Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as virtually every American now understands, Washington is broken.

For years, Congress has spent irresponsibly and with what seems to be little or no thought for how it might affect future generations.

We are passing along a bill that our children and grandchildren may never be able to pay, and it is as immoral as it is unsustainable.

Meanwhile, our Nation's top military officials have repeatedly warned Congress that the number one threat to our national security is our debt.

We have no choice now but to correct this wrong and institute policies that promote fiscal responsibility.

Currently, our national debt exceeds $20 trillion, and the number increases every second. Mr. Speaker, when I do townhalls back home, I put the debt clock up on the screen very often and allow our constituents to watch that clock toll. It is frightening.

The last omnibus package, which is a whopping 2,232 pages in length, allocated another $1.3 trillion. That is about $582 million of Federal spending per page.

Our government is out of control, and we have to put an end to the dangerous and clearly excessive spending patterns that are coming out of Washington and out of this body.

As I have said on more than one occasion, people all across America sit down at their kitchen tables and create budgets for their families. Small businesses make countless sacrifices to manage their balance sheets. And our government should act no differently.

We cannot continue to spend money we don't have and drive ourselves further into the debt of hostile nations like China, who is the primary creditor in holding all of our debt.

Passing a balanced budget amendment is a commonsense solution that will put us back on the right track and restore fiscal sanity to the Congress.

The balanced budget amendment will ensure our government acts as a good steward of America's tax dollars, not only today, but for all the days in the future. It has the potential to make the bloated budgets of Washington a thing of the past.

Opponents of this amendment will say that passing this will force serious cuts to our budget. And to that we respond and say: Of course it will. We simply cannot get out of the hole that we have created without making tough decisions. But that is our job. That is why we are elected as the duly elected representatives of the people.

Right now, our country faces a point of no return with our debt, and there should be nothing controversial about telling our Federal Government to act within its means. This is simply about aligning and agreeing upon our top priorities.

Thomas Jefferson said that the representatives of a nation should never take on more debt than they themselves can pay in their own lifetime.

We abandoned that principle a long time ago, and, unfortunately, we have already far exceeded that amount in this body and in our lifetime, and it is now our moral obligation to right this wrong.

This is really about who we are as Americans, if you listen to the Founders. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and help restore and preserve the American Dream for our children and for all future generations.

We owe that to the country. Fiscal sanity, responsibility, and good stewardship is why we were sent here, and it is what we must do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), the distinguished chair of our Republican Study Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman openly acknowledge that not a single Democrat voted for the tax cut. I am sure the American people would love to hear that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Harris for this time this evening and all of our strong colleagues who are standing with us today for the Constitution and for the sanctity of human life.

You know, Psalm 127 says:

Children are a heritage from the Lord, a reward from him.

For most women, of course, finding out they are pregnant is certainly a beautiful moment in their life. Often, it is an answer to years of prayer. However, of course, there are times when the heavy responsibility of carrying a child can bring uncertainty. That is why the work of thousands of pro-life pregnancy centers throughout our Nation is so vital.

Hundreds of thousands of women have sought the guidance and the services of these pregnancy centers nationwide, and they have been embraced and supported with unconditional love and care throughout their entire pregnancies. These centers serve the woman, the child, and their whole family.

There are more than six pregnancy care centers in Louisiana's Fourth Congressional District--that is my district--from the Community Care Center, the Northwest Louisiana Crisis Pregnancy Center, and Mary's House in the northern part of our district to the Community Pregnancy Center, the New Life Crisis Pregnancy Center, and the Cenla Pregnancy Center in the southern part of our district. These centers work day in and day out to serve our communities. I know these folks well. They are selfless servants down in the trenches.

Over the past two decades, I have provided pro bono legal services to almost all of these centers and many more around the country, and I have often defended their causes in court because I believe so very strongly in what they do: they save lives and they provide critical care, like performing ultrasounds and counseling services and parenting classes and so much more, and they do this at zero cost to the persons who are receiving these vital services.

They also do it with zero Federal funding, by the way, and they save their clients and taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

As fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers and friends, I think Members of Congress have to stand with these pregnancy care centers throughout our districts, and we ought to support these women and their children and their families, especially in times as precious as pregnancy when they need us most.

As Dr. Harris mentioned, on March 20, my former colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom will stand before the U.S. Supreme Court, and they will argue on behalf of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and its affiliated pregnancy centers in California.

All of us ask and expect the High Court to protect the freedom of speech not just for pregnancy care centers, but for anyone who would be forced by the government to speak a message that contradicts their sincerely held beliefs. It is absolutely absurd for the State of California to try to force pro-life centers to provide information on abortion services.

The outcome of this case could not only affect the freedom of speech for every American, it could save countless innocent lives. This is a pivotal moment in our Nation's history, and we pray the Court will uphold our fundamental liberty, the sanctity of every single human life, and the best of our American traditions.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some outrageous arguments from our colleagues on the other side in the last hour or so. I have heard things like the argument that this is unnecessarily legislating medical standards. They said that this should be a matter of medical judgment. Really?

A commitment to the sanctity of every single human life is essential to who we are as Americans and, more fundamental than that, who we are as human beings.

They have also argued that this is a solution in search of a problem, but they ignore the data. According to the CDC, between 2003 and 2014, 588 of the infant deaths reported included a record that the cause of death was ``termination of pregnancy affecting a fetus and a newborn.'' The CDC acknowledges that this could be an underestimate.

I can tell you from my own experience, firsthand, over two decades litigating against the abortion industry in Louisiana that that industry always underreports their numbers of terminations and, certainly, their complications.

Just yesterday, I spoke with my friend Brandi in Baton Rouge. She is, herself, a survivor of a failed abortion attempt. She was left to die, and now she lives with severe disabilities because of that. She is a passionate advocate for life. Mr. Speaker, every single one of us should be.

The most important responsibility of a just government is to defend the defenseless. With the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, it is necessary to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and all of our colleagues here tonight for standing for the sanctity of every human life.

Mr. Speaker, I was born on January 30, 1972, 357 days before Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. Before I came to Congress, for almost 20 years, I defended religious freedom and the sanctity of human life in the courts and the court of public opinion.

We often summarized our conviction on this issue by stating, very simply, what I have said in this Chamber now many times, that this is part of the very foundation of our Republic. It was the British philosopher, G.K. Chesterton, who said one time:

``America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed.''

He said that creed is articulated with ``theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence.''

What is the creed?

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and that they were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Founders understood that this is essential to who we are as Americans, but, more fundamentally than that, who we are as human beings. They understood that because we are made in the imagine of a holy God, every single person has inestimable dignity and value. And our value is not related in any way to our race, our socioeconomic status, where we came from, where we went to school, how talented we are, or what we may be able to contribute to society. Our value is inherent because it is given to us by God.

It is for all of these reasons we fight for the sanctity of every human life, we cherish our children as a heritage from the Lord--as the scripture says--and we defend the defenseless. It is our solemn obligation before the Lord, and I pray that we are always faithful in doing so.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.

Our constitutional right to keep and bear arms should not be confined by State lines. Yet, currently, a person who has legally obtained a concealed carry permit in one State can be denied that right by simply crossing the State's border.

Consider my own home State of Louisiana. Our laws rightfully allow for licensed carrying of concealed firearms. I am a concealed carry permit holder myself. When a Louisianian leaves the State, however, our valid concealed carry handgun permit becomes void, absent an agreement from the State we may be in or traveling through.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act that we vote upon today ensures that law-abiding citizens with a concealed carry permit are not denied their Second Amendment right simply because they travel to other States. The Constitution should know no such bound. It does so while also recognizing States' rights by clearly noting that concealed carry holders must follow the law of each and every jurisdiction.

As a constitutional law attorney myself, it is critically important to me that the fundamental right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms is protected; and, yes, this legislation is about preserving our God-given freedoms. It is about public safety, and it is about common sense.

As noted, our letter by 23 States attorneys general, including my own home State of Louisiana, affirms that concealed carry laws deter crime. As my friend and colleague, Sheriff Rutherford, just said here so well, he reminded us that law enforcement wants the good guys to be armed.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act protects our Second Amendment right, and I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. I want to thank Congressman Hudson for introducing H.R. 38 and Chairman Goodlatte for advancing this legislation through the House Judiciary Committee. I am proud to be a part of this historic legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise and honor the Friendship Christian Methodist Episcopal Church (CME) of Lisbon, LA, for its historic impact upon our nation and to the State of Louisiana. Friendship CME Church helped to unify the Claiborne Parish community around faith and family during the most trying times of our history.

At the height of the civil rights movement from 1965 to 1974 and beyond, Friendship CME Church served as the heart of the African American community and opened its doors for the meetings of local civil rights leaders. Many of the major contributions to the Claiborne Parish civil rights movement were conceptualized within Friendship CME Church, and the church played a central role in the community as a safe haven for those working to protect the dignity of every human life.

Friendship CME Church was founded between 1900 and 1915. The current structure was rebuilt by the congregation in 1933, after the original church building was destroyed by a violent tornado that tore through Claiborne Parish in 1932. With only a few modifications, today's building largely resembles the original structure. This 1933 building still stands to this day as a testimony to the resilience and fortitude of the Friendship CME community. In recognition of the church's integral contributions in advancing the Claiborne Parish civil rights movement, the National Park Service listed the Friendship CME Church in the National Register of Historic Places in May 2016.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress and the people of Northwest Louisiana, I am honored to recognize the Friendship Christian Methodist Episcopal Church for the exceptionally important role it played during the civil rights movement in our region and in our nation. I, along with my wife, Kelly, pray the Lord continues to use this congregation as a beacon of hope for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material in the Record.

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot in this debate today. One thing is abundantly clear. Virtually every hardworking citizen in this country recognizes our genuine need for tax reform.

Let me summarize some of the facts that have been presented today.

The burdensome 70,000-page U.S. Tax Code has grown to be unreasonably complex, increasingly unfair, and filled with special interest loopholes. American companies are taxed at the highest rate in the industrialized world, and the government takes even more from our small-business owners and our entrepreneurs. As a result, our economic growth is stagnant, companies have gradually shifted their manufacturing and operations overseas, and families are struggling just to keep up.

Today, the hurdles in our system seem almost insurmountable for hardworking people as they are afforded fewer and fewer opportunities for economic mobility.

For previous generations, it was a different deal. We had the American Dream. The American Dream was defined by a simple promise: if you were willing to work hard and sacrifice and play by the rules, you could make a better life for yourself and your family. But today, our outdated Tax Code has pushed that dream beyond the grasp of more and more people.

The good news is we can fix this problem, and we are going to do that in this Chamber tomorrow. For the first time in over 30 years, Congress has a historic opportunity to pass landmark tax reform that will be a turboboost to this economy, and it is going to lead us to a fairer system, as we said so many times, with more jobs and bigger paychecks for everyone.

Our Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, H.R. 1, will deliver significant tax reductions for low- and middle-income earners, and it will help Americans in every level of our economy. The bill, which draws from 6 years of intensive work and expert analysis from more than 40 different congressional hearings, lowers individual income taxes by consolidating the existing seven brackets into four and doubling the standard deduction for everyone.

It also establishes a new family tax credit. It provides higher education benefits. It repeals the death tax. It preserves deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations and property taxes, and it incentivizes saving for retirement.

Tax returns will become incredibly simple for the first time in my lifetime because 9 out of 10 Americans will be able to complete their annual filing on a form the size of a postcard.

The bill's business tax reforms are equally seismic because we are going to slash our draconian corporate tax from 35 percent, the highest in the world, to 20 percent, and we are going to institute the lowest rates for small business job creators since World War II. U.S. companies will finally be allowed to compete again on a level playing field and bring their jobs and operations back home from overseas.

The independent Tax Foundation estimated that our plan will result in the creation of approximately 975,000 full-time American jobs and an increase in family incomes of 4.4 percent, on average. In Louisiana, for example, that would mean 13,293 new jobs and $1,857 of additional after-tax income for our average middle class families.

The American people have long deserved a simpler, fairer, and effective system that rewards hard work and allows taxpayers to keep and invest more of what they earn. Our plan will finally provide that relief and spark the dramatic economic growth our Nation has so desperately needed.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is about more than just smart legislation. It is about a revival of that American Dream I referenced. That has one agenda that should unite every single one of us, and we hope all of our colleagues will support this historic landmark piece of legislation tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a great American small-business owner himself.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, who is always eloquent.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a trend here tonight. Those who are addressing the House this evening have had their own experience with this burdensome Tax Code. They have been small- business owners, entrepreneurs, job creators, and farmers, like my friend from Kentucky. I appreciate their zeal for this issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Garrett), a former prosecutor, an Army veteran, and always a good voice to reason.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some compelling arguments here on the floor in the last few hours and some important facts have been shared.

I appreciate so much the eloquent words of my colleagues from Texas and Kentucky and Virginia and Pennsylvania and Florida and all over this great land of ours who have shared with us the importance of this landmark bill and this historic vote that we will take in this Chamber tomorrow.

I just thought there were a few more facts that were important to summarize here at the end of our debate this evening.

I wanted to quote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because they looked at this bill and they gave an exhaustive review of this, as so many have. This is their summary: ``The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a growth bill, achieving faster economic growth, encouraging job creation, and getting more money in Americans' pockets each year.''

I think that is a pretty good summary of what the bill will do and what it will accomplish.

We brought just a couple of graphics here to illustrate the national impact of this landmark reform. When we pass this bill and we get this to the President's desk, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will lead to the creation of an additional 975,000 new full-time jobs across this country.

It will raise after-tax income for middle class families by $2,598 each. That is an increase of 4.4 percent. That is real money to families who are struggling to make ends meet around this country.

It will generate economic growth sufficient to increase Federal tax receipts by $1 trillion. That is real money. That is a real boost to the American economy.

I brought another graphic here to show what this will mean in my district, by way of example, in Louisiana. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will mean a whole lot for my State.

It will lead to the creation of an additional 13,293 jobs in my State of Louisiana alone. Those are good-paying, full-time jobs. It will raise after-tax income for middle class families in Louisiana by $1,857. That is real money. That will mean a lot to the families in my State.

More specifically, let me talk about the Fourth Congressional District in northwest and west Louisiana, 15 parishes, about one-third of our State by land area; good, hardworking, God-fearing Americans. Let me tell you what it will mean to the people of Louisiana's Fourth Congressional District.

Here are just four highlights. It will be a larger child tax credit. In my district, there are 53,918 taxpayers who claim the child tax credit every year. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will increase the child tax credit from $1,000 per child to $1,600 per child for each of those families.

Let me give you another one: the tax relief for small businesses. This is a big thing in my district. 49,929 taxpayers in the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana have small business income, and that is a business that a taxpayer operates. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduces taxes for small-business owners.

First, the bill implements a new, lower 9 percent tax rate on the first $75,000 of net business income for active small-business owners earning less than $150,000 through their businesses. That is a whole lot of people, a whole lot of LLCs and small companies in my district.

Second, the bill lowers taxes on small business investment by creating a new 25 percent small business tax rate. That is capped at 25 percent. That is a big deal to people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Number three, a third feature, the elimination of the alternative minimum tax, the AMT. 4,049 taxpayers in the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana are impacted directly by the AMT. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminates that factor.

Another one is simpler taxes. Listen to this number: 67,543 taxpayers in the Fourth Congressional District, in my district back home in Louisiana, itemize their taxes.

As a result of the near doubling of the standard deduction and other simplifications, many taxpayers will have much simpler returns. It is estimated, as we have said so many times tonight, that nine out of ten Americans will be able to file their taxes on a form the size of a postcard. That is a big change and a great simplification for the people of my district. We owe this to them.

I wanted to share a few other facts that I think are important to highlight tonight, Mr. Speaker.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is more than just a win for our American economy. It is a win for our American values. Let me give you a couple examples of that.

First, it is a win for free speech. The bill incorporates the language of our Free Speech and Fairness Act, which we filed as a standalone piece of legislation earlier this year in February. That will stop the IRS from policing the speech of churches and charitable organizations. That is a huge relief for men and women of faith, in particular, who watched the IRS breathe down the necks of nonprofits and religious entities, threatening to take away their tax-exempt status if they dare talk

about the moral and social and political issues of the day. That is a big win for free speech and a big win for them.

This bill is also a big win for American families. Let me give you a few examples of important features of how this helps the family in this country. The adoption tax credit has been restored. This is section 1102 of the bill. Now, this is a critically important thing to advance the policy, to advance and encourage and incentivize adoption in this country. This is something that all of us should agree on.

Over 60 percent of adopted children are adopted by middle- and low- income taxpayers in this country. Almost half of the children adopted from foster care live in families with household incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Listen to this statistic: a study reported by the Federal Children's Bureau showed that the government saves between $65,000 and $127,000 for each child who is adopted rather than placed in long-term foster care.

Studies comparing children who remain in foster care to children who are adopted show that adopted children are 54 percent less likely to be delinquent or arrested, 19 percent less likely to become teen parents, and 76 percent more likely to be employed.

Can we all agree that the adoption tax credit being restored is an important part of this bill?

I think we can.

Here is another way it helps families, Mr. Speaker: the family tax credits. This is something that everybody back home should pay attention to. The child tax credit, section 1202 of the bill, this increases the child tax credit, as I mentioned a moment ago, from $1,000 per child to $1,600 per child. It provides a credit of $300 for each parent and nonchild dependent to help all families with their everyday expenses.

The child dependent care tax credit helps families care for their children and other dependents, such as a disabled grandparent who may need additional support.

Here is another feature: unborn children are recognized in the 529 education savings account provisions of the Tax Code. Our tax reform bill allows a 529 education savings account to be opened, for the first time, for an unborn child or a child in utero. We recognize the humanity and the sanctity of life of the unborn child.

Here is another feature: the marriage penalties are finally removed. For too long, we have effectively penalized married couples in this country simply for being married. Our Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changes that. In most cases, married couples will no longer be penalized just for their choice to be married.

Mr. Speaker, I will close with just a few more remarks. A lot has been said here tonight, more will be said in the morning preceding our vote, but this is a big day for Congress and a big day for the country.

It has been over 30 years since we last updated our tax system. For reference, I was in the eighth grade the last time tax reform was accomplished in this Chamber. Many of those entering the workforce weren't even born yet the last time Congress fulfilled this responsibility.

Today, Americans are struggling to make ends meet, to find decent- paying jobs, and to prepare for retirement.

We must do right by our children and our grandchildren and give them a better future than our own. Fortunately, my Republican colleagues and I have put forth a framework to do just that.

We have discussed for the last few hours in this Chamber as we have been talking that our plan will create more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks for working class Americans and small businesses.

When businessowners are able to keep more of their profits, they will invest that money in their companies and in their employees, and that will spur economic growth, because they will expand their facilities, they will create and expand new product lines, they will add more jobs, and that is good for all of us.

Passing meaningful tax reform isn't about sticker shock talking points that we have heard so much about. It is about real everyday Americans who want to grow their businesses, offer better wages to their employees, provide for their families, but who have struggled to do so because of our oppressive and outdated tax policy.

Our plan puts Americans first and it offers real relief to those who need it most.

The Federal Tax Code today is more than 70,000 pages long. For context, that is more than 60 times longer than the King James Bible, and it contains none of the Good News.

It is time to simplify this Code and it is time to unleash the free market in our American economy again. We have that chance. This will be the biggest Christmas gift to the American people in over 3 decades. It is truly historic and it is long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, we urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on this floor tomorrow. Let's make history together. Let's do right by the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my friend and colleague, Congressman Doug Lamborn, for organizing this Special Order series in recognition of the 76th anniversary of National Bible Week.

I am delighted to stand with these other Members today to share our perspectives on why the Bible is so important to us and to our country. As we approach the Thanksgiving holiday, there is really no better time to present these reflections.

I wanted to share the preface to a historic text that I have in my collection. What I am holding here is a copy of the New Testament Bible study course that was approved by and published for the public schools of Dallas, Texas, by its board of education in September of 1946. The preface was written by Henry Van Dyke, and it is a wonderful summary of what the Bible means to us and to the world.

Mr. Speaker, let me read to you what it says here in the text:

Born in the East and clothed in that form and imagery, the

Bible walks the ways of the world with familiar feet and

enters land after land to find its own everywhere. It has

learned to speak in hundreds of languages to the hearts of

men. It comes into the palace to tell the monarch that he is

a servant of the Most High and into the cottage to assure the

peasant that He is a son of God. Children listen to its

stories with wonder and delight, and wise men ponder them as

parables of life. It has a word of peace for the time of

peril, a word of comfort for the time of calamity, a word of

light for the hour of darkness. Its oracles are repeated in

the assembly of the people, and its counsels whispered in the

ear of the lonely. The wicked and the proud tremble at its

warnings, but to the wounded and the penitent, it has a

mother's voice. The wilderness and the solitary place have

been made glad by it, and the fire on the hearth has lit the

reading of its well-worn pages. It has woven itself into our

dearest dreams so that love, friendship, sympathy, devotion,

memory, and hope put on the beautiful garments of its

treasured speech, breathing of frankincense and myrrh. No man

is poor or desolate who has this treasure for his own. When

the landscape darkens and the trembling pilgrim comes to the

valley named of the shadow, he is not afraid to enter. He

takes the rod and the staff of Scripture in his hand. He says

to friend and comrade: Good-Bye; we shall meet again. And

comforted by that support, he goes toward the lonely pass as

one who walks through the darkness into light.

Mr. Speaker, I love those words. I also love the words that are inscribed above the Speaker, where it says in the marble: In God We Trust.

There is a reason for that. Our Founders understood that this is our foundation. George Washington, the father of our country, famously said in his Farewell Address: ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.''

Adams was our second President. He comes next. He said: ``Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.''

We have to remember these truths. I close with the words of ``The Gipper.'' Ronald Reagan said it more recently: ``If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, we will be a nation gone under.''

I am so grateful for National Bible Week. I am so grateful to my friends and colleagues here for our recognition of this great truth, what it means to our country, and what it means to each of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 3922, the Community Health and Medical Professionals Improve Our Nation Act. This legislation reauthorizes the Children's Health Insurance Program--or CHIP, as we know it--as well as funding for community health centers in a fiscally responsible manner.

These programs have proven to be a valuable asset for many of the people in this country and many of the constituents that I have back home in Louisiana who don't qualify for Medicaid but still need assistance in accessing affordable health insurance.

In Louisiana alone, insurance providers have projected that rates will increase substantially next year as healthcare options continue to dwindle. For that reason, many Americans are choosing to forgo healthcare coverage altogether rather than suffer under the weight of the new, increased costs.

In times of high uncertainty in our healthcare system due to ObamaCare, this legislation makes meaningful reforms to ensure the most vulnerable among us, our children, remain protected.

The Community Health Center Fund has proven to be a critical resource for Louisiana's Fourth Congressional District by delivering much-needed resources to my local community health centers.

I just want to say this program, in particular, is vitally important for the safety and security of our children. Republicans in Congress have worked tirelessly to draft this legislation to ensure that this bill maintains important safeguards for our children and families and protects their access to critical care.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 469, the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act.

This is an important piece of legislation because, as has been noted here, it seeks to increase accountability on the regulatory process by providing greater scrutiny of sue and settle cases. Yes, they do exist.

It requires the Department of Justice to release details of payments made through the Judgment Fund, and it strengthens Congress' ability to intervene on litigation regarding the constitutionality of congressional statutes.

This legislation also includes H.R. 1096, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. That piece of legislation includes an amendment I offered, which would require the Secretary of the Treasury to clearly display the total expenditures, including the attorney's fees, interest, and all other payments made from the Judgment Fund on an annual basis.

Hardworking taxpayers deserve to know where their tax dollars are being spent, and Congress must ensure that programs like the Judgment Fund are following the law. The American people must be allowed every available tool to keep their government accountable, and this will be an important tool.

Also, it would ensure a terrorist organization is prohibited from receiving any taxpayer funds from the Judgment Fund by prohibiting any foreign terrorist organization, as defined in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

That statute clearly classifies a terrorist organization as those who ``engage in terrorist activity or terrorism, and the organization threatens the security of the United States nationals or the national security of the United States.''

These terrorist organizations only seek to commit serious harm or potential targets, of course, including Americans, and I believe this prohibition is warranted to be included in this important legislation.

Let me be clear. We should all agree that not a cent of taxpayer dollars should ever go to a state sponsor of terrorism or foreign terrorist organizations. A recent illustration of the need for this ban on funding to state sponsors of terrorism is what we now know about the previous administration. They paid $1.3 billion from the Judgment Fund to the nation of Iran in a settlement dating back over 30 years. Although all the information surrounding this payment was never made clear to the public, Iran still remains a state sponsor of terrorism, the most notorious one.

Mr. Chair, again, I strongly support H.R. 469. We must never allow taxpayer dollars to be given to violent rogue nations that support terrorists or, obviously, terrorist organizations, and this will ensure a constitutional check on the Judgment Fund. This is about Article I, the authority of this body. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support it, and I encourage our colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is unnecessary because it would exempt certain discrimination settlements from the bill's ban on third-party payments. But nothing in the underlying bill prevents a victim of discrimination from obtaining relief, and that is the important point.

The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016 explicitly permits remedial payments to third-party victims who are directly and proximately harmed by the defendant's wrongdoing. Nor does the bill preclude wider conduct remedies used in discrimination cases.

For example, nothing in the bill bars the Department of Justice from requiring a defendant to implement workplace training and monitoring programs. The ban on third-party payments merely ensures that the defendant remains responsible for performing these tasks itself and is not forced to outsource set sums for the work to third parties who might be friendly with a given administration.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary because it would exempt settlements that direct funds to remedy indirect harm resulting from violations of the Clean Air Act and other violations. But that is precisely the problem.

How best to address indirect harm is a policy question that is properly decided by the elected representatives of Congress only and not by agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.

An example that highlights this is the $2.7 billion mitigation fund that the Department of Justice required in its settlement of claims against Volkswagen. That fund mitigated direct harm, which is permitted under this bill.

The problem was that, through a second fund, the Obama Justice Department required Volkswagen to spend an additional $2 billion on an administration electric vehicle initiative after Congress twice refused to appropriate funds for it. It is that subversion of Congress' power of the purse that this bill is designed to target. Nothing in this bill lets corporate polluters off the hook, and it is nonsense to say otherwise.

If direct remediation of the harm is impossible or impractical, the full penalty is still paid, but it goes to the Treasury. After that, the decision on how best to use it is left to the people's elected representatives in Congress rather than the executive branch.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

I have the script right here. Let me tell you how I define them.

I don't know. Bureaucrats. You tell me.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time about the brilliant amendment, it is, again, not necessary.

And in response to the question, the court does not always approve every one of these; and that is the point.

The gist of this amendment and the purpose of the bill is to restore and strengthen our Article I power under the Constitution. You may not like the way Congress operates, you may not like all of the decisions that are made here, but in their infinite wisdom, this is how the Founders designed our system. It has worked very well, and it will continue to do so. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment would exempt settlements providing restitution to a State, the idea presumably being that the State could then distribute money as it sees fit for generalized harm to its citizens, but nothing in this bill prevents Congress from making block grants to States to address generalized harm. Indeed, Congress regularly appropriates money to States to deal with challenges, including environmental cleanups. Examples of this include the EPA Superfund and the Brownfields grants.

This bill merely insists that decisions on when such grants are appropriate and in what amounts, that those decisions be made by accountable representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats and prosecutors.

Compensating direct victims is a job for the Justice Department. Broader projects are a policy question that should be decided by Congress.

Mr. Chair, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would just respond to my learned colleague by quoting a renowned liberal legal scholar, the late Abner Mikva, who explained in a law review article back in 1986, that even if it were less efficient to go through Congress, that would be no reason to cede the point of principle. This is what he wrote:

``To ensure that Congress would act as the first branch of government, the constitutional Framers gave the legislature virtually exclusive power to control the Nation's purse strings. . . . They knew that the power of the purse was the most far-reaching and effectual of all governmental powers. . . . Doubtless they understood that a collection of diverse individuals representing diverse interests . . . would less efficiently and less coherently devise fiscal policy than would a single `treasurer' or `fiscal czar.' Yet they chose, for good reason, to suffer this cost and bear its risks.''

That is from a liberal legal scholar, and, of course, conservatives agree.

The system that the Founders set up, the reason and purpose for Article I, is to allow these major decisions to be made by the elected Representatives of Congress, and, for that reason, we oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would exempt settlements resolving allegations of predatory or fraudulent conduct involving residential mortgage-backed securities, as we have heard. Ironically, it creates an exception in the very situation in which the abuses we highlighted earlier arose.

The key point here is that nothing in the underlying bill prevents direct victims of mortgage fraud from obtaining relief.

The concern of this amendment is that there may be cases of generalized harm to communities that cannot be addressed by restitution, but this misses the fundamental point.

The Department of Justice has authority to obtain redress for victims. Federal law defines victims to be those ``directly and proximately harmed'' by the defendant's acts.

Once those victims have been compensated, deciding whether additional moneys, other than for penalties, should be allocated to address related problems becomes a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.

Indeed, Congress already funds homeowner assistance programs through the annual appropriations process, balancing it against competing priorities.

As we have repeated throughout this debate, the spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in reining in the executive branch. This is true, by the way, no matter which party is in the White House.

This amendment would weaken that essential congressional power, and, for that reason, we urge Members to oppose it on institutional grounds.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just respond by saying that those compelling policy arguments should be made appropriately in this Chamber, and it is the elected representatives of the people in this Chamber who can make those fateful decisions. There may be good arguments. There may be things that we need to do, but the point is that we are the persons who have the constitutional authority to make those decisions, not bureaucrats, not prosecutors.

Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment undercuts Congress' power. It is another attempt to do so, and it should be opposed for that reason.

It would exempt settlements that direct funds to remedy indirect harm resulting from lead in drinking water. It is a terrible problem. The amendment is forced to focus on indirect harm because nothing in the bill prevents remediation of direct harm.

But settlement provisions addressing indirect harm are precisely why this bill is needed. The bill's guiding principle is that once direct victims have been compensated, deciding the best use of additional funds to address related problems--whether that is addressing indirect harms or otherwise--is, again, a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.

We have proven the point. Last year, Congress actually acted on this. Congress appropriated $120 million to address drinking water problems in Flint, Michigan. If there is further need, Congress can make additional appropriations. The Department of Justice should not be permitted to augment those funding decisions entirely outside of the congressional appropriations and oversight processes because they are important to protect and preserve.

Again, the spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in reining in the executive branch, and we cannot afford to weaken that essential congressional power.

Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment on institutional grounds, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just respond by saying that no tragedy, however sad and however large, justifies us deviating from our Constitution, from the way the Founders set up this system and the way that this body operates. There is a reason that these responsibilities were given to us as Members of Congress. Each of us has the same challenge. When there is a tragedy or a mishap or a natural disaster or anything that affects our districts, our job is to come here and convince a sufficient number of our colleagues to support those appropriations to handle those measures. The system is designed with safeguards in place. It is designed so that the interests of the entire Nation can be represented here in this Chamber. For that reason, this amendment would bypass that. It would bypass the design. It would bypass article I, and it would create a whole different way of governing. We simply can't allow that.

Mr. Chair, this is about preserving the original intent of the Constitution, preserving the power of this body. For that reason, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H. Con. Res. 71. It has been said frequently that our Federal Tax Code today is more than 60 times longer than the Bible, and it contains none of the good news.

It has been more than 30 years since we updated our tax system, and many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, to find decent paying jobs and prepare for retirement.

No matter where I travel in my district, Mr. Speaker, Louisiana's Fourth District, I hear story after story about how our excessive Tax Code and burdensome regulations continue to hinder our businesses and stunt our economic growth.

Congress must act now and deliver a Tax Code that meets the current demands of the 21st century economy.

Fortunately, my Republican colleagues and I have put forth a framework to do exactly that. Our plan will create more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks for working class Americans and small businesses.

When the people are allowed to keep more of their hard-earned dollars instead of turning them over to an already bloated Federal Government, we will unleash the free market again.

It is well past time we get our economy back on track, and passing meaningful tax reform is a crucial first step in completing that mission.

Madam Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of this legislation, I rise towards the end of this long debate to reiterate a central idea: the reason behind this legislation is because of what we stand for as Americans.

The Declaration of Independence, as we know, is our Nation's birth certificate, and it states very succinctly in the second paragraph what has come to be known as the American's Creed: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.''

The reason that the Founders put the right to life first, listed as our most fundamental freedom, is because they understood that we are made in the image of a holy God.

Our creator, who gave us those unalienable rights, is the one who made each and every one of us. Because of that, there is a central truth that comes through: every single person, every single life, is of inestimable dignity and value. Your value is not related in any way to where you went to school, what you make for a living, how good-looking you are, how talented you are, what your fortune was in life, whether or not you have a physical disability. Your value is inherent in who you are as a creation of the God who made you.

That is the reason we stand for this. It is the reason the bill is so important. We urge our colleagues to support it today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressmen Franks, Smith, Hartzler, King, and all of the others, all of my colleagues who have spent so many years working for the sanctity of every human life in this Chamber. For nearly 20 years, I have been working to defend the sanctity of every human life in the courts, and that brings us here today.

You and I have talked about this many times that it is our Nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, which states so succinctly what has been known as the American creed. And in that creed, as articulated in the second paragraph of the Declaration--we know the language well--``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.''

The reason the Founders recognized that fundamental freedom, the right to life, and recognized it first is because it is so essential to who we are as human beings. The reason the Founders recognized that and sought to put it first is because they understood, they acknowledged, that we are made in the image of a Holy God. We are made in the image of that creator who gave us those rights. And because of that, every single human life has inestimable dignity and value.

And are values not related in any way to our socioeconomic status, the color of our skin, where we went to school, what we make for a living, what we can contribute to society, our talents, how good- looking we are--totally irrelevant. Our value is inherent because it is given to us by our creator.

So tomorrow, because of your hard work, we have a landmark opportunity with the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. I am proud to stand in support of that bill and to assist as a cosponsor and to encourage all of our colleagues to support this important legislation.

Why do we do this? Because, as has been mentioned, at 20 weeks' gestation, a baby is developed enough to live and grow outside the womb, and at 20 weeks, a baby can feel pain. Yet, in the United States, we remain one of only seven nations on the planet--including North Korea and China, I might add--that allows abortions after 20 weeks. It is a practice that kills thousands of innocent babies each year, as we know.

A law that allows someone to end the life of an unborn baby when that child can live outside the womb and feel the pain inflicted by this violent procedure is simply unconscionable. These procedures can be fatal not only for the child, by the way, but for the mother, as well, because abortion performed later in the pregnancy puts the mother at greater risk.

We have to pass this bill to ensure that America leads in the fight to protect the most vulnerable among us. All life is precious, and this bill protects the life of the mother and that of the unborn child.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to stand with us in support of this important legislation and to join us in the efforts to defend the defenseless.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to recognize the life and dedicated service of one of the Lord's most humble and outstanding servants, Dr. James Durell Tuberville. He made it his life's work to help others during difficult times, and he was a beacon of light and a towering figure in the life of countless many people, including my own family. His lasting influence on our community cannot be expressed enough, and I am humbled to rise and pay tribute to his life today, his faithful stewardship, and his unwavering commitment to the people of our region in northwest Louisiana.

James Durell Tuberville was born on October 25, 1958, in Shreveport, Louisiana, and on Sunday, August 13, 2017, he left this world to be with our Lord.

After graduating from Southwood High School in Shreveport, Dr. Tuberville continued his education at Grawood Christian School and Southwestern Assemblies of God College. He majored in pastoral ministry at Southwestern University, and received a master of arts in counseling from Louisiana Tech University.

He did all things for the glory of God, Mr. Speaker, and he brought care and compassion to multitudes. Dr. Tuberville served his early ministry as a youth pastor in Luna and then in Natchitoches, Louisiana. He later served as pastor of the Bethel Assembly of God in Shreveport for more than 11 years, before becoming counselor on the pastoral staff at Shreveport Community Church and president of Personal Solutions, Inc.

He selflessly aided those suffering through some of the largest disasters of our lifetime, including the horrific earthquake in Haiti, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the great tragedy on September 11, 2001.

Known and loved by all, Dr. Tuberville also served selflessly as chaplain for the Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office, Caddo Fire District 3, and as national chaplain of the firefighters Brother's Keepers Motorcycle Club.

It is difficult to imagine our community without the leadership and the larger-than-life presence, always encouraging, of Dr. Tuberville. His legacy and example are an enduring lesson for all of us, and we are comforted to know he has been received by the Lord with that ultimate affirmation: ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, it is a privilege to honor Dr. James Durell Tuberville today and to celebrate a life exceptionally well lived.

My wife, Kelly, and I extend our continued prayers and sincerest condolences to his wife and soulmate, Susan, and their two sons, Joshua Durell and Dustin Bruce, to the entire Tuberville family, and to all those whose lives were changed by this true giant of a man.

Recognizing the Service and Achievement of Major General Joanne

Sheridan

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a hero from my home State, Major General Joanne Sheridan, for her steadfast service to the safety and security of the people of the State of Louisiana in the Louisiana National Guard.

Five years ago, Major General Sheridan became the first female general in the Louisiana National Guard's history, and today I would like to commend her for raising the bar once again and becoming the first female two-star general in the history of our Louisiana National Guard.

Originally from Maine, Major General Sheridan moved to Leesville, Louisiana, when the Army stationed her father, Command Sergeant Major Joe S. Fernald, at Fort Polk. There, she attended Leesville High School, and she went on to earn her bachelor of arts degree in sociology at Northeast Louisiana University in Monroe, Louisiana, where she received her commission through her Reserve Officers' Training Corps in May 1983. Later, she received a master's degree in strategic studies from the prestigious U.S. Army War College.

A true soldier for her community and in our country, Major General Sheridan began her impressive military career as an Active-Duty servicemember in the U.S. Army in February 1984 at Fort Polk Army Base. Throughout her 33-year career, in both her Active-Duty and National Guard service, her leadership has earned her the respect of her peers and included many major accomplishments.

She became the first female to command a battalion leading the 415th Military Intelligence Battalion, commander of the 199th Regiment Regional Training Institute, and the first female to helm a major command when she led the 61st Troop Command.

Currently, she serves as the assist general for the Louisiana National Guard and is responsible, as the principal military adviser to the adjunct general, in assisting in the deployment and coordination of programs, policies, and plans for the Louisiana Army and Air National Guard.

The National Guard is unique in defending Louisiana both at home and abroad. Major General Sheridan served as a citizen soldier through Hurricane Katrina. She was deployed to Baghdad in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2008, and led rescue and recovery efforts in the historic Louisiana flooding of 2016.

She previously served as president of the National Guard Association of Louisiana, and she now serves as the secretary of the National Guard Association of the entire United States.

Her dedication to the National Guard extends way beyond what is required of anyone. Twice--and this is even more inspiring--Major General Sheridan has battled breast cancer, and with her last round of treatment in August, she has again prevailed in that battle. Her incredible strength and courage serve as a beacon of hope for countless many others.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to honor Major General Sheridan's many accomplishments and to recognize her honorable service to the State of Louisiana and to our great Nation. She has set a tremendous example, and I hope her accomplishments inspire others to aspire to her level of excellence.

My wife, Kelly, and I thank Major General Sheridan for all she does to defend our community and country, and we wish her continued success.

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