[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 58 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3105-H3110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4790, VOLCKER RULE REGULATORY
HARMONIZATION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO
SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 811 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 811
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4790) to
amend the Volcker rule to give the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System sole rulemaking authority, to exclude
community banks from the requirements of the Volcker rule,
and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-67 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of April 12, 2018, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though
under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 2) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. Debate on such a motion
shall be extended to four hours. (b) The Chair may postpone
further consideration of a motion considered pursuant to
subsection (a) to such time as may be designated by the
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
The rule makes in order one bill reported favorably by the Committee
on Financial Services. The committee held several hearings on the
topics within this bill in the spring of 2017.
Additionally, it was marked up in committee, and a Democrat amendment
in the nature of a substitute was adopted by voice. The bill was
reported by a strong, bipartisan vote of 50-10. The rule makes in order
no amendments to the bill. Why? Because there were none offered.
Additionally, the rule provides the opportunity for this House to
consider a balanced budget amendment and more than quadruples the time
for debate on the floor than it would otherwise be provided.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I have the opportunity to come down to the
floor and manage debate for a Financial Services bill. Thinking of the
process that I just referenced a moment ago, one thing routinely
strikes me: so many of these Financial Services bills are
overwhelmingly bipartisan within the Committee on Financial Services.
There always seems to be a common theme and political rhetoric that
Republicans are shills for the banking industry. Setting a rebuttal to
that aside for now, the underlying bill before us contains a wholly
bipartisan piece of legislation.
That a committee run by Republicans would have a process whereby we
bring to the floor a major piece of reform legislation offered by both
a Republican and a Democrat is a real testament to the fact that this
House can work. I commend Chairman Hensarling for running the committee
in such a way.
Mr. Speaker, our small town and community banks are a much bigger
part of our lives than many may realize. Often here in Washington, we
get caught up in big players in industry. We talk about Wall Street and
Silicon Valley. We speak of countries and international relations.
However, all across this great land, Americans in small, medium, and
large communities go about their business and conduct their day-to-day
affairs without any of the issues that consume Washington touching
their lives.
Most Americans just simply want Washington to leave them in peace, to
allow them to live their lives without politics and government
intruding at every step. This Financial Services bill before us speaks
to those concerns. This is legislation for Main Streets all across this
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 6,000 community banks across this
country with 52,000 locations. These banks are the backbone of our
communities' finances. Collectively, they hold more than $3.2 trillion
in loans to consumers. They provide nearly 50 percent of all small
business loans and nearly 80 percent of all agriculture loans.
How is it that they claim such a huge portion of loans within our
communities? It is simple. They are also part of the community that
they serve, and they extend credit based on personal knowledge of their
neighbors and their local economy.
But they are more than just organizations that lend and offer banking
services. They are small businesses that employ more than 750,000
Americans. Clearly, community banks are key partners in our
communities. They are particularly important lenders in rural towns and
counties, such as the ones I represent in eastern Colorado.
Former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen summed it best when she
said: ``We know that community banks serve many customers that large
banks do not and provide services that are not offered by large banks
in many communities. This circumstance is especially true in rural
areas and other small communities, where community banks are sometimes
the only retail financial institutions.''
However, even with their importance to Americans, they have borne the
brunt of regulation under Dodd-Frank. Each new regulation drives up
costs and forces personnel resources to be diverted to compliance
efforts. Even if a particular institution is not ultimately subject to
a rule, it must spend resources on each new regulation released to
verify whether any part of its operations are impacted or not.
These costs place a drain on operations which consumes resources that
otherwise would be used for growth.
The Federal Reserve Board recently released data that showed that
small bank lending in rural areas had declined by 46 percent since
2005. According to the Independent Community Bankers of America, a 2014
survey of community banks revealed that 78 percent of banks reported
adding personnel just to deal with increased regulation.
By consuming resources that could otherwise be placed into serving
customers and increasing lending, community banks are many times forced
to consolidate just to remain alive. Today, there are 1,700 fewer
community banks than there were in 2010. As of May 2017, only three new
banks were formed since the financial crisis.
It is clear that our community banks are suffering under an
unbearable regulatory burden. And when our community banks suffer, our
small towns and rural communities suffer also.
The underlying bill before us today exempts community banks from yet
another regulation that lumps small institutions with big banks. The
Volcker rule was implemented by Dodd-Frank. It was intended to keep
banks from engaging in a practice known as proprietary trading.
Proprietary trading is a practice where a financial institution such as
a bank uses its own finances to buy and sell stocks and other
investments so as to make a profit for itself.
Because of their importance to each individual American, but also to
our broader economy, we should consider carefully how we allow
financial institutions to operate. However, the real
[[Page H3106]]
impact of the Volcker rule on community banks has served to undermine
investment options in our smaller communities.
All across this country, particularly in rural communities,
entrepreneurs, farmers, and others sell their equity or bonds in order
to raise capital to grow and expand. However, if community banks were
prohibited from buying these financial instruments, then the sellers
would have to find buyers on their own. That is a highly impractical
situation.
Under the Volcker rule, an entrepreneur cannot approach their
community bank and offer to sell a portion of their equity to the bank.
Why? Because Dodd-Frank prohibits the banks from making its own
investments. What sense does this make? Where is the entrepreneur
supposed to go to find a buyer for their equity? Are they supposed to
go door-to-door looking for someone who might want to invest? That is
nonsense.
Community banks play a vital role in purchasing these financial
instruments and holding them until the bank is approached by a willing
buyer. Or maybe the bank holds them for a brief period as they know
they have a customer who is searching for this type of investment.
Either way, this is not an evil practice that we should prohibit. The
community bank's actions are making a marketplace for these investment
transactions, and this should be encouraged. It increases access to
capital for small businesses and farms in our communities.
But it is not just on the selling side of the equation that this
practice benefits. It also benefits the buying side of the equation.
Many Americans have invested a portion of their retirement savings in
pension funds, mutual funds, or similar types of investments. These
funds need for their investments to be liquid so as to meet demands for
cash from the people who have chosen to save their money in the funds.
These funds often place these cash investments into smaller financial
institutions through purchasing the stocks or bonds that these banks
own. The banks allow these larger funds to purchase the bank's assets
and also to sell back to the bank the same assets when the funds need
cash.
This isn't a shady practice. This is an extraordinarily important
practice and benefits every single American who has saved or is saving
money in a pension or other retirement account.
The Volcker rule prohibits this activity. Washington, in its
typically arrogant way, decided that it knew better than Americans and
banned this under Dodd-Frank.
On December 10, 2013, the five--I repeat, the five--separate agencies
tasked with writing and enforcing this regulation released a final
regulation that is 932 pages long and contains nearly 300,000 words.
That is astounding. What small town community bank can, on top of all
of the other regulations heaped upon them, carve out the necessary
resources to comply with such a burden?
When we had this bill at Rules Committee yesterday, one of my
colleagues on the committee related a story of visiting one of his
community banks. He indicated that it was a fairly small bank. The
owner of the bank walked him into the back operations office and
pointed to 14 staff members working. All of them were working
exclusively on complying with regulations. That is 14 people not
serving customers, or seeking new depositors, or helping the community
grow. What a sad state to which we have arrived.
Washington heaps, and heaps, and heaps burdens on the backs of
Americans day in and day out. Technocrats make it harder and harder to
achieve success in this land.
We are still a land of opportunity, but that gift is threatened daily
by our bureaucracy. Endless regulation of every meaningful detail of
our lives is antithetical to the American way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Buck) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to
the underlying legislation. Quite frankly, I had hoped that, when we
returned from our Easter break, we would be debating and voting on
legislation that would help people. I had hoped that maybe we would be
able to finally help the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers whose lives
are now in limbo because of President Trump's decision to end DACA and
that we would be able to pass a bill called the Dream Act to actually
provide them some peace of mind. But, no, we don't see that on the
schedule.
I had also hoped that maybe we would do something to address the
epidemic of gun violence in this country. Millions of young people all
across the country have been protesting in front of congressional
offices and have been holding rallies demanding that Congress debate
the issue of gun violence and do something. No, we are not doing that.
Instead, what we are doing is another bill to help the financial
services industries, and in that effort, we are doing something that I
think is going to make consumer protections less relevant. This week,
again, the Republican leadership of this House is ignoring the most
pressing issues facing our country and our constituents in favor of
more legislation to roll back financial protections put into place to
prevent another financial crisis.
Need I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle how damaging
the 2008 financial crash was? Millions upon millions of Americans--our
constituents, Mr. Speaker--lost their homes, and they lost their jobs
and their life savings. Many of these families have still not fully
recovered from these terrible financial blows.
In response, Democrats in Congress came together to pass the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, landmark
legislation to address risk in our financial system and ensure our
constituents are protected from another damaging financial crisis.
Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. Nobody in this Congress says it is. But I
strongly object to the calculated campaign by Republicans in this House
to continue to chip away at the law, making our financial markets more
vulnerable just to benefit their billionaire donors.
One of the key provisions of Dodd-Frank is the Volcker rule. It
prohibits banks from engaging in risky trading activities that
contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. Simply put, it prevents banks
from acting like casinos and gambling with our money.
The rule we are considering today provides for consideration of H.R.
4790, legislation to undermine the Volcker rule by exempting certain
banks from the requirements. The bill also puts rulemaking authority
solely in the hands of the Federal Reserve, making it easier for the
Trump administration to further weaken or eventually repeal this vital
consumer protection.
Now, that is, of course, the goal of my Republican colleagues in the
first place. They have continually advanced legislation to roll back
and weaken the rules put into place to prevent another financial
crisis. It is deeply frustrating, and more importantly, it is very
dangerous to the financial security of the American economy and
American families.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this rule also provides for additional debate time
on the Republican majority's misguided balanced budget amendment, H.J.
Res. 2.
Normally, when legislation of this magnitude is debated, the
leadership of this House brings it through the Rules Committee to set
the terms of debate and to allow for alternative proposals to be
offered and debated. This will be the seventh time a balanced budget
amendment has been voted on in the House.
In the past, it has generally been considered under a structured rule
granting many hours of general debate, making in order substitute
amendments, and providing the minority with a motion to recommit. But
as they did in 2011, Republicans will once again bring this legislation
to the floor under suspension of the rules, providing no opportunity--
none--for Members of the majority or the minority to offer any
substitute amendments.
Now, why does this matter, Mr. Speaker? It matters because this
legislation, the so-called balanced budget amendment, could do
irreparable harm
[[Page H3107]]
to our economy. It would hinder Congress' ability to respond
appropriately to an economic crisis and could potentially even create
one. It could even require Congress to cut funding for safety net
programs that millions of our constituents rely on, programs like
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP--which is the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program--Supplemental Security Income, and
veterans' pensions.
We owe it to our constituents to have a full and open debate on this
legislation, to hear from experts and to thoughtfully consider
alternatives. But this Republican majority didn't even take the time to
hold a hearing or a markup on H.J. Res. 2. They are rushing it to the
floor under suspension of the rules with no opportunity for us to
consider any alternative proposals whatsoever.
We are talking about amending the Constitution of the United States.
Why in the world would we want to use such a flawed process on such an
important issue? Mr. Speaker, because maybe this isn't a serious effort
in the first place. My Republican friends know this awful legislation
will never become law.
So why are we wasting the House's time on this effort? I have a
simple answer: to appease the far-right wing of the Republican Party in
an election year and to give the impression that these guys, these
Republicans, are somehow fiscally responsible.
You don't have to take my word for it. Republican Representative
Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania confirmed in the press this week that this
is merely a messaging vote. If you think this is cynical, consider for
a moment the impetus of bringing this legislation to the floor.
Press reports indicate that Speaker Ryan agreed to a vote on the
balanced budget amendment in exchange for votes to advance the
Republican tax scam. Can you believe that? Speaker Ryan, the leader of
this House, is advancing legislation that could do irreparable harm to
our economy and our safety net just so he could jam through his
precious tax giveaway to corporations and wealthy donors last December.
Let me remind everyone just how terrible the tax scam Republicans
rammed through Congress really is:
It raises taxes on 68 million middle class families to give 83
percent of the tax cuts included in the bill to the wealthiest 1
percent of Americans.
It gives a $1.3 trillion tax rate break to the largest corporations
in this country and rewards these same corporations for shipping jobs
overseas.
Here is the other part: it explodes the deficit by $2 trillion,
jeopardizing the future of Medicare and Medicaid.
But this balanced budget amendment is supposed to trick people into
believing Republicans still care about fiscal responsibility. It really
is disheartening.
There is a pattern here, Mr. Speaker. At every turn, House
Republicans favor the well-off and well-connected while ignoring the
needs of those in the middle class and working class and certainly
turning their backs on those struggling in poverty.
I meet with constituents in my district every day. Quite frankly,
they don't ask what we are doing to repeal Dodd-Frank. They certainly
don't ask us to ransack Social Security and cut Medicare to give tax
breaks to big corporations.
They want better jobs and they want better wages. They want us to fix
our crumbling infrastructure in their communities and to invest in
education. They want us to protect our water and air from pollution.
They made it clear to us last month, when over 1 million young people
took to the streets across this country, that they want action on
legislation to protect our communities from the plague of gun violence.
But the Republican leadership is ignoring this call, and it is
ignoring any call for progress in favor of legislation to help the
wealthy and well-connected donor class.
I get it. They need all this money for reelection. But the price is
being paid by the American people. They are getting legislation that is
not in their best interest but is in the best interest of a few wealthy
donors.
It is reckless and it is wrong. Over 56 percent of the legislation
that we have considered in the Rules Committee this year--that is over
half--has been bills to roll back regulations on Wall Street and the
financial industry. I don't see millions of people protesting in the
street to give Wall Street a bigger break. I don't hear the voices
being raised all across this country to say: ``Let's make the rich even
richer. Let's do more to give corporations tax breaks.'' I don't hear
that, and yet that is what the focus of this Congress has been about.
By the way, the vast majority of these bills to help the well-
connected and the well-off haven't even gone through regular order.
This whole process has been a joke. The legislation we are set to
consider later this week is no exception.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule, to oppose
efforts to weaken the Volcker rule, and to oppose the balanced budget
amendment when it is considered later this week.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Republican majority is on full
display today. After passing a $1.5 trillion tax scam bill that showers
all the benefits on the wealthy and very rich corporations, we are now
going to consider an amendment to the Constitution to balance the
Federal budget on the backs of hardworking Americans by eviscerating
social safety net programs.
According to the AARP, this balanced budget amendment could subject
Social Security and Medicare to deep cuts without regard to the impact
on the health and financial security of our most vulnerable citizens.
Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment would put the pillars of our
social safety net at risk. If you don't believe me, again, maybe you
will listen to our friends at the AARP.
They said, this week, in a letter: ``A balanced budget amendment
would likely harm Social Security and Medicare, subjecting both
programs to potentially deep cuts without regard to the impact on the
health and financial security of individuals.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the AARP's letter.
AARP,
April 9, 2018.
Dear Member: AARP is writing to express our opposition to a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. AARP is the nation's largest nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older
to choose how they live as they age. With nearly 38 million
members and offices in every state, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, AARP works to
strengthen communities and advocate for what matters most to
families with a focus on health security, financial stability
and personal fulfillment.
A balanced budget amendment would likely harm Social
Security and Medicare, subjecting both programs to
potentially deep cuts without regard to the impact on the
health and financial security of individuals. It would also
likely diminish the resources available for programs
assisting Americans who are least able to provide for
themselves--services such as meals or heating for those who
are too poor or physically unable to take care of their basic
needs without some support.
A balanced budget amendment would prohibit outlays for a
fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal
year. It would impose a constitutional cap on all spending
that is equivalent to the revenues raised in any given year.
Because revenues fluctuate based on many factors, spending
would, out of necessity fluctuate as well under a balanced
budget amendment. Consequently, Social Security and Medicare
benefits would also fluctuate, potentially subjecting each to
sudden or deep cuts. Social Security and Medicare would
therefore cease to provide a predictable source of financial
and health security in retirement under a balanced budget
amendment.
The lack of a dependable Social Security and Medicare
benefit would be devastating for millions of Americans.
Social Security is currently the principal source of income
for half of older American households receiving benefits, and
roughly one in five households depend on Social Security
benefits for nearly all (90 percent or more) of their income.
Over 50 million Americans depend on Medicare, half of whom
have incomes of less than $24,150. Even small fluctuations in
premiums and cost sharing would have a significant impact on
the personal finances of older and disabled Americans.
Individuals who have contributed their entire working lives
to earn a predictable benefit during their retirement would
find that their retirement income and health care out of
pocket costs would vary significantly year-to-year, making
planning difficult and peace of mind impossible.
[[Page H3108]]
It is particularly inappropriate to subject Social Security
to a balanced budget amendment given that Social Security is
an off-budget program that is separately funded through its
own revenue stream, including significant trust fund reserves
to finance benefits. Imposing a cap on Social Security
outlays is unjustifiable, especially when the Social Security
trust funds ran a surplus for decades--reducing the past need
for additional government borrowing from the public--and
resulted in a public debt that is less today than what it
otherwise would have been.
Older Americans truly understand that budgets matter and
that we all need to live within our means. However, they also
understand that budgets affect real people; and they
certainly understand the difference between programs to which
they have contributed and earned over the course of a
lifetime of work, and those they have not. AARP opposes the
adoption of a balanced budget amendment that puts Social
Security and Medicare at risk. If you have any questions,
please have your staff contact Joyce A. Rogers, SVP,
Government Affairs office.
Sincerely,
Nancy LeaMond,
Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement
Officer.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this uncertainty could devastate the
nearly half of older American households whose principal incomes come
from Social Security or the over 50 million Americans who depend on
Medicare. Even small cuts to Social Security checks or increases to
Medicare premiums could impact the finances of older Americans and
disabled Americans.
Now, the same week that the Congressional Budget Office predicts this
Republican majority and their tax scam bill will lead to the return of
trillion-dollar deficits, we will consider a balanced budget amendment
that has been subject to no hearings and no markups. Even for this
record-breaking closed Republican Congress, to attempt to amend our
Constitution for only the 28th time in our Nation's history in this
manner, quite frankly, is stunning.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the
previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule which would amend the bill to exempt Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, vital pillars of our social safety
net.
I would just say to my Republican friends on the other side of the
aisle who go home to their constituents and regularly talk about how
great Social Security is, how great Medicare is, and how important
Medicaid is, if you really believe it, you are going to vote to defeat
the previous question so we can offer this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rothfus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today we are seeing that the GOP tax scam is one long
con. Last year, they gave away trillions of dollars to the very
wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations while bragging about
letting an extra $1.50 trickle down to hardworking public school
employees. It is clear what they really intended. It was a setup.
Who is going to take the fall? Seniors, the disabled, children, and
those who are sick.
The GOP tax scam exploded the deficit by nearly $2 trillion, and now
this balanced budget constitutional amendment is laying the groundwork
for an attack on Medicare, on Medicaid, and on Social Security.
Now we are considering a constitutional amendment, a change to our
Nation's founding document. For all of the pocket Constitution wagging
from the GOP, in light of their recent action, this amendment amounts
to little more than a political farce. If the GOP wanted a balanced
budget, they should propose one.
Instead, President Trump's budgets have threatened the poorest
Americans with the biggest cuts--slashing $500 billion from Medicare,
$1.4 trillion from Medicaid, and $72 billion from Social Security
disability--and it still doesn't balance.
This week, the Congressional Budget Office released the devastating
impact of the GOP tax scam. Fiscal year 2018 deficits will increase by
$139 billion to a total of $804 billion.
Republicans have put our national debt on track to eclipse the size
of our economy by 2028. Let me say that again. Our national debt,
because of these reckless policies, will put our debt on track to
eclipse the size of our economy.
{time} 1245
The idea that the GOP tax scam would pay for itself has been exposed
as a lie. Now we know what is at risk to help pay for these handouts to
billionaires and large corporations: our seniors, disabled Americans,
children, and those who are sick.
Over 55 million Americans rely on Medicare. More than 67 million
Americans depend on Social Security. These programs represent the
bedrock of the secure retirement that is too often challenged by high
prices at the doctor and pharmacy. Social Security is already off
budget. It never has added a penny to the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, this balanced budget amendment would threaten the
120,000 retirees, over 13,000 disabled workers, and more than 5,000
kids in my home district who are depending upon this Congress to keep
their promise to not cut their hard-earned benefits. Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid are more than just the most successful and
popular government programs to ever exist; they are solemn promises
that we make to one another as Americans. This constitutional amendment
would break those promises, and it would put the hard-earned Social
Security and Medicare benefits of tens of millions of Americans at
risk.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so that we
can protect the promise that we made to vulnerable Americans by
exempting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from the balanced
budget amendment. Our constituents deserve nothing less than our
standing up for them, for the promise that we have made to them, and
for those who depend upon these vital programs. The way we can do that
is to vote no on the previous question and pass legislation that will
enable us to do exactly that.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is attempting to amend the
United States Constitution with a bill that has had no hearing, no
markup, and will be considered without any opportunity to offer
amendments or even a motion to recommit.
We have only amended the Constitution 27 times in our Nation's
history. Why isn't the Republican leadership treating this with the
seriousness that it deserves? Maybe because even conservative members
of their own party know that this vote is a charade.
In a Politico article titled ``Conservatives irate over GOP spending
hypocrisy,'' Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows said: ``There is no
one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on Main Street, that will
take this vote seriously.''
I couldn't agree more. Republicans just added almost $2 trillion to
the deficit with their tax cut for billionaires. As the president of
the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in the same
article: ``This reads as, `Give us something to hide behind,' rather
than a serious process proposal.''
But we are here because Republican leadership is trying to check a
box, as the Club for Growth put it, in hopes that people will forget
their tax scam giveaway. And no wonder why Congress' approval rating is
at just 15 percent. This is a dangerous gimmick that my Republican
colleagues are pushing. If this is successful, it will lead to major
cuts to Social Security, to Medicare, and to Medicaid. We need to take
that seriously, and we need to stop it.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this Politico article titled
``Conservatives irate over GOP's spending hypocrisy.''
[[Page H3109]]
[From POLITICO, Apr. 10, 2018]
Conservatives Irate Over GOP's Spending Hypocrisy
(By Rachael Bade and Sarah Ferris)
House Republican leaders, stung by President Donald Trump's
rebuke of Congress' recent trillion-dollar spending spree,
are moving to give their rank and file cover by passing a
balanced budget amendment this week.
But many conservatives, including a good number of House
Republicans, say the vote is insincere at best--and blatantly
hypocritical at worst.
``There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on
Main Street, that will take this vote seriously,'' said
Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), on the heels
of a $1.3 trillion spending package that Republicans approved
just last month.
``Leadership is just trying to check a box here,'' added
Andrew Roth, vice president for government affairs at the
Club for Growth. ``I don't see how voters can distinguish
between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to
spending.''
One conservative commentator, Barbara Boland, equated the
upcoming exercise to ``gorging on a sumptuous feast while
insisting that you want a svelte physique.'' And other
members of the House Freedom Caucus, all of whom voted
against a $1.3 trillion spending package in late March, are
calling it little more than a charade.
``The time to get spending under control was four weeks
ago,'' said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), again referring to the
late-March spending vote. ``Coming back four weeks later and
saying, `Oh, now we're going to pound our chest like Tarzan
and say we're for a balanced budget amendment,' it's not
going to fool anybody.''
Jordan and Meadows support the balanced budget amendment as
a marker for fiscal austerity--it's the timing of the vote,
on the heels of the spending bonanza, that rankles them and
other conservatives.
The proposal requires supermajorities in both chambers to
pass, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the
states, an impossible hurdle. But with Republicans swimming
in red ink--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
projected regular trillion-dollar annual deficits starting in
2020, despite a growing economy--the party feels pressure to
do something.
The CBO's deficit forecast hasn't been that bleak since the
Great Recession. And this time, Republicans can't blame
Barack Obama and the Democrats.
Rather, it's a result of a combination of GOP-approved
bills: tax cuts that CBO now expects to add $1.9 trillion to
the deficit over 10 years; a newly passed bipartisan deal to
raise strict spending caps by $320 billion for two years; and
a recent $100 billion infusion of cash into emergency
disaster coffers--almost entirely unpaid for.
The balanced budget amendment has been a staple of the GOP
playbook going back at least to Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract
with America. It often resurfaces after major spending
battles that leave conservatives feeling jilted. The last
vote, for instance, followed the 2011 debt ceiling crisis,
when Republicans were anxious about the national debt, which
now tops $20 trillion.
Republicans are returning to it two weeks after Trump
chided Congress for wasting money in the omnibus spending
deal--a scolding that came as the president backed away from
a threatened veto and signed it.
``I will never sign another bill like this again,'' Trump
vowed, adding that ``there are a lot of things I'm unhappy
about'' with it.
His remarks, GOP lawmakers and aides say, effectively threw
every Republican who backed the bipartisan deal under the bus
at a time when the party already faces an uphill battle
retaining its majority this fall.
Hill Republicans were shocked because White House staff
members were in the room negotiating the budget deal with the
top four leaders in both chambers. They had reassured some
skittish Republicans that it was OK to take the vote because
Trump would have their backs.
When they returned home afterward for the spring recess,
some Republicans caught flak from constituents, which in turn
sent GOP leaders into damage-control mode.
``This reads as, `Give us something to hide behind,' rather
than a serious process proposal,'' said Maya MacGuineas,
president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget,
who said she'd believe the sincerity of the effort when
Republicans propose a budget with actual spending cuts.
Not all fiscal hawks are scorning the effort. Republican
Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.), who asked for
a vote on a balanced budget amendment in October, applauded
the looming vote--even as he acknowledged the uncomfortable
timing for the GOP. Walker argued that it's consistent for
Republicans to back the amendment after voting for the
omnibus, because of the need to fund the military. Walker
added, though, that most members pushing hard for deficit-
reduction votes right now personally opposed the spending
bill, as he did.
``We don't see this as a show vote. We need this. It's
something that we've been talking about for years,'' Walker
said Tuesday.
The balanced budget amendment is one of several measures
GOP leaders might bring to the floor in the coming weeks to
signal their commitment to lower spending. The effort is
being led by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.),
who is working with the White House to try to force a vote on
a ``rescissions'' package that would cut billions of dollars
from the just-approved omnibus legislation.
It's still unclear whether the House will take up the
measure, which GOP aides say could cut as much as $20
billion. House appropriators hate the idea, and some more
pragmatic-minded Republicans argue it would cripple
bipartisan spending negotiations in the future.
Republicans clinched the amount they got for defense only
because they gave Democrats some money for their own pet
projects. A move to recoup money retroactively would
infuriate Democrats--even though GOP leaders fully expect it
would fail in the Senate.
GOP leaders similarly expect the balanced budget amendment
to fail this week in the House. It requires 290 votes for
passage; the last time lawmakers voted on one, in 2011, it
failed 261-165, with 25 Democrats backing the bill.
Speaker Paul Ryan was one of only four Republicans to
oppose the measure at the time. It is unclear whether he will
do so again this year. He said the proposal before the House
then could have led to higher taxes to pay for more spending.
A balanced budget amendment would tightly restrict federal
spending and require two-thirds of lawmakers to approve any
tax changes. Critics argue it would trigger hundreds of
billions of dollars in across-the-board cuts.
Ironically, a balanced budget amendment would have
potentially prevented the GOP Congress' biggest legislative
achievement this year: tax reform. With the amendment,
Republicans could not have enacted tax cuts that weren't paid
for; these ones were not. The GOP also probably couldn't have
gotten the huge budget increase for the Pentagon that was
included in the omnibus.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
suggested Tuesday that he might follow suit on a balanced
budget amendment vote. He said a vote is ``likely . . . at
some point.''
Democrats are blasting Republicans for what House Minority
Whip Steny Hoyer called a ``political stunt.'' The Maryland
Democrat on Tuesday said Republicans are ``worried'' about
the midterm elections and ``they're flailing about.''
``It sounds to me very much,'' he said, ``like they're . .
. saying one thing and doing another, speaking out of both
sides of their mouth.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, again another Freedom
Caucus member, said on the balanced budget amendment: ``The time to get
spending under control was 4 weeks ago. Coming back 4 weeks later and
saying, `Oh, now we're going to pound our chest like Tarzan and say
we're for a balanced budget amendment,' it's not going to fool
anybody.''
I would argue that the time to get spending under control was when
Republicans exploded the deficit with their tax cut for billionaires. I
agree with Mr. Jordan on this: A sham vote like that isn't going to
fool anybody.
Mr. Speaker, while I think everybody knows that what is going to
happen on this balanced budget amendment is really show business, I
think it is important to stress that it really underlines the values of
my friends on the Republican side and what they think is important and
what they believe is important to protect. As I said, if this or
anything like what they are proposing ever became the law of the land,
programs like Social Security, like Medicare, and like Medicaid would
be at risk. There are no provisions in their draft to protect these
programs that so many millions of Americans rely on.
And again, this is not surprising because we have seen over the years
their attempts to privatize Social Security, their attempts to
privatize Medicare, their attempts to undermine Medicaid, their
constant attacks on programs like SNAP. This is nothing new.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by saying to my Republican friends
that there are some things worth defending, and programs like Social
Security and programs like Medicare are worth defending. They are worth
fighting for. And I want to make it clear that, on the Democratic side,
any Republican attempts to undermine, to weaken, to undercut Social
Security or Medicare, we will fight you. We will fight you with every
ounce of energy and strength that we have because these programs are
important. They are important to our values, but more importantly, they
are important to our constituents.
With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before us we have a rule that makes in order an important change to
the banking laws. We have seen what happens when arduous regulations
are removed from the backs of Americans.
[[Page H3110]]
Our economy is booming, growth is strong, even stronger than many
expected it would be at this point.
The Volcker rule, passed under Dodd-Frank, is a solution in search of
a problem. Our community banks should not have to bear the weight of
this overarching regulation. Our small town and rural lenders are
active members of our communities. They participate in improving our
lives in many ways, even beyond lending. They sponsor little league
teams. They are boosters for the local high school. They counsel small
businessmen and women. They contribute to our churches and charitable
organizations. They offer help to needy neighbors.
We should actively seek policies that free them to do their jobs.
That is what the underlying bill does. It exempts them from a
regulation that has frozen in place their ability to invest in local
startups and farming operations. We should exempt them from this
burdensome regulation.
I hope this House will follow in the steps of the Financial Services
Committee and approve this bill in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion.
I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 811 Offered by Mr. McGovern
In section 2(a), insert ``as amended by the amendment
specified in section 3 of this resolution'' after ``United
States''.
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
``Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2(a) of this
resolution is as follows:
`After section 7, insert the following section (and
redesignate the subsequent section accordingly):
SECTION 8. EXEMPTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, AND
MEDICAID FROM FEDERAL BALANCED BUDGET
REQUIREMENT
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following
programs and any outlays resulting therefrom shall be exempt
from any Federal balanced budget requirement:
(1) All Social Security benefits payable under title II of
the Social Security Act.
(2) Payments under the Medicare program under title XVIII
of the Social Security Act.
(3) Payments to States under the Medicaid program under
title XIX of such Act.' ''.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________