POLITICO Pro Q&A: Rep. Patrick McHenry
POLITICO Pro Q&A: Rep. Patrick McHenry
POLITICO Pro Q&A: Rep. Patrick McHenry
By Zachary Warmbrodt
05/07/2019 05:01 AM EDT
As a House Republican in 2019, Rep. Patrick McHenry is mostly powerless over the direction of major legislation. One possible exception is the Export-Import Bank.
Reviving the hobbled trade finance agency is a priority for the Trump administration. And though McHenry doesn’t hold the gavel of the House Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over the bank, his position as the panel’s top Republican has made him a key figure in the debate over how to reauthorize the agency before it expires in September.
In an interview in his office, the North Carolina lawmaker said he was already involved in discussions with the administration and Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) about how to move ahead with a bipartisan bill.
It’s a big change from the position taken by his predecessor, former House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), who played a lead role in conservatives’ fight to shutter the bank.
McHenry said he has been a skeptic of the agency but sees an opportunity to improve it rather than keeping “the clean hands of a non-legislator.” He’s facing resistance from conservative groups that want the agency closed.
“I think I can make things better — not perfect, but better — by participating in this process,” he said.
What follows is a transcript of the interview edited for length and clarity.
What is your outlook for the bank?
We need a functioning bank with reforms, and I think we can get it. There’s an appetite for a bipartisan result on this.
There’s a way for us to modernize this — not make it an agency for an industry or a company — but make it a functioning export credit agency in order for us to compete globally.
So, we’ve got to work through and hammer out the details on this, but I don’t see why we can’t get this done in the next few months.
Have you started talking to Chairwoman Waters about what a bill would look like?
We’ve offered to one another to work together. And that’s the first step of walking through the process of hammering out the policy. So, I’m hopeful we can get a bipartisan result. That’s my interest and I think that’s also the administration’s interest as well.
There’s interagency discussion happening now on a formal administration position on Ex-Im and potential reforms. Have you been looped in on that?
We’ve engaged in that process already with the White House and spent a significant amount of time with the White House, particularly the [National Economic Council].
We had a retreat and [NEC Director Larry] Kudlow came in and talked about it. He said the president supports reauthorization and a functioning Ex-Im.
I believe that it should meet our economic interests, one, and our national security interests, as well.
I don’t think, heretofore, we have directed that agency in a modern way. We still have a Cold War orientation for this agency, and we need to be forward-looking on how we reshape the charter and its mission.
What’s an example of a change you would want to make to the Ex-Im?
So, if you read the charter, they use language that is out of the Cold War. It’s very clear.
We should direct this to compete against state-controlled economies and state-controlled businesses. It’s sort of where we are right now. A lot of this has to do with China. And that’s not at all mentioned. I mean, not in any real, substantive way.
This goes to what China’s doing with their export credit agencies. It goes to what they’re doing globally with investment around the world.
We just reauthorized [the Overseas Private Investment Corp.]. This is a sister agency to OPIC, in my world view. And we should have a much smarter mentality about how to team those two up in a way that has our long-term national interests in mind.
What do you see as your role here? Are you working in tandem with the administration to get reforms?
We spend a decent amount of time with the administration ensuring that we’re on a similar page — not exactly, not precisely, but on a similar page. And now we’re working through the substance of what this policy looks like. But Chairwoman Waters still has control of the calendar and whether or not what we’re offering is acceptable.
My position is strengthened because there is a Republican Senate and there is a Republican in the White House. However, Chairwoman Waters still has her capacity to go her own way.
Because she’s saying she wants to have a bill, I think we’re going to have a reauthorization bill. We’re also hearing that you need to have reforms. You can’t just have a straight reauthorization and have any shot of it getting through the Senate.
You’re hearing that from Senate Republicans?
Yes.
Boeing is closely associated with the bank as one of its biggest users. Has the 737 MAX come up in discussions?
This agency’s bigger than any one company but the current travails of a major user of this bank has a significant negative consequence potentially on how we get through this process. It is a problem. No getting around it.
Read the full interview in POLITICO Pro.