Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McHENRY

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill. This is a constructive conversation we have had from the Republicans on the Financial Services Committee and the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee. This is a priority that Chairwoman Waters set out in our first conversation about her agenda for the committee this Congress and an area where I offered to be supportive. So I am grateful that we are, in this policy set, a year ahead of time. It is a rare circumstance where Congress has acted so early on a key reauthorization. It is a rare thing, especially given the import of this Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. We are 1 year ahead of schedule in reporting this bill off the House floor, and I expect a wide bipartisan vote, thankfully. I am grateful that in the committee markup process, we had great bipartisan support. The New York delegation, having experienced 9/11, with four key policymakers from the city and the New York metro area, was very active in the original construct of this bill. Mr. Meeks, Mrs. Maloney, and Ms. Velazquez on the Democrat side, and Mr. King on the Republican side, the combination of their expertise and also their legislative history, that they were here and helped construct the original act that we are reauthorizing now, today, is quite helpful. And their experience in the immediate reaction of the 9/ 11 terrorist attacks on New York City as well as the Pentagon across the street from us, or across the river from us, here, today, and the loss in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, that immediate reaction was swift by Congress and bipartisan. Today, we are carrying on that legacy, and I am grateful for it. I think the American people are grateful when we are able to act in that accord. This is a very good day of bipartisanship that has taken months to bring us to this type of conclusion. I thank Chairwoman Waters for her willingness. When you are in the majority, you have got more votes than the minority. That is obvious with being in the majority. It is not all the time that you reach across the aisle when you are in the majority; I understand that. But in this act, Chairwoman Waters said it is imperative that we work together, and we have. We have got a good result here today. I think it shows the Financial Services Committee, when brought together, can do big and important things. This is certainly a big and important thing that will have a lasting impact on the American economy. We are hopeful that we will never have to use this piece of law in response to a terrorist attack; but, if we are, the work that we have done on the Financial Services Committee, the expertise that we have had on the committee, we believe, means that this act will work in response to some cataclysmic event. We are hopeful, and we plan to ensure that no further terrorist attacks happen or befall our country and our people like happened on 9/ 11. However, we are also in the disaster planning business, as well, and it is important and imperative that Members of Congress are engaged in that. So the Financial Services Committee in this House has come to a good conclusion on a good piece of law, and we have a very good reauthorization. Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote by all Members, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4634, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2019. For the last 17 years, TRIA has provided an important Federal backstop for businesses that insure against the large-scale devastation caused by terrorist attacks. This Federal backstop provides much needed stability for the private terrorism risk insurance market, ensuring that small and large businesses alike have access to affordable coverage. Without Federal involvement, the private market cannot adequately price for this type of risk, causing insurers to exit the market, and leaving businesses without coverage. That would be a market failure, and it necessitates us acting in order to ensure that that market failure does not persist. That is why we have this important program. That bipartisanship continues today with Democrats and Republicans alike agreeing on the need to reauthorize the TRIA program for an additional 7 years. This long-term extension will give certainty to insurance markets, businesses and the broader American economy. A wide range of businesses have come to rely on the protections included in this act. From real estate to manufacturing to entertainment, H.R. 4634 will help these companies insure against acts of terrorism. In addition, the bill takes the first step in understanding how the TRIA program can be modernized to meet the advances made by our adversaries in the 21st century. When we began our bipartisan conversations regarding the TRIA reauthorization, I emphasized the need to study how this program would react in the aftermath of a wide-scale cyberattack. We generally know what the threats are broadly, but how the threats will evolve over the next 7 years we need to know. What we do know is that America's public and private infrastructure is currently under attack every single day. And so we want to make sure that we are broadly set for this next generation of attack. In the aftermath of 9/11, insurance companies and policymakers quickly became aware of the hidden risks that acts of terrorism could pose to their balance sheets. It was a hidden risk then. Insurers also realized that they would be unable to adequately price this risk, spurring the need for Federal assistance. What I am concerned about is this: I am concerned a large-scale cyberattack could pose these same hidden risks to insurers and to the market, since we don't fully understand the effects of a large-scale cyberattack and how that would play out today. Moreover, the digital capabilities of our adversaries only continue to grow. Just look at Russia. In 2015, a Russian cyberattack shut down Ukraine's power grid for as long as 6 hours. If it is not Russia, it is China, Iran, North Korea. State sponsors of terror want to cause as much damage to the United States as they can. And that is not just the government's fear or utilities, it is every part of our economy. It is our duty to make sure that this program is adaptable to respond to any event that could become a reality. I appreciate Chairwoman Waters agreeing to this additional language in the bill, as well as her work for a long-term reauthorization. I commend her work here to ensure that this is a bipartisan product here on the House floor. And from time to time we may not agree, but on this important bill we do see eye to eye. So bipartisanship is not always dead here in Washington. I believe this bill, when enacted, will give our economy certainty and will show that we can respond to threats and we can talk across the aisle and come to rational conclusions. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank Chairwoman Waters for engaging in this bipartisan, collaborative process to reauthorize this important program. I am also glad to know the Senate will be marking up a similar version of the bill this week. That is an encouraging sign. I am optimistic it will become law once it goes to the President's desk in short order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, going back to the bill that Chairwoman Waters and I negotiated that we filed as H.R. 3407, we took on some of these tough issues about human rights abuses and did it in an aggressive way, especially when it pertains to China. The amendment here is fine. It actually will have zero effect, though, because, if you are a sanctioned entity, American businesses are prohibited from doing business with you. So what this says is not only are you prohibited from doing the business, you also can't get financing for the business you are not permitted to do. Okay. That is fine. You can put it in the bill or you cannot put it in the bill. Ex-Im will not finance a business that is prohibited under law. So now the gentlewoman is saying they are prohibited under law from getting financing. Okay. That is good. Again, it is a nice cover for what was gutted out of the bill that Chairwoman Waters and I negotiated, which actually did tough things. In that legislation, Republicans sought to restrict Ex-Im assistance for entities involved in sanctionable human rights abuses, including human trafficking and sex trafficking. It goes beyond this amendment. Rather than support those provisions, Democrats decided to allow this amendment, which is simply a watered- down version of that provision that Republicans supported in committee. It will do nothing. It will do nothing in fact; it will do nothing in law. And so this is much more about political cover, and I will tell you how I will know. I am not going to ask for a rollcall vote on this, but I would suspect my Democrat colleagues will ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment so it gives them political cover rather than actually do something of substance. Tens of millions of individuals, worldwide, are victims of human trafficking. It is a tragedy. It is awful. This amendment will not have any effect on stopping human trafficking and human rights abuses, and, in fact, it merely restates existing law rather than striking meaningful steps toward ending these horrific practices. So that is fine. I commend my colleague for offering this. It gives a number of their colleagues who wish to have a watered-down bill before us, it gives them political cover, but it is simply a restatement of existing law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. As we close this debate, and this is the last amendment before us, I do want to reiterate that I am grateful to Chairwoman Waters. Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman for ignoring the requests from the extreme left of her own party and their demands for having the Bank ban coal technology exports. There are some minor environmental provisions in here that have a negative impact on American industries and their ability to sell overseas, but I am grateful that she ignored the request from members of her party on the extreme left and their demands to tell the Bank to stop funding coal and only fund clean energy projects; so the Bank will continue to be able to fund coal and cleaner coal technology exports in adherence with the environmental standards of the regime they are sending. It could have been absolutely devastating in terms of the consequences on energy production, but they simply chose to do minor things. I think that is a laudatory thing that deserves some bipartisan praise that the extreme left did not win the day in terms of that piece of policy in this bill. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on final passage of this bill. We will have an extension of the Bank. We will continue to use Export-Import financing for perhaps up to 2 percent of our exports. That will be a helpful thing. But what we need to do is focus, also, on combating the rise of Chinese aggression economically, and I think we have that capacity. This is not the way to do it. This bill is going nowhere in the Senate. The President has already said that he will veto it. So let's get on with the business of the American people, and let's get back to sensible policy discussions here. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment--though it will have no impact whatsoever; it is a restatement of existing law; it is fine, but it doesn't actually have real teeth to it--and vote ``no'' on the final passage of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, Republicans unanimously voted for a bipartisan agreement that Chairwoman Waters and I negotiated in the Financial Services Committee. I just want to reiterate that. The focus there was combating Chinese aggression, it was focused on economic policy. There were a number of bipartisan tradeoffs in order to ensure that the Bank was focused on economic policy, not mainly on social policy, but what we have before us is mainly a social policy- related reauthorization of this important economic institution. I think it is important that all businesses be considered and have significant small business outreach by the agency. This is a significant addition to it, and I think it is worthy of support. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Unfortunately, what we have before us is really a sideshow and a waste of time while the impeachment hearings are going on. It is quite a filler for the House floor for a bill that won't make it into law. So here we go. We have wasted a significant week here on the House floor with something that is not going to actually end up anywhere. So there we go. The amendment is fine to support, but let's just get this thing over with. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, we did have a bipartisan bill that we negotiated. That is not before us today. That bill would have combated Chinese aggression. What we have before us is a partisan bill, and the partisan bill is focused more on social policy than economic policy. It doesn't link up our American foreign policy and economic interest with the charter of this institution, so it is a huge, missed opportunity. This amendment would take a good step in promoting accountability for the effects of projects financed by the Bank. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in helping communities and ensuring the Bank has that focus. We welcome this transparency and accountability. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. If I may begin by commending the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi. You won't hear this often, and probably won't hear it often from her, that she agrees with me nor I with her; but when it comes to China, we see it very similarly. Her track record is, indeed, long and it is, indeed, strong when it comes to human rights abuses, in particular around religious minorities in China. But, also, she has spoken out consistently in her term of service here in Congress against Chinese abuses. I think we should have a bipartisan understanding. Sadly, when she says that the earlier fight that she had with China was hijacked by corporate America, sadly, the language that Chairwoman Waters and I attempted to pass out of committee in good faith was hijacked by corporate America, because they don't want to see any limitation on their capacity to get subsidization from Ex-Im to export. So I hope that we can come back together after this bill doesn't go anywhere in the Senate, and we can come back together on strong enough language so that we can do something proactive and together when it comes to China. Small businesses, indeed, need more emphasis from the Ex-Im Bank, and that is why I am saddened that it takes 10 years for this bill to actually raise the small business mandate and tell Ex-Im to prioritize small businesses. So, again, it is a special moment when, I think, we have folks on the left and the right together on an important economic issue like China. That is why the underlying bill that we negotiated was really important, and this is a bad bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, let me say this. Chairwoman Waters and I negotiated a bipartisan deal, and it was a priority for me to ensure that this agency of government didn't discriminate against different energy sources--high priority for Republicans and some Democrats. Coal country was at risk in these negotiations because there is an extreme element of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who want to limit our capacity to export American technology that uses coal, which is far cleaner than what is being used around the globe, and limit the export of our natural resources that power our economy. So I am grateful that the partisan bill before us did not go to that very far left position that would have limited our coal technology from being used to export. So my colleague, Mr. Lamb, represents a significant piece of historic coal country. It makes it easier for someone like him who represents the interests of his district in that regard to vote for this bill because they didn't include those extreme measures that would have limited and particularly hurt coal country and the technology developed here in the United States on the use of fossil fuels. So that is a laudatory thing. Now, there are minor measures in here that have sort of minor discriminatory effects against the use of nuclear power and the measurement of carbon, but not to the extent that I feared in this bill. So I am grateful that what is before us isn't the most extreme. It is just merely not helpful to the export of certain American technologies and energy. I am grateful that Chairwoman Waters didn't decide to go to that far left element that would have gone to the extreme of saying we are not going to export, specifically, coal technology using the Export-Import Bank. That limitation is not in here, and so I am grateful for that. So we have an amendment before us that Mr. Burgess of Texas offered to say that, in particular, nuclear technology would be a helpful thing and an emphasis for the Export-Import Bank. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against that by voice vote, and then they asked for a rollcall vote. I anticipate that they will have a negative vote on their side on this, but it shows that Republicans are interested in the diverse array of energy sources and making sure that we don't discriminate against our American technology being exported that is useful globally. So this amendment is fine. I think it is important that we do measure jobs and impact, specifically, on energy jobs. In the bipartisan bill that Chairwoman Waters and I negotiated, I pushed hard for a similar provision, where the Bank would need to provide job creation information to Congress. That was stripped out. It is not before us today. So what the gentleman is offering is constructive. It is good. It should have a bipartisan vote. I thank the gentleman for offering this, for having the view and the eye of his constituents in mind, specifically when it comes to energy production. I know that western Pennsylvania still has this great, strong, vibrant energy production capacity; and so I am grateful that my colleague would offer something that not only helps his district, but also helps American job creation and ensures the Bank measures that job creation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I think it is important that we promote these policies. Again, what Chairwoman Waters and I negotiated in H.R. 3407, which was a bipartisan product to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, prioritized economic policy and national security policy. It prioritized innovative technologies, especially when it comes to energy development, and it put limitations on Ex-Im Bank subsidizing Chinese foreign policy and economic policy. So additional social legislating is fine. This is a social legislating reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. That is the emphasis Chairwoman Waters chose. The Democrats chose to bring a bill that prioritized social policy over economic policy, so this is probably a fine addition to it. But if we are going to talk about diversity and ensuring diversity in the workforce of the Export-Import Bank, shouldn't we also be talking about protection of religious minorities and making sure that we are not subsidizing products that are used to repress people in Hong Kong or religious minorities in China? That is what current Ex-Im policy permits. There are examples of this. We have strategic competitors, we have companies that have significant abuses, and yet we are still doing business with them through the Export-Import Bank. I think that is bad policy. We need to look no further than Hong Kong or the Uighurs in China to see the Chinese true intent here. I wish there was the same vigor from social policy applied by my Democratic colleagues applied to thwarting the ever-expanding Chinese Communist Party's actions through their state-owned enterprises. So, Mr. Chair, it is a fine amendment, we should agree to it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, let me say, to begin with, that, again, Republicans and the Financial Services Committee unanimously supported the agreement that Chairwoman Waters and I reached on a bipartisan bill that would strengthen the Bank and combat Chinese aggression, both their economic and military aggression, around the globe. It forced the Ex-Im Bank to not subsidize Chinese state-owned enterprises that are engaged in especially the service to the military and intelligence bureaus or the repression of the people in Hong Kong or religious minorities. That is the focus of it. Rather than focus on those important economic interests for us as Americans, we are getting into a number of issues of social policy. That was the main set of policy changes that we have before us in this partisan bill that we are debating, that the Senate majority leader already says they won't take up, and the President already said he is going to veto. At the end of the day, we are going to have a clean reauthorization of the Bank. It could have been different. We could have had a different outcome. I commend Mr. Brown for offering the amendment. Look, diversity and inclusion, we have a subcommittee. It has been a priority of Chairwoman Waters, and we have heard testimony in that committee from witnesses emphasizing the need to change the corporate culture to improve recruitment and retention of women and minorities, not for just the social purpose of recruiting more diverse people, but for the economic outcome that a better workforce, a more diverse workforce, both experientially and every type of measure of diversity, leads to better economic returns for the shareholders of those companies. I think it is really important, what the gentleman is emphasizing with his amendment. It has an important social purpose. It does. But it also has an important economic outcome. It means that we get better policies as a result of better workforce and better inclusion processes for recruiting new folks and also, once you have folks internally, how we work with each other. Quite frankly, the Congress could use, I think, a little bit of this, a little bit of the medicine we are giving to agencies. Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, first, I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng) for offering this in the series that she is offering. I think they are constructive amendments to this reauthorization and important insights on what we should be doing to recruit in the Federal workforce. And we have a major need, though it is not in the financial services jurisdiction, but it is really important for all of us to acknowledge that we have a need in the Federal workforce for a wider set of views and expertise coming into the Federal workforce. I think this is a thoughtful attempt to do those things, so I do appreciate the gentlewoman's efforts. I would say this: The bill encompasses historically Black colleges, women's colleges, and others, and Ex-Im will tell you that it doesn't engage in a lot of recruitment efforts named in this legislation, not because it doesn't care about diversity, but because it is a small agency of around 400 staff. But I think it is important they have this as a part of their charter. But let me just say this: This bill and this reauthorization is unnecessarily doomed. Chairwoman Waters and I negotiated a bipartisan deal, a bill that is in the Clerk's office called H.R. 3407, which would have reauthorized this institution for a 7-year term, increased its size, and focused on really important things that relate to our national security and our economic security, including combating the rise of Chinese aggression. And that bill is still an opportunity for bipartisanship. What we have before us today is not. So, while I appreciate the gentlewoman's efforts on this amendment, this bill is not going anywhere in the Senate. The President said he is going to veto it. Because of those things, this bill is unnecessarily doomed. This reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank is unnecessarily put in jeopardy because of the approach taken here in the House, and that is unfortunate. I hope that cooler heads will prevail, and we will be able to extend and keep the bank open, the institution open, for a longer term. I think that will happen in the appropriations process or in the continuing resolution, and I would support those measures. But the bill before us today Republicans will largely oppose. So, Mr. Chair, I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, let me state this: If you are a sanctioned individual or entity, under American law, American businesses cannot do business with them. We have an amendment here that says they also can't get subsidized financing from Ex-Im to do that business that they are prevented from doing. Okay, fine. I get this. It has language about human rights, but we already have that limitation in law, in fact. If we wanted to do something real and substantive when it comes to sanctioned individuals, we would have gone a step further, including the China provisions in the bipartisan Waters-McHenry bill. All this does is restate existing law. It is not a good amendment. It is not a bad amendment. It is a political cover amendment. It is a sad thing that, instead of doing things of substance and having real impact, we are doing this. So, fine. Vote for it. Add it to the bill. It doesn't matter. The bill is not going to become law. We are restating existing policy here, existing law. American businesses cannot do business with sanctioned entities. If they do, they become potentially sanctioned under American law. We have a provision of law already for this. Now you are saying Ex-Im can't finance something that can't happen. Okay, fine. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.