Financial Institution Living Will Improvement Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I first want to start by associating myself with the remarks of my chairwoman and suggest to this body that it is time for Congress to begin to govern and run the day-to-day operation of the Government of the United States in a timely fashion.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third iteration of the fiscal year 2018 Defense Appropriations Act that has been brought to the floor. I, for one, have

nothing more to say about the merits of this legislation that would not be redundant. However, I do want to reiterate my profound respect for the exceptional work that has been put into this legislation, time and time again, by Chairwoman Granger, all of the members of our subcommittee, and our superlative staff.

Today, January 30, 2018, Congress is 122 days late. We are 122 days past the start of the current fiscal year and 122 days past the time that the legislation we are considering today for the third time should have been completed, conferenced, and signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, we have a number problem. As an appropriator, I ask for a number to craft a bill that, by law, does not violate the Budget Control Act. We need a number so that Chairwoman Granger, our subcommittee members, and I can make decisions on how best to move forward so our military leaders are not hindered and forced to comply with the constraints of continuing resolutions. As an appropriator, all I want is a number. Give us a number, and we will finish our work for this fiscal year and give the certainty that has been repeatedly asked for by the Department of Defense and our 17 intelligence agencies.

Unfortunately, operating under the fourth continuing resolution and passing essentially the same Defense Appropriations measure for a third time does nothing--nothing--to solve the number problem, nor does it remedy the slight inconvenience that this bill exceeds the Budget Control Act by $35 billion.

Today's legislation does recognize this inconvenience by obviating sequestration. I guess that is what passes as budget control in these days in this Congress.

Some may say that we must pass this bill today to support our men and women in uniform. I would respond by saying that today's 60 minutes of theater continues to avoid meaningfully addressing the needs of our troops. If we were serious about that, we would have solved our number problem and allowed the chair and ranking member of the full committee, and the subcommittee chairs and ranking members of all 12 committees, to negotiate a realistic budget figure last summer so that we could have completed our bill last September. That would be helping our troops.

I would also add that if we don't agree to an overall domestic discretionary number, then we will continue to disinvest in the true security of this Nation--our people.

We need a domestic number so we can make decisions and give direction to all Federal agencies so they can plan on how to best invest in our national economy, jobs, and the health and prosperity of our people. The International Trade Commission needs direction so they can fully enforce our trade laws. Customs and Border Protection needs direction. This government needs timely decisions and certainty.

According to the Department of Defense, 71 percent of people aged 17 to 24 years of age in the United States would fail to qualify for military enlistment because of physical or mental health issues, low educational scores, or major criminal convictions. General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has testified that the strength of the United States military is a direct reflection of the strength of U.S. society.

I would propose that improving the strength of our country is not just a robust defense number that I desperately want. We need a robust domestic number that allows for the critical investments necessary for the success of our economy, the creation of jobs, and for the people of this country.

Our number problem is solvable. Give us a negotiated budget number so we can stop wasting everybody's time and the money of the American taxpayers. Then we can truly start supporting the strength of our national security, our troops, and our national economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who is the ranking member on the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), who is the ranking member on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and a member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies, and also a member of the Subcommittee on Defense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Ohio an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), my friend and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply close at the point where I began and ask the Members of this institution at large--the United States Congress, both Houses--to please give the Appropriations Committees numbers for defense and discretionary spending so that under the leadership of Chairman Frelinghuysen and Mrs. Lowey, in this case under Chairwoman Granger, myself, and the other 11 subcommittees, we can finish our work. It is less than 2 weeks before we will begin fiscal year 2019. I would ask my colleagues to please give us those numbers so that we can do our work effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation, which I was proud to introduce with my colleague from New York, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney.

This legislation would provide needed reforms to the living will submission process, would ensure that impacted financial institutions get needed feedback from their regulators, and would uphold sensible standards to protect the financial system.

This may sound like wonky financial policy, but to the hardworking men and women in my district, fixing these confusing regulations that have choked off community lending can be the determining factor with regards to getting a small business loan or a mortgage.

These are the financial products that provide access to the American Dream, that help communities grow through homeownership, and that allow small-business owners to hire and expand.

Now, more than ever, we need to be working on a bipartisan basis to improve the standards and reform the confusing regulations that are being imposed on our community banks and financial institutions.

This bill changes the procedure for the submission and review of resolution plans, also known as living wills.

This legislation is in line with recommendations from a 2016 GAO report in which it was recommended that banking regulators should publicly disclose the assessment frameworks, consider shifting to a 2- year cycle, and provide feedback to companies within a minimum of 6 months.

The vast discretion granted to Federal regulators under the current law's living will regime is essentially a license for those regulators to decide the proper size, scale, and business model of private sector enterprises.

This legislation reins in that unchecked government authority and provides greater accountability and much-needed transparency to the living will process.

This bill requires public disclosure of the rules for living wills and also requires regulators to follow up with financial institutions in a timely fashion with the feedback necessary to meet these standards.

These reforms are critical for providing our Nation's banking systems and the customers they serve, to protect our Nation's banking systems.

This bill cleared the Financial Services Committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 60-0. I am especially thankful for the bipartisan cooperation of my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank Chairmen Hensarling and Luetkemeyer for their leadership on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters of support from the Financial Services Roundtable and the American Bankers Association.

Financial Services Roundtable,

Washington, DC, January 29, 2018.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The Financial Services

Roundtable (FSR) supports H.R. 4292 the ``Financial

Institution

Living Wills Improvement Act of 2017,'' sponsored by

Representative Lee Zeldin.

H.R. 4292 changes the procedure for the submission and

review of resolution plans, also known as ``living wills.''

The bill would adjust the frequency of resolution plan

submissions from annually to a two-year cycle, require

regulators to provide feedback within six months of

submission and publicly disclose the framework used to review

the plans. Improving the resolution plan process provides

transparency, accountability and efficiency while enabling

firms to enhance their plans.

The Federal Reserve Board and Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation require resolution plan submissions be reviewed

and updated annually. It is increasingly evident, however,

that these annual requirements are neither efficient nor

effective for both regulators and covered firms. Resolution

plans do not change substantially from year to year, absent a

material change in a firm's structure. A Government

Accountability Office (GAO) report on resolution planning

supports a longer submission cycle so firms have sufficient

time to revise their plans and incorporate regulatory

feedback.

Similarly, GAO recommended that regulators make the

assessment frameworks public, noting transparency would

promote accountability by the agencies and result in better

resolution plans. Providing firms clarity as to how

determinations are made will eliminate the uncertainty around

the appropriate changes necessary to strengthen the

resolution plan. Further, requiring regulators to provide

feedback within a defined period will enable firms to address

deficiencies and ensure the institution's strength in the

event of financial distress or failure.

H.R. 4292 helps improve how U.S. financial regulations work

for individuals, financial institutions, and the U.S.

economy. FSR supports H.R. 4292 the ``Financial Institution

Living Wills Improvement Act of 2017,'' and urges enactment

of important legislation.

Sincerely,

Anthony Cimino,

Senior Vice President

& Head of Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 714, I call up the bill (H.R. 695) to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to establish a national criminal history background check system and criminal history review program for certain individuals who, related to their employment, have access to children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I stand before you today to ask for your support to pass the fiscal year 2018 Defense Appropriations bill. It is past time that this essential, must-pass funding bill for our military be enacted into law. Congress must act responsibly and do its job to quickly get these dollars out the door and where they are needed as soon as possible.

The legislation before you provides $659 billion for defense, more than $60 billion above last year's levels. When combined with the almost $5 billion already enacted into law in December, this bill matches the top-line funding level in the final National Defense Authorization Act enacted into law.

All Federal dollars are not the same. We need to provide and prioritize national security after years of neglect and an increasingly dangerous international situation.

Nor can we continue to hold our troops hostage as leverage for unrelated issues. We are almost 4 months into fiscal year 2018, and our troops still don't have their funding. It is time that the Congress fulfill its responsibility to fund our troops at the levels needed.

It is time to lift the budget caps and enact a full-year Defense Appropriations Act so that our military can begin to rebuild. This bill does that by lifting the budget caps on defense and fully funding the Department at the top line already approved by the Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act.

It takes care of our troops by providing additional manpower and fully funding a 2.4 percent pay raise, and it provides additional funding for key readiness programs and robustly funds maintenance of equipment and facilities.

The bill includes specific investments in several areas, such as air superiority, $4.3 billion above request; shipbuilding, $1.6 billion above request; research and development, $10 billion above 2017; defense health, an additional $644 million for medical research; and grants forces fully equipped.

The bill also provides additional resources in a National Defense Restoration Fund in the amount of $28.6 billion to allow Secretary Mattis to begin investing in the new defense strategy now instead of waiting a full year.

This bill gives our military leaders the sufficient, sustainable, and stable funding they have told us, over and over again, that they need.

The House has done its job more than once to fund our troops at the levels they need only to have the Senate fail to act. Congress must step up and fulfill its most fundamental constitutional responsibility, which is to ensure that our troops have what they need to defend our Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who is the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who is the chairman of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chair of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude our remarks and, again, call for a vote on this very important bill, I want to express my respect and appreciation for the help of Ranking Member Visclosky, and certainly for the leadership of Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen. I have been fortunate to follow the chairman, as chair of Defense Appropriations, and I speak for all who serve on his committee, who look to him for leadership and respect him for his service. He is an extraordinary public servant and a model for us all, and we thank him.

Mr. Speaker, the time is long past for Congress to fulfill their duty. I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his tremendous leadership as our ranking member on the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition once again to this bill. I think the House has taken it up now for a third time this year.

Let me just start by saying I grew up in a military family. I am a military brat. My dad fought in World War II and in the Korean War. He was stationed, among his posts, at Fort Bliss, Texas.

And I want to say that supporting our troops, making sure that they have everything they need, is extremely important. And opposing this budget, for me, of course, does not reflect my support for our troops.

But I just have to tell you, this bill appropriates the $664 billion in defense spending for this already out-of-control Pentagon budget. It also includes more than $75 billion for wars that Congress has never debated or voted on. And what is worse, this bill includes $1.2 billion in overseas contingency operations to increase troop levels in Afghanistan by 3,500 troops. This is really outrageous, and this fund should really be eliminated.

Now, the Pentagon has failed to achieve the requirement to audit itself by 2017, and we know that billions of dollars have been found in waste, fraud, and abuse. That is unacceptable.

Instead of writing blank checks--which is what I think this bill does, another blank check to the Pentagon--Congress needs to live up to its constitutional obligation to complete an audit, first of all, to determine how to make sure we have a rational defense budget that protects our national security and supports our troops, not to provide excess contracts that lead to waste, fraud, and abuse. We also need to debate matters of war and peace.

So we need to pass my amendment, which I tried to do, quite frankly, last year in this very bill, that would sunset the 2001 AUMF, and it would give us 8 months--not immediately, but 8 months--to debate and vote on a new one before it would be enacted. It took 3 days to enact the last one. That is what the debate was. I am asking for 8 months.

This important amendment would provide Congress plenty of time to do our job and finally have a debate on matters of war and peace. However, even though my amendment passed the Appropriations Committee in a bipartisan fashion, Republicans unilaterally decided to strip this amendment from the bill, really, I have to say, in the dead of night.

Mr. Speaker, this was very undemocratic and underhanded, and it makes me wonder: What is the Speaker afraid of?

So I asked for my amendment to be debated and voted on on the House floor, and again Republican leadership refused--really a shame. Our brave troops deserve us to come together and do this so that they know that their country has their back.

I voted against the 2001 authorization because I believe it opened the door for any President to wage endless war without a congressional debate or vote. Quite frankly, unfortunately, history has borne that out.

According to the Congressional Research Service report, the 2001 AUMF has been used more than 37 times in 14 countries to justify military action. This report examines only unclassified incidents, and it was conducted 3 years ago. So how many other operations have been conducted without the knowledge of Congress or the American people? These authorizations have also been used to justify perpetual wars that are thousands of miles away.

I will conclude by saying that now any President--any President--can unilaterally wage war under this outdated authorization forever, really, until it is repealed. Now we have an administration bent on increasing our presence in Afghanistan and never leaving Syria, both wars that the American public know nothing about.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and reject this wasteful spending.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership--particularly, his responsible leadership--as the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the political gambit that the Republican leadership is pulling today.

Virtually identical versions of the Defense Appropriations bill we are considering have already passed the House twice. The Republican majority is so bankrupt of ideas that they are now going around in circles playing political games.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I strongly support moving appropriations bills through the committee and to the floor through regular order. I applaud all of my committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working in good faith on all 12 appropriations bills.

But the appropriations process has been hijacked by Republican leadership and the rightwing ideologues who now run the House. Regardless of the outcome of today's vote, all appropriations bills will remain stuck in the swamp that is this Republican Congress.

The reason for this holdup is that Republican so-called leaders have refused to work across the aisle toward an agreement on a budget that would prevent the gutting of investments in vital national priorities: from education to infrastructure, from healthcare to housing, from diplomacy to defense.

We need to provide our military with the resources they need. There is no question about that. Instead, the Republican majority is using the brave servicemen and -women who defend our Nation as pawns in a partisan crusade that would undermine the nation our troops are defending.

The stated Republican rationale for their intransigence is that they are concerned about the deficit, yet these are the same Republicans who voted to explode the deficit by more than $1.5 trillion in order to give a huge tax cut to big corporations and the top 1 percent.

As each day passes, it becomes more and more clear that the priorities of the Republican majority are backward and immoral.

Instead of expanding access to affordable healthcare, Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and leave millions uninsured.

Instead of investing in the middle class, Republicans gave a huge tax giveaway to those who have turned their backs on the middle class.

Instead of building on bipartisan efforts to advance reasonable reforms to our immigration system, Republicans are trying to tear apart families and close the door on aspiring Americans.

Instead of responsibly funding national priorities, Republicans are playing political games to distract from their failure to govern.

Instead of investing in all of our people, Republicans are pitting us against each other to deflect the blame from where it belongs--with the party who controls both Houses of Congress and the White House.

This is no way to keep the state of our union safe. This is no way to keep the state of our union strong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this political charade. Let's work together to invest in all of our national priorities and make the state of our union more perfect.