Dan Newhouse

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, antiscience, fear-mongering strategies cannot be left unanswered. I believe there are a few things people should know about biotechnology. First, I appreciate anyone's safety concerns. That is why it is important to note that the USDA and the FDA rigorously test every biotech crop for human safety for years before anything can be brought to the market. To be clear, no peer-reviewed study--and there have been hundreds-- has ever found GMO foods have caused health concerns, ever. Individuals have concerns about environmental impacts. I appreciate that, too. But what many people don't know is that, by turning on just one gene in corn, we now have a corn that is significantly more pest- resistant, which means huge reductions in the use of pesticides. We can do this with other crops as well. To be probiotech is to be proenvironment. There is a type of rice that is vitamin A-enriched and has the ability to prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of blindness and death from vitamin A deficiency around the world. There is a really nasty type of wheat rot called UG-99 spreading from Africa and the Middle East that has the ability to kill 90 percent of the world's wheat supply. To be clear, this would cause a global famine. Scientists are looking at a way to create rot-resistant wheat through biotechnology and gene sequencing, which would save millions and millions of lives. Mr. Chair, this technology is good proenvironment, lifesaving technology. And while I agree we need to have a system to give consumers the freedom to use it or not, which this bill does, we cannot allow antiscience opponents of biotechnology to use scare tactics that would cost millions of lives in the end.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas. As a third-generation farmer and a former director of my State's Department of Agriculture, I cannot stress enough the importance of this legislation for our Nation and our world's food supply. Yesterday, I spoke on the merits of preventing a patchwork of conflicting State and local GMO labeling laws which would require producers to sell under potentially hundreds of different labels, and I still believe that is a very important element to this debate. However, there is another aspect I would like to address on why I believe this mandatory labeling law, which some of my colleagues have called for, is a very poor idea. Mr. Chairman, I question the motives behind some of these arguments. They say they ``want consumers to have information'' but that can't actually be their concern because this legislation gives consumers information. It is disingenuous to claim it doesn't. If you want to go to a store and buy a ``non-GMO'' product, much like ``organic'' or ``cage-free,'' you can do that under this legislation. It will provide consumers all the information they need to purchase food they think is right for their families. So what is their motive? Is it they want to try to scare consumers, to demonize this technology? Point of Order

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I would like to thank my colleague from Alabama, a member of the Rules Committee, as well as joining Mr. McGovern with whom we share a Rules Committee assignment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that we are considering as well as the underlying legislation, both bills, but I would like to specifically speak to H.R. 1599, which is, I believe, accurately labeled the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. I think, also, I would like to talk to the positive impacts that it will have on our Nation's food supply. Many of you may know that, prior to coming to Congress, I was the director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture. Shortly after my time at the WSDA, several groups in my home State of Washington proposed a ballot initiative, I-522, which would have required mandatory labeling of biotech food products or of those using ingredients that had biotech ingredients, also referred to as GMOs. Now, I opposed I-522 for a couple of reasons but mainly because of the impact that we could see it would have on our farmers and on our ranchers and on our grocers but, more importantly, on our consumers, the families who are making food decisions in the grocery stores, who, in the end, would pay higher food prices as a result of this mandatory labeling law that was being considered. In our State, we have the Washington Research Council, and it conducted an independent study, showing that the mandatory food labeling of biotech ingredients would cost the average family at least--at a minimum--$450 a year in increased food costs. That is assuming that Washington was the only jurisdiction to create such a law. Now, if other States and other cities--other localities--decided to follow suit and pass their own laws, such as Seattle or New York or Boston or San Francisco or Oregon, food producers would face an incredible, unworkable patchwork of legal definitions of what a ``GMO'' is and how to label it. I can only imagine a food producer having to print, say, 100 different labels for its products depending on where they were destined, where they were to be sold, and the liability they would face if, for instance, a box of food labeled for Phoenix ended up in Las Vegas or in Los Angeles or in Salt Lake City. Many producers are considering stopping or have stopped selling products in the State of Vermont, which is the most recent State to adopt mandatory labeling standards, because of this increased cost, because of the uncertainty and the liability that separate jurisdictions would create. In my estimation and what the people of my State have said is that what we need is a national voluntary label, much like organic, a label which gives consumers who want to purchase non-GMO foods the freedom to do so, but that will not impose higher costs on producers or consumers. Mr. Speaker, critics of this bill, H.R. 1599, unfairly claim it will limit the ability of consumers to know what they are purchasing; but let me say that that just simply is not the case, that it is not true. If you go into a grocery store and want to purchase an organic product, that is something that you are easily able to do, and that is exactly what this bill will do for GMO foods. It will create a similar label. So make no mistake. If buying non-GMO is important to any of you as a consumer, then you will have every ability to do so when you walk into a grocery store and make your purchase. You will have the confidence of the United States Department of Agriculture's system of making sure that those labels are consistent from one State to the other; so you will know what you are buying by what that label says. Mr. Speaker, the Founders of our Nation gave Congress a tool in our Constitution to regulate interstate commerce to prevent the types of legal patchworks and market distortions that we are beginning to see on this issue. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support H.R. 1599, and protect the Nation's access to safe, affordable food.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, tonight we've heard from Representatives from all over the country--from my home state of Washington, to Oklahoma, to Florida--about the economic importance of the Export- Import Bank to our nation. Before we conclude for the evening, there were three other topics I wanted to discuss--wine, music stands, and mint oil. As unrelated as these three things sound, they have a couple of important commonalities. First, these are small businesses in Washington State that create all three of these products. L'Ecole Winery in Walla Walla makes a fantastic, award-winning Bordeaux blend, and sells their wines in over 20 countries. I had the chance to recently tour the Manhasset Specialty Company, located in Yakima, Washington, which manufactures and sells the gold-standard of music stands the world over. Norwest Ingredients, a company located in Royal City, Washington, grows and refines mint extract, and sells it around the globe to food and pharmaceutical producers for flavoring. The other thing these three businesses have in common, besides making some of the best products in the world, is that they all use Export- Import Bank financing to share their products with the world. They are great examples of small businesses utilizing the Bank--and for the record, they are definitely small businesses, employing a total of 43 full-time employees between the three of them, and that number is growing. In fact, to clear up a common misconception about the Ex-Im Bank, in fiscal year 2014, an astounding 89% of the Export-Import Bank's loans were to small businesses. When these small businesses are seeking to export their product--that is, to grow their businesses and create jobs--they often need financing to do that. However, selling your product in Sidney or Seoul is not the same thing as selling it in St. Louis or San Francisco. When selling overseas, under a different set of laws, sometimes there's little recourse if you have issues with getting paid for your goods. Or say there's a natural disaster or labor dispute--how then can you access your product or the money you're owed? When your product spends six weeks on a barge, and your money is locked in that product in a crate, sometimes you need capital that's just not accessible. In some countries, just to access their markets and sell your products you have to have an insurance guarantee from your home country. And that's where the Export-Import Bank comes in. The Export-Import Bank supplements private financiers, providing direct loans, working capital, loan guarantees, and other forms of financial insurance, allowing these businesses to reach markets and sell goods they would be unable to otherwise. Critics on one side argue this simply means these ventures are too risky, and shouldn't be entered into if private financing can't handle the job. On the other side, they argue the reason private financiers can't handle it is because Ex-Im crowds them out of the market, offering rates private finance can't compete with. But, if we look at the evidence, we can see both of these claims are just not true. If the Export-Import Bank backed inherently risky ventures, then how do we account for the 0.175% default rate on Ex-Im loans? This rate is far below the standard market rate, meaning that the Bank's loans are careful, and judicious with taxpayer dollars. As for the Export-Import Bank crowding private lenders out of the market, right now Ex-Im requires in its charter that the Bank only, and I quote only, ``supplement and encourage, and not compete with private capital.'' It also requires that the Export-Import Bank provide an annual report to Congress with a breakdown of all of their loans, demonstrating that private lenders were either unable or unwilling to offer these loans. However, I would agree with critics that this isn't enough, and we should go further. That's one of the reasons I'm a cosponsor of Mr. Fincher's Export-Import Reform legislation, H.R. 597, the Reform Exports and Expand the American Economy Act. Mr. Fincher's bill reiterates that the Export-Import Bank is the ``lender of last resort'' to companies, and that companies seeking credit must demonstrate they've tried to procure private financing before they can even be considered for Ex-Im financing. Mr. Fincher's Export-Import reform bill would make other positive changes to the Bank as well. It would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to regularly audit Ex-Im's fraud control measures, as well as their loan, insurance, and guarantee programs. This legislation would require that the Bank's Board of Directors publish an annual list of countries that loan participants should not be doing business with, whether it's because they violate human rights, aid our nation's enemies, or for other foreign policy reason. These are good, ethical reforms that should be made. The reform legislation would also impose capital reserve requirements on Ex-Im so that, while unlikely, should a financial crisis affect the Bank, it will have strong capital reserves to protect taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I aren't asking for a straight reauthorization of Ex-Im--we think there are improvements that can and should be made to the Bank. And we would love to work with those who are critical of the Export-Import Bank to join us in reforming the Bank so that it's more accountable, it's more supportive of the free market, and is a better steward of taxpayer dollars. Speaking of taxpayer dollars, there's another common myth about the Export-Import Bank that I would like to clear up. Critics of the Bank claim that it's a huge consumer of taxpayer dollars, and that it constantly risks those funds. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. When a business takes out a loan, just like everyone else, they have to repay that balance with interest--and that's where the Export-Import Bank, like any other lender, makes its revenue. To quote from a June 17, 2015 Congressional Research Service report, ``Ex-Im Bank's activities in FY2013 were estimated to reduce the budget deficit by $1 billion in FY2013, and are estimated to reduce the budget deficit by $570 million in FY2014.'' Let me repeat that to let it sink in--two years ago, Ex-Im reduced our federal deficit by a billion dollars, and last year it reduced it by $570 million. Some of the most ardent critics of the Bank are fellow conservative friends of mine, who are just as concerned with federal spending as I am. That's why I have a hard time understanding how they can advocate for ending a program that is helping to curb our deficits by half a billion to a billion dollars annually. Another misconception I'd like to address is that allowing Export- Import Bank to permanently expire won't cost our country jobs--it certainly will. It's estimated that every year, Ex-Im helps our nation's businesses support about 167,000 jobs. To put this into perspective, that's more than half the population of St. Louis, Missouri. Those are jobs we will be forfeiting if we allow Ex-Im to permanently expire. Moreover, allowing expiration of the Export-Import Bank will put our nation at a permanent trade disadvantage. Currently, every other nation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has their own Export-Import Bank to support their country's producers-- Britain, Korea, Mexico, Italy, Estonia--you name it. And some of them are enormous. Germany's bank backs $22.6 billion in exports annually-- significantly more than the U.S.'s average of $14.5 billion. And China's is off the charts--backing $45.5 billion in exports annually. For those of you keeping track, that's over three times the size of our Bank. In fact, the Chairman of India's Export-Import Bank in a recent interview with Business Insider was asked for his thoughts on the U.S. Bank expiring. His response? ``With the U.S. Ex-Im Bank closing down, we would now have more market, because Indian products were competed by U.S. products.'' Right now, these other nations are looking for every advantage they can get for their businesses to grow their economies, and they see the U.S. willingly retracting from the global stage and conceding market share. If we would like to maintain U.S. strength abroad, allowing expiration of the Export-Import Bank is a poor strategic decision. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, now is the time to reform and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, and I encourage House leadership to allow us to vote on its reauthorization as soon as possible. The Export-Import Bank helps our nation's small businesses grow and create jobs. It reduces our nation's federal deficit, and makes us more competitive on the global stage. Could it use reforms? Certainly--there isn't an institution out there that couldn't, and I'd love to work with my friends who are critical of the Bank to see these reforms put in place. But we can't willingly remove tools from our arsenal if we want to keep our great nation strong and competitive for decades to come.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 443, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the gentleman. And that is a great segue into who I would like to share some of this time with next. I yield to the gentleman, also from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. One of the great things about this body is having people with so many different kinds of experiences. Mr. Mica, you personally know the importance because of your experience in being in other countries, of selling American products abroad, how important this tool is to the American businesses.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Cole, thank you very much for participating tonight and pointing out the importance of the Bank to your State and to your district. I yield now to gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Davis, I am very grateful for you sharing with us today. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole)

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I appreciate your powerful words and the importance of the Ex-Im Bank to your district, to your State, and to our country. Next, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), another member of the Agriculture Committee on which I serve. I appreciate Mr. Rodney Davis taking the time to come here and with helping us make the points on the importance of this authorization.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for underscoring the importance of the Ex-Im Bank to small businesses, small businesses that employ a huge number of people around this country. That is very important to point out. Next I would like to turn to the good gentleman from the State of Georgia (Mr. Carter), another freshman colleague of mine.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Those are powerful, powerful arguments. I appreciate Mr. Stivers' contribution here this evening. Next, I would like to turn to one of the stars of our freshman class, a colleague of mine from New York, Ms. Elise Stefanik.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank Mr. Dold for his comments about the small jobs. Coming from a State like Washington, as I do, I can certainly relate. Fully 40 percent of the jobs in my State are related to exports, so we understand the importance of having all the tools we can at our disposal to make these small businesses successful in the world economy. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a colleague of mine who sits on the Committee on Rules, for his comments.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Collins, your stories of small businesses in your State and your district, I think, can be told of virtually every district in the country. They are very powerful stories. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), a great member of our caucus and, technically, a member of our freshman team. I am very happy to have him here this evening.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a fellow member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), a young man from the San Joaquin Valley to add to the California voice.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I share the gentleman from Florida's enthusiasm for the important work that is in front of this Congress. These combined rules offer us the opportunity to bring forward important legislation at a critical time in as efficient a way as possible. I am excited, as a freshman Congressman, to be able to be a part of this institution, certainly, but to be able to do this hard work that we have in front of us. We have a lot to do, and doing it in this way allows us to get these important things done very quickly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), a young man who shares a very interesting perspective because he is living the drought conditions that we just read about in the State of California. He is the author of this important bill we have before us, and he is a resident of Hanford, California.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, roughly 1 year ago today, the Carlton Complex wildfire broke out in Okanogan County in my district. This fire was the most destructive in Washington State's history, burning over 250,000 acres, destroying hundreds of homes and businesses, and devastating the environment. Communities in the Methow Valley continue to deal with the fire's long-term consequences and are still working to rebuild and recover. One year later, we recognize the heroic efforts of thousands of first responders, firefighters, and volunteers who worked around the clock at great personal risk to fight the blaze. Mr. Speaker, I saw firsthand how the community pulled together to help one another. Volunteers provided shelter to survivors, cooked meals, and unloaded trucks of relief supplies. The outpouring of support from volunteers from all over the State is a testament to the spirit and determination of Washingtonians. We must remember the losses caused by this catastrophic wildfire, and Congress must continue to push to improve forest health to ensure that this does not happen again.