On the recordNovember 4, 2015
I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, as a rank-and-file Member--that is, a Member who is not on the Financial Services Committee--I want to stand in strong support of this amendment. There are a lot of us who are looking for a way forward in this, and this reform would allow that to happen. We don't know whether the private sector would work or not, because those who are seeking lending aren't forced to ask. I find it laughable that some say this would be too onerous on a bank or on someone who is seeking lending. These are the same people who think that Dodd-Frank regulations are okay, that they aren't too onerous. I think that is ridiculous. Last week, we were afforded the choice of an unreformed Ex-Im Bank or no Ex-Im Bank. This amendment and the ones being brought up tonight that are like it offer us a third way: commonsense reforms that would allow the private sector to work and then would allow the Ex-Im Bank to be a function of last resort, preserving the jobs that we all care about. No one on this floor, Republican or Democrat, wants to kill a job. That is ridiculous. So, as a rank-and-file Member who is off committee, I stand in support of the Mulvaney amendment, and I ask for its support.
