Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I would commend for the House that, yes, there is an opportunity for bipartisanship. I think that will be on the CR to extend the Export-Import Bank. It is an important institution. At its height, it supported almost 2 percent of American exports. It is a small amount of global trade, but it is important. We want to make sure the Bank continues to function, but this is not the bill to do that. We will take care of that in another vehicle, and I am hopeful we can have a bipartisan vote there. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), my colleague.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, this is a failure of bipartisan policymaking, and this is a sad day. I am not angry. I appreciate Chairwoman Waters attempting to strike a bipartisan deal. In fact, we had a deal, and we filed that bill. It is H.R. 3407 that encouraged Members to sign the discharge petition so we can actually support something that was a bipartisan negotiation, not this bill before us today that doesn't take on the important work of banning Chinese state-owned enterprises from accessing our export credit agency. That is what this is about. So I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this very important measure of international export activities, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, let me say this: Republicans unanimously voted to support the Waters-McHenry bipartisan deal in committee to strengthen and combat Chinese aggression, but we are not going to support this partisan bill that is before us. This amendment, in my view, is a very simple one. It is a restatement of existing law. You cannot do business with sanctioned individuals. American businesses cannot do business with sanctioned individuals or entities. It is American law. So, if American businesses can't do business with sanctioned entities, what this amendment says is they also cannot get subsidized by the Ex-Im Bank to do that business that they can't do. So, fine. I don't oppose the amendment, but what this looks like to me is cover to Democrats for gutting important national security provisions in the Waters-McHenry bipartisan Ex-Im reauthorization bill. In that legislation, Republicans sought to restrict Ex-Im assistance for Chinese government-controlled entities in light of Beijing's suppression of freedom of speech, freedom in Hong Kong, its political repression of religious and ethnic minorities, and other actions inconsistent with our national interests. Rather than support those provisions, Democrats have decided to parrot China, this China language, and, well, quite frankly, take Republicans' intellectual property here and talking points, if you will, and try to cover it. And that is what this amendment is. So, American businesses cannot do business with sanctioned entities. What this says is that they also can't get Ex-Im financing for the business that they can't do. Fine. Great. Fine. We will let it go. It is fine. But, news flash to anyone: You can't finance something that doesn't actually happen. So this amendment, it is fine. It checks the box, covers a little political cover. I got it. It is fine. So we will just let it go, but that is really what this does. It is a political cover vote rather than actually anything of substance. So I will let it go. I will let it go by a voice vote. But I think what will happen is that the Democrat majority will call a rollcall vote so their Members can show they have a vote to do something that gives them political cover. It is good. It is great. It is fine. But I am not going to participate in that charade. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today I rise in opposition to H.R. 4863. The bill we are debating today encapsulates so much of what is wrong in Congress today. This is a partisan bill to reauthorize what a bipartisan group supports, and it is a failure of legislating. That is why we have a partisan bill on the House floor to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. This bill passed the House Financial Services Committee by three votes, with Republicans all in opposition and a few of my Democratic colleagues in opposition, as well. To say this is disappointing, though, is an understatement. Earlier this year, Chairwoman Waters and I joined together to introduce a bipartisan Ex-Im reauthorization bill, and it is here in the House known as H.R. 3407. It included sensible reforms for Ex-Im that both parties could support. The chairwoman and I spent hours negotiating this package, but, unfortunately, she didn't have the support from her fellow Democrats to bring that to markup, and that is a sad thing. It is a sad thing because, in that bill, we took on the generational challenge that is incumbent upon us as American policymakers to be sensible about, which is the threat and aggression of China, both the economic and military aggressiveness of that regime. The bill that we negotiated would have served as the most comprehensive and the longest extension to an authorization of the Ex- Im Bank, and it had a chance to get the President's signature and actually be legislated in the Senate, as well. Sadly, the Democrats walked away from that agreement because it limited Ex-Im's subsidies to some businesses owned by the Chinese Communist Party. The Democratic majority stripped out all the reforms we had agreed to, and what we are left with in this bill text is a restatement of current law and current practice by the Export-Import Bank on this list of Chinese businesses that the Bank cannot do business with. They don't do business with them, and that creates another glaring hole for abuse. The President has a Statement of Administration Policy just issued from the White House, and it says the President would veto this bill, so it is not going to get signed into law. Moreover, the Senate majority leader said this morning: ``'We're not going to pass the House bill,' McConnell said.'' We do not want that bill. ``We do want to extend Ex-Im. A logical place to do that would be on the CR,'' on the continuing resolution, which will happen. That is what is going to happen. So those watching, those listening here, this is all a show; and at the end of the day, this won't make it into law. We are going to have a clean extension of this Bank, which is an important economic tool for us. In our bipartisan agreement, though, the most important compromise we had reached is that provision to limit Ex-Im's support for the Chinese Communist Party. As we all know, Beijing poses a strategic threat to our national interest through its economic and military aggression. We know about the Chinese Government's shocking abuse of human rights. We see this in Hong Kong and the suppression of freedom there. We know the Chinese Government's true motives for the Belt and Road Initiative and the Made in China 2025 initiative, and that is to extend China's global dominance. They are not a strategic ally; they are a threat. And if we are savvy to this, we will ensure that we don't take an important tool of our government and subsidize Beijing. If we want to counter Beijing's ambitions, we shouldn't use Ex-Im to provide cheap financing for the Chinese Communist Party. To compete with Beijing, we cannot subsidize Beijing. It is bad policy for Americans, and we should agree on that. And, in fact, we did in the bill that Chairwoman Waters and I filed. To be clear, Republicans support selling American goods and services around the globe and in China. That is why we support the reset of the trade arrangement with China that the President is negotiating. It is a very important thing. We also know that the Chinese Communist Party sits on $3 trillion of dollar-denominated reserves. This debate is not about commerce; it is about financial assistance. Why use a mechanism of our government to subsidize the Chinese economy? Why would we do that? That is not sound policy. That is not good policy. And when we marked up this bill, the Democrats raised two interesting counterarguments to this view. The first one was--amazingly and, I think, absurdly--that the Financial Services Committee should not weigh in on any international matter, even though at Ex-Im's creation, the focus was on Marxist-Leninist countries and Soviet aggression internationally. We wanted more trading partners to us in selling American goods. Well, I think, likewise, we have a similar challenge with China this day. Even though Ex-Im has been used as a tool of foreign policy from the very beginning, this argument was made in committee. We also have important work that we do with oversight of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, a number of global institutions coming out of the financial services arena. All of these things fall under the Financial Services Committee's purview, and Democrats on this committee shouldn't opine that Ex-Im can't get into this. Ex-Im, at its creation, got into it and continues to get into it; and that is the nature of Ex-Im financing: to have more allies with us in opposition to other regimes around the globe. The second argument the Democrats put forth is that their partisan bill has limits on China anyway because it bars Ex-Im from financing the People's Liberation Army, which current law prevents American companies from doing that directly. So it is a restatement of policy, existing law. It says that companies on the Department of Commerce's entity list are banned from financing. Well, the joke's on that argument because those people on the entity list, we can't do commerce with them--not even a question of who subsidizes it or not. So it is all a complete kabuki dance. And it is of no surprise to folks watching or listening to this debate that Ex-Im doesn't provide financial products to the submarine force of the Chinese Navy. Nice try, very cute, but we don't do that. However, Ex-Im does provide financing for companies that the Chinese military can control to achieve Beijing's strategic objectives. In the language of this bill, we will have a handy-dandy chart that no one at home can read. We have a massive chart. It doesn't matter. We have a long list of entities that Ex-Im could still subsidize that this bill doesn't affect, does not touch. So the Democrats put in this bill meaningless language for political cover rather than to do something right and real for the American economy. They don't have a response for the deep questions of Chinese aggression. Ex-Im does provide financing to companies like AsiaSat, which is controlled by the Chinese Government and has helped Chinese security forces crack down on protesters in western China. Again, the Democrats' bill would do nothing to stop any of that, as one example. And, of course, the Democrat bill does nothing to stop Ex-Im from financing government-controlled companies that are acting contrary to our national interests but which may not happen to be on this entity list of the Commerce Department. Take Huawei, for example, which Ex-Im had authorized transactions for before the company was put onto the entity list in May. This is a recent example. Under the Democrats' bill, Ex-Im subsidies for Huawei were perfectly fine in April, but in May were unacceptable. That is ridiculous. And it is bad policy for the American taxpayer to subsidize Chinese aggression. By the same token, under the Democrats' bill, Ex-Im would safely finance Chinese Government-controlled ZTE Corporation up until April 15 of 2018, when it was put on the Commerce's Denied Persons List. At that point, Ex-Im would no longer be able to finance ZTE, except that it could finance ZTE just 3 months later when it was taken off the list. Is anyone confused? Yes, you should be confused. This is the type of incoherent nonsense that this partisan bill has in it. It is not good for our national security. It is not smart policy. It is not good policy. So, as a reminder, ZTE is China's second largest producer of telecommunications equipment, and it was involved in violations of our export control and sanctions laws with respect to Iran and North Korea. According to the Democrats' bill, taxpayer assistance should be flowing through Ex-Im Bank to ZTE. I don't think that is really what they want, but that is what their legislative text does. These are just a few of the many examples of companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party that the Democrat majority wants the Export-Import Bank to cater to under this bill. Again, we can't let that happen. We should not let that happen. That is not good policy. It is not commensurate with where we are as a nation with this rising threat of China. I want to reiterate my support of an extension of the Ex-Im Bank's authorities to ensure that the Bank remains open to support U.S. jobs and exports and job creation around the globe, but with a caveat that we should not be doing it in China to fund their aggression. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. We will have an extension of the Bank. It will happen. It will be a bipartisan vote. This, though, is a bad bill that does not deserve to pass the House of Representatives. And even if it does pass the House of Representatives, it is going nowhere in the Senate. And even if it passes the Senate, the President says he is going to veto it. So let's think calmly and rationally about it. Let's not waste the people's time here in the House of Representatives with a needless debate on something that is going to go nowhere. Let's actually work on something that could take us somewhere. We had a bipartisan bill. Sadly, the majority walked away from it. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. On this amendment, in 1 year, this would be hundreds of millions of dollars, and, in other years, it would be zero. So to finance these regional finance centers, you probably want to have more stable funding than that fluctuation. That is the technical problem, in my view, on this, not that these regional finance centers are a bad idea. They are not a bad idea. In fact, I think it is important that Ex-Im focuses on small businesses and does more outreach with small businesses. The bill that I negotiated with Chairwoman Waters actually raises the small business mandate. This bill fails to do it until the 10th year. That focus on small businesses would require Ex-Im to deploy their resources more effectively across the country. That is something Chairwoman Waters and I agreed to, on that need for greater outreach from just a couple of urban centers where they are currently planted, as has been said. So while I support the laudatory goal of this, the functionality of it is not workable. I would like the Bank to actually work. Of course, that is not part of the debate that I would actually have that view, but I actually do want the Bank to work and be effective for American businesses. It is really just the technical problem of how the gentleman allocates the resources here, and that is why I oppose it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would assure my colleagues that when the President says that he is going to veto the bill, as he put out with a Statement of Administration Policy, he intends to veto this bill if it hits his desk. That is number one. Two, the Senate majority leader says: ``We are not going to pass the House bill.'' They also say they are going to take this up as a part of the CR, and I think that is important. We don't want this Bank to lapse. I would also commend for my colleagues that--it is a bit rich, a bit thick, because people voted for Ex-Im and against Ex-Im in the past, including Chairwoman Waters, who voted against reauthorization in 2002. So times change, issues change, and our votes reflect those changes in time. I would say that the majority leader, in his speech, does outline that he is a strong advocate for the Bank. He absolutely is. That is why I have great assurance when this bill passes or doesn't pass that we will have an extension of the Bank, and we are going to have a functioning bank. It is important. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy, a great advocate for the Ex-Im Bank, to talk through his position on Ex-Im.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, yes, it is important that we have robust global trade. Ex-Im, at its height, at its strongest year, supported just shy of 2 percent of American exports. I don't want to diminish a little less than 2 percent, but most export is done through the private sector without a government program like Ex-Im. I would also say that, as a matter of our national interest, we shouldn't be subsidizing Chinese foreign policy with One Belt, One Road. We shouldn't be subsidizing their island-building in the Pacific. We shouldn't be subsidizing their actions in Hong Kong. That is what we negotiated with the Waters-McHenry bipartisan bill. I am disappointed that we are not dealing with that policy. Instead, the majority decided to go the partisan route, which the Republican majority leader of the Senate has already said is dead on arrival. The President said he is going to veto this bill. We could have gone a bipartisan route with a bipartisan outcome, but they chose a different route. Look, the majority is the majority. They have the votes to go do what they want to do. But that means I don't need to vote for bad policy just to get along. That is why I tried to negotiate a good bill, and that is why we had a good bill. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, let me say first, Republicans unanimously voted for the Waters-McHenry bipartisan deal to strengthen the Bank and combat Chinese aggression, but we are not going to support this partisan bill. I would note that the amendment offered here clarifies the definition of minorities under the section of the bill that was a priority for the chair of our committee, Chairwoman Waters, which is the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which is referred to as OMWI. I would just note that in this bill, the Democrats have prioritized OMWIs over the global economic and national security threats posed by China and even Russia. OMWIs are important. That is fine. We included that in the bipartisan bill, and that was part of the tradeoff of a bipartisan bill, including something that was a priority for Chairwoman Waters, but also in that agreement were provisions that were tough on China. I thought it was a fair trade in order to get a bipartisan bill. OMWIs and being tough on China are not mutually exclusive ideas, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle felt that they needed to prioritize, and so they chose OMWIs as opposed to a rational stance against Chinese aggression or even Russian actions. To the extent that Mr. Case's amendment clarifies language that will have no impact and will not be enacted anyway, I don't oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, let me say first that Republicans unanimously voted in the Financial Services Committee to support the bipartisan bill that Chairwoman Waters and I negotiated to strengthen the Bank and combat Chinese aggression, but we are not going to support this partisan bill on the floor today. It does seem strange that the sponsor needs to spell out that energy storage, which already appears in the text, refers to batteries. I think it is a good thing, a fine thing, but energy storage is the broader terminology that we had discussed, in terms of the negotiations between Chairwoman Waters and I. We both share, as I do with the amendment sponsor, the need for more options in the marketplace, including better batteries for cars and for mobility purposes, for sure. So I would commend the sponsor's interest in electric vehicles and related infrastructure. I think it is a good thing. I think we have nice bipartisan support, actually growing support among Republicans, for some sensible policies that would have a positive impact on our environment and, at the same time, have more options in the marketplace for consumers so they can choose how they seek to power their homes, their cars, and their lives. What Chairwoman Waters and I negotiated is in H.R. 3407. That bill pushed Ex-Im to devote no less than 20 percent of its authority to technologies of tomorrow. This was a priority of mine, and that was in that bill that is not in the bill before us today. That is a huge missed opportunity. That included energy storage and energy-efficient technologies. Those provisions, I think, would have had a really strong impact. I am saddened that Chairwoman Waters rejected that, in terms of the bill that she filed and brought before us today. The energy sources and technologies of tomorrow are going to have the most powerful impact on reducing carbon emissions, making sure that the globe is safe and sustainable for generations to come. It is those technological breakthroughs that we should prioritize, not just for carbon reduction, but for powering our economy. I think there is opportunity for us to legislate in a bipartisan way. I commend Ms. Speier's amendment. Unfortunately, I don't think this bill is going to become law, so I don't think it is going to have the impact that we need. But I think, on separate legislation, I would like to work with the sponsor of this amendment on those technological breakthroughs that we have to have for our environment, for my children and the children and grandchildren of current Americans so they can have a safe and sustainable environment and have jobs at the same time. It is the technological breakthroughs that are going to take us there that I am so passionate about and that are so impactful. Mr. Chairman, I commend the amendment sponsor, and I support its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close. May I inquire if there are further speakers on the other side.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say, Mr. Chair, to my colleague from Michigan, under the opportunity zones provision of the tax bill we passed last year, governors designate those census tracks. So if the gentlewoman has a problem with the census tracks designated in Michigan, that is a problem with the Governor of Michigan, not the underlying important tax law. Mr. Chair, I would also commend my colleague, this is her first term in Congress, two Congresses ago this was a bipartisan bill, it had wide bipartisan support, and we had a similar number of Republicans and Democrats support the opportunity zone legislation. And I think it is really important, powerful legislation, important law now that is going to have a strong impact on those economically disadvantaged communities, many in my district and those across the country. I think it is going to have a very positive effect over the long-term. Mr. Chair, I would say again, I support this amendment, will not oppose, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, this is what we are trying to not fund for American taxpayers. We are having American taxpayer dollars go to subsidize Chinese companies to perpetrate the violence that is happening in repression of the Chinese people and the folks in Hong Kong. This is what we are trying to stop, and their bill does nothing to stop this type of subsidization of our goods, our American tax dollars going into the harm that is perpetrated there. So you can make a nice political case that you have done something, but in reality, in terms of legislative text, you don't do squat. And that is a huge problem. That is the reason why there is opposition over here. I would also commend to my colleagues that every Republican voted for the bipartisan bill that I negotiated with Chairwoman Waters in committee. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve 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.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, and I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment not because its goals are necessarily objectionable. The gentleman is right to focus on exports, especially given the economy of his district and his State, and his State's and district's importance to the Nation and the national economy. The reason why I am opposed to it is because it doesn't appear based on any empirical study of Ex-Im resource needs and may hinder the Bank from working effectively. To start, the amendment would allow up to 3 percent of Ex-Im's surplus to be used for administrative expenses, on top of the resources that it already has. I am unaware of any concerns by Ex-Im that it is unable to cover its administrative expenses, currently. Traditionally, excess funds from the Bank's surplus are supposed to go back to the Treasury, where it can reduce the deficit, something that both Republicans and Democrats have long supported and, I hope, will continue to support. In addition, the amendment seems to only provide for this during half of the reauthorization period. So what happens in the second half of Ex-Im Bank's reauthorization under the bill, and would it leave Ex-Im without recourse to the funds? We need to consider this carefully. Finally, the amendment would require that at least one-third of the new surplus funds devoted to administrative expenses be used to expand regional finance centers. Regional finance centers are fine, but what is the budgetary need? Mr. Chair, I think a little more work needs to be done. We didn't have this discussion during the markup or in the single hearing we had about Ex-Im, and since the one-third requirement in the amendment would fluctuate from year to year, it is divorced from Ex-Im's actual assessment of needs for its regional operations. There are a couple of technical issues here. I appreciate the gentleman for offering the amendment and his interest in serving his constituents, but for these reasons I have outlined, I am opposed to the amendment. Since I am in opposition, I do believe I have the right to close and am willing to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, let me restate that, as I said in my opening statement, to be clear, the bill that Chairwoman Waters and I filed, H.R. 3407, is a 7-year extension of the Export-Import Bank. It is clear by my cosponsorship of that with Chairwoman Waters that I support reauthorizing the Bank. And as I said in my opening statement, I support the Bank staying open through the continuing resolution or the appropriations vehicle, whatever it is that is going to become law. So I will restate that to both my colleagues so they can hear. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the ranking member of the Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship and Capital Markets Subcommittee.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.