Providing for consideration of 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, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

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. 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

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. 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) to discuss our proposal.

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.''

[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.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of over 270 organizations opposed to the balanced budget amendment.

National Organization Opposing the Balanced Budget Amendment

9to5, National Association of Working Women; AASA, The

School Superintendents Association; Academy of Nutrition and

Dietetics; ADAP Advocacy Association (aaa+);

Advance CTE; Advocates for Youth; African American Health

Alliance; AIDS Alliance for Women, Infants, Children, Youth &

Families; AIDS Community Research Initiative of America; AIDS

United; Alaska Wilderness League; Alliance for a Just Society

D535; Alliance for Excellent Education; Alliance for Justice;

Alliance for Retired Americans; Alliance for Strong Families

and Communities; American Association for Dental Research;

American Association for Justice; American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education; American Association of

University Women (AAUW).

American Council on Education; American Counseling

Association; American Dance Therapy Association; American

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; American

Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO); American Federation of School

Administrators (AFSA); American Federation of State, County

and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of

Teachers, AFL-CIO; American Indian Higher Education

Consortium; American Jewish Committee (AJC); American Music

Therapy Association; American Network of Community Options

and Resources (ANCOR); American Postal Workers Union, AFL-

CIO; American Public Health Association; American School

Counselor Association; American Speech-Language-Hearing

Association; Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); Asian &

Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF); Asian

Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC; Asian Pacific American

Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA); Association for Career and

Technical Education.

Association for Psychological Science; Association of

Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP); Association of

Educational Service Agencies; Association of Farmworker

Opportunity Programs; Association of Flight Attendants--CWA;

Association of School Business Officials International

(ASBO); Association of University Centers on Disabilities

(AUCD); Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America; Autism

National Committee; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bazelon

Center for Mental Health Law; Bienestar Human Services; B'nai

B'rith International; Bread for the World; Campaign for

America's Future; Campaign for Youth Justice; Catholics in

Alliance for the Common Good; Center for Community Change

Action; Center for Family Policy and Practice Center for Law

and Social Policy (CLASP).

Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.; Center for Public

Representation; Center for Science in the Public Interest;

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Child Care Aware of

America; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Action

Alliance; Children's Defense Fund; Children's Dental Health

Project; Children's Health Watch; Children's Leadership

Council; Citizens for Tax Justice; Clinical Social Work

Association; Coalition for Health Funding; Coalition on Human

Needs; Commission on Adult Basic Education (COABE); Committee

for Education Funding; Common Cause; Communications Workers

of America (CWA).

Community Access National Network (CANN); Community Action

Partnership; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America

(CADCA); Concerned Black Men National; Conservation Legacy;

Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED); Corporation

for Supportive Housing; CoSN--the Consortium for School

Networking; Council for Exceptional Children; Council for

Opportunity in Education; Council of Administrators of

Special Education, Inc.; Council of the Great City

Schools; CREDOCriminalization of Poverty Project at the

Institute for Policy Studies; Defenders of Wildlife;

Democracy 21; Demos; Department for Professional

Employees, AFL-CIO; Disability Rights Education and

Defense Fund; Disciples Justice Action Network; Easter

Seals.

Ecumenical Poverty Initiative; Every Child Matters;

FamiliesUSA; Farmworker Justice; Feeding America; First Focus

Campaign for Children; Food & Water Watch; Food Research &

Action Center (FRAC); Foster Family-based Treatment

Association; Franciscan Action Network; Franciscans for

Justice; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Friends

of the Earth; Futures Without Violence; Gamaliel; Gay Men's

Health Crisis (GMHC); Generations United; Global Justice

Institute; Health Care for America Now (HCAN); Health GAP

(Global Access Project).

Higher Education Consortium for Special Education; Housing

Works; Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy; Interfaith

Worker Justice; International Association of Fire Fighters;

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers;

International Brotherhood of Teamsters; International

Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE),

AFL-CIO; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace

and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW;

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE);

Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jobs With Justice; Justice

in Aging; LeadingAge; League of Conservation Voters; League

of United Latin American Citizens; League of Women Voters of

the United States; Learning Disabilities Association of

America; Main Street Alliance.

Medical Mission Sisters, North America; Medicare Rights

Center; Mental Health America; Metropolitan Community

Churches; Mom2Mom Global; MomsRising; NAACP; NASTAD (National

Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors); National

Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; National Active and Retired

Federal Employees Association (NARFE); National Advocacy

Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Alliance

for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE); National Alliance of HUD

Tenants; National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; National

Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; National Association

for Children's Behavioral Health; National Association for

College Admission Counseling; National Association for

Hispanic Elderly; National Association for Music Education;

National Association for the Education of Young Children.

National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a);

National Association of Councils on Developmental

Disabilities; National Association of County and City Health

Officials; National Association of County Behavioral Health

and Developmental Disability Directors; National Association

of Elementary School Principals; National Association of

Federally Impacted Schools; National Association of Letter

Carriers; National Association of Private Special Education

Centers; National Association of School Psychologists;

National Association of Secondary School Principals; National

Association of Social Workers (NASW); National Association of

State Directors of Special Education; National Association of

State Head Injury Administrators; National Birth Defects

Prevention Network; National Black Justice Coalition;

National Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Center

on Domestic and Sexual Violence; National Coalition Against

Domestic Violence.

National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community

Development (National CAPACD); National Committee to Preserve

Social Security and Medicare; National Community Development

Association; National Congress of American Indians; National

Council for Behavioral Health; National Council for Community

and Education Partnerships; National Council of Asian Pacific

Americans; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council

of La Raza (NCLR); National Council on Independent Living;

National Disability Institute; National Disability Rights

Network; National Domestic Violence Hotline; National Down

Syndrome Congress; National Education Association (NEA);

National Employment Law Project; National Fair Housing

Alliance; National Federation of Federal Employees; National

Health Care for the Homeless Council; National Hispanic

Medical Association.

National Housing Law Project; National Housing Trust;

National Immigration Law Center; National Latina Institute

for Reproductive Health; National LGBTQ Task Force Action

Fund; National Low Income Housing Coalition; National

Multiple Sclerosis Society; National Network to End Domestic

Violence; National Organization for Women; National

Partnership for Women & Families; National People's Action;

National Priorities Project; National PTA; National

Recreation and Park Association; National Respite Coalition;

National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition; National Rural

Education Association; National School Boards Association;

National Skills Coalition; National Superintendents

Roundtable.

National Treasury Employees Union; NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE;

National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable; National WIC

Association; National Women's Health Network; National

Women's Law Center; National Working Positive Coalition;

Natural Resources Defense Council; NDD United; Network for

Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of

Christ; NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby;

Not Dead Yet; OWL-The Voice of Women 40+; PAI; Paralyzed

Veterans of America; Partnership for America's Children;

People for the American Way; PICO National Network; Planned

Parenthood Federation of America; Prevention Institute.

Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS);

Progressive Congress; Project Inform; ProLiteracy; Protect

All Children's Environment; Public Advocacy for Kids; Public

Citizen; Public Health Institute; Racial and Ethnic Health

Disparities Coalition; RESULTS; Sargent Shriver National

Center on Poverty Law; School Social Work Association of

America; School-Based Health Alliance; Senior Executives

Association (SEA); Service Employees International Union

(SEIU); Share Our Strength; Sinsinawa Dominican Peace and

Justice Office; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational

Leadership; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Western Province

Leadership; Sisters of Mercy South Central Community.

Social Security Works; Southeast Asia Resource Action

Center (SEARAC); Special Needs Alliance; State Innovation

Exchange (SiX); Stewards of Affordable Housing for the

Future; Susan G. Komen; TESOL International Association; The

AIDS Institute; The Arc; The Leadership Conference on Civil

and Human Rights; The National Coalition for Literacy; The

National Crittenton Foundation; The Sisters of Mercy of the

Americas, Institute Justice Team; The United Methodist

Church--General Board of Church and Society; Transportation

Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Treatment Action Group (TAG);

Tremor Action Network; Trust for America's Health (TFAH);

UNCF; Union for Reform Judaism.

United Auto Workers (UAW); United Cerebral Palsy; United

Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries; United

Spinal Association; United States Student Association (USSA);

United Steelworkers (USW); USAction; Voices for Progress;

Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER);

Young Invincibles; YouthBuild USA; ZERO TO THREE.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters: one from AFSCME and one from AARP.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, April 10, 2018.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members

of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to urge you to vote no on

H.J. Res. 2 and to reject this and any other effort to amend

the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget.

The proposed constitutional amendment is a draconian and

unwise proposal that would damage the economy, result in huge

job losses and weaken vital public services that all

Americans depend upon. It unwisely requires outlays to match

receipts each year regardless of economic conditions, a

supermajority vote of three-fifths to increase the debt

ceiling with limited exceptions for outlays to exceed

receipts only in times of war, but not during recessions or

disasters.

H.J. Res. 2 is a false attempt to claim fiscal

responsibility on the heels of a reckless tax cut that is

projected to cause the deficit to skyrocket to $1.9 trillion

over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget

Office (CBO), and to exceed $2.5 trillion if its tax policies

are extended. The tax cut for the wealthy and big

corporations irresponsibly forced revenues to their lowest

levels since 1956, an unsustainable level far below what is

needed to support programs that provide basic needs for

struggling families, to promote economic growth and meet

other critical needs like investing in infrastructure and

education.

H.J. Res. 2 would irresponsibly require a supermajority

vote to lift the debt ceiling, an already difficult vote that

subjects the U.S. and worldwide economies to instability and

potential economic destruction. Further, requiring a balanced

budget annually would take away the ability to respond to

changing economic conditions and raise serious risks of

tipping weak economies into recession and making recessions

longer and deeper. Most egregious, H.J. Res. 2 is a thinly

veiled attempt to force drastic changes to Social Security,

Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' benefits that Americans earn

and depend on.

H.J. Res. 2 is a dangerous and fiscally irresponsible

political maneuver. AFSCME urges you to reject this

politically motivated and dangerous proposal.

Sincerely,

Scott Frey,

Director of Federal Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, let me read a couple of paragraphs from this letter from AFSCME.

``The proposed constitutional amendment is a draconian and unwise proposal that would damage the economy, result in huge job losses, and weaken vital public services that all Americans depend on. It unwisely requires outlays to match receipts each year regardless of economic conditions, a supermajority vote of three-fifths to increase the debt ceiling, with limited exceptions for outlays to exceed receipts only in times of war, but not during recessions or disasters.''

This is a false attempt to claim fiscal responsibility on the heels of a reckless tax cut projected to cause the deficit to skyrocket to $1.9 trillion over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, let me read from the AARP letter. This is, as we know, AARP, the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering Americans over 50 on how they choose to live as they age. And

here is what they had to say: ``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.''

Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on to say:

``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 . . . 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.''

Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that we are in strong opposition to the so-called balanced budget amendment today. There is a word that has been thrown around in this discussion. Because I care about words, I wanted to make sure that I was using the right word for what is happening. So I looked in the dictionary, and I looked up the word ``hypocrisy.'' Here is the definition of hypocrisy: hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. The dictionary definition goes on to say: a pretense.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what is happening, a pretense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the word ``hypocrisy.'' I mentioned the word ``pretense.'' If this was such an important issue, why did it not get proposed before the GOP tax scam? Because if the majority is really worried about the deficit, then they would not have passed a tax scam that cost this country $1.9 trillion simply to give tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our country.

This morning in the Budget Committee where I serve as vice ranking member, the Congressional Budget Office Director, Keith Hall, reaffirmed what we always knew, that these tax cuts do not pay for themselves. He also told us that there is no such thing as sustained growth of the rates that our Republican colleagues have thrown out there and said are going to happen.

So if the majority were worried about a balanced budget, they should have voted ``no'' on the GOP tax scam. But that is not what my Republican colleagues did. If they were worried about a balanced budget, then Republican colleagues should not have insisted on a $670 billion military spending budget. But we didn't hear a peep about this then. You can't just oppose spending, Mr. Speaker, when you don't like the things that we are spending on.

By the way, I have some breaking news: Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Republicans have control. But as we are seeing, that does not mean that Republicans know how to govern.

This amendment is a new low to showcase a contempt of the American people's memory and intelligence. But I believe that the American people are watching. They didn't buy the tax scam where they are now seeing that only 5 percent of those tax cuts are actually going to workers, and they are not going to believe in this maneuver either, Mr. Speaker.

Why? Because, as I said during the tax scam debate on the floor last year, the American people are going to rise up against any concerted and naked effort to cut earned benefit programs like Medicare and Social Security. I want to emphasize the words ``earned benefit'' because people call them entitlement programs, but Social Security is a program that people have contributed to with a promise that they would be taken care of when they retire.

But let's talk about the real purpose of this balanced budget amendment. It is similar to what I said on the floor last year in the middle of this debate, a three-step dance. Step one, pass a GOP tax scam to transfer $1.3 trillion in debt from working Americans to the wealthiest 1 percent and largest corporations.

Step two, explode the deficit--exactly what we heard from the CBO Director today--$2 trillion to the budget deficit over the next 10 years.

Step three, use those exploding deficits to justify deep cuts to the very programs that matter the most to Americans, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

We have already seen this strategy in the President's fiscal year 2019 budget which slashes $500 billion from Medicare, $1.4 trillion from Medicaid, and $72 billion from Social Security disability.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the American people and Democrats in Congress who have noticed the hypocrisy of what is being proposed today. Even some Republicans in Congress have talked about it. Our colleague, Congressman Mark Meadows, said--and these are his words that I am quoting--``There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on Main Street, that will take this vote seriously.''

He is right. This isn't going to fool anyone, least of all the American people.

Americans deserve so much better. My friend from Georgia talked earlier about how we both sit on the Budget Committee, and we have actually had conversations about how we wish we could actually talk about real solutions. That doesn't happen as often as it should, and certainly if you want to have a conversation about the deficit and the debt, we should have that. But to propose a balanced budget amendment after you have already voted for a tax cut that increased the deficit by $2 trillion over the next 10 years, that, I think, is something that people will see through. Americans will see through that just as they saw through whom the benefits of the tax cut are actually going to.

So, Mr. Speaker, today I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and let's get back to the real work of serving the American people with real discussions and real questions that come up at the time when they are relevant.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it is important for those of us who have served here that we are down this frivolous route again: this unconstitutional effort to remedy the disaster that has been perpetrated by the Republican tax scam.

Let me tell you what the CBO Director said, who is known to be the bipartisan, nonpartisan arbiter of the work that the Congress does.

First of all, they say the tax cut will create deficits of historic proportions. Not Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security. An $800 billion deficit in 2018, $1 trillion in 2019, and $1 trillion in 2020. That is what the Republicans have created.

Now, in this false and ridiculous, possibly unconstitutional effort, here we go again with a balanced budget amendment that will, in fact, deny and implode the needs of those who need Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.

This balanced budget amendment is antidemocratic in that it requires a supermajority in Congress to increase the debt limit, deficit spending, or raise revenue. All would have been unnecessary if we had not passed the tax scam. Remember, we gave the corporate tax relief a 21 percent number, instead of 25 percent, coming from 33 percent, when they didn't ask for it.

It is antidemocratic because it enshrines one particular economic theory into the Constitution: depriving future voters and future Congresses of the ability to adopt other economic approaches. That is our responsibility as leaders giving oversight to the needs of the American people, to the needs of the Pentagon, and to the needs of domestic spending.

By the way, this deficit will be more than domestic spending and defense spending. It raises separation of powers concerns because it would open the door to allowing Federal courts to make budget policy decisions. It is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability of Congress to respond to economic downturns and other emergencies.

Were anyone here in 2007 and 2008, particularly when the Secretary of the Treasury under the Bush administration came and told this Democratic Congress, of which I was a Member of, that America, as we knew it, was getting ready to end, that we saw the demise of Lehman Brothers and the collapse of the market, it wasn't Democrats who did that, it was Republicans. It is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability again for us to deal with those kinds of downturns.

It jeopardizes funding of Social Security and the military and civil service retirement system, and it undermines the Nation's financial system, including deposit insurance. It is unnecessary because Congress was able to achieve a balanced budget in the 1990s, of which I was here through the existing political process, and created the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Therefore, this balanced budget amendment is an amendment that creates havoc. What we should do is to undo the tax scam, repeal it, start again, and not implode Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. To the seniors who are living there: don't buy into a balanced budget amendment which is unconstitutional, buy into repealing the tax scam and standing for the American people.

I conclude by saying many national groups oppose this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the so- called Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which properly should be called the ``Cut, Cap, and End Medicare and Destroy Social Security Act'' because this is exactly what will happen if this amendment is passed by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the several states.

A balanced budget amendment is a perennial gimmick periodically dusted off by House Republicans to divert attention from their manifest inability to govern competently or to manage the nation's finances.

H.J. Res. 2 is no exception coming as it does on the heels of the report by the Congressional Budget Office documenting that the Trump/ GOP budget deficit continues to climb and is projected to exceed $800 billion this year and to top $1 trillion next year and to remain at that level for foreseeable future.

Moreover, the CBO report confirms that the GOP TaxScam passed last year by this Republican Congress on a party-line vote will not pay for itself and is in fact the major cause of the rising the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than by tampering with the U.S. Constitution.

The easier and better way is for the American people to put a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected surpluses exceeded $5 trillion.

Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, and 15 million jobs were created.

In contrast, under every Republican administration since President Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was substantially larger than the one he inherited, a major economic recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than the.

Turning to the joint resolution before us, I strongly oppose this latest gimmick for the following reasons:

1. it is anti-democratic in that it requires a supermajority in Congress to increase the debt limit, deficit spending, or raise revenue;

2. it is anti-democratic because it enshrines one particular economic theory into the Constitution, depriving future voters and future Congresses of the ability to adopt other economic approaches;

3. it raises separation of powers concerns because it would open the door to allowing federal courts to make budget policy decisions;

4. it is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability of Congress to respond to economic downturns and other emergencies;

5. it jeopardizes funding for Social Security and military and civil service retirement systems;

6. it undermines the nation's financial system, including deposit insurance; and

7. it is unnecessary because Congress was able to achieve balanced budgets in the 1990's through the existing political process.

It is for these reasons that numerous outside groups committed to the economic well-being of the United States as well as organizations concerned with the needs of the elderly, the middle class, children, and other basic needs of national importance strongly opposed a measure in the 112th Congress virtually identical to Chairman Goodlatte's current H.J. Res. 2, and that measure failed to garner a supermajority as required by the Constitution.

These groups included a coalition of 123 religious, labor, education, civil rights, child advocacy, and other organizations; a coalition of six national environmental organizations representing over one million members and activists; OMB Watch (now the Center for Effective Government); the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); the National Education Association (NEA); the National Women's Law Center, Committee for Education Funding, and the Coalition on Human Needs.

Although there is a clear need to lower the long-term federal budget deficit, requiring a balanced budget through a constitutional amendment would be disastrous for the U.S. economy.

This Amendment is portrayed as the alternative to our country's deficit issue, but in reality, a Balanced Budget Amendment truly undermines the goal of a balanced budget by

threatening the survival of such critical programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that serve as fundamental safety nets for millions of Americans.

These important social programs face greater demand when federal receipts are in rapid declines.

Requiring a balanced budget would force cuts to these and other important programs or force tax increases.

Either prescription would risk tipping a faltering economy into recession or making recession worse.

Any constitutional balanced budget amendment would limit the ability of the federal government to make important investments in worthy causes, including crucial public safety and homeland security programs.

Even at times of fiscal austerity, we must continue to provide for the country's public safety and homeland security needs.

Any constitutional balanced budget amendment would grossly undermine the ability to protect the lives and well-being of Americans nationwide.

Further, this Amendment will gridlock Congress during an economic downturn.

There has never been such a blatant effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort from the American public.

While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families, while constraining the ability of the Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation challenges.

We need to change the tone here in the Congress.

There has been a theme in previous Congresses and in this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit those who need it most, while ignoring the need to focus on real and contemporary job creation and economic recovery.

And by real and contemporary job creation, I do not mean Trump's unsubstantiated and impossible promise of coal jobs.

The creation of coal jobs is one of the many myths and false hopes peddled by the current White House.

The promise that jobs in coal are just around the corner is fake news.

Our time could be better spent focusing on ways to increase American jobs, growing our economy, and investing in our people, paying our bills, and resolving our differences.

That is the way you make and keep America great.

A balanced budget is not something that should be mandated in our Constitution, nor is it something that should be required every year, proposing an idea that offers little guarantee of success.

In particular, during economic downturns, the government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and increasing spending.

And in fact, the cost of many government benefit programs is designed to automatically increase when the economy is down--for example, costs for food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid increase when more people need to rely upon them.

These countercyclical measures lessen the impact of job losses and economic hardship associated with economic downturns.

The resulting temporary increases in spending could cause deficits that would trigger the balanced budget requirements at the worst possible moment.

A constitutional amendment requiring the Congress to cut spending to match revenue every year would both limit the Congress's ability to respond to changing fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal responses to high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food and medical assistance.

As with the outlay cap that a Balanced Budget Amendment would bring, tying outlays to a percentage of GDP would impose arbitrary limits on government actions to respond to an economic slowdown or recession, when GDP declines.

Cutting spending during a recession could make a recession worse by increasing the number of unemployed, decreasing business investment, and withholding services needed to jump-start the economy.

The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment would render Social Security unconstitutional in its current form due to the Amendment's prohibitive stance on that system of spending.

Capping future spending below Reagan-era levels would force devastating cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, child care, Pell grants, and many other critical programs.

Because this proposal would make it impossible for the Congress to increase revenues rather than to cut spending, it is virtually a political ploy that reflects the Republican priorities of ending the Medicare guarantee while cutting taxes for millionaires.

The need to raise the debt ceiling has no correlation to whether future budgets are balanced; increases in the debt ceiling reflect past decisions on fiscal policy.

And as demonstrated by current disagreement about whether and when to raise the debt ceiling, Congress does not need to impose further barriers to its consideration.

Treasury has warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling and the resulting government default, which would be unprecedented, would have catastrophic impacts on the economy.

Interest rates would rise, increasing costs for the government and for American businesses and families.

Any cuts made to accommodate a mandated balanced budget would fall most heavily on domestic discretionary programs; the immediate result of a balanced budget amendment would be devastating cuts in education, homeland security, public safety, health care and research, transportation and other vital services.

Under H.J. Res. 2 total funding would be cut for non-defense discretionary programs, including veterans' medical care, most homeland security activities, border protection, and the FBI.

Therefore, these cuts will impact funds to protect our nation's food and water supply, environmental protections, medical research, education, and services for disadvantaged or abused children, frail elderly people, and people with severe disabilities.

The Founders purposely made the Constitutional amendment process a long and arduous one.

It is foolish, reckless, and decidedly not conservative to rush to pass an amendment altering our nation's founding document on such short notice and without reasonable time for debate.

Republicans who support this proposed amendment to the Constitution have demonstrated, at this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it.

Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances.

Most people with Medicare live on modest incomes.

While many many beneficiaries enjoy good health, 25 percent or more have serious health problems and live with multiple chronic conditions, including cognitive and functional impairments.

Today, 43 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 years old and 12 percent are 85 or older.

Those who are 85 or older are the fastest-growing age group among elderly Medicare beneficiaries.

With the aging and growth of the population, the number of Medicare beneficiaries more than doubled between 1966 and 2000 and is projected to grow from 45 million today to 79 million in 2030.

For these reasons, I am strongly opposed to despoiling the Constitution by even considering the Republicans' latest Balanced Budget Amendment gimmick.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 811 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 2, currently under consideration.

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

March 2, 1995, was a pivotal day in the history of our country. On that day, the United States Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the States for ratification. The amendment had passed the House by the required two- thirds majority, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the States.

If Congress had listened to the American people and sent that amendment to the States for ratification, we would not be facing the fiscal crisis we are today. Rather, balancing the Federal budget would have been the norm, instead of the exception, over the past 20 years, and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and skyrocketing debt we currently face.

In 1995, when the balanced budget amendment came within one vote of passing, the gross Federal debt stood at $4.9 trillion. Today, it stands at over $20 trillion. The Federal debt held by the public is rising as well and is increasing rapidly as a percentage of the country's economic output. Unlike the past, when the debt spiked to pay for wars of finite duration and then was reduced gradually after hostilities ended, more recently, the debt has risen as a result of having to pay for entitlement programs that are of indefinite duration and difficult to reduce over time.

As John Cogan of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University wrote: ``All of the increase in Federal spending relative to GDP over the past seven decades is attributable to entitlement spending. Since the late 1940s, entitlement claims on the Nation's output of goods and services have risen from less than 4 percent to 14 percent. Surprising as it may seem, the share of GDP that is spent on national defense and nondefense discretionary programs combined is no higher today than it was seven decades ago.''

As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has observed, such high and rising debt will have serious negative consequences. Interest rates will increase considerably, productivity and wages will be lower, and high debt increases the risk of a financial crisis.

What is particularly troubling is that the debts we are incurring under entitlement programs will burden multiple future generations. Indeed, a few years ago, a cross-national study found that the United States ranked worst among 29 advanced countries in the degree to which it imposes unfair debt burdens on future generations.

University of Virginia philosophy professor Loren Lomasky has written that theorists have devoted considerable attention to injustices committed across lines of race and gender. Far less attended are concerns of intergenerational fairness. That omission is serious. Measures that have done very well by the baby boomers are much less generous to their children and worse still for their grandchildren. The single greatest unsolved problem of justice in the developed world today is transgenerational plunder.

It is time for Congress to stop saddling future generations with the burden of crushing debts to pay for current spending. We should not pass on to our children and grandchildren the bleak fiscal future that our unsustainable spending is creating.

The only way to ensure that Congress acts with fiscal restraint over the longterm is to pass a balanced budget amendment. Experience has proved time and again that Congress cannot for any significant length of time rein in excessive spending. Annual deficits and the resulting debt continue to grow due to political pressures that the Constitution's structure no longer serves to restrain.

In order for Congress to be able to consistently make the tough decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility, Congress must have the external pressure of a balanced budget requirement to force it to do so. Constitutional principle will prevail where political promises have not.

The Framers of the Constitution were familiar with the need for constitutional restrictions on deficit spending. When the Constitution was ratified, it was the States that had exhibited out-of-control fiscal mismanagement by issuing bills of credit to effectively print money to pay for projects and service debt. As a result of that lack of fiscal discipline, Article I, section 10 of the Constitution specifically deprives States of the power to issue bills of credit. Over 200 years later, it is the Federal Government that has proved its inability to adopt sound fiscal policies, and it is now time to adopt a constitutional restraint on Federal fiscal mismanagement.

Several versions of the balanced budget amendment have been introduced this Congress, including two I introduced this Congress, as I have every Congress for the last decade. H.J. Res. 2, the version we are debating today, is nearly identical to the text that passed the House in 1995 and failed in the Senate by one vote. It requires that total annual outlays not exceed total annual receipts. It also requires a true majority of each Chamber to pass tax increases and a three- fifths majority to raise the debt limit.

Today is the day we can turn proposals into legislative action. Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution. We must rise above partisanship and join together to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and in freeing our children and grandchildren from the burden of a crippling debt they had no hand in creating so they can be free to chart their own futures for themselves and for their own posterity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to set the record straight.

We did indeed hold a hearing on the balanced budget amendment. I do agree with the gentleman from Michigan that the obvious was stated in that hearing, but a hearing was indeed held.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

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

In closing, let me quote President Ronald Reagan. In his address to the Nation on the fiscal year 1983 Federal budget, he said:

``Only a constitutional amendment will do the job.''

``With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.''

A few years, later he said this in his weekly radio address:

``One part of our Founding Fathers' genius was their provision for amending the Constitution. They knew they had created a good document but not a perfect one. In fact, even two centuries ago, some of them, especially Thomas Jefferson, were troubled by one omission: the lack of a limitation on public borrowing by the Federal Government.''

``Well, even in their reservations about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were perceptive and wise.

``I think most of you know how badly out of control Federal spending has gotten in recent years;''--I'm quoting President Reagan in 1980-- ``today the national debt is $2.25 trillion.''

``. . . I'm one of those Americans who has always believed that a constitutional amendment mandating that Congress balance the budget is the answer to what ails us.''

That was 30 years ago. Today the national debt is over $20 trillion, and President Reagan's words ring 10 times louder as a result.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and in freeing our children and grandchildren from the burden of a crippling debt they had no hand in creating so they and their own children and generations to come can be free to chart their own futures.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to the United States Constitution, and I yield back the balance of my time.