Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 4725, the Community Bank Reporting Relief Act, which would reduce reporting requirements through first and third quarter call reports for depository institutions with less than $5 billion in total consolidated assets.

This bill provides targeted regulatory relief to many of our smaller financial institutions, as has been the desire of both Democrats and Republicans on the committee and in this Congress for some time.

Under the Obama administration, the Federal banking agencies began taking a series of steps to reduce and streamline various bank reporting requirements. Many of these requirements had existed for decades, including the quarterly Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank, which is commonly referred to as a call report.

These efforts by regulators have included creating a simpler call report for most community banks with less than $1 billion. Regulators have already been exploring raising the threshold to a comparable level that is proposed by this legislation. The regulators also allow for some data to be reported semiannually, as this bill would allow, or annually rather than quarterly.

I am pleased that H.R. 4725 would give the regulators discretion to decide what information should be included in a reduced call report. It is also key that the bill would require a full call report every other quarter for banks under $5 billion, including at the end of the year, to make sure that regulators and the public have sufficient information on the health of financial institutions.

Furthermore, this bill would permit regulators to limit the regulatory relief, as appropriate. This would, for example, exclude banks with foreign offices or ones that are affiliated with much larger banks, as they do today.

This bill would appropriately maintain robust oversight of our Nation's largest banks while providing targeted relief for smaller institutions.

As I said, we don't agree on everything. Many of us on this side believe that the robust protections built into Dodd-Frank have strengthened the financial system but that there are ways that we can improve and refine those restrictions in order to support particularly smaller institutions. This is a step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4725.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just close by reiterating what I said earlier. From time to time, it is clear that we can come together on solutions to problems that we come across in any regulation, in any aspect of the Federal Government. Even in areas where we might find broad disagreement on the importance of many of the protections that were put in place after the financial crisis, across the aisle, we can often find common ground around particular solutions; and, when we do that, we should act.

I think that is why so many of us were pleased to see this legislation come forward to give us a chance to demonstrate that this is a step in the right direction, particularly supporting some of our smaller institutions. I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, if ever there is a time for Democrats and Republicans to come together in a bipartisan fashion, it would be around this issue, around an issue to combat the financing of transnational criminal organizations. That is what H.R. 4768 would do. Specifically, it would require the Secretary of the Treasury to lead the effort, in consultation with other key agencies and departments, and update the strategy to fight these organizations at least every 2 years.

Additionally, the legislation requires the administration to assess the key threats, financial support networks, and methods used by criminal groups to launder the proceeds of illicit activities. In passing this legislation, we will not only build upon but also cement the importance of the interagency approach taken by the prior administration in combating the impact of global criminal enterprises.

Indeed, in 2010, the Obama administration conducted a comprehensive assessment of organized crime, the first such review that had taken place since the mid-1990s. The assessment came to the alarming conclusion that the threat of global criminal networks had become more complex, volatile, and destabilizing and that such groups were proliferating, striking new and powerful alliances, and engaging in a growing range of illicit activities such as we have never seen before.

To combat this growing threat and lessen its impact both domestically and on our foreign partners, the Obama administration, in 2011, issued a comprehensive interagency strategy that identified 56 priority actions across five strategic objectives. One of these key objectives included breaking the economic power of transnational criminal networks and protecting strategic markets and the U.S. financial system from penetration and abuse by transnational organized crime. This strategic objective, in particular, resonates with me, as I have always believed strongly that following the money and using our economic leverage is the best way to counter illicit activity. This is especially true in countering transnational criminal organizations, whose primary objective is economic gain.

In a number of ways, this legislation before us will ensure that the Treasury, as well as the intelligence and broader U.S. national security apparatus, remains focused on some of the emerging threats posed by transnational organized crime groups; including, kleptocrats, human traffickers, drug traffickers, and cybercriminals.

Additionally, the legislation explicitly requires the administration to examine how such groups exploit the use of shell companies, misuse digital currencies and other cyber technologies.

I am also pleased that, with the concurrence of the chairman and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), the committee agreed to adopt an amendment offered by Ranking Member Waters that sharpens the bill's focus on the methods by which transnational organized crime groups launder illicit funds using real estate and other tangible goods, such as art and antiquities. These significant vulnerabilities have been identified as major threats to our national security and the integrity of our financial system by a broad range of bipartisan experts, including the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Financial Action Task Force.

For example, just last year, FinCEN noted in a public advisory that: ``Real estate transactions and the real estate market have certain characteristics that make them vulnerable to abuse by illicit actors. . . . For these reasons and others, drug traffickers, corrupt officials, and other criminals can and have used real estate to conceal the existence and origins of their illicit funds.''

The entities and individuals that have sought to exploit real estate to conceal illicit funds includes Iranian banks subject to U.S. sanctions, Russian oligarchs and Russian-organized crime rings, as well as Venezuelan officials found to be engaged in narcotics trafficking.

The fact that these vulnerabilities are not merely theoretical and have been used by a wide range of criminal groups should disturb all of us. We also know that money laundering through the global art and antiquities market is another key method for washing illicit funds, and that is undoubtedly being exploited by well-organized transnational criminal groups. Indeed, we know that the looting and trafficking in cultural heritage is a source of revenue that has funded ISIS' heinous activities, and we know that the opaque characteristics of the high-end art market and its lack of basic anti-money-laundering requirements make it a target for illicit funds.

So I am pleased that the members of this committee were able to agree that real estate and art market vulnerabilities should be given due consideration when it comes to transnational organized crime. Again, this is one of those

subjects around which bipartisanship should be assumed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join in this bipartisan effort and to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), a cosponsor of this legislation and a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, as I said, we need a national strategy to combat the financing of transnational criminal organizations.

This legislation requires that such a strategy be put together. It is an issue that crosses virtually every partisan or ideological line. It is an example of legislation that we all can embrace and should support.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to do so, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the wake of yet another mass shooting in this country to ask the House of Representatives to summon the courage to actually do something to prevent the next terrible tragedy.

Last evening we held a moment of silence on this floor, and what I fear is that, again, that moment of silence will be followed by days of silence by this House, by weeks of silence by this House, by months of silence by this House on the very question of gun violence in this country.

There are things we can do to move past the typical partisan response: the legislation that I and three others crafted, bipartisan legislation, to regulate these terrible bump stocks that could have prevented the tragedy in Las Vegas from being as bad as it was.

Other things we can do that we agree on: closing the background check loophole, making sure that if you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane, you can't buy a weapon.

These are the things that Congress ought to take up and that the American people have every right to expect us to act upon.

Let's do something.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the long-awaited Trump infrastructure plan was finally released. What a disappointment, after coming here a year ago and promising a $1 trillion plan. Then, in his State of the Union, saying it is going to be even bigger--huge--$1.5 trillion. In the fine print, however, $1.3 trillion of the $1.5 trillion comes from communities like my hometown of Flint, Michigan.

Now, let's be clear. If States and local communities had an extra $1.3 trillion laying around, they would be servicing those roads and bridges. They would be rebuilding their water systems. They would be doing this work already.

If we are going to have a Federal infrastructure plan, we need to have a Federal infrastructure plan that is really investment and not just checking the box so that the President can say he submitted a big, bold infrastructure plan.

Well, it is not big and bold, from the Federal Government's point of view. The $200 billion investment from the Federal Government, offset by a $170 billion reduction, boils down to $3 billion a year over 10 years.

That is not big. That is not bold. That won't fix the roads and bridges in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Waters for yielding. I know she understands the danger in yielding to me as much time as I may consume. I will just take a couple of minute on this.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act. There are unaddressed concerns as to the effect this bill will have on community banks that serve so many of our constituents, whether it be through more bank consolidation or whether it will encourage small banks to take on more unsustainable debt.

The Federal Reserve has a small bank holding company policy statement that outlines ownership transfer of small community banks and savings associations ``by allowing their holding companies to operate with higher levels of debt than would normally be permitted.''

The holding companies that qualify for the policy statement can have up to $1 billion in assets, a limit that was reached, in a bipartisan effort, in the 113th Congress. Yet, even though this new threshold was enacted just at the end of 2014, we have seen multiple efforts to raise the limit even higher.

According to data from the Federal Reserve, under the current $1 billion

threshold, 87 percent of all bank holding companies and 72 percent of savings and loan holding companies are holding nearly $1 trillion in assets under that billion-dollar threshold.

It is too soon to know the effects of increasing the threshold to $1 billion. Why are we pushing to raise it even further without sufficient information as to the effect on the market of the last increase?

And we may disagree on the conclusion we come to, but a concern I would like to address is that while we are raising this question, while we are debating whether to raise this threshold without, I believe, sufficient knowledge as to the full impact of the last increase, we are taking time on the floor when we have so many other unaddressed concerns that get no time on this floor.

You know, as members of the committee, and certainly other Members of the House understand, I spent a good deal of my time working on issues related to the conditions of America's cities and towns. A whole subset of American towns, even in a period of economic growth, which we all acknowledge has been sustained now over the period of the last 8 years, many communities are continuing to be left behind.

Why is that? I am sure there are a lot of reasons. I am sure some of my friends would argue that some of the issues addressed in this legislation might touch on them. But one thing I know for sure, the crumbling roads and bridges and water and sewer systems in those communities are so serious, the problem is so great. The unaddressed issues of violent crime in many of those same cities, which this House continues to leave unaddressed, essentially ensures that any change in the regulatory structure in the marketplace is not sufficient to deal with the underlying and really troubling problems that these communities face.

You know, a year ago, the President came to the floor of this House and talked about a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. He came back and said it was going to be $1.5 trillion with one little asterisk, only $200 billion from the Federal Government. State and local government is supposed to make up the rest of it.

I raise this because often the arguments in favor of taking some of the regulatory protections off these institutions are that it is supposed to unlock the marketplace to rebuild these communities when these communities are so shackled to the bottom of the ocean that no rising tide will raise them.

If we don't get control of the incredible struggle and deterioration in these older cities, nothing we do on this floor otherwise is going to make it right for those folks.

I represent one of those towns. You have heard me talk about my own hometown of Flint. There are so many other communities that are struggling. The jurisdiction of a committee does include addressing the condition of urban America. I would just hope, and really ask, that we spend a bit more time on those questions.

I would feel much more comfortable having a debate about what the regulatory structure looks like if I felt like there was sufficient attention being given to those issues. In the meantime, because of the questions that I have already raised about the impact of this legislation not being fully understood, even the last increase in the threshold not being fully understood, I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. On Thursday, the government runs out of funding because the majority has not yet been able to reach across the aisle and negotiate a long-term budget agreement that reflects the priorities of the American people.

One party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, but there is not a functional majority in the hands of one or another party. The majority is comprised of thoughtful Members who, on both sides of the aisle, if we chose to, could sit around the negotiating table and work out the differences that we bring to this Congress in a way that moves the country forward and adopts a budget that is reflective of the priorities that we were sent here to address.

So long as one party takes the approach that all of the votes necessary to pass any measure must only come from one party, we are not going to be able to move forward as a country.

Being in the minority, I understand we don't get to set the agenda, but we ought not be locked out of the conversation, especially when it is by coming together that we can get a long-term budget and not continue to kick the can down the road.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow President Trump will give his first State of the Union Address. It is an opportunity for the President to demonstrate leadership and bring to this floor a discussion for both parties to come together and pass, number one, a long-term budget that reflects the priorities of the American people.

I have come to this floor many times to express my disagreement with this President on a number of issues. I have disagreed on his efforts to take away healthcare for millions of people, adding costs to people I represent who have health insurance. I have disagreed with his tax policies and disagree vehemently with the policies enacted here, and I am going to continue to speak up when I find disagreement.

But I also look for areas where we can work together, and it is my hope that tomorrow the President will articulate one of those: a plan to deal with America's crumbling infrastructure, especially in America's older cities. It has been over a year since the President was here and laid out his plan for a big investment plan and a strategy on infrastructure.

Words are cheap. We need action. We need something specific. And I am hoping and willing to work with the President if he lays forward such a vision.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of differences on this floor, and we are supposed to have differences. That is why there are 435 of us. Unfortunately, those differences have not been reconciled, and the Federal Government has been closed now in its third day.

It is not helpful, however, today or in the coming days, as we try to resolve these differences, for Members to take to the floor and impugn the integrity of one another. It is not helpful, for example, for the President of the United States, through his campaign at his direction, to run television ads that accuse Democrats who oppose the budget measure of being complicit in murder.

It is not helpful for the Vice President, overseas, in front of troops who serve this country with honor and dignity, to make a partisan speech accusing Democrats of not having their back. It is not fair to have Members come to this floor and suggest that those troops won't be paid when that Member knows that is not true.

Let's reason together. Let's treat one another with some dignity and bridge the gap that exists between us.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

I just want to point out the position we are in. We hear that Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can't come together because Democrats are holding up this bill in the Senate. Well, let's just examine that for a moment.

Why is it that Leader McConnell can't even get a simple majority in the Senate for the legislation that this body sent over there with 5 Democratic votes?

It is because the legislation that was passed here was not constituted of a majority position who support DACA, who support helping those DREAMers; not constituted of a majority of this body who want to see not only community health centers funded, but also see CHIP continued, and who want to see pension protection come to this floor.

I believe that there is a majority in this body that is not constituted of just 218 Republicans that can come together around these issues. And as long as the leadership continues to not seek a majority that could deliver legislation through this body but also has the chance to gain support in the Senate, we are going to continue to find ourselves unable to govern.

There is a majority that can work together on these issues. We ought to seek that majority.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns with the way this bill has moved to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, I support the bill's authorization of a U.S. contribution to the International Development Association, IDA, the part of the World Bank that helps the world's poorest countries through loans and grants to boost economic growth, to reduce inequality, and to improve the standard of living across the world.

The IDA provides assistance for basic healthcare, primary education, clean water and sanitation, and infrastructure.

I also support the idea that the bill would reestablish the U.S.' engagement on global economic cooperation. When this bill came up in the Financial Services Committee markup, as has been pointed out, I, along with many of my colleagues, expressed concerns over the bill making a U.S. contribution contingent on President Trump's determination that the World Bank is implementing these important reforms.

Our support for the bill was based on the understanding that those concerns would be addressed. So we supported

the bill in good faith, hoping that, in fact, those issues would be addressed.

It has been pointed out that no Democratic amendments were offered in committee. We took on faith that those issues would be addressed.

Ms. Moore, a member of the committee on the Democratic side and a leader on this issue, offered an amendment, which the majority rejected in the Rules Committee and did not allow this House to vote on in order to--what we would say would be--improve the legislation. The amendment was not even made in order.

We support good governance and accountability, but those goals ought to be advanced on their own merits. Allowing President Trump to make the determination to withhold money from these countries based on his interpretation as to whether they have met his standard was a bridge too far for many of us.

The nature of the reforms outlined in the bill give some pause when we consider the recent actions and the recent words. It is impossible for any of us to, first of all, erase the hateful comments made by the President of the United States in reference to countries such as those that benefit from the work of the IDA.

So setting aside for a moment the concerns that members of the committee addressed--and this happens from time to time in committee, let's not pretend that it doesn't, where there are concerns that we decide we will address as the bill goes forward. Very often those are worked out. When they are not, we are not going to be put in the position as members of the committee of having to say: Well, that never happened.

It did happen.

Mr. Chairman, I understand we may come to different conclusions ultimately on how the bill comes to the floor, and Members ought to feel free to vote their conscience, but it is not the case that we did not express those concerns with the hope that they would be addressed before the legislation moved to the floor.

Nobody saw it as a perfect bill, unless, of course, those individuals were not listening to the issues being raised by Democratic Members during the debate in committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will end with this: when the President of the United States, just in recent days, uses vulgar and hateful terms to depict entire populations, many of whom live in countries that are the principal beneficiaries and people who themselves are the principal beneficiaries of this work, I have a very difficult time granting authority to that same administration to make a determination as to whether those countries are worthy of the help that the United States would offer.

Madam Speaker, the Republican majority spent the entire year of 2017 in this House essentially stacking the deck for the most powerful interests in this country. That tax bill, you look at it closely, it grants massive benefits to people at the very top of the economy, at the cost of over $1 trillion in debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back.

Now, with just 10 days to go before another potential government shutdown, and a shutdown which would cost our economy billions of dollars, we still have not gotten a budget. Despite the fact that Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, they control the White House, and they have consolidated power, they can't keep the government open for more than a few weeks at a time.

The way we have to do this is to work together across the aisle. We are willing, but we can't be brought into the conversation 15 minutes before the government is going to be shut down; and we ought to deal with the big priorities that we were sent here to deal with, where we agree.

We agree on CHIP, at least the majority of the House does. Bring it to the floor for a vote.

We agree on DACA. A majority would vote for a Dreams bill. Let's just work on the things we can agree on and leave the partisan fights to those areas where we really disagree. This is long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I guess for the second day in a row, this House voted for massive tax cuts for people at the very top and left behind a lot of working Americans. In fact, it gave permanent tax cuts to corporations and only temporary help for some American families. They said that the marketplace and corporations needed certainty. That is why those tax cuts were permanent.

Now, we have a continuing resolution for 28 days of funding after 11 months of not doing anything about it.

What about the certainty for veterans that they are going to get the healthcare that they deserve?

It is not a priority.

What about the certainty for children who depend on CHIP?

It is not a priority.

What about the certainty for those families who are struggling with a family member fighting opioid abuse?

All the promises ring hollow because they are not a priority. Corporations are the top priority. With this tax bill, and now the continuing resolution, the American people, who struggle every single day, are just not a priority. After 11 months of complete Republican control and false promises, American families get left behind again. It is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on the floor of this House and, I guess, again today, there will be a vote on this massive tax cut targeted to people at the very top, targeting big cuts for corporations.

Like many Members on this side of the aisle, I welcome the opportunity to do comprehensive, real tax reform. And for a long time, the discussion in this body and around the country was about the need to lower the rates and broaden the base and eliminate some of those loopholes that allow some corporations to get away with paying literally no taxes at all. But instead of doing that, what we saw was a massive shift of the responsibility to fund the government away from people at the top to people who work hard every day.

There are many examples of how we could have done this better. There was a lot of discussion on the Senate side about the child tax credit. But why did we end up with a child tax credit that rewards a minimum wage family with about $75 a year, when somebody making $400,000 would get $4,000? I mean, is the life of a child of a family making a half a million dollars worth that much more?

This is the wrong direction. This is the wrong bill. We should reject it.

Mr. Speaker, as Republicans continue to rush their tax plan through both Houses of Congress, they leave behind tens of millions of Americans to give deficit-exploding tax breaks to the absolute wealthiest. They are also leaving behind some really important Americans: our Native American brothers and sisters.

For years, issues of taxation and how Federal tax policy impacts Tribal governments have been the subject of discussion, and for those years that we have talked about the need for tax reform, there have been continuous promises made to Tribal governments that we will deal with these inequities, these issues of double taxation in Tribes.

For example, a Tribal member who gets an adoption through a Tribal court doesn't qualify for an adoption tax credit. That is just one example of the many ways that Federal tax policy does not anticipate or recognize Tribal governments. But they have been left behind again.

This bill should be written in a way that actually addresses the real problems in the Tax Code. It does not.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the lifelong service Mr. Burks has given to the United Automobile Workers and our community. He has upheld worker's rights by serving as the UAW Michigan CAP Chair and on UAW General Motors Sub Council 2. Additionally, his dedication to community activism has included service to the Special Olympics, Women's Council, March of Dimes, American Red Cross, and Easter Seals.

These accomplishments coupled with his dedication to our community are exemplary. As I continue representing Michigan's Fifth Congressional District, I stand by Mr. Burks' example of promoting unity by strengthening communities.

Mr. Burks is a testament to the power of one individual's ability to create meaningful, lasting change. As a conscientious and hardworking UAW leader, his love for the community and the laborers he served comprise a lasting legacy. After 62 years of membership at Local 598, Mr. Burks is bestowed the honor of the rededication of the 598 union hall as the ``UAW Local 598 Ruben Burks Union Hall''.