Their Biographies, Issue Positions, Voting Records, Public Statements, Ratings and their Funders.

Providing for Consideration of HR 3457, Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act

Floor Speech

Date: Oct. 1, 2015
Location: Washington, DC


Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers,
the gentleman and my friend from Alabama, said today is not the time,
it is not now. I want to remind him that in my effort here to defeat
the previous question so that we may take up reauthorization of the
Export-Import Bank, the charter for the Bank expired 3 months ago
yesterday. You are right, the time isn't now; it was 3 months ago. The
fact is, in the ensuing 90 days, there has begun a drumbeat of job
loss, concrete and measurable. It is real.

But I want to start over. Today is the first day of the new fiscal
year for the Federal Government. We can all give at least some thanks
that we avoided a government shutdown. So let's take a fresh start to
this thing. Take a step back.

The truth is, when I am home in the district talking with people, an
amazing number have a consciousness, an awareness, about the
termination of the charter of the Export-Import Bank and its impact.
The most frequently asked question I get is, ``How can anybody do

How can anybody do away with an institution that, as my friend, the
gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Kildee, so eloquently said, has in
81 years been almost unanimously reauthorized 16 times by 13 different
Presidents and has a track record of reducing the deficit and creating
jobs? How can anybody do that?

That is a very challenging question for me to answer. Adherence to
ideological purity is just not something somebody can compete with when
it stands up against the real-life job loss that we have begun to

So, in my effort--which I just digressed from--of taking a fresh
start, I want to say that this Chamber will take up later today the
National Defense Authorization Act. It is not unrelated to our effort
to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

Some people actually support what we call the NDAA because it creates
jobs. I frankly don't think that that is a good reason to support the
NDAA. One should support or oppose it because of how it reinforces us
and helps us fulfill our national security objectives and goals and
missions. That is why you support or don't support the NDAA. But some
people do support it because of the jobs it helps create.

Well, the truth of the matter is, as we have said so often, the
Export-Import Bank also creates jobs. In fact, for the last year for
which we have data, it supported 164,000 jobs.

We have an existential threat to those jobs. The fact is, as you all
have heard, both General Electric and The Boeing Company have announced
layoffs directly attributable to the demise of the Export-Import Bank.
People are not concluding negotiations for foreign sales as a
consequence of us not having that arrow in our quiver.


Mr. HECK of Washington. Because the fact of the matter is the Chinese
are developing a wide-body aircraft to compete in the international
market, code name C919. They think it will be online in 2 years. I
think it is more like 10 years.

They will take business away from us. When they do, they will take
jobs away from us. And I remind you that China has not one, but four,
export credit authorities.

It is also a relevant issue to the subject we take up later today--
the NDAA--because the truth of the matter is the Export-Import Bank
helps protect the homeland very directly.

There is a lot of talk about rebalancing the Pacific and Asia and the
pivot. But the fact of the matter is, in order for us to compete with
China, we have to retain the heart of our manufacturing base.

And, frankly, the production of aircraft, in the aggregate,
constitutes the largest concentration of engineers and manufacturing
capacity within that base.


Mr. HECK of Washington. This is vital to our national security.
Imagine a world 20, 30, 40 years from now in which The Boeing Company
no longer exists. I don't want to imagine that future, but think of
what it would it would do to our national security circumstance. It
would be devastating to our national security. And we are ceding this
territory. We are literally ceding this territory.

The irony of this debate and why, again, I find it so challenging to
answer the question of why would anybody do this is, truly, if we had
never had an Export-Import Bank, we would all be sitting around asking
ourselves, ``How do we compete with those other countries, all of whom
have export credit authorities?''

We would be devising and standing up an Export-Import Bank and we
would say, ``What do we want that to look like?'' First of all, we want
it to support American jobs. Secondly, we would say we want it to
protect American taxpayers and not have them on the hook. Well, guess
what, my friends. We already have--or had--that institution.

The Export-Import Bank in the last generation has transferred
billions of dollars to the Treasury and reduced the deficit. The
Export-Import Bank has helped create and support millions of jobs.

If you want to compete in the global economy, you need an export
credit authority that creates jobs. Please defeat the previous question
and take up the issue of reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.