others as we move forward. especially in my view as it relates to campaign finance. of elections, your take as a member of the foreign affairs committee, largeants --putin's margin of victory. it's a complete farce, and there is no democracy in russia. if we look at 1990 there was a brief. , has gone about -- on house resolution 787, and adoption of house resolution 787 if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining electronic votes will be conducted as a five-minute vote.

the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 787, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 133, house resolution 787. resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 4566, to amend the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act, to provide relief to nonbanks from certain stress test requirements under such act, providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 5247, to authorize the use of eligible investigational drugs by eligible patients who have been diagnosed with a stage of a disease or a condition in which there is reasonable likelihood that death will occur within a matter of months, or with another eligible illness and for other purposes. and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. please take your conversations rom the floor. will all members please take their seats or take their onversations from the floor.

will all members please take their seats and take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today we rise to honor the service and sacrifice of seven airmen fallen in the line of duty last week on the iraq-syria border. there are no words to fully describe the profound sorrow and immense gratitude that consume us today.

there are no words to describe the emptiness this loss leaves in the hearts of communities across our nation. there is, soufer, no shortage of ways to describe these seven servicemen. selfless, hero, patriots, and everything we aspire to be as a people, as a nation, and as americans. these air m.e.p. are the best of who we're, they are the embodiment of what makes this country the greatest in the world, the willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our exceptional nation. mr. zeldin: there is no doubt these brave men and so many who have fallen before them are the reason we have the opportunity to stand here today in the well of the house of representatives, in the heart of the united states capitol, which has always served as a beacon of hope and freedom for so many in our country and around the world. each and every day, these seven americans answer the call of duty to defend the liberties on which our nation were founded, to tea fend their neighbors and communities, but most selflessly

to defend the millions of americans that they would never know. four of these airmen served with the 10 th air rescue wing in westampton beach, new york, located in the first congressional district. this amazing unit is made up of the best of the best our nation has to offer with a long, rich history of service and sacrifice. mr. speaker, the families of these seven great airmen have the unwavering thanks and appreciation of every american across our country, most of all they have our utmost respect. we stand shoulder to shoulder with every one of them as they go through undoubtedly the most difficult moment of their lives. captain andreas o'keefe. captain christopher t. zenetis, long island city, new york. master sergeant christopher j. ruduco. staff sergeant deshaun briggs. captain mark k. weber, colorado

springs, colorado. master sergeant william r. posh, india atlantic, florida. staff sergeant carl p. ennis, tallahassee, florida. i request the house now observe a moment of silence in memory of these seven dedicated, selfless, and courageous airmen. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the combries have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask

for a recorded vofmente -- vote. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 225 and the nays are 183. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to modify amendment number 1 printed in the house report 115-613 with the modification placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number 1 printed in

house report 115-613 offered by ms. maxine waters of california. page 1, line 10, strike and. page 2, after line 7, insert the following -- d. under clause 6 as so designated by striking clause ii and inserting clause iii and. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendment is modified. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 787, i call up h.r. 4566 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 457. h.r. 4566, a bill to amend the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act to provide relief to nonbanks from certain stress test requirements under such act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 787 in lieu of the amendment in

the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-65, is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. the house is not in order. after one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in house report 115-613, as modified, by the order of the house of today, if offered by the member designated in the report which will be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject for demand

of division of the question. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, ach will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor of the house. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 4566, the alleviating stress test burdens to help investors to and i especially want thank the gentleman from maine, mr. poliquin, one of the most hardworking, enthusiastic,

cheerful members of the house financial services committee for all of the work he's done to advance this very strong piece of bipartisan legislation which incidentally, mr. speaker, passed the financial services committee, again, with another strong bipartisan vote of 47-8. now, the financial crisis led to questions, both domestically and internationally, about how to address financial stability and created a regulatory framework to mitigate systemic risk, all the while ensuring robust economic growth. at the heart of this bill of the gentleman from maine is a recognition that our economy can suffer when we get it wrong, when government attempts to dictate the business models and operational objectives of so many of our businesses. and it's also a recognition that one-size-fits-all regulations can stifle economic

growth and ultimately harm consumers, harm our constituents. currently bank-centric standards and assessments to nonbank industries such as the asset management industry have needlessly been -- had needlessly saddled main street investors with increased costs while they are trying to save for college or retirement or some other important need. and this is perhaps no clearer than in the stress testing regime. as a former s.e.c. chief economist observed in 2016 who said that in the current law, quote, stress test the big banks, and oh, you might as well go ahead do the asset management companies, unquote. that is his take of what the law says. in other words, asset management firms and, again, our constituents depend upon for their retirement security, for their financial planning, they are now subject to bank

regulations simply because they operate under the financial services umbrella. even though such firms plainly have legal, structural, and operational characteristics that make them very, very different from banks. and by the way, mr. speaker, none of them, none of the asset managers had anything to do with the financial crisis that brought about the legislation that we are debating in the first place. for example, unlike banks, asset managers do not have access to the deposit insurance fund or the fed's discount window. if that's not enough for you, mr. speaker, here's more. asset managers are legally separated, legally separated from the funds they manage, meaning that the assets and liabilities of the manager are distinct from the assets and liabilities of the funds. on the other hand, the bank business model directly subjects the bank to the risk and obligations of its assets and liabilities.

again, applying a one-size-fits-all regulatory structure -- in this case, a bank-centric model -- is not only bad for the asset management industry but far more importantly for our constituents that they serve who choose to save and invest. registered funds are the investment vehicle choices for millions of americans seeking to buy a home, pay for college, plan for financial security, and retirement. application of unnecessary, ill-suited bank-centric stress test requirements to register funds and advisors will undoubtedly increase costs for these funds and advisors and ultimately this gets passed on to investors without any corresponding benefits that we can discern. the recent asset management and insurance report issued by the department of treasury confirms these concerns. the gentleman from maine, mr.

poliquin's bill would fix this unequal regulatory structure by exempting certain nonbank financial institutions that have not been designated for supervision by the federal reserve board from the act's stress testing requirements. further, in the true spirit of bipartisanship, i want to thank the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney, for recognizing the underlying need for this relief and working with mr. poliquin to offer an amendment during markup that allows the s.e.c. and the cftc to issue regulations to require certain financial companies they supervise to conduct periodic analysis of the financial condition of such companies under adverse economic conditions. the approach is common sense. it is not one size fits all. it recognizes that the primary regulator of nonbank financial companies is better suited than a bank regulator to determine whether these stress tests might be useful to address risk. and it recognizes that as a general matter, stress testing asset managers is difficult and

often needless. so mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to support this great bipartisan legislation. i believe we have an amendment forthcoming from the ranking member, which i expect our side of the aisle to support, and i am led to believe that with the adoption of her amendment that she would support the underlying bill so i hope that proves to come to fruition. in which case we can have a very strong bipartisan vote on this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i rise to oppose h.r. 4566, the so-called alleviating stress test burdens to help investors act, which would make it harder for regulators to identify and mitigate hidden systemic risk

at nonbank financial companies before they undermine our economy. last wednesday marked 10 years ince global investment bank, bear stearns, imploded as a result of the failure to manage risk associated with the highly leverage balance sheet and exposure to the subprime mortgage market. american taxpayers were forced to come to the rescue to prevent the firm's collapse from spreading to other overleveraged wall street institutions. the demise of bears stearns was the canary in the coal mine for the ensuing financial crisis which ravaged the united states economy, destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth and put millions of americans out of their jobs and their homes. democrats responded to the 2008 financial crisis by passing the dodd-frank act, which, among

other reforms, required rigorous stress tests of the nation's largest financial institutions. the dodd-frank act also gave the federal reserve board the discretion to quickly intervene and stress test firms that could pose financial stability risk. . if regular stress testing had been conducted on firms like bear stearns from 2006 to 2008, it might have revealed major threats to the economy sooner. giving both the companies and federal financial regulators a better chance to take remedial action to avoid a catastrophic, near collapse of the global financial system. h.r. 4566 would eliminate the federal reserve's authority to stress test nonbank financial companies even in situations where the firm's designation as

systemically important is pending before the financial stability oversight council. additionally, the bill would weaken the dodd-frank mandate that a large financial companies cftc's e s.e.c. and purview conduct internal stress tests to determine the company's ability to withstand a recession. combined these rollbacks would allow the bear stearns of the world to take on increasing amount of risk while regulators are tied up in lengthy administrative processes. as former s.e.c. chair, mary joe white, stated in a december 2014 speech, and i quote, stress testing is an important tool routinely used by banking regulators. implementing this new mandate in asset management while

relatively novel will help market participation and commission better understand the potential impact of stress events, quote-unquote. i agree with chair white's comments about the importance of stress testing and think that it simply does in the make sound public policy to eliminate this tool. members of the asset management industry have also recognized that stress testing is critical to effectively managing risk. in 2015, a letter to the s.e.c., the asset management group of the securities industry and , ancial markets association whose members manage more than $30 trillionle in assets wrote, and i quote, stress testing is one part of an effective and coherent risk management process for asset managers. the objective of which is not to

test for solvency or capital adequacy, but to exement other other -- complement other approaches in assessing assessment risks. quote-unquote. a 2013 survey a.m.g. members nearly 2/3 of the asset managers surveyed reported that they already stress test their funds. it seems imprudent that congress would repeal a requirement for large interconnected hedge funds that may have 15 to one leverage to periodically determine whether they could withstand a down economy. rapidly given how failures at large bank financial companies can spread across a highly interconnected financial system, regulators must be able to quickly identify problems that could undermine u.s. financial stability.

the federal reserve should ntinue to have the discretionary authority to step into and identify and mitigate systemic risk at any financial company whose failure could pose a threat to our economy. ignore thatpears to nonbank financial companies like bear stearns, lehman brothers, and a.i.g. played a central role in the financial crisis. when these firms collapsed as a result of their failure to mitigate their own internal risk, their losses sent shock waves throughout the banking system. stress testing these kinds of nonbank financial institutions provides a valuable early warning system for our economy and gives both the companies and regulators a chance to correct problems before they have catastrophic effects on our

financial stability. that is why i intend to offer an amendment that, if adopted, would restore the feds' discretionary authority to stress test any nonbank provided that the test meets certain conditions, including approval by a majority of fsoc members. it would also allow the fed to use alternatives to capital as appropriate when stress testing systemically important nonbanks and broadly s.e.c. and cftc's authority to require internal testing for entities under their purview. this amendment would ensure that large financial institutions like investment companies that manage trillions of dollars of hardworking americans' savings can be

appropriately evaluated savings appropriately evaluated for their ability to survive in a stressed economy. while i oppose h.r. 4566 in its current form, i would support an amended version of the bill that preserves the bill's ability to identify and mitigate future systemic risk at nonbanks before they lead to another crisis. so i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: at this point i am very pleased to yield six minutes to the gentleman from maine, mr. poliquin, who is the sponsor of the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman so recognized. mr. poliquin: i appreciate the time. thank you, mr. chairman, for moving this very important piece of legislation through our committee, the financial services committee, and on to the floor. this is a commonsense bill, mr. speaker, that i encourage everybody, republicans and democrats, to support h.r. 45 6. -- 4566. throughout the great state of maine and across america, mr.

speaker, we have millions and millions of small savers and small investors who are planning for their retirement or for the college education for their kids or grappedr grandkids. the people of -- grandkids of the the people of maine, mr. speaker, are the most honest and hardworking folks you can find anywhere. every week thousands and thousands of maine families are settling aside small parts of their paycheck into an i.r.a. or 401-k plan so they'll have enough money for their retirement, or setting aside small amounts of money for their son or daughter to attend a college, community college, university or technical school. today, mr. speaker, almost 55% of all american families, about of our fellow americans, of our fellow americans, entrust these savings to mutual funds and other pension advisors such that they provide o grow and

them with a larger nest egg down the road. these asset managers, mr. speaker, are currently operating under the uncertainty of whether or not they'll be subbed to very costly -- subjected to very costly and many cases unnecessary stress test regulations designed for large money center banks with very different functions in our economy. mr. speaker, when a bank takes in deposits from its provide them with a larger nest egg dow it is obligated to return those deposits and hopefully with interest. it's important those banks have enough reserves to make sure that during a recession they are able to meet those obligations. for many of these banks, stress testing does make sense. however, mr. speaker, mutual funds and other asset managers perform a very different function. if one invests for their retirement or their college savings, their goal is to grow that nest egg, but it is not guaranteed to be the case by the

asset managers who are performing that job. in effect, mr. speaker, these asset managers and mutual funds serve as an agent for the investor and the small saver with no liability to return these savings in full. but of course they take the risk for a better return down the road. now, if you do have a huge money centered bank with tentacles running throughout the economy, and that bank fails, it could represent a systemic risk to our economy, but investors in a poor performing mutual fund is simply, are simply able to switch their account to a better performing mutual fund house in order for a better return down the road with no systemic risk to the economy. in part, mr. speaker, because the assets themselves are held at a bank custodian. they are not even held at the mutual fund company or asset management firm. 4566,l, mr. speaker, h.r.

exempts most nonbank financial institutions like mutual funds from costly stress test requirements. in this, mr. speaker, and mr. chairman, ask so important to our small saves -- savers across the country because when you have costly, cumbersome, and unnecessary regulations, they are paid for by the savers in these mutual funds and fence fund investors. and when they are paid -- and pension fund investors. and when they are paid out of the rate of return the rates of return dropped. and the value of their nest eggs drop. mr. speaker, government should be in the job of helping our families live better lives with more financial security. 4566 helps y h.r.

us do just that by removing one size fits all regulations that fit for lots of banks but not for the asset management community. today, mr. speaker, approximately 4% of the expenses of asset managers are for complying to regulations. if we do nothing, that number is expected to go up to 4566 helps us do just that 10% of their expenses just on compliance within five years. that makes a big difference because the higher the expenses, the lower the rate of return, the smaller the nest egg for those saving for college or for retirement. to give support to my point, mr. speaker, for the past 10 years economists at our securities and exchange commission and at our own treasury have not been able to design a stress test for asset managers. and for thousands and thousands of mutual fund companies across the country. that's because it makes no sense to try to do so. stress testing as a prudential

regulation simply does not fit every participant in the united states financial services sector. there are intrinsic differences between banks and asset managers, and my bill, mr. speaker, recognizes that difference and properly exempts most nonbank financial institutions from stress tests. and that in turn, again mr. speaker, will lower the cost and increase the rates of return foremain street investors across -- for main street investors across our great state of maine and america. i thank you very much for the opportunity to address this very important issue. and i encourage everyone, republicans and democrats, both sides of the aisle, to please 4566. s for h.r. alleviating stress test burdens to help investors act. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield whack my time -- back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker and members. first let me thank my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, my chairman, mr. hensarling, for indicating their acceptance of the amendment. i think it is extremely important for both sides of the aisle to appreciate the necessity and importance of stress testing, and i think we both do that. -- discretionary that we're we afford the feds in this bill is very important. so this is one of those instances when both sides can come together and recognize that indicationsmportant of what is needed to understand what should be done to avoid another meltdown with our

financial services industries and our banks. and so again i tonight think there is any need for us to continue to talk about what we don't like about stress testing, but rather we're coming together to talk about how it is done and why it is important and i have a great appreciation for that. i'd like to thank my colleagues for that. i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, the vice chairman of the financial services committee and chief deputy whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. henri jokiharju i thank the gentleman for yielding -- mr. mchenry: i thank the gentleman for yielding time. i rise in support of the alleviating stress test burdens to help investors act. -- off off the tong the tongue, maybe bruce

poliquin, the author. hindsight bias is a very dangerous thing it allows to us overstate or ability to predict an outcome. it's something that lures us to creating a new system that while excellent in solving the last financial crisis or the last crisis, last event, it fails to see the next event coming. now, it's not something that just fortune-tellers use. it's not something that just those with an ncaa pool would use to say that all along they knew umbc would beat virginia. it's not just used there. here in washington it's done by bureaucrats that are susceptible to these same fallacies. in the wake of the financial crisis, policymakers here in washington faced -- raced to give regulators new tools to help predict future risks so that such a crisis would never happen again. one of those tools was stress

testing. the idea was to provide a method to test financial firms to differentiate between solid institutiones that can weather a financial storm and those that would need help, but this crystal ball has flaws. one of the biggest flaws is treating all large financial firms the same. a one-size-fits-all approach. and this includes lumping in nonbank financial firms that don't use leverage with financial firms, bank firms that do use leverage. and despite this widely understood concept that capital adequacy standards do not fit neatly into assessing the risks of the asset management industry, for instance, regulators have instead stuck to their rigid methodology to try to square the circle or circle the square, whatever that phrase is. thankfully, representative bruce poliquin has crafted a very solid bill to address this

truth and bring it into reality legislatively. the stress test bill, after the financial crisis, do not work for nonbank financial firms. this is a security show rather than security in fact. thus, in a world that's constantly throws big and unexpected events our way, understanding the limitation of predicting risk is one of the most important steps we can take to avoid future harm. that's what this bill does and i encourage my house colleagues to vote in support of and in favor of it and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, before recognizing the next speaker, i'm just amazed that anybody from north carolina, after being beaten by texas a&m by 21 points, would make any illusion to basketball whatsoever. i trust our next speaker will not make that mistake.

i am now pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from missouri, the chairman of the financial services subcommittee on financial institutions, mr. luetkemeyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. the chairman can be assured that since our team was one and done, we will skip the bracket discussion here. i want to start by thanking the gentleman from maine, mr. poliquin, for his work on this very reasonable legislation. stress test is a good idea that should be done in every company. what is not helpful is the cryptic and arbitrary manner which stress tests are handled today. today the federal reserve has a stress test on firms with more than $10 billion in consolidated assets. this doesn't just apply to banks despite the fact that the fed is a bank regulator. this requirement extends to nonbank financial firms as well. so let me take a moment to walk you through what one of these

stress tests looks like. a financial firm is given cryptic instructions to run a number of scenarios to test the fortitude of the institution. that firm then submits tens of thousands of pages to the fed. in some cases that number can climb to more than 100,000 pages at a cost of millions of dollars. and to give you an idea what 20,000 pages is, in our committee hearing we had a visual aid there with a table about the size here today and three feet tall and boxes all around. that's 20,000 pages. some of these stress tests, mr. speaker, are 100,000 pages. five times that amount. hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to do these stress tests and quite frankly very little evidence the fed actually reads all the paperwork. in fact, one day you'll probably get a call from the fed and they'll tell you whether you passed or not. it's a very subjective test. there's no real explanation offered if a firm fails.

the message is to try again and keep trying until you finally pass the test. guess what the model is? this is not a productive exercise for anyone. the truth of the matter is the fed has no business conducting and analyzing stress tests on nonbanks. those firms have functional regulators like the s.e.c. and cftc which better understand the business models and performance of nonbanks and as such the risks those firms pose to the financial stability of the united states. the actual supervisors of those companies should be the ones to do these sorts of activities. mr. speaker, this legislation is about promoting thoughtful and effective legislation. it's about curtailing a one-size-fits-all, as the chairman mentioned earlier, approach to regulation. something members from both sides of the aisle have claimed to support. i want to again thank the gentleman from maine and -- for him for his leadership on this issue and urge support of the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized from texas. hens i'm pleased to -- mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman hensarling. i want to thank my good friend rom maine, bruce poliquin, for sponsoring this bill. the alleviating stress test burdens to help investors act makes some commonsense changes to stress testing requirements for asset managers and the investors they serve. congressman poll quinn has worked very hard to make sure this bill is bipartisan. in fact -- poll -- poll quinn has worked very -- mr. poliquin has worked very hard to make sure this bill is bipartisan. i agree, why shouldn't a bill with such strong bipartisan support at least be part of the conversation? the idea behind stress testing for financial institutions under dodd-frank is to make

sure they have enough capital on hand to cover losses in the case of a market disruption like that the one that was encountered during the financial crisis. however, registered funds have a very different business model than banks. they do not guarantee any return to investors or promise that investors will get their principal back. furthermore, they are not on the advisors' balance sheet. or in the words of mark flannery, a former chief economist of the s.e.c., there is a false parallel for stress testing asset managers, and i quote mark, the parallel to bank stress tests is really extremely misleading. it says, if the dodd-frank -- it's as if dodd-frank said stress test the big banks and oh, you might as well go ahead and do the asset management companies as well, end quote. fortunately, bruce poliquin has crafted legislation which democrats and republicans

should agree to. the alleviating stress test burdens to help investors act would eliminate the default bank-like stress testing required in dodd-frank but would empower the s.e.c., the primary federal regulator of the asset management industry, to require stress testing as it deems appropriate. in short, what this bill says we should only stress test asset managers as their primary regulator determines is in the best interest of the investors instead of arbitrary -- arbitrarily applying bank-like stress test requirements as proposed by the federal reserve. it comes to little surprise that the s.e.c., under according of mary jo wright, agrees. the s.e.c. has come up with stress testing standards that is consistent and comparable with those of the federal reserve and other banking regulators likely because there is no way to account for capital adequacy in these companies. furthermore, this bill does nothing to undermine the significant regulatory authority of the financial stability oversight council.

the f sock would still -- the fsoc would still make recommendations for regulations of asset managers. i am not necessarily endorsing this concept but hike to emphasize so it would encourage democratic support. this bill is true to its name. it doesn't subject our financial system to any additional risk. i'd urge all of my colleagues to join with me in supporting this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, now i am very happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. williams, who is vice chairman of our committee subcommittee on monetary policy and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. williams: thank you, mr. speaker, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank mr. poliquin for his leadership on this important issue. h.r. 4566, the alleviating

stress test burdens to help investors act, would exempt nonbanks not currently under the supervision of the federal reserve from stress testing requirements. in addition to alleviating burdensome requirements, the bill allows the securities and exchange commission and the commodity futures trading commission to issue regulations regarding financial companies with more than $10 billion of consolidated assets to conduct analysis of their liquidity. this legislation would properly tailor dodd-frank stress test requirements in a way that is appropriately focused. this bill retains the s.e.c.'s ability to issue stress testing as it believes appropriate. the bill does not limit the financial stability oversight council's authority to require the s.e.c. to adopt suitable requirements for advisors and funds. once again, i thank the gentleman from maine for his commitment to this important piece of legislation. i encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill on the floor. in god we trust.

i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yielding back. the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i tennessee to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, a hardworking member of the financial services committee, mr. kustoff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kustoff: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the alleviating stress test burdens to help investors act, which was introduced by my colleague, representative poliquin. mr. speaker, millions of americans rely on asset management advicors to assist them in making major financial decisions such as paying college tuition, saving for retirement or buying a home. however, too often these advicors have their hands -- dvisors have their hands tied,

to burdensome regulations. following the enactment of dodd-frank, a framework was created to assess systemic risk posed by financial institutions , and this framework looked at the risk from a bank-centric approach. in addition, dodd-frank required all financial companies with consolidated assets of more than $10 billion to conduct various annual stress test to comply with the law. now, unfortunately, this broad definition sweeps in registered investment companies and requires that these nonbank institutions be held accountable for the same stress test as banks. this particular stress test does not make sense for the asset management industry and only adds cost that will end up putting the burden on investors who rely on these funds. again, the u.s. asset

management industry is critical in promoting diverse investments and savings for opportunities for individuals, for families, and for businesses. this important legislation would eliminate unnecessary costs for nonbank financial institutions that have not been designated as systemically important by removing dodd-frank's bank-centric mandatory stress test requirements. as we continue to explore new ways to help families save for their future or buy a new home, we should remain focused on improving their ability to invest. i want to thank representative poliquin and chairman hensarling for their important work on this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important bill. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i'd like to require whether or not there are other speakers.

if there are no more speakers, i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker and members, i am very pleased about the work that the staffs have done on this particular legislation, and i do believe that we all agree that stress tests are important. it's a matter of who, how and when. someone has likened stress tests to car testing where in the manufacture of new cars, you take them out on the road and you test them to see if they can withstand, you know, what they may be presented with in the terrain and with the kinds of things you would experience perhaps on the roughest roads that they can test on, and when they determine that there are weaknesses that can be

corrected, that's what they do in order to make sure that this new vehicle that they are testing can withstand whatever the difficulties are that may be presented to them when they test the car and that's what this stress testing is all about. it's all about whether or not in he event of a downturn our economy you have the ability to withstand the downturn, whether or not you have the ability to not only withstand what you are presented with in a downturn of fix conomy but how you can what you have determined is wrong with what you're doing. . i'm again very pleased that we all agree that stress testing is

extremely important and we know what your concerns are about hedge funds and asset managers and all of that. but the discretion that we give to the feds i think is very important. and the fact that all of the businesses that we are concerned with will be doing stress testing, their internal stress test something extremely important, and so, again, i'm very grateful for the acceptance of our amendment and i'm hopeful that with this amendment it demonstrates that when we work ry hard to reconcile our differences, that we can do that and with that i would ask that with the amendment that all of the members of the house would vote for this legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the

time. once again i want to encourage all of my colleagues to support h.r. 4566, the legislation from the gentleman from maine. i want to commend him once again as one of our most hardworking members on the committee, who cares passionately about his constituents in maine. i also want to commend him for once again working on a very bipartisan basis. he has managed to change his bill from its original concept many times to try to garner more support from the other side of the aisle. and with the acceptance of the ranking eabs me amendment, again, i'm hope -- member's amendment, again, i'm hopeful that we'll have a very, very strong vote on the house. and again, this came out of committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 47-8. mr. speaker, very often we debate regulation. and i think that now fortunately we have a 3% growth tax code.

which has been passed by congress. but unfortunately i do not believe we have a 3% growth finance and banking system and that's important. it's important to our constituents who still need credit to buy that first home. a factory worker to get their transmission repaired so that they can go to work. some parent trying to send a kid to college. or people planning for their retirement. and so there's a lot of work to be done and too often i think we have a dichotomy between regulation and deregulation, when the real dichotomy is between smart regulation and dumb regulation. and so it's always incumbent upon us in congress to look very carefully at these regulations. sometimes they look very good on the chalk board, but in reality they don't quite render the results or benefits that we had hoped for. so we always have to take a look at what is this doing not just to consumer and investor

protection, but what is it doing to economic growth as well? so i agree with the ranking member. stress testing is a good concept. it's one of the reasons why banks and other financial firms typically stress test themselves daily, weekly, monthly, annually. what doesn't make sense, though, is that there be no recognition to the costs that it imposes, as the gentleman from missouri, the chairman of our financial institutions subcommittee, was very articulate in reminding us that these submissions can cost millions and millions of dollars and the reports are not measured in pages, they're measured by the pound. you know, there can be 10 and 20 pound submissions of pape that are we wonder, does -- paper that we wonder, does anybody ever read? what especially doesn't make sense is trying to apply a bank stress test to a nonbank financial institution, particularly an asset manager. i know the ranking member was

talking a little bit earlier about using an analogy about auto inspection. it makes no -- inspections. it makes no sense to have the home inspectors inspect your auto. it makes no sense to have the auto inspectors inspect your home. and so the gentleman from maine is ensuring that whatever stress test is applied, that it is applied properly to the business odel that needs to be tested for its potential stress of our financial system. so, again, i just want to commend the gentleman from maine for his hard work and urge all members to vote in favor of h.r. 4566, because indeed, as it alleviates -- maybe it's not a catchy title. but it's an accurate title. because as we alleviate stress test burdens, we do help investors. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. speaker, is it now in order to consider my amendment, number 1? the speaker pro tempore: it is. ms. waters: if so, i do have the amendment at the desk and it has been made in order under the rule. and so it's up to the clerk to designate, i suppose, the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment as modified. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 115-613 offered by ms. maxine waters of california, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 787, the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. in its current form, h.r. 4566 eliminates the fed's discretion to require stress testing on nonbanks that have not yet been designated as systemically important and weakens the dodd-frank act's mandate that the s.e.c. and cftc require nonbank financial companies under their authority to conduct

annual stress tests. together, these repeals create a loophole that would allow large brokerage firms and megainsurance companies to ignore risk, while regulators are tied up in lengthy rulemaking, or the fsoc designation process. my amendment, if adopted, would restore the fed's discretionary authority to stress test any nonbank financial firm, provided that the test is requested by a majority vote of the fsoc. if conducted with consideration of the company's business model, and is not already required by the company's primary regulator, my amendment would also allow the fed to consider alternatives to the existing capital adequacy test where appropriate when conducting stress tests on nonbanks, including those designated as systemically important. one of the key safeguards created by dodd-frank is the

fed's ability to identify and mitigate risk in the financial system before they undermine the u.s. economy. by preserving the fed's ability to stress test nonbank financial companies on a discretionary basis, my amendment will give regulators a better chance of preventing the next bear stearns or lehman brothers from dragging down our financial system. finally, my amendment would broaden the s.e.c.'s and the cftc's authority under the bill by striking the provision that would limit future company-run stress testing requirements to entities with more than $10 billion in assets. this would ensure that the s.e.c. and the cftc can require any financial company under their purview to evaluate their own ability to survive in a stressed economy, -- economy. while i oppose h.r. 4566 as currently drafted, with this amendment, the bill would

represent a truly bipartisan effort to strengthen dodd-frank and i would urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although i am not opposed. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. so, i'm not thrilled with the amendment. but in the spirit of compromise, in the spirit of bipartisanship, we have worked with the ranking member and the sponsor of the legislation. it wouldn't be my preferred approach but that's often what we do around here and i am very hopeful, and i want to thank the ranking member for working with the majority side in order to advance this, again, as a very strong bipartisan vote on the use this i hope and anticipate, with the inclusion of this

amendment. i would point out, mr. speaker, again, i'm very happy on the other side of the capital. they have recently advanced a number of kind of smart regulatory measures and capital formation measures. and we look forward to negotiating with our friends in the senate. and i'm hoping that an overwhelming vote on a bill like h.r. 4566 is one that can be in the final package before it goes to the president's desk. but again, i still think that although we have all compromised a little something here, i think we all advance our principles and i think it is something that will help actually both financial stability and help investor protection, including protecting their opportunities to have a better future. so, again, i want to thank the ranking member for working with us. and i would urge the house to adopt her amendment and then

adopt h.r. 4566, of mr. poliquin from maine. and i yield -- i yield to the gentleman from maine. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poliquin: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, who says that a terrific representative from one of the most urban areas in the country, from los angeles, california, cannot get together with a representive from one of the most rural parts of america, up in the great state of maine? thank you very much, ranking member waters. i really appreciate your extension of bipartisanship. and i thank you, mr. chairman, very much for brokering this. this is going to be a great day for america, a great day for maine and a great day for california. thank you very much. mr. hensarling: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much for those very kind words, mr. colorado poliquin. and i yield -- mr. poliquin. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended and on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california.

the question is on the amendment as modified by the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act, to provide relief to nonbanks from certain stress test requirements under such act. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 2395, the nays are 19 -- 395, the nays are 19, with zero answering present. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? > for unanimous consent. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate and 11:00 a.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent the committee on oversight and government reform be discharged from further consideration of house resolution 4463, and ask for its immediate consideration to the house. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman mean h.r. 4463? mr. issa: yes. h.r. 4463. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4463, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 6 doyer street in new york, new york, as the mable lee memorial post office. the speaker pro tempore: is

there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is engrossed, read a third time, and passed. and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. issa: mr. speaker. i ask mr. issa: i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table senate 2040 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: an act to designate the postal facility at 621 kansas avenue as the amelia earhart post office building. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid n the table. for what purpose does the

gentleman from virginia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent that i may hereafter be considered as the primary sponsor of h.r. 756, originally introduced by representative chaffetz of utah for the purpose of adding co-sponsors under clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without bjection, ordered.

the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. he house will come to order. members, please remove conversations from the house floor. he house will be in order. house will be in order. members please remove conversations.

mr. thompson: today is brain injury awareness day. i welcome those who are in washington today to share their stories. this issue is near and dear to my heart. for 30 years this was my area of practice and expertise as a therapist and rehabilitation services manager. i served as a board member ff pennsylvania outreach of pennsylvania. the theme for this year's campaign is change your mind. this public awareness campaign strives to destigmatize brain injury, empower those who survived as well as their care givers and promote the many types of support of available. the need to raise awareness is great. more than . million americans sustain traumatic brain injuries in the united states each year. 13 million americans living with brain injuries want what we all want, to be defined by who they are as people not by their injury. everyone recovers at a different pace and we should do everything in our power to support and encourage brain injury

survivors. they the serve no less. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to urge each of my colleagues and the american people to talk to their doctors about getting screened for colorectal cancer. mr. payne: each year i sponsor a resolution to recognize march as national colorectal cancer awareness month. by raising awareness about this preventable cancer we can save lives. during this congress, representative charlie dent and introo deuced h.r. 1017, the removing barriers to colorectal cancer screening act of 2017. this bill would eliminate surprise out of pocket costs for

medicare beneficiaries who have polyps removed during colonoscopies. i also introduced h.r. 1578, the seen donald payne sr. colorectal detection act of 2017 to expand care to cover certain blood-based screening tests. named after my father who passed away from colorectal cancer this bipartisan legislation would significantly increase colorectal cancer detection and treatment and each year i lead premises leader to increase the funding for c.d.c., co--- c.d.c. colon cancer research. i urge my colleagues to join me on these important bills. together we can save lives from colorectal cancer and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute

and revise and extend my remarks. president trump declared today to be national agriculture day, a day of celebration and gratefulness to our farmers and ranchers. agriculture is a part of our -- all of our daily lives from morning until night. each american farmer feeds over $144 people -- feeds over 144 people helping us better connect with our god-given resources. every $1 of food products creates another $1. 7 in business activity. our country's agriculture experts are valued at more than $100 billion including $4 billion from my home state of florida. mr. yoho: and they support over eight million jobs created by agriculture. while celebrations such as these mark tremendous achievements for u.s. agriculture we must continue to have policies that

support our farmers and ranchers. let's make this a time action and work and continually uplift ouring a injury. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom illinois seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to honor ontoni, ae d sembings teacher at marjory stoneman douglas high school whose actions saved lives. as the second alarm went off, she knew something was wrong and she locked her door and told the students to take cover. she he swat team arrived

wouldn't let them in because she didn't want to be fooled. she exemplified the concept of dharma, duty. these actions were brought to my attention to the the hindu american foundation which continues to support the victims of the shooting as part of their broader commitment to the hindu con soacht nonviolence. they have also pursued various measures of gun vol which i whole heartedly support. i commend them for their efforts here. thank you to the teacher and the hindu american foundation for their exemplary work and for making america a better placism yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? without objection. >> i rise today to celebrate the eighth anniversary of the affordable care act. since it was signed into law, americans have relied on the

a.c.a. for access to quality, affordable health care, but republicans have attacked americans' health care at every turn. last year republicans tried to pass trumpcare a bill that would have imposed a crippling age tax, raised out of pocket costs and increased the number of uninsured americans by 23 million. ms. schakowsky: after the american people stopped trumpcare nits tracks, republicans went after the affordable care act again in their tax scam. on top of that the administration waged a persistent campaign to discourage people from enrolling in the a.c.a. plan. despite g.o.p. sabotage, americans still signed up for the affordable care act. americans want better, more affordable health care and that's what democrats offer, a better deal for better health care. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition?

without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to remember the life of theresa kimora. she traveled to the route 91 festival in las vegas on october 1 with six of her friends. she was known for making every gathering an amazing ex- appearance. she worked the california department of tax and fee administration. she's remembered for her big heart, love of life and beautiful spirit, and infectious laugh. i would like to extend my condolences to her family and friends. please note that the city of las vegas, the state of nevada and the whole country grieve with you. mr. speaker, i yield back the remaining balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for time? the chair lays tpwhever house the fol logue personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence for

ms. eddie bernice johnson for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives. i come before this floor to address the topic that is -- that has been front and center in this country since 1973 when the supreme court came down with the decision known as roe v. wade and doe v. bolton and then in the 1990's planned parenthood vs. casey. s that nation that has traditionally from the very beginning of the very first founding document, the declaration of independence, has respected and revered life. and as our founding fathers put that language together and as

john addams coached thomas jefferson and thomas jefferson put his pen to the declaration of independence, and 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, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit -- pursuit of happiness. mr. speaker, it wasn't an accident that the order of these liberties, the order of these rights that come from god, these rights started out with life, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness. scholars i have talked to, the times i have sat in the classroom and my readings, it never came clear, it's not educating our young people about what they were thinking about when they drafted that language in the declaration. we hold these truths to be self-evident that all mean are -- all men are created equal and

are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, but the right of life is listed first, not second or third. they didn't put together a list of four or five or seven or 10 different rights. they laid three out in the declaration. and those three start with life. because life is the most paramount right. the former governor, since passed away, of pennsylvania, governor bob casey, democrat who by the way was denied an opportunity to speak at the democrat national convention some years ago because he was a pro-life democrat governor and he would speak in favor of life but he said this. he said human life cannot be measured. it is the measure itself against which all other things are weighed. the measure itself. what does that mean? how do we think about this, mr. speaker? when the frenchman devised the metric system they set up a

distance that was divided out to mean a rashee of the circumstance of the earth and whatever manner of calculation they had. they came down to however many times they divided that around, it came down to the length of the meter. and then they produced this ter that was a platinum rule that was set at precisely the length of the meter and in controlled temperature and pressure, standard temperature and pressure, what would the length of this platinum rule be exactly a meter. now, how long is a meter? i guess i could tell you, we can measure it by other measure, we can do some comparisons, but that meter that original meter made out of platinum that's maintained at standard temperature and pressure, that is the measure itself.

all those measures of length are in relation to the meter itself. that meter stick, the original one, is the measure itself against which all other distances are weighed and system. in the metric human life is the measure itself against which we measure every other value we have because human life is sacred in all of its forms. and then once we accept that and this nation accepts that human life is sacred in all of its forms, democrats and republicans do agree to that, i believe, generally speaking. maybe even universally. but the disagreement comes in and, when does life begin, when does life end? and we can look at any of the pro-life groups in this country, you can ask the priests and pastors around america, when does life begin?

the most consistent answer to that question is, life begins at the moment of conception, the instant of fertilization, conception. that language is threaded throughout. or lked into gymnasiums maybe whole school k-12 or maybe the high school alone and say, you will be faced with a couple of questions in your emerging young adult life and that counsel you would give to your friends perhaps or you yourself you will have to answer these two questions -- is life sacred in all of its forms? i say, look at the person next to them. is their life sacred? look at the person on the other side. is their life sacred? they'll nod their head. and they are nodding their head at you too. because everybody in here, your life is sacred, it's precious. it's the measure itself against which other things are weighed. so when we all universally

agree that human life is sacred in all of its forms, then we have the next question and ask the question of, at what moment does life begin, at what instant? and it's that instant of conception, that instant of fertilization. rational, moral thought and faithful reasoning comes to that conclusion and yet the supreme court in roe vs. wade and in the accompanying case doe vs. bolton january 22, 1973, brought down a decision that decided liberty and pursuit of happiness trumped life. ey concluded that a mother could decide whether that child was inconvenient, whether they didn't want the child at the time, and allowed for abortion on demand, coupling the two cases together, they allowed for abortion on demand. doe vs. bolton wrote everything in the list.

it could be exceptions. it could be the mental health, physical health, familial health of the mother which any of this could be affected by finances themselves. if you don't think you can afford this baby, doe vs. bolton let's you say, well, it affected my mental health, it affected my familial health so i decided to abort the baby and any abortion doctor could conduct an abortion that was manufactured by the supreme court that turned the principles that are in our declaration on its head. they no longer recognized that life is the paramount right that is delivered to us from god and that liberty is secondary to life and that pursuit of happiness is tirtiary to life. think of this. if any of us in our pursuit of liberty would decide someone's life is in the way of liberty, we can't go kill them. we would end up in prison or execution in some states.

we can't go kill somebody because they infringe upon our liberty. their life is more important than our liberty. and neither could someone in their pursuit of happiness trample on someone else's liberties. it's the freedom of speech, to gion, the right and keep bear arms, a jury of our peers. the states' rights that are enshrined in the constitution that are subordinated to the powers in the constitution, that is all laid out in a beautiful framework that's never been done better anywhere in the world in the history of the world. but it's based upon the prioritization of god-given rights. life is more important than liberty is more important than this pursuit of happiness. by the way, define pursuit of happiness a little more thoroughly, some of the young people growing up and they read that and don't give it very much a thought saying, pursuit of happiness is a fun tailgate party before the ballgame.

it's getting together with my friends. it's out sitting down with my xbox and enjoying the video games that are going on. maybe it's just listening to music. none of those things fit the categories that our founding fathers envisioned when they put pursuit of happiness in the declaration. pursuit of happiness was lifted from the greek term. he greek term which is spelled e-u-d-a-m-o-n-i-a, because we're friends, christy. d eudamonia means pursuit of happiness which our greek friends understood which is the development of the whole human being, not a party at all, not a joke at all, not a time necessarily of laughter but it was a component, but to develop one's self intellectualy to have a knowledge base that's as strong as it can be and for a lifetime to develop one's mind and develop it thoroughly and

contemplate deep thoughts to develop themselves. that's the intellectual component of it. there was a theological component to develop one's self religiously which they did even though they were payingan in my view, they -- pegan in my view. there was a higher beings. it was plural for the greeks, the higher beings. but they were developing themselves spiritually and theologically and also physically. it kept their bodies in shape. and they worked out and they exercised and they competed in the sports that are the foundation of our olympics today. all of that was wrapped up in the eudamonia at the time that our founders read and understood. thomas jefferson thoroughly understood. there is no doubt he understood the meaning of the word eudamonia. he just didn't think the american people understood it so he wrote in there pursuit of happiness and we have just kind

of a -- we've given a short and a brief definition of that. we haven't given it the full respect it was intended by the drafter and in many cases the author of our declaration thomas jefferson. so now that i reset this, life is paramount and it is the most important and any of us should be willing to sacrifice at least some of our liberty to protect and save the lives of others because those lives are that precious and that important. and any one of us that in pursuit of our uedamonia, our pursuit of happiness, should be willing to give up some of that in order to secure and protect the liberties not only our liberties but the liberties of others. so a nation that's built upon those principles would also be a nation that would do most anything to protect the lives of the most innocent among us, our unborn. our unborn that don't have the

ability to scream out for their own mercy. they don't have the ability to come to congress and lobby for themselves. they're silent. they have no chance to make a noise even until the day that they draw their first breath, if they have the opportunity to draw that first breath, but the tally for the decision of roe vs. wade and doe vs. bolton and january 22, 1973, now has reached or exceeded 60 million babies. 60 million babies sacrificed on the altar of choice and watching the priorityized rights that came -- prioritized rights that come from our god. our supreme court got it wrong and they set the liberty of the mother over the life of the baby. they set the pursuit of

happiness, the eudamonia of the mother over the life of the baby. we have a hole of not only the guilt of tolerating this throughout these years but it's a multigenerational hole. 60 million babies not born that would otherwise be living, loving, laughing, learning, falling in love, having babies of their own, worshiping and raising their children with the values that have made this america a great nation. but that's all denied. this nation has denied the world the solutions they would have provided, the happiness and joy they would have delivered, the intellectual firepower that would have come from 60 million babies is denied to us. and go back and think, also, a good number of those little girls that were aborted since 1973 would have otherwise been

mothers today. and to look at it generationally and this is a back of the envelope calculation, to take those little girls and predict that maybe each one of them would have had three babies, each one, that calculates out to be, mr. speaker, another 60 million babies. another 60 million. so the population of this country would be something like 120 million stronger if the supreme court had believed and had conviction on what i just described about the right to life being the paramount life, paramount right, more important than liberty, more important than the pursuit of happiness, eudamonia, the right to life. and when the supreme court made that erroneous, activist decision, they started this country in a downward spiral, a spiral where there's less respect for life than there was before 1973.

mr. speaker, if i just take you to the school shooting day and address that, the -- we look back through the history and the records of the school shootings that have -- as well as mass killings that have taken place in schools over the -- look back over the last century, the earliest one that we could find was 1924 in michigan and it was a series of bombs that were planted in the schools there in michigan set to go off by alarm clocks which would be the kind we would see in the old cartoons today. and those bombs were timed to go off and the result of that was 40 people were killed in the bombings at the schools in michigan in 1924. mass school killing. and that's the largest mass school killing we could find by sorting through history as deeply as we could research it. 40 killed, bombings, 1924. then not another mass school killing or shooting -- another

killing until 1940 when an individual went into a school in pasadena and killed five people with a pistol. then, not another school shooting, mass shooting of any kind, at least, took place from 1940 on and took us all the way to 1963, 23 years after that single mass school shooting in pasadena, 23 years later, the supreme court came down with another erroneous decision called murray vs. curlette. it is a case that took prayer out of the public schools. up until that time we went to school -- went into school and started with a pledge and prayer in the classroom. especially in elementary school. i remember that. by the time the decision came down, i was a freshman in high school and i remember that order. the supreme court commands no more prayer in the public schools. where did they get the authority to declare that we couldn't exercise our freedom of religion?

now, i've been challenged on this a good number of times in the subsequent years but i remember them saying, what will you do about the separation of church and state? first of all, there isn't a separate of church and state but it's being exercised by supreme court decisions as a separation even -- not only of church and state but church and school. now, the first amendment of the constitution writes that -- specifically does is it prohibits congress from establishing a law that creates a state religion. nor shall -- it denies the ability of congress to pass that legislation that establishes a state religion. so that's all it does. and the freedom of religion shall not be infringed. we have the freedom of relgon, but still the supreme court -- religion, but still the supreme court made the decision to take prayers out of school. an activist act that then began to scrub faith and morality out

of our public schools. i remember that freshman year when i learned this and i remember in that classroom -- these images are in my mind clearly. it was, how are they going to stop us from praying in our schools? what could they possibly do to keep us from praying? they hadn't invented conduct tape at that time, mr. speaker. i'm -- duct tape at that time, mr. speaker. i'm thinking of white adhesive tape, doctors' tape, i was thinking, they could tape our mouths shut. the only way to stop prayer in the public schools, if we refuse to accept the order, was to empty the schools out themselves and that image is in my mind. dennison community school where i went to high school, i can still see the central building in my mind's eye clearing out all the rooms, all the students going outside of that school in the army. the army

the army wol come in and have a new chain to roll around those bars to push around those bars, wrap around the chain and put a padlock on it and post a guard in an army uniform outside those doors every entrance into that school. only way to stop prayer in that public school. but they stopped it. because we accepted the order of the supreme court. we accepted the beginning of the degradation of the moral core of america that was being taught in every public school in america at that time. we reveered our faith and understood our history and we knew that our founding fathers that put this country together that moved around this country like men on a chest board. the declaration was not written with divine inspiration. we are gifted in this country with the divine grace that god

guided the men and women that built this country and the nearly perfect foundation that they put in place in the declaration and also the constitution. but we let the supreme court that was never designed to be the most powerful of the three branches of government, we let the supreme court rule. and then now today, we teach in those schools there are three equal branches of government. -- they are with not designed to be equal. the judicial branch was designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government and wasn't the branch of government that was designed to come down on a law of what is constitutional or not constitutional. the constitution requires that congress establishes a supreme court. i have made this case to justice

scalia, an awfully hard man to say good-bye to for all the clarity he has brought to the understanding of the constitution. nd i'm grateful that justice gorsuch is there to replace him and pick up on the things that are so well perfected by justice scalia. in a meeting with 30 or 40 other members here several years ago, i made the point, mr. speaker, to justice scalia and i said to him congress is the most powerful branch of government and the house in particular, because all spending bills have to start here. and the constitution doesn't require that we establish all of the federal circuits that are out there or the federal district courts below that, the congress only -- and this is how i put it to justice scalia, congress is only required to establish a supreme court and

abolish all of the federal districts if we chose to do so. congress did abolish two additional districts back in 1802. that's a pattern. it has been established. so if congress decided to do so, we could weaken the judicial branch of government and reduce the judicial branch of government down to just a supreme court because it requires that we are required to establish a supreme court but nothing that requires us to build a building, fund a building or fund an administrative staff and team for them. i said to justice scalia, we could eliminate the federal courts and reduce the supreme court down to the chief justice to his own table, no staff. t was a bit of a surprise to hear it from a member of

congress. he thought for a little bit. i'm not sure he ever thought what i presented for him and he said well, i would argue that you could reduce the supreme court down to three justices because otherwise, if you don't have anything but a supreme court, a chief justice, there is nothing to be the chief of. i would argue for three justices. and i said well, justice, scalia, thereof been too many chiefs and not enough indians and declare the case to move on for further discussion. the point of this exercise is to make the point that the courts' power exists because congress empowers it. and if there is a struggle between the legislative branch of government, article one or the executive branch of government, article 2 or judicial branch of government, article 3, i would remind the folks involved in any discussion

that the branches of government were prioritized in the constitution in the same fashion that the god-given rights are prioritized in the declaration, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. article one, two, three, legislative, executive, judicial branch of government. prioritized. our founding fathers envisioned there would be a struggle and wanted to set up a static power base so they expected each branch of government would jealously protect its constitutional authority and there would be that tug of war, a struggle that ethicically they hoped between each branch of government. they put the checks and balances and gave the legislative authority to the united states congress and spending authority to congress and nigs of all bills that initiates spending to the house of representatives and didn't give it to the senate because we were to be the hot

cup of coffee and the senate was to be the saucer that saucer cooled in. we are two years here and six years in the senate. but they wanted a legislative body that would be a quick reaction for us and fast response where things got out of whack. then they wanted the house of representatives to perhaps turn over quickly so that the house could respond to these issues in a fast way, but they wanted a judicial body, that legislative body that could sit back and fold their arms a little bit and wait and be patient and think things through. it was also a hard-charging reaction force in the house and seasonned by experience, i might add, mr. speaker. and a more careful, slower moving body in the senate which they clearly achieved.

one of those examples in modern day when things went against the american people and in the elections in 2010, around march 23 of 2010, it was march 23, the final passage of obamacare passed from the senate and the house to president obama's desk and he signed that bill as fast as he could get his signature on it. but the american people had rejected a federal government takeover of our health insurance at least as a minimum and i long said that our soul is the most sovereign thing that we have and the government hasn't figured out how to nationalize that yet. and i don't believe they will. our bodies, our skin and everything inside it, obamacare nationalizes the federal take

over our skin and everything inside it. took out the ability to manage our health in a free-market system and the public rejected such an idea and rejected obamacare. march 23 it was passed and signed into law and the election that ensued the following vember brought 87 republican freshmen and every one of them ran on the tigget to 100% rip it out by the roots and repeal obamacare. that's the reaction of the public when this body here was not responding to the will of the people. they changed that over in the very next election, which was just months later, from the third month to the 11th month. and eight months later, the election had taken place and we had 87 new freshmen republicans on the way and didn't get as far as we needed to get.

we didn't rip it out as fully but see the effects of that election to this day. that's how our founding fathers would envision it would work. the house of representatives reacted in the 2010 election and the american pe people wabde in. there are provisions there if there is going to be impeachment, the house has to initiate that but over in the senate, the impeachment doesn't remove a president from office. i believe it constitutionally requires a trial in the senate. but to remove a president from office takes a 2/3 majority in the united states senate. i don't think they served us very well in 1998 when the impeachment went before the united states when william jefferson clinton was impeached because the trial in the senate didn't bring us a verdict. they put all the questions together. and instead of asking the

question, did he commit the acts that the house had indicted him for and in a separate question, should he be removed from office for that, they jammed the questions together and gave democrat senators a way out and didn't have to answer whether he was guilty or not. they never heard the case and gave us a verdict on the conclusion. it was inconclusive in the senate and the way they framed those questions that were voted on by the senators i think was a disservice to the american people and disservice to our constitution. nonetheless, there is a check and a balance. if the president gets out of line or executive branch gets out of line, the house of representatives can initiate impeachment. the house of representatives can shut off all funding to that branch of government -- wouldn't do that obviously, but to a division of their branch of government, we can cut the funding to bring about the

result that is necessary if we have the conviction here if we believe it is prudent policy. the house controls the spending. the house initiates any impeachment that might be required. and we don't want to ever exercise that unless it is done for good reason and for good cause. and the senate, they can sit back a little back, only a third of them have a level of apprehension. but this balance, this check and balance between the three branches of government was that the branch of government and the division within it, the legislative branch and the u.s. house of representatives, division within it was always designed to be able to control the other branches of government and by the way, able to limit the united states senate and the reasons for that are why we are up for re-election two years so the people are sovereign.

we, the people, are the ones who decide who is right in all of this republican form of government which is guaranteed to the american people in the constitution. we are guaranteed a republican form of government. in this form of government, it is we the people. and we, the legislators within the united states house of representatives are the most accountable to the people and by that, we need to be the most responsive to the people as well. and i think history has proven that out. and so it doesn't either mean that the supreme court gets to decide necessarily what the constitution means. i will define what it means here, mr. speaker. and that is, the constitution has to mean what it says. it has to mean literally what it says, but it has to also mean what it was understood to mean at the time of its ratification. every one of us takes an oath to

support and defend the constitution. here in the house, 435 of us and 100 senators and a good number of executive branch of employees take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. i take that oath seriously and i carry a constitution in my jacket pocket every day as close to my heart as it can get to remember what it means to me. but i don't take the oath to support and defend the constitution with the idea in mind that i'm going to shift my oath and the meaning of my oath to conform to a supreme court decision that does not reflect the original understanding of the constitution. none of us can take an oath to a living, breathing, moving interpretation of a document. this constitution, mr. speaker, this constitution constitutes a contractual guarantee from the

intergenerational contractual guarantee that this god-given liberty as defined in our declaration and the bill of rights and the structure and function of our government and the enumerated powers in here that this is an intergenerational contractual guarantee passed down to us from generation to generation and can't change its meaning because five justices over there decide to change its meaning. i want to respect their jurisprudence. and i respect all of the decisions that have come down but an activist has decided they are going to rewrite the society according to their whim. and i have admired congresswoman gohmert of texas who is a former judge. and he came to this congress and ran on this ticket and been to iowa a few times and coming back. he said this, i found myself on the bench as a judge and i was

constrained to interpret the literal meaning of the constitution and the meaning of the laws that were passed and when i felt the urge to be a legislator, i knew my urge was to leave the ever and run for congress. that's what you need to do when you reason that you can do more to contribute as a legislator than you can as a judge. . he came ohere to legislate because that's his heart's desire and i know he will do good for this country. the judges on the bench are undermining our god-given liberty. they're undermining the foundation to us delivered by the founders. they're undermining the declaration and the constitution itself. i can think a few of those decisions. the key low decision. when the -- the kelow decision.

when they decided private property could be confiscated through eminent domain through a local jurisdiction of government and then handed over to another private interest. let's just say there is a widow lady that lives in a certain section of town and she wants to live in that house the rest of her life but the developers that own the rest of the land around here and want to put in a shopping mall. they say, here's our offer. i want to buy your house. she says, no, no amount of money can buy this house. kelo decision, it was litigated all the way to the supreme court and they said local government could condemn property under the fifth amendment. the fifth amendment which says nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

they didn't say nor shall private property be condemned and handed over to other private interests without just compensation because the founding fathers never imagined that government would have the audacity to condemn private property to hand it over to other private interests. but the function of that decision was -- so now the effect of the kelo decision is the fifth amendment now reads in effect, de facto, we say, nor shall private property be taken without just compensation. they struck out those three words, for one use. that's the effect of the supreme court decision. it's an erroneous decision. it's a wrong decision. it doesn't reflect the language in the fifth amendment of the constitution.

they are taking property private, hand it over to private property because local government has concluded they can collect for tax dollars off that private interest that wants to build a shopping mall or a truck stop or whatever it might be to expand. that's the kind of decisions that the supreme court can make that are activist decisions that amend our constitution if we let them do that.

we think of a situation like roe vs. wade or doe vs. bolton, where does it come from? a decision called the grizwald decision from the 1960's, i believe 1964. connecticut at that time, a strong catholic state, decided they would not allow for contraceptives to be sold in connecticut. and the grisswaled couple, husband and -- griswald couple, husband and wife, decided they could purchase contraceptives to exercise their liberties. now, that decision that was made by the state of connecticut not to sell contraceptives could -- was part of the laboratory of the state. it is a state's right to pass a decision like that. soon as the people in the state of connecticut decided they rejected that decision they could elect new people.

this was litigated to the supreme court. the supreme court of the united states decided that couple, the griswald couple had a right to privacy and that right to privacy included the right to purchase contraceptives. and so they created a new right, a right to privacy. they created it out of the -- out of thin air, which we now all out of the imnations and pinumbras. maybe a justice in a black robe can see but the rest of us lay people or even the brightest attorneys in the land can't quite see because they aren't seated on the supreme court. well, if you can find rights out that that you can't find in the very language of the constitution or statute, for that matter, you are an activist judge. alter our rying to

society. you're legislating from the bench. they created this right to privacy and this right to privacy was then used as the foundation of the decision in roe vs. wade and doe vs. bolton that granted -- a couple of those two cases together abortion on demand. abortion on demand, at least before viability and the viability is a very vague measure of a baby that would be able to survive outside the wom b. now, that length of maturity within the womb has -- and the ability to survive outside the womb has changed substantially, mr. speaker, since roe vs. wade and doe vs. bolton. now we have babies that have survived early as -- into the 20th week. viability has changed because

medicine has gotten ahead of this and we have saved more babies, but viability wasn't the only measure because doe vs. bolton gave all the exceptions that i talked about earlier. the exceptions for the -- well, the health of the mother, the physical health, the mental health, the familial health, the financial health, anything that might affect her psyche if it was -- so it amounts to abortion on demand to the -- for the sake of let's wait until it's convenient to take the life of that innocent little baby. but what we see now, mr. speaker, what we see now is that we're watching these babies grow in the womb in the ultrasound and my iphone has a number of little babies in the ultrasound. and you watch as the little babies will squirm, suck their thumb. they look like they're trying to talk. stretch their legs out. they move around a lot more than we ever thought they did. i talk to mothers that say --

watch their little baby that's 19, 20 weeks along squirming around in the ultrasound and some of the -- a lot of the time they can't yet feel that movement. we know as we get later on, even us dads get to feel that ovement. it is a glorious thing. this is the development of a miracle. you can't be a parent or grandparent and hold a little baby that is flesh of your flesh and not be amazed at the miracle of a little baby. when i took my first born in my hands, little david steven king, and put him in my hands and looked at him, it was with awe that i saw -- i saw so many pieces about him. count the fingers and toes. take a look at his eyes. see every little feature that's there. that little son and i began to ask that question shortly after his birth, could anyone take

his life now within minutes after he was born as squirmy and beautiful and miraculous, created in god's image as he was, could anybody take his life then? i don't know anybody that is ghastly enough could do so so i thought if he's 20 minutes old and we take take his life, if he's 5 minutes old and we can't take his life, if he's 1 minute old and we can't take his life, how could we take it a minute before he's born or five minutes or an hour or a day or a week or a month? where along this continuum, from this moment of conception would there be a time we could say, oh, he's only a blob of tissue? he was never a blob of tissue. he was always a unique human being, joining together the d.n.a. of his mother and his father in a unique fashion that will never be matched again. mr. speaker, think of this. seven billion people on the planet, everyone unique, even the identical twins, the

identical quadruplets that are there. their mother can tell them apart. their father can tell them apart most of the time. the older they get the easier it is. but seven billion faces on this planet and god created those faces to be unique. no two faces are the same even if their d.n.a. is matched up in identical twins or identical quadruplets or identical triplets as rare as they are. their mothers can look them in the face and know which child is which. the rest of us can figure out everybody else and we can a lot of times figure out the twins too. i have twin nieces i could always tell apart. they'd ask me how i could and i say, well, one is really sblenlt and the other is really beautiful, you two figure out which is which. i won't answer the question. but we can tell them apart. what a gift from god to -- the creation, to have the imagination to create faces. everyone unique no matter how

many people on the planet there are, just the facial features are unique. let alone all the rest of us. let alone all the things that go on in our minds and heads and the experiences we have, the personalities that develop differently, the combination of nature and nurture that will never unlock the mystery of that. that's all a gift from god. and we have aborted 60 million of the gift from god. 60 million. and another 60 million babies not born because their mothers were aborted. children that never had the opportunity to live, to draw that first breath of free air. when i welcome a new grandchild in the world i say a prayer over them, mr. speaker. i pray they have a long and a healthy life, a faithful life, and a life that -- and a life that is long and healthy and faithful and when that day comes that they're called home at the end of that long and healthy and faithful life, i pray that the breath, the last

breath that they draw is more free than the first breaths that they are drawing on that day. and that's what we need to work for. more freedom, more god-given liberty, more young lives brought into this world, the very source of all joy comes from little babies, from our children. and if we stopped having babies, the joy would finally just die down. the laughter, the giggling would just diminish day by day by day until there was no joy left in the world. that's the source of it. and yet we're aborting a million babies a year. and that's why, mr. speaker, i brought the heartbeat bill to this house of representatives. h.r. 490, the heartbeat protection act. that's why we've worked so hard to get co-sponsors on this legislation. we worked so hard to get the co-sponsors and people like former majority leader tom delay came here to work pro bono.

the leader of faith to action, janet porter. a driving force. worked to get co-sponsors on this legislation. worked to send the messages in the right place. we carefully drafted language that reflects our intent, to save the lives as many babies as we can from the moment of the heartbeat. and we require that if the abortionist is intending to commit an abortion he must first check for a heartbeat. and that heartbeat would be detected at seven to eight weeks. if a heartbeat can be detected, the baby is protected, because we know that's a unique human being, a sacred human life. and i would like to go back to the moment of conception. but we can't yet medically identify that moment. but we can identify when a heartbeat can be detected and we all know if there is a beating heart, there's a baby there. that heart doesn't just sit down on its own beating away. it's in the chest of a baby. a little baby, little unique

boy or a girl that's a gift from god and that baby has at least a 95% chance of successful birth once we can detect that heartbeat in the womb. and so how could we allow for the ending of that unique human being's life? without that baby not having a chance to draw a breath of free air, to scream for its own mercy, how could we say no to that? how could we have in our ear pieces the sound, that ultrasound of that beating heart? my little granddaughter is 20 weeks along and her heartbeating last week at 161 beats per minute and that beat is strong and firm and solid and she's got at least a 95% chance of successful birth and being welcomed into this world, drawing that breath of free air hat i and i will pray. but we need to get there and

protect these lives and get a bill before the supreme court. here in this house, we are 170 co-sponsors strong and far ahead of any other significant piece of pro-life legislation. i drafted the bill with the strategy in mind to get the heartbeat bill before the supreme court. i'm very pleased what i see with justice gorsuch. and when i hear the rumors of the potential retirements, our , so we can members expect a retirement fairly soon. and we need to have a bill out of the house of representatives sitting on mitch mcconnell's desk long enough and hard enough to begin up the effort to get it out of the united states senate. there are four windows that need to be open before we start to save lives. one of them is a pro-life

majority in the house of representatives. we have that. 237 votes behind the pain-capable 20-week bill. the next one is a pro-life majority in the united states senate. and senator blunt made a mention in our values team here a couple of years ago, they have a pro-life majority, 51 votes voted for the 20-week bill over there. didn't break the filibuster. that's a pro-life majority. and if they suspend the rules over there and get rid of the filibuster rule, the bill is over there to send it to the president's desk. second window is the pro-life majority in the senate. third window is a president who will sign the heartbeat bill to protect these lives from the seventh or eighth week all the way through. i don't have any doubt that president trump will sign such a

bill. and i don't have any doubt that vice president pence will be standing right next to him when that day comes. i don't know whether i will be standing there, but i will do everything i can to get the heartbeat bill to the president's desk. and yes, it will be litigated. the pro-abortion people will legitimate everything that slows down the abortion mills in this country. so it would be litigated and the timing getting out of the senate to the president's desk and before the court after the next confirmation means we are called upon to move the heartbeat bill out of the house within the next few months. things get crazy around here. if it gets passed about july, it will be hard to move the heartbeat bill. there was a little rule that was handed down from the previous speaker that says pro-life legislation doesn't move off the floor of the house unless the top three pro-life organizations support it and will actively

support it here in the united states house of representatives. those organizations would be family research council, tony perkins supports the bill. the next organization is susan b. anthony's list and they have agreed to support the bill. yes, they have a priority they would like to move ahead of the c.e.o. said i would never stand in the way as something so good. the third organization that is not fully on board. i don't think they are supporting it in any way and back channels say to me there are some statements made to slow it down and that is the national right to life. the oldest pro-life organization in america. they said they don't oppose the eartbeat bill. well, mr. speaker, this is right

off of their electronic publications, whether it happens to be a tweet or a website. national right to life, protecting life in america since 1968. national right to life do not oppose the heartbeat bill. i struck through there with a red line and i said well, they don't support it. they don't oppose it,, well, they don't support the bill. their mission statement says that they support and protect life from the beginning of life until natural death and define life as being at the moment of for the lization. how can you not support the heartbeat bill? and the reasoning is they are stuck in this, they refuse to challenge the supreme court. they refuse to challenge the viability standards that were written into roe versus wade and

planned parenthood versus casey. if the number one pro-life organization refuses to challenge the supreme court on those standards, then what they are doing is accepting and some would say accepting the idea that we are going to see a million abortions a year in this country as far as the eye can see, because if you are not willing to challenge the supreme court, then you are accepting one million abortions. if we are trimming around the edges -- i support all of this legislation. let's do it all. pain-capable doesn't get the job done, it shys away from challenging the supreme court. we wrote this heartbeat bill, h.r. 490 to challenge the viability standards the supreme court has. we want to measure life, unique, precious, sacred life from the molet of conception and

protected in the 14th amendment, we are all protected in there, life, liberty and property. so all we need to do is define when life begins and we are obligated by the constitution to protect that life. but the supreme court has different ideas. i don't believe they will oof the next appointment to the supreme court. so some of the people that agree with national right to life say not enough states have passed it. here are the states that have passed heartbeat protection language, ohio, north dakota, arkansas, john kasich vetoed that legislation. who lobbied them to do that? and planned parenthood and national right to life. what brings them to do that, mr. speaker? because they don't want to challenge the supreme court. there's testimony that went before the ohio legislature december 13 of 2011 that says we don't want to force justice

kennedy to vote no on a heartbeat bill because justice nsburg might write the majority opinion. i would argue every time we have gone before the court we have gained something, we have gained ground. the court is sensitive to the movement of our society. they were acceptstive when they ran up the decision that opposed same-sex marriage. they decided that america was ready for same-sex marriage and forced it on everybody in america. and must have been right because it wasn't a very big fight that was put up. by their rationale, we are ready to protect innocent unborn life than we were for gay marriage and we need to get this legislation before the courts today, tonight, 6:00 eastern

time, 7:00 central time. there is a full hearing before the iowa house of representatives on their heartbeat legislation, which has passed the senate 30-20. went before the house and passed out of committee out of the house last thursday in the last hour in what they call funnel week and this hearing is called by the pro-abortion people want to have a full house hearing. the witnesses will be lined up there. and will stand up for life tonight. and if the hearing goes the way we expect, the bill will come before the iowa house of representatives and will pass. and watching the expressions on just our excellent and wonderful first female governor in the state of iowa, i can't imagine she would do anything but signing it. i'm anticipating a wonderful result and i believe in a week or two that becomes law in iowa, likely the pro-abortion people will legitimate like they did in

mississippi on mississippi's 15-week bill. an injunction. that is going before the fifth circuit and roe versus wade and doe versus bolton and planned parenthood versus casey will be challenged in the fifth circuit. then that means the iowa law that i anticipate also will be litigated, why wouldn't we send this standard over to the senate and on to -- to go before the supreme court. h.r. 490, the heartbeat protection act litigated at the same time along with mississippi's 15-week bill and iowa's heartbeat bill. it brings it from several different angles and i would remind the body there were three federal circuits that the partial birth abortion was heard at at the same time. they arrived packaged up in one

case before the united states court and life prevailed in that case as eventually life will prevail in the united states of america. and so, madam speaker, i would like to apologize for addressing you as mr. speaker, and i appreciate the time that you have allowed me. and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. king: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands