Providing for Consideration of H.R. 597, Reform Exports and Expand the American Economy Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

First, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the gentleman from Tennessee and the passion that he brings to this debate. He has long been a champion of the Export-Import Bank. We have had a respectful disagreement over the substance of the issue, but at this moment I don't care to spend much time on the substance of the issue because we are debating a discharge petition.

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting history lesson that my colleague and friend introduced the House to, and I have no reason to doubt that it is an accurate history lesson. I will note for the Record that apparently somehow Mr. Cannon managed to get a building named after him.

But the point I would make is this: whether the gentleman from Tennessee and others have disagreed with process at the Financial Services Committee--I know

that they do--but the question before us, Mr. Speaker, is why punish the entirety of the House?

Those who are bringing forth this discharge petition had the opportunity to allow Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments. People who were not on the Financial Services Committee could have had the opportunity to offer amendments, but not under this particular discharge petition.

So, Mr. Speaker, the real complaint I have here is, regardless of what complaints or beefs they may have against me personally or against the process of the Financial Services Committee, why punish the entirety of the House?

We hear so much about regular order and about empowering rank-and-file Members. Well, then, why aren't rank-and-file Members, then, empowered to offer amendments? We were told that it was simply to discharge a single piece of legislation. Then why not, at this point, let the House work its will?

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't appear to happen. I perfectly understand that one man's economic development is another man's corporate welfare, and I think that debate will happen tomorrow. But here, right now, simply because there is a rule to have a discharge petition that would disqualify any Member from offering an amendment doesn't mean we should necessarily avail ourselves of it.

The Constitution allows us to create debt. It doesn't mean it is a good thing for us to do that as we face yet another debt ceiling vote in front of us.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would simply hope that Members would vote down this discharge petition, and if they believe strongly in it, then bring back another one, but at least allow Members on the floor to offer amendments. Republicans, Democrats, and people from all committees should be able to offer the amendments if that was the purpose of the discharge petition.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

A lot of discussion, passionate discussion about jobs tonight.

But I would point out to my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle, where was this passion when ObamaCare was passed? The Congressional Budget Office says that it is going to cost this economy 2.5 million fewer jobs.

Where was this passion when H.R. 30 came to the floor that would repeal this 30-hour definition of full-time employee? According to one study, 2.6 million Americans making under $30,000 are at risk of having their hours cut due to the ObamaCare 30-hour rule.

Where was the passion on the other side of the aisle when H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, came? That is estimated to put up to 45,000 unemployed Americans back to work on liquid natural gas export projects.

Where was the passion when S. 1 came, the Keystone XL pipeline? The State Department's environmental impact statement said: ``During construction, proposed project spending would support approximately 42,100 jobs.''

But we didn't hear much from our friends on the other side of the aisle when this was going on.

But, again, I think, too often, my friends on the other side of the aisle are always happy to subsidize what they can regulate and control.

I would say to my friends on my side of the aisle that I respect your opinion, and I hope you respect mine; but I think there is a better way to promote exports. I think there is a better way to promote jobs. It has everything to do with regulatory reform. It has to do with the REINS Act. It has everything to do with fundamental tax reform, which, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, is half of our competitive disadvantage. It has everything to do with litigation reform. We have greater remedial costs than do our green energy European competitors.

There is a better way, and there is a more fair way to come to this floor. As for whatever you think of the process of the Financial Services Committee, if this is going to come to the floor, every Member ought to be allowed to have an amendment, and we should reject this discharge petition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House is H. Res. 450 which, as I understand it, would establish the rule for debate on this Ex-Im reauthorization bill, that it does not make in order any amendments.

The closed rule means that in addition to not having any debate on the rule--since all time has now been yielded back, with no other Member having a chance to speak--Members have been denied their chance to participate in that part of the process.

My parliamentary inquiry is whether there is any way, at this juncture, for Members to amend the resolution, H. Res. 450, to give Members an opportunity to offer amendments to the underlying Ex-Im reauthorization bill?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HENSARLING. So, if the previous question is defeated, then a Member who is opposed to the previous question would be afforded the opportunity to offer an amendment to H. Res. 450 that would strike the text of the closed, no amendments rule and replace it with the text of a rule that provided for consideration of the underlying Ex-Im reauthorization bill through an open process, with time for debate, where any Member--either Republican or Democrat--could offer germane amendments to the bill. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source