[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.

                          ____________________