Keith Rothfus

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I want to take a little time this evening to take a different look at American energy, Mr. Speaker. As many of you know, one of my core convictions is the importance of upholding the dignity of human life. Our task here in Washington should be to promote ideas and policies that allow people to live longer, healthier, and more rewarding lives. It is in that spirit that I have joined with my fellow Pennsylvanian, Representative Kelly, and like-minded colleagues to host tonight's Special Order. Starting last week, world elites gathered in Paris to negotiate climate change commitments and promises that, if enacted, could undo generations of human progress, progress that has provided us with the affordable and reliable energy necessary for humans to truly flourish. I am here tonight to tell another side of the story, one that abandons the dogma of scarcity put forward by elites in Paris and climate change zealots in Washington. I want to shift this debate to focus on the remarkable story of human abundance. Affordable, reliable energy has been responsible for helping to improve and prolong the lives of billions of people around the world. Energy powers our businesses. It keeps the lights on in our homes. It allows us to have fresh food and clean water. It powers our schools and our hospitals. Energy is in many respects a life or death matter. It is a moral issue, and it deserves more careful consideration than it has been given by the President. I would like to highlight a little bit, just taking a look at some charts. In taking a look at what has been happening with the use of energy, a lot of the energy we get is carbon-based fossil fuel energy, whether it is coal, oil, natural gas. Yes, it has increased in recent history. What also has happened in recent history? As CO2 emissions have gone up, so has the wealth of this world and of this country. As the population has gone up, so has energy use. What is really striking, Mr. Speaker, is taking a look at how the increase in life expectancy has coincided with this energy revolution as well. As you can see, for much of human history, our lives were short, miserable, and lacking in fulfillment. Consider that, until the industrial revolution, people lived 27 years, on average, earned little money, and faced limited opportunities. Again, though CO2 has increased, so has incredible wealth, lifting billions of people out of poverty and life expectancy. The point now is, in the United States, the average life expectancy is near 80 years old. As people learned to access the bounty of energy available, we turned it to our advantage. As we got better at it, incomes and populations soared. This is another interesting chart, Mr. Speaker. As we look at the use of world energy, just going back over the last 30 years, the bottom line is energy use. The top line is the world GDP, the increase in wealth that we have seen coinciding with this increase in energy. You could take a look at some specific countries and see how energy has benefited them. In China and India, both of which have industrialized and increased energy use over the last generation, life expectancy has increased by more than a decade. Infant mortality has plummeted by 70 and 58 percent, respectively, in China and India. This is all correlated with increased energy use and the availability of affordable energy resources. As Alex Epstein argues in ``The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,'' hundreds of millions of people have gotten their first light bulb, their first refrigerator, their first decent-paying job. With all of our world problems, affordable energy has helped make this the brightest, most abundant time in human history. Some disparage the story as one of unseemly consumption and excess. I see it as a tremendous triumph of human ingenuity and a victory for those who put human well-being as our top priority. We can tell the same story about Western Pennsylvania, where, once again, we are witnessing increasing prosperity attracted by affordable and reliable energy. This entails better opportunities for Pennsylvania's youth and a better quality of life. That is why I am so troubled by the President's actions at home and in Paris. In negotiating a global compact, which will likely entail further restrictions on our access to energy, the President is unknowingly endangering our future well-being. By not taking his plans to Congress for approval, as should be the case with a treaty, the President is ignoring the will of the American people. This is not a trivial point. The American people will be denied the opportunity to weigh in on something that will drastically impact their daily lives. Remember, the President said when he was a candidate in 2008 that electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket under his plan. All of this comes in addition to heavy burdens that the American people are already grappling with. The so-called Clean Power Plan is an example. By forcing more power plant closures and placing stricter requirements on those that remain, the President's plan will raise energy prices by $289 billion through 2030, hurting American families and businesses large and small. Research suggests that we will see 224,000 fewer American jobs being created each year because of this rule. We will also see reduced disposable income and weaker economic growth. Minority communities will be especially hard-hit. A study from the National Black Chamber of Commerce found that the Clean Power Plan would increase poverty among African Americans by 23 percent and Hispanics by 26 percent. This is unacceptable, and it is immoral. Real people will be hurt by these actions. Yet, few in Washington seem to be caring about these real human costs. That is why I have introduced a bill called the Fair Burdens Act. This bill would prevent the burden from endangering our prosperity and well-being until the EPA can verify that a sufficient number of countries have enacted similarly stringent policies. In other words, the Fair Burdens Act would ensure that Americans aren't made to needlessly suffer and that our jobs aren't forced overseas, as the President unilaterally slows the American economy. We can't just rely on legislation. We need to change the narrative and educate the public. Affordable, reliable energy is a vital ingredient for human prosperity and well-being. Ignoring this fact and taking ill-conceived policy actions as a result condemns millions of Americans and billions around the world to dimmer futures, higher energy costs, and less prosperity. We owe it to our constituents to defend their ability to live fulfilling, prosperous lives. I want to thank my colleagues who have joined me here tonight to do just that. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his observations about our Constitution and what it requires. I yield the floor to my colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who has been a very strong advocate for her constituents and for the energy policy that we need to have in this country.

Mr. ROTHFUS. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if one were to ask a question of some high school students in a civics class--if you have an agreement, let's say, between two countries or three countries or four countries and those countries are agreeing to do things that are going to bind their respective citizens, you would ask those students, I would think, Mr. Speaker: What would you call that type of agreement? I think every one of those students in a civics class might say a treaty. If it looks like a treaty, if it smells like a treaty and it works like a treaty, it is a treaty. To just highlight what my colleague here has been saying, we have a process in our Constitution for when it is a treaty. It needs to get submitted to the Senate with a two-thirds vote. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. ROTHFUS. It struck me as my colleague from Pennsylvania was talking about the Constitution. What he was getting at, Mr. Speaker, was a simple concept of authority and whether the President has authority to do what he is doing in Paris. The President is allowed to negotiate certainly. He can conduct foreign affairs. It is pretty clear in the Constitution that he has that authority to do so. But the President, on his own, does not have the authority to obligate American taxpayers to pay into any kind of fund. It is the House and the Senate that do the appropriations. I am mindful that my colleague came out of the auto business, where he sold cars. I can imagine a situation where you might have a customer coming in, let's say a 15-year-old, who wants to go in and buy a car. Of course my colleague might welcome this individual to the showroom, and this individual, a 15-year-old kid, might make an offer, but I think he is going to be asking: Well, does this person have the authority at the age of 15 to make an offer? Maybe the kid will say: Well, I am doing it for my mom and my dad. Well, you are going to want to see what authority he has. I am mindful that our Constitution gives the authority to spend money to the Congress, which would then be signed by the President. I yield to my colleague if he wants to close.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, those who disagree with us and our colleagues point to the wisdom of the experts on the potential impacts of climate change, but we know that many of the so-called experts have historically been wrong, often significantly wrong. In 1986, John Holdren, a senior adviser to President Obama on science and technology issues, predicted: ``carbon dioxide, climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.'' Since then, we have added almost 2\1/2\ billion people to the planet, an increase of almost 50 percent, and we aren't seeing a billion people dying from famine. We continue to make significant progress with improved technology, and we are feeding more people than ever, and people are living healthier and longer. We could not have done this without accessing abundant, affordable, and consistent energy. Paul Ehrlich, another so-called expert on this issue, predicted in 1970, that: ``By the year 2000, the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people . . . If I were a gambler, I would take even more money that England will not exist in the year 2000.'' Well, England still exists, and it is doing better than ever. England's Chancellor of the Exchequer was recently published in The Wall Street Journal bragging about the nation's turnaround under conservative leadership: ``How Britain Got Its Mojo Back.'' To paraphrase Mark Twain, the report of Britain's death is greatly exaggerated, to say the least. If we had listened to the inaccurate and dire predictions of these experts and chicken littles and curtailed energy usage, our world would certainly look differently than it does. It would be poorer, less well fed, and billions of people would be generally worse off. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague for his comments. Let's take a look at where we are at in this debate over energy use and what has been going on in Paris. Again, it always seems to be a one-sided conversation about all the negatives and all the dire consequences. I highlighted a few of the examples before of what some of the advocates have been saying, and how their dire predictions did not come to pass. Too often, Mr. Speaker, we take for granted how easy it is to live with constant access to reliable sources of energy. Our health, indeed our lives, and the lives of those who we love, often depend on our access to reliable energy available to us at every hour, every day. People in the developing world cannot yet say the same. There is a powerful story of an unborn child who suffocated in utero in Gambia comes to mind. This tiny, three-pound little girl could not be saved, because the hospital did not have access to a reliable source of energy. Her mother required an emergency C-section, but the surgery could not begin until a generator was powered on. Precious minutes were lost, so precious life was lost. Without a reliable, consistent form of energy, the hospital did not even own an incubator, which would have also been necessary to save this baby's life. We cannot forget how important affordable, reliable energy is for every human person, and how attacks on these sources of energy are attacks on life itself. I yield to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, the mass production of cheap, reliable energy has powered the greatest expansion of wealth and opportunity in human history. It has resulted in higher living standards and improved health in the United States and around the globe. Notwithstanding this too often ignored reality, the President wants to commit the United States to even more stringent, anti-energy regulations than those currently in place. The President's Clean Power Plan alone is expected to increase our energy prices by nearly $300 billion over the next 15 years and reduce annual job creation by over 200,000. According to the EPA's only models, the impact of all of these rules on global temperature increases will be near zero. The United States cannot effect change alone. China, the world's largest polluter, and other top emitters of global CO2 emissions need to come to the table too. That is why, today, I introduced the Fighting Against Imbalanced Regulatory Burdens Act, or H.R. 4169. This bill will prevent the EPA from imposing any restrictions on CO2 emissions from power plants unless countries responsible for 80 percent of non-U.S. emissions have enacted similarly stringent policies. I encourage my colleagues to support me in this effort.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life, legacy, and work of Officer Lloyd Reed, Jr., who will be remembered for his kind and helpful nature. Officer Reed, a St. Clair Township, Pennsylvania, police officer, was tragically shot and killed last Saturday, November 28, while responding to a domestic dispute. A graduate of Conemaugh Township High School, he was an avid trout fisherman and a NASCAR and, of course, a Steelers fan. Officer Reed courageously served his community as a law enforcement officer for 25 years before his life was taken. I offer my prayers and deepest condolences to his loved ones: his friends, his colleagues, and his wife. All men and women who serve to protect us from harm deserve our deepest gratitude and respect. They choose to risk their lives so that the rest of us can lead peaceful, productive, and meaningful lives. Officer Reed's life and death are a testament to all those who serve honorably as law enforcement officers.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I would like to thank my good friend from Kentucky, the sponsor of this legislation, for leading on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, for many western Pennsylvanians, home ownership is a significant aspect of realizing the American Dream. Moving from paying rent to owning a home is an investment in the future for these families and an investment in their local communities. Unfortunately, today that dream is being threatened unnecessarily by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's qualified mortgage rule, or QM. The QM rule is a Washington-knows-best approach to mortgages that is hampering access to home loans across this country and hurting potential homebuyers and their communities. As with many complicated and one-size-fits-all regulations, the QM rule has brought substantial unintended consequences. The rule's strict arbitrary standards have made it more difficult for many deserving consumers to get a mortgage and, as a result, has stalled much-needed investment in distressed and recovering communities. Notably, a significant amount of low-to-moderate-income borrowers now do not qualify for a mortgage based on the rule's 43 percent debt-to- income ratio requirement. In fact, according to the Federal Reserve, 22 percent of those who borrowed to buy a home in 2010, after the financial crisis, 1 out of every 5 borrowers would not have met this requirement. Mr. Speaker, these are hardworking, everyday people we are talking about. These are the people we are fighting for today. It is our local community banks and credit unions that have longstanding relationships with these everyday people, and they are in the best position to judge creditworthiness and ability to repay. But the QM rule effectively takes that opportunity away from these community institutions and subjects them to an increased potential liability should they ever decide to stray outside the regulation. This is why, as the American Banker and others have put it well, for community financial institutions, QM means quitting mortgages. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, this commonsense legislation that we are considering today offers a real opportunity to change this. In short, the bill provides a very reasonable tradeoff for financial institutions. Should an institution decide to hold a mortgage in portfolio and retain the risk of default on its balance sheet, the institution receives the legal protections that are otherwise afforded by the QM rule. On the other hand, if that institution decides not to hold the mortgage in portfolio, sells it in the secondary market and does not retain the risk, the institution does not receive those legal protections. By providing this option, the legislation will allow institutions to meet the credit demands of their consumers while incentivizing them to ensure that potential borrowers can meet the monthly obligations of a mortgage. In other words, it properly realigns the risk, facilitates effective underwriting by lenders, and ensures that mortgages will be readily available for deserving homebuyers. Mr. Speaker, let's pass this legislation so we can help transform community through home ownership. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, over the last 6 years, Americans have watched as the Federal Reserve has embarked on an interventionist monetary policy to an unprecedented degree. The Fed's quantitative easing marked a dramatic departure from traditional monetary policy in the United States, and it resulted in a massive expansion of the Fed's balance sheet to some $4.5 trillion. To put this number in perspective, that is almost five times the size of the Fed's balance sheet before the financial crisis when it stood at $800 billion. It also represents one-quarter of the total size of the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, despite this enormous expansion and influence over the economy, the Fed has persistently failed to implement measures to increase transparency as to its decisionmaking. Americans continue to face a sluggish economy that has fallen far short of its potential, and they want to know the reasoning behind the Fed's actions or lack thereof. This is particularly important for those who have saved money for their retirement, especially grandparents on fixed incomes, who are being directly harmed by the Fed's decision to keep rates at near zero. They want transparency and answers from their government. I suggest also our citizens should understand why the Federal Reserve would take an unprecedented action to explode its balance sheet by more than 400 percent over 5 years. No one--no one--knows how this experiment will end up turning out. The legislation that we are considering today would implement important reforms to address these issues. To start, by requiring the Fed to explain the differences between its monetary policy decisions and a rigorously studied reference rule, the legislation would go far to improve the American public's understanding of monetary policy and how it impacts their lives. Similarly, by requiring a cost-benefit analysis for any regulation that the Fed chooses to promulgate, it will ensure that all relevant costs are properly taken into account and that the Fed considers the full consequences of its actions in an open and understandable fashion. To be clear, these reforms are about increasing transparency and improving how the Fed communicates its policy decisions to the American public. Contrary to what some claim, the legislation does not--does not--mandate any particular policy decisions, nor does it impact or threaten the Fed's independence in setting monetary policy. In fact, few have made a better case for these sorts of reforms than Chair Yellen herself, who stated: ``Transparency concerning Federal Reserve's conduct of monetary policy is desirable because better public understanding enhances the effectiveness of policy.'' Mr. Chairman, transparency and openness serve to strengthen a democratic republic like ours. That is what this legislation is all about. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in organizing this Special Order. I thank him for allowing me to take a few moments to again take a look at what has been going on across the world and the troubling news that we have from abroad. I rise tonight, Mr. Speaker, to call for a moratorium on the entry of refugees into the United States from Syria and all other countries that have been infiltrated by ISIS and other terrorist groups until security concerns can be adequately addressed. In the wake of the recent attacks in Paris, in Beirut, and on a Russian plane flying over the Sinai, my first and foremost concern is for the safety and security of my constituents in western Pennsylvania. To put it simply, the safety and security of the American people are nonnegotiable. Right now we simply do not have the mechanisms in place to ensure that the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the President would have come into this country over the next year and other refugees from terrorist-controlled areas are properly vetted. FBI Director James Comey has said as much: ``If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.'' The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Homeland Security have said the same. It is both reasonable and prudent to insist that we know exactly who these individuals are before they settle into our towns and cities. Currently, we have neither the capability nor the capacity to do this. The recent attacks have awakened us to the reality that Islamic State terrorists have the worst of intentions not only for Christians and other religious minorities in their own region, but for the entire Western world. They are not, as the President has claimed, merely a setback. They are acts of war by a terrorist scourge against decency and humanity and freedom and everything that we as Americans stand for. It comes as no surprise, then, that ISIS has already stated it intends to attack the heart of the United States here in Washington, D.C., and it is not impossible that ISIS terrorists could enter the country by posing as Syrian refugees. In fact, reports indicate that a Syrian passport was found next to the body of 25-year-old Ahmad al- Mohammad, one of the suicide bombers in Paris. He was born in Idlib, a city in northwest Syria, and the Paris prosecutor's office said his fingerprints matched those of a person who traveled through Greece last month. So the security concerns that the American people are raising are not, as the President and others have suggested, without merit. They are completely legitimate, especially as the number of refugees is set to increase to 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 in 2017, a significant increase from the average 70,000 per year over the past several years. The truth is that the American people are an incredibly compassionate and generous people. We have a rich history of assisting people in other nations around the globe when they are suffering from a humanitarian crisis, poverty, oppression, or war. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has resettled 748,000 refugees from around the world. The American people have also assisted innocent Syrian refugees fleeing from violence in search of a better life, providing $4.5 billion in humanitarian aid since the start of the crisis in Syria to help them relocate in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and other nations. While we desire to assist those who need help around the globe, we have a solemn duty to protect our citizens. The bottom line is we need to put the safety and security of Americans first. The solution I am proposing today is indefinite, but not necessarily permanent. It is the only responsible thing to do under these circumstances. We need time to review and implement policies that will ensure that those who seek refuge in the United States are properly vetted. I also urge my colleagues in the Senate to act boldly and promptly to ensure the security concerns of the American people are addressed.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on my amendment to the end that the amendment stands disposed of by the voice vote thereon.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I cannot understate the importance of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. The House finally has an opportunity to begin today what may be a years-long process of unwinding the Federal Government's massive loan guarantees. We need to do this to better protect hardworking taxpayer dollars so we can ensure that, when bills come due in 10 years for Social Security, Medicare, and veterans' benefits, we will be able to meet these commitments that Americans have earned and deserve. My amendment also supports small businesses and ensures they can continue to export goods and services. In short, it is a win-win for taxpayers and job creators alike. My amendment builds a firewall to protect the American taxpayer in the event that an overseas purchaser takes out a loan from the Export- Import Bank and stops paying it back. While the loan will still have a taxpayer guarantee, the U.S. exporter that directly profits on the deal will be responsible for a percentage of the loss before you go to the taxpayers. One need only look at the details surrounding the deal with NewSat, a troubled satellite operator in Australia, to see why this amendment is necessary. The American taxpayer lost $139 million of a direct loan from the Export-Import Bank because the deal wasn't properly collateralized. Hardworking taxpayers should not be left paying for these risky loans. This is vitally important, Mr. Chairman. This amendment will allow elected Representatives to cast a vote on whether it is fair and prudent to facilitate transactions where profits stay in the private sector, but losses are passed on to taxpayers. This is often described as ``privatize the profits, but socialize the losses.'' Here is how the amendment works. First, it does not apply if any exporter is a small business. According to the Export-Import Bank's own figures, nearly 90 percent of the Bank's transactions directly serve small businesses. This amendment does not touch this 90 percent and will not impact local mom-and-pop businesses. For big businesses, though, when a foreign government or corporation takes out a loan from the Export-Import Bank to buy their products or services, if that foreign purchaser then defaults on the loan, before dipping into the Bank's reserves--which belong to the taxpayers--the big businesses would have to repay a percentage of the loan. To minimize any potential disruptions, this reform is phased in gradually over the next decade, starting at a mere 10 percent for any lending that occurs in fiscal year 2016, 20 percent in fiscal year 2017, and so on. Loans will still get made, the Bank will still operate, but the American taxpayers will have a layer of protection that will mitigate any chance of the Export-Import Bank requesting a bailout, as it did in 1987 to the tune of $3 billion. Why is this so important? Because American taxpayers are today the guarantor of more than $3 trillion in loans backed by numerous agencies, including the Export-Import Bank. This level of taxpayer leverage is not sustainable; and in 10 years, when we look into the faces of our seniors and our veterans, I want to have the confidence that we will have the resources we need to uphold the commitments we have made to them. Mr. Chairman, the modest reforms in this amendment are a small step towards achieving that end. We can--we must--start this process today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a number of times tonight that the Bank doesn't cost anything. But if you take a look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis and if you use fair value accounting, it costs $2 billion over 10 years. And there will be an amendment later on talking about that. I think people forget about the $3 billion taxpayer bailout that Export-Import asked for in 1987. Finally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine until they weren't, and they left the taxpayers with a $150 billion tab. I am looking 10 years down the road, Mr. Chairman, looking at the debt that this country continues to accrue and thinking about the obligations that we have to meet in 2025 for our seniors, for our veterans. I want to make sure that we are not going to have a bailout at that time of this institution. All this amendment does is says, who bears the risk of loss, the taxpayer or the entities that made the profit. It is phased in over time. Small businesses are protected. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, again, I think people have a short memory of what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the $150 billion loss that those institutions incurred. This amendment does not end the Bank. It allows loans to continue to be made. It simply puts a firewall between a potential loss and the taxpayers. Who bears the risk of loss? The taxpayers or the entity that made the profit? I suggest that there should be phased in over time 10 percent the first year, just 10 percent--that is a miniscule ask--that those who make a profit from this Bank have a little skin in the game. Small businesses are exempted. I ask for support of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss the need to help communities impacted by a national disaster get back on their feet without facing unnecessary regulatory obstacles. Families, businesses, and all members of the community may face significant challenges when the roads, bridges, transit, and other infrastructure they use on a daily basis are not acceptable and not repaired in a timely manner. We can all agree that we should do what we can to protect the environment from harm. However, we should carefully consider regulations currently in place that delay transportation infrastructure projects and remove or reform regulations that are inefficient, redundant, or harmful. I would include the redundant and time-consuming environmental reviews required for rebuilding disaster-damaged infrastructure in this category. Those who might argue there is already enough flexibility in current law, in communities to efficiently restore their critical infrastructure after a natural disaster or during a state of emergency should consider the following information from the Federal Highway Administration: FHA estimates that it takes an average of 58 months--that is almost 5 years--for transportation projects to complete the NEPA process, and, since 2010, Federal permitting holdups have delayed at least nine transportation projects in my State of Pennsylvania by more than a year. At the very least, we should consider removing reconstruction projects for critical disaster-damaged infrastructure from this drawn- out process. No community trying to rebuild and restore its critical infrastructure after a natural disaster should have to endure such a long delay simply to rebuild infrastructure that has already been built before. My amendment, which was inspired by legislation introduced by Senator Toomey in the last Congress and Democratic Senator Ben Nelson before him, is intended to speed up reconstruction efforts. My proposal would exempt projects to rebuild any road, highway, railway, bridge, or transit facility that is damaged in a declared emergency from additional environmental permitting. Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that my amendment may only apply to projects where the same structure its being rebuilt. In other words, damaged infrastructure would need to be reconstructed in the same location and with the same capacity, dimensions, and design as before the emergency. It should be common sense that additional environmental reviews of this sort aren't a good use of taxpayer money and aren't helpful to disaster victims. Some commonsense streamlining is appropriate in these challenging cases. Because of this, this proposal has been supported by a number of groups, including CamTran, the transit agency for Cambria County, Pennsylvania; the National Association of Counties; the Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors; the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs; the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania; Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority; and National Stone, Sand & Gravel; as well as Americans for Prosperity. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to advance this commonsense reform and help communities recover after natural disasters by voting ``yea'' on my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple remedy to follow after a natural disaster. Again, I look at my State of Pennsylvania with its many valleys and riverbeds, and I look at the people supporting or who have supported this type of proposal before: again, the National Association of Counties, Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors, and Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority. We need to make sure that our communities have a robust capacity and ability to respond in the event of a disaster, and that is what the point of this amendment is. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that someone has been missing from this debate. It is the forgotten man or woman--the everyday taxpayer--who is being asked to carry a risk that those in the private sector will not. In 2008, we learned a tough lesson about privatizing profits and socializing losses. During the good times, many in Congress cheered on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their shareholders prospered while executives made millions; but when the good times ended, the taxpayers were forced to bail out Fannie and Freddie to the tune of $187 billion. The Federal Government is today the guarantor of more than $3 trillion in loans backed by numerous agencies. This level of taxpayer leverage is not sustainable, and we must begin to identify parts of the portfolio that can be transitioned away from taxpayers. Given that 98 percent of our exports are made without the Export- Import Bank, the Bank is one agency that is suitable for transition over time to the private sector. However, in the immediate future, Congress must act to protect taxpayers. For example, in this reauthorization, Congress could insist that these loans be fully collateralized, just as is the practice in the private sector. Congress could also require exporters, which profit from the Bank's lending to foreign purchasers of their products, to guarantee the repayment of all or of even a fraction of these loans. If phased in smartly, reforms like these would mitigate the potential for the type of $3 billion bailout that the Ex-Im Bank sought in 1987, and they would also incentivize our trade representatives to actually initiate negotiations with our trading partners to eliminate all government-supported export subsidies and protect the taxpayer from potential losses, which is just as they were supposed to do in the last reauthorization. Without these commonsense reforms, it is the taxpayer--the forgotten man or woman--and not the entity that made the profit who is on the hook for the loss. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' so that real reform proposals for this institution may be pursued.