisited roughly once every 10 years. It requires vigilance by the SEC and, also, by Congress. The Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act directs the SEC to simplify the reporting requirements for small companies in regulation S-K. First, the SEC would be required to revise regulation S-K to take care of any low-hanging fruit, that is, make any improvements to regulation S-K that they have already identified as helpful for small companies. Next, the SEC would conduct a study of the best way to simplify and modernize the disclosure requirements in regulation S-K while still providing all the necessary information to investors and to also make specific detailed recommendations to Congress for how to achieve this. Finally, the bill allows companies to submit a summary page on their form 10-K annual reports in order to make these annual reports easier to understand by investors. In testimony before the Financial Services Committee last year, Colombia Professor John Coffee called the idea ``simple and unobjectionable'' and said that he ``didn't see how anyone could be opposed to it.'' I agree that this is a commonsense idea that could make lengthy annual reports, which are often hundreds of pages long and difficult to navigate, significantly more investor-friendly. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank my colleague, Mr. Garrett, for his leadership. He has worked on this for several Congresses. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank my good friend for her leadership and for yielding. Madam Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this ironically titled bill, Women's Public Health and Safety Act. Let's be honest. We all know that this bill in no way protects the health and safety of women. In fact, it does quite the opposite. This bill is aimed squarely at restricting a woman's constitutionally protected freedom to make her own reproductive health choices. This bill is not based on facts. This bill is not based on the health needs of women. This bill is pure politics and ideologically driven. It is shameful that Congress is considering a bill that would leave vulnerable women's access to comprehensive health care at the mercy of the extreme fringe of the far right. This is another attempt to put politics between a woman and her doctor and a thinly veiled attempt to destroy a woman's right to choose. This bill is so vaguely worded and so broadly written that it will have devastating and far-reaching effects on women's health. States would be allowed to exclude any provider, any entity, that has ever provided an abortion or has ever had any sort of association or involvement with an abortion. This bill puts women's lives in danger, and it is a chilling and a most dangerous precedent. Madam Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote. Instead, stand for a women's right to make her own personal health care choices. Planned Parenthood should be celebrated, not demonized. It is the largest healthcare provider for vulnerable women in this great country of ours.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this punitive and intrusive bill. I am both disturbed and offended that this latest attempt to restrict women's access to reproductive health care is based on a series of videos that have been found to be grotesquely deceptive and purposefully misleading. This is politics at its most manipulative, and politics should never be permitted to come between a patient and her doctor. This bill attempts to criminalize legal medical care and punish millions of women by rolling back reproductive choices. It wages a kind of guerilla warfare against Roe v. Wade by threatening doctors with jail time for providing care to their patients. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists calls the vague requirements and drastic penalties--unnecessary requirements like going to the hospital--scare tactics that are unnecessary and wrong. This bill would have the Federal Government threaten doctors who do their job taking care of their patients with up to 5 years' imprisonment. To make it all even more outrageous, this bill is based on a series of unsupported allegations and it ignores the fact that there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. In fact, five States have now conducted their own investigations into the charges against Planned Parenthood and have found that no laws have been broken. Instead, the backers of this bill rely on misleading, badly doctored videos released by an extreme antichoice group as the basis for a slew of legislation to decrease access to care for women in this country who can least afford it. Millions of women rely on Planned Parenthood for their basic health care.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. There is no choice in this country which has been guaranteed by our Supreme Court without access to choice. This bill attempts to stop the access to choice by putting doctors in jail by absurd requirements. I urge my colleagues to respect the relationship between women and their doctors, respect their need for affordable and available health care, and vote ``no'' on this punitive and intrusive bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 3134, Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015. This debate and vote are another attempt to deny women basic health care, including reproductive health services. 2.7 million patients-- both men and women--all across America depend on Planned Parenthood for critical medical services every year. In my district, if you go to a Planned Parenthood clinic at the end of the day, women, many of modest means, will be lined up through the waiting room and, often, down the street, waiting to be seen. While supporters of this bill claim women will have other comparable options, the experts tell us that is simply not the case. The non- partisan Congressional Budget Office found that if this bill is passed, as many as 630,000 Planned Parenthood patients could lose access to birth control, STD screening, and other reproductive health services. And researchers at the Guttmacher Institute estimate that in 103 of America's 491 counties, Planned Parenthood is the only safety-net family planning clinic. I am outraged by this attempt to use a heavily edited and thoroughly discredited video to vilify an organization that plays a vital role in communities across the nation. Planned Parenthood should be celebrated, not demonized, and I hope my colleagues reject this dangerous and disingenuous piece of legislation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition. These bills today are the direct result of a series of videos that have been found to be purposefully misleading, alleging misdeeds that never happened that will result in the punishment of millions of women who have absolutely nothing to do with it. In many areas of this country, Planned Parenthood clinics are one of the few affordable healthcare options for women. During the Senate debate on defunding, a letter was introduced from California's community health centers, stating in no uncertain terms that defunding the Planned Parenthood clinics would place untenable stress on the community healthcare providers, but our Republican colleagues are indifferent to the experts. Truth, as usual, is the first casualty when they wage their cultural wars; and all that matters is the theater, their bizarre kabuki theater, of ritualized outrage. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bill.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably was not present on September 10, 2015 to vote in Roll Call vote numbers 491 and 492. Had I been present, I would have voted no on H. Res. 412, providing for consideration of H. Res. 411, H.R. 3461, and H.R. 3460, and no on H. Res. 411, finding that the President has not complied with section 2 of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud that members of Congress from both sides of the aisle came together to deal with the gun trafficking epidemic that has spread across our country and across our borders. Our bill, the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act, will create a dedicated federal statute to combat gun trafficking, and impose stiffer penalties for ``straw purchasers'' who buy guns for convicted felons and others who are prohibited from purchasing weapons. The bill also includes important enhancements for organizers of trafficking networks that funnel illegal guns into cities across the country. These stronger penalties will enable law enforcement and prosecutors to bust these trafficking rings and make our communities safer from the threat of gun violence. According to the ATF, more than 100,000 guns were recovered from crime scenes in Mexico between 2009 and 2014, and over 70 percent of those originated in the U.S. It's clear that gun trafficking across the border to Mexico is a major national security threat, but our current laws are so weak that it's not worth it to prosecute gun traffickers. In testimony to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2012, ATF Special Agent Peter Forcelli called the current laws against gun trafficking ``absolutely toothless.'' And the consequences have been dire: On Christmas Eve, 2012, a convicted felon named William Spengler, who served 17 years in prison for killing his 92-year-old grandmother with a hammer, sat down in his home in Webster, N.Y., and wrote a note vowing to torch his neighborhood. He promised to ``do what I like doing best, killing people.'' After setting fire to his own house and several others, Spengler ambushed the first responders, killing two firefighters by spraying them with bullets from a 12-gauge shotgun and a Bushmaster rifle. How did Mr. Spengler--a convicted felon--get his guns? He used his neighbor as a straw purchaser. And this May, authorities in New York charged 10 people in a gun trafficking ring that had channeled 90 guns from as far away as Maine onto our streets in just the previous six months. Thank you to Representatives Cummings, Meehan, Fitzpatrick, Kelly, King, Duckworth, and Donovan for their steadfast commitment to end gun trafficking, and their support of this critical legislation.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing, along with my colleague Representative Suzanne Bonamici, the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act. This important bill protects the rights of women seeking family planning services. Women deserve to receive comprehensive, impartial, and medically accurate information when making personal health decisions. Unfortunately, there are so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) that deliberately misinform or mislead women seeking information on family planning services. They pose as sources of unbiased pregnancy counseling, using deceptive propaganda to dissuade women from considering comprehensive birth-control options or legal abortion. These fake reproductive health clinics entice women through their doors under the pretense of providing the full range of reproductive options and services, and this bill would expose their deceptive tactics. The Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act directs the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate rules under the Federal Trade Commission Act, declaring it an unfair or deceptive act for an entity, such as a crisis pregnancy center, to advertise as a provider of abortion services if the entity does not provide abortion services. Clearly, deception and intimidation have no place when a woman is seeking information about her pregnancy. Working together we can help stop the fraud and confusion these Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) are perpetrating on the women of America. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation--because women deserve access to the best, most comprehensive healthcare information. Women need and deserve accurate and comprehensive information when making personal decisions about family planning, and so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers provide neither. Our legislation would expose and stop deceptive and false advertising from CPCs.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, 64 Senators voted to renew the Export-Import Bank's charter, which expired on June 30. More than 240 Members are on record supporting the Bank, and according to The Wall Street Journal, there are many more. As I quote, ``some Republicans estimated that as many as 300 of the 434 current House Members'' would support a measure similar to the one that passed the Senate; yet despite this overwhelming support, we have been denied a vote on the House of Representatives to renew the Export- Import Bank. Last year, Ex-Im helped underwrite over $27 billion in U.S. exports. It supported thousands of small businesses and about 164,000 jobs across our country. Since 2009, the Bank has supported over 1.3 million jobs. The Bank does all of this at no cost--no cost--to the American taxpayer. In fact, the Ex-Im Bank sent over $675 million to the Treasury last year--actual dollars--to help pay down the deficit. According to a letter sent by CBO just last week, using accounting standards, reauthorizing the Ex-Im would save taxpayers $2.3 billion over the next 5 years; yet American companies have been disadvantaged. They have been unilaterally disadvantaged of having the export assistance that over 60 different nations are providing their export- import banks. Only 1 of the top 10 exporting countries in the world does not have an export credit agency now that can finance export deals--just one-- and that is the United States of America. That is because this Congress failed to do what every other Congress has done since FDR, and that is to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. It creates jobs, creates money for the Treasury. It helps small businesses. Vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule. Let's bring it to the floor today for a vote. [From the Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2015] Small Businesses Bear Burden of Ex-Im Bank Shutdown (By Nick Timiraos and Kristina Peterson) Washington.--Political opponents have managed to shut the U.S. Export-Import Bank for the most of the summer by arguing it rewards politically connected corporate giants. But the bank and its supporters say the burden of the agency's shutdown for now will hit small businesses that lack the resources of industrial titans such as Boeing Co. and General Electric Co. ``Small businesses are the ones that are going to be hurt first and the most,'' said Rep. Denny Heck (D., Wash.), a proponent of reauthorizing the bank's charter. The Ex-Im Bank, a federal agency that finances exports, stopped accepting new loans at the beginning of July after Congress allowed its charter to expire. While a majority of lawmakers in Congress support reauthorizing the 81-year-old agency in some form, conservative Republicans who control key leadership positions have so far prevented a vote in the House of Representatives. Supporters had pinned their hopes on reopening the bank as part of a bill extending highway funding that expires Friday. But House and Senate leaders have had trouble agreeing on that transportation measure before their annual August recess that begins this week, which means they are likely to leave Washington without addressing the Ex-Im Bank. The bank's backers have sought to rally support in recent weeks by highlighting the potential for lost sales at small businesses, a group that is both politically sympathetic and close to lawmakers in almost every congressional district. President Barack Obama has called on Congress to reauthorize the agency, and most of the bank's supporters expect lawmakers to follow suit later this year. On Monday, 64 senators voted for an amendment to reopen the bank, and some Republicans estimated that at least 300 of the 434 current House lawmakers would vote similarly, given the chance. ``At some point we'll miss out on a business opportunity that will be of such magnitude that it will catch the attention of the public, and we'll respond,'' said Rep. Frank Lucas (R., Okla.), who supports the bank's reauthorization. Additional opportunities to resuscitate the agency will arrive when Congress passes a spending measure needed to avoid a partial government shutdown by Oct. 1 or if the House and Senate negotiate a long-term highway bill in the fall. Still, some lawmakers said the way in which the bank has missed multiple opportunities to stay open exposes the political challenges ahead. ``I wouldn't hold my breath that it's going to get funded in September,'' said Rep. Matt Salmon, an Arizona Republican who supports the bank. Big businesses say closing the bank for good will leave them at enough of a disadvantage against European and Asian competitors, which benefit from export-credit agencies at home, that they will move production abroad. For now, they say they are getting along fine. ``This is not something that creates near-term financial risk for Boeing,'' said Dennis Muilenburg, the company's chief executive, on a conference call with reporters last week. Indeed, one risk for the bank is that its absence hasn't had any immediate shock. ``The Export-Import Bank expired,'' said Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), one of the bank's loudest critics, at a recent rally on Capitol Hill. ``You notice the sky hasn't fallen?'' Critics of the bank say Washington shouldn't be picking winners and losers, and that any hardship for businesses is part of a necessary recalibration. The bank says that view is short-sighted. ``When our charter lapses, you won't read about massive layoffs in the paper. Small businesses don't put out press releases when they lose out on a sale,'' Fred Hochberg, chairman of the Ex- Im Bank who in the 1990s worked closely with entrepreneurs as an official at the Small Business Administration, said before the bank closed last month. Around 90% of loans backed by Ex-Im Bank last year went to small businesses, the highest level in more than a decade. Small businesses represent a much smaller share of loans by dollar volume, around 25%, because Ex-Im backs expensive loans for aircraft and other industrial equipment makers. Some businesses and their workers say that count overlooks firms that don't export directly but feed into supply chains. Yanke Machine Shop Inc. in Boise, Idaho, was one of 22 different U.S. companies that fulfilled an order for 150 pieces of construction equipment worth $37 million for a 2013 engineering project in Cameroon. ``What a lapse does is it kills opportunity. You've got to have opportunity before you have work on the floor,'' said Dirk Christison, who works in customer support for the heavy- steel fabrication company. At risk could be deals like one that Ray Garcia Jr., the principal of an energy consulting firm that arranges investment for infrastructure projects in Latin America, has put together to export American equipment for a $300 million gas-to-liquid plant in Paraguay. He said the project is one of three in South and Central America that is now in limbo. ``We have spent two years developing these projects just to have the rug pulled out from under us for political reasons,'' said Mr. Garcia, a self-described conservative Republican from Houston. Mr. Garcia said that without Ex-Im, the deal would go to a foreign company or large multinational, leaving his U.S. manufacturers without contracts. ``Small businesses that do not have $1 billion in capital to facilitate projects like these do benefit and can compete on a global platform armed with Ex-Im Bank,'' he said. Ex-Im's Bank limbo state stands in contrast to those of a similar agency. When the Small Business Administration last week stopped accepting new loans under its flagship program, which reached its borrowing limit on Thursday, the House and Senate quickly passed an extension. Because existing loans aren't imperiled by the Ex-Im Bank's shutdown, the lapse created a ``soft landing'' for most customers, said Gary Mendell, president of Meridian Finance Group in Santa Monica, Calif., which arranges financing for exporters. ``We've been telling customers to see if you can stand tough until the end of July,'' he said. As the prospect of Ex-Im Bank's reauthorization grows more distant, Mr. Mendell said more firms will run into difficulty as their working-capital loans or credit insurance expires. An overlooked casualty, he added, is that small businesses that have never exported have virtually no financing options right now. ``If the private sector were interested in doing this, they would be doing it by now,'' said Mr. Mendell. Even the bank's critics have taken note of the potential plight of small firms. On the eve of the agency's shutdown last month, Sen. David Vitter (R., La.), expressed alarm that financing for thousands of small businesses might be at stake and said the agency should come up with a way for those companies to secure financing from the SBA.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this Chamber is doing a great disservice to small-business owners and to hundreds of thousands of American workers by going off to recess for the next 6 weeks without renewing the charter of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. It is the wrong thing to do. Sadly, the minority of ideologues in this Chamber that is blocking the renewal of the Ex-Im's charter is absolutely right about one thing. If the U.S. Ex-Im goes under, all the export business and all the jobs supported by it will be just displaced to other companies. What they don't mention in their rants against the Bank is that the companies that will get this business will be in other countries and the workers who get those good-paying jobs will be overseas because there are some 85 foreign export credit agencies today happy to help the companies in their countries seal the deal. We are leaving thousands of American workers at a real competitive disadvantage by leaving the U.S. Export-Import Bank in a zombielike status. We should renew it. We should keep these jobs in America. We should put more Americans to work.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that yesterday the House approved H.R. 1138, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act, by voice vote. Throughout my career in Congress, I have strongly supported protection of America's wilderness, and applaud efforts to bring new lands into the National Wilderness Preservation System. However, provisions of this bill that will divide large tracts of roadless National Forest land give me great concern. While this legislation made important improvements over previous versions, motorized/mechanized corridors including at Germania Creek divide one of the nation's most pristine wilderness areas and reduces the habitat available to vulnerable wildlife. In order to provide stronger protection for pristine wilderness in Idaho and other parts of the Northern Rockies, I have introduced the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA)--which would designate 23 million acres of roadless lands as permanent wilderness. This bill would protect vulnerable habitats, connect biological corridors, and restore habitats that have been damaged by road construction and clear cutting. I am pleased to see Congress turn its attention to the Northern Rockies, but hope that Members will recognize the significant shortfalls of H.R. 1138. As it is considered in the Senate, this legislation should be amended to preserve one of the largest roadless wilderness areas in the lower 48 states, as well as grant protection to additional areas in the Northern Rockies identified in NREPA.