tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 8, 2018 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
the subcommittee on capital markets on the financial services committee, mrs. maloney. mrs. maloney: i thank my friend and ranking member for yielding and her leadership on the financial services committee. mr. speaker, i strongly, strongly oppose this resolution, which will actually encourage discrimination against people of color who want to buy cars. . . you know -- i know my republican colleagues claim this is about a rulemaking process -- process. but let's be clear. this is not about process. this is about discrimination. this issue is very simple. financial institutions that make auto loans have an obligation not to discriminate against borrowers based on the color of their skin. this has been the law since congress passed the equal credit
opportunity act over 43 years ago. the consumer financial protection bureau found compelling evidence that when financial institutions allow auto dealers to increase the interest rates on auto loans for specific borrowers that come into their dealership, minority borrowers were systemically charged a higher rate. in other words, this particular practice resulted in illegal lending discrimination. so the consumer financial protection bureau did what it was supposed to do. it told financial institutions to stop this illegal and discriminatory practice, or risk being sued by the bureau for lending discrimination. but the consumer bureau did not stop there. it also told the lenders exactly
how they needed to change their practices to avoid being sued for lending discrimination. this kind of transparency is a good thing. it allows the consumer bureau to root out discrimination in the auto lending market while also providing guidance and certainty to all the lenders that want to do the right thing. and yet this guidance is exactly what the resolution before us today would repeal. why? this would have the effect of encouraging discrimination against minority borrowers in the auto lending market and discouraging the consumer bureau from cracking down on this horrible practice. i believe we need to stand
strong against discrimination in all forms, including lending discrimination. so i urge my colleagues to vote for their constituents, to vote for consumers, and to oppose this resolution. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, thank you. i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, a very hardworking member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kustoff: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of s.j.res. 57, which will roll back a rule issued by indirect auto lending. we know that in 2013 the bureau issued guidance to financial institutions that would eliminate an auto dealer's ability to discount interest tes offered to consumers who
finance consumer purchases. it has a history of imposing burdensome rules and regulations on a wide range of financial products. the cfpb has often issued rules without the understanding of the full scope of the problem and without regard to the cost of compliance it imposes on an industry. this rule is no exception. it's clearly stated in section 1029 of the dodd-frank act, the bureau is explicitly prohibited from regulating auto dealers. this attempt by the bureau to provide guidance to auto lending is a clear violation of the statute, and is yet another example of how the bureau continued to abuse the statutory power under then director richard cord roadway. i am pleased to join -- recordroy. i am pleased to join my colleagues -- cordroy. i am pleased to join my colleagues today to make sure it doesn't issue any similar rules. i want to thank the chairman and other members of the house financial services committee for bringing this important
legislation to the floor. i urge my colleagues to support this important measure, to help rein in the cfpb's regulatory overreach. thank you, mr. speaker. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. he gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i am very pleased now to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, an outstanding member of the financial services committee, ms. tenney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. tenney: thank you, chairman hensarling. and a special thank you to my colleague from new york, lee zeldin, on his support also of s.j.res. 57. mr. speaker, it's been five years since the consumer financial protection board circumvented the rule make prague sess that unfairly denies consumers and -- small businesses.
by executing this wrongful end run around the proper rulemaking process, the cfpb created much uncertainty into the $1.1 trillion auto lending market. in fact, in testimony before our committee, the former director admitted to me in testimony that he had to circumvent the rules to target auto lenders. more than half of car buyers finance their purchases acquiring an automobile. these consumers have the ability to obtain great auto rates through their dealer-asift finance, known as indirect lending. i've personally met highly credible auto dealers in my district who are strongly committed to their communities and the consumers who they serve. in fact, one auto dealer that i met with specifically does not even take any form of picture i.d. when determining lending, just to avoid any kind of scrutiny that would actually suggest that they were doing any kind of discrimination. these auto dealers, and they're mostly small businesses, comply with fair lending policies and practices while meeting the
needs of their consumers who desperately need to buy a car and often finance through their auto dealer. however, let's get back to this flawed, unstudied guidance through the statistics we've heard from the other side, that threaten to eliminate the flexibility these small businesses, these small auto dealers, need to offer discounted interest rates to consumers who need to purchase a car on credit, with a very limited budget, especially in my community. last congress multiple bipartisan letters and bills called for the cfpb to correct and reissue their guidance, which would bring clarity to the market and study the impact this die gregs would have on lower --dy gregs would have on lower-income consumers. however, the cfpb refused to provide help on multiple occasions. it's indeed ironic that the very agency which is supposed to protect consumers is in fact harming them with its flawed guidance rules. congress created the consumer financial protection board to protect consumers, not hurt them. mr. hensarling: i yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.
ms. tenney: thank you, mr. speaker. just to emphasize that these small businesses should be protected by the consumer financial protection board, not targeted by them. mr. speaker, i ask that my colleagues and everyone join us in supporting s.j.res. 57 and finally rescind this flawed guidance by the cfpb. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. and has five minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california has four minutes remaining. ms. waters: mr. speaker, members, i'm sitting here appalled at what i'm hearing from the opposite side of the aisle. the fact that they would use a congressional review act to attack guidance and then have that they y to say can never, ever again have anything like this again. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. he gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, at this time i am very pleased to
yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, an outstanding member of the ways and means committee, and chair of the congressional auto caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the chairman. thank you very much for giving me time. i just heard the phrase that i am appalled by what's taking place on the floor today. i join in those comments and i really do believe that for a person whose family's been in the automobile business since 1953 and sold thousands and thousands of cars to people of any color, it doesn't matter the color of the person buying the car. do we match them up with the transportation need that they were looking for? and were we able to arrange financing that was affordable to them? you cannot be in business for 65 years doing it the wrong way. and to impugn the integrity of the automobile people is absolutely beyond reproach. if you run out of facts, i guess the next thing you have to go to is discrimination. when we talk this way, it is so divisive. but that's the platform. let's divide them, let's try to separate them.
the color of the skin, the shape of their eye. their gender. let's make sure that we can make every statement possible to show that there are bad people out there doing things to other folks. and it's only, the only by discrimination that these things get done. i will tell you, i am greatly offended as a member of the automobile industry, and as someone who has served thousands of people, if you think the dealers are that bad, please go hometown and look at the at the little league fence and find out whose name is out there. look at your high school programs and see who is funding all these things. go to any charity and see who is on the list of who takes care of people. to sit here today and have to listen that somehow this is discriminatory just adds to the fact that when you're out of facts, when you don't know what you're talking about, and what you've never done, not one of your people have ever been on the floor and had tried, not this floor, i'm talking about the automobile floor, you know an awful lot about laptops but you know nothing about blacktop. you get on that floor, get on that lot and you work with people to make sure they can have affordable transportation,
affordable transportation. rather than this person trying to arrange financing by his self or herself -- hisself or herself. they rely on a deal that are has great heff in the community and -- heft in the community and have a lend who are is working with them to get them in -- lender who is working with them to get them in the transportation. how can you reduce this down to discrimination? we are doing the same thing every day that you are doing. we are trying to make sure that we're making america great every day and every way. and the best way to do that is to stop talking about discrimination and start talking about the nation. we're coming together as a people in pite -- in spite what have you say. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: thank you very much. the gentleman, mr. kelly, please do not leave. because i want you to know that i am more offended as an african-american woman than you will ever be. and this business about making
america great again, it is your president that's dividing this country. and don't talk to me about the fact that we don't understand what happens on the -- mr. kelly: will the gentlelady yield? ms. waters: no, i will not yield. don't tell me that we don't understand. that's the attitude that's been given towards women time and time again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the chair wishes to remind all members that they are to address their remarks to the chair. ms. waters: i respect the chair but don't stop me in the middle when you didn't stop him in the middle. so i shall continue. don't you dare talk to me like that and think that somehow women don't understand what goes on on the floor of automobile dealers. the speaker pro tempore: members are re-- the gentlewoman is reminded to direct her remarks to the chair. ms. waters: i will continue to do that. however, i don't appreciate that you did not interpret him -- interrupt him when he was making those outrageous remarks about him knowing more about discrimination than i know about discrimination.
i resent that and i resent the remark about making america great again. he's down here making a speech for this dishonorable president of the united states of america. having said that, i reserve the balance of my time. and no, i do not yield. not one second to you. not one second. not one second to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i have no other speaker, mr. speaker. so i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and members. there are times on the floor of this congress that we hear some f the most outrageous comments in defense of some of the most outrageous practices. this resolution is yet another harmful piece of legislation
from the majority that should be rejected. week after week, instead of working to benefit hardworking americans, and protect the public from abusive financial institutions, republicans have advanced legislation to undermine and remove consumer and investor protections. threaten the stability of our economy, and financial system. and benefit bad actors in the financial services industry. they're taking our system of financial regulation in prec.c. lee the wrong direction -- in precisely the wrong denk -- direction. today, as we have discussed, the majority is putting together a resolution that would repeal important consumer financial protection bureau guidance to prevent discrimination by indirect auto lenders. this resolution would set back efforts to prevent discriminatory auto lending, harm consumers and make it harder for responsible
businesses to follow the law. it is senseless and misguided. the resolution also -- would also set a dangerous precedent by repealing years' old regulatory guidance. which is not how the congressional review act was intended to be used. opening the door to inappropriate uses of the congressional review act like this one threatens the important work of regulators, not just of the financial services industry, but of all industries. . so i call upon my colleagues across the aisle to work with democrats on policies that strengthen consumer protections rather than the harmful rollbacks like the one before us today. i urge members to oppose the resolution, and i want my friends on the opposite side of the aisle to know that we don't easily get up and talk about discrimination against minorities and people of color.
we don't like to have to do this. we wish that we had come to a time in the history of this country where it did not happen, but i am appalled when the opposite side of the aisle stands up in strong defense of discrimination. if they were really interested in working with the democrats, they would say, we have a better methodology of determining whether or not there's discrimination. we want to work with you. we want to do whatever is necessary to ensure that no one is discriminated against. yet, i hear from members like mr. kelly who come to the floor talking about we don't know what we're talking about, we don't understand it, we have never been on the floor of a dealership. oh, yes, i have. my husband was in the car business. i know a lot about it. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time i have remaining?
thank you, mr. speaker. well, mr. speaker, it is rare but i have found common ground with the ranking member, and the common ground is, i have such outrageous comments on the house floor, as other members of the other side of the aisle come and accuse us of such outrageous defending di. number one, almost half, half of her caucus supported s.j.res. 57 to get rid of this in the last congress. and i hope every single car dealer in america is listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have come down here on the house floor to accuse them of racism. with what? the proof of a report that has universe of two, a of two? again, it makes a mockery, a mockery of the equal
opportunity credit act. and for those to come to the house floor and say they are appalled by discrimination, where were they when the bureau of consumer financial protection was accused of aving a pervasive culture of retaliation, intimidation? they were found to engage in discrimination but what did we hear from the other side of the aisle? we heard crickets. we heard crickets, mr. speaker. now, what's next? when -- what will we hear from the other side of the aisle? are we going to hear that every pharmacist is a fascist? are we going to hear every single doctor in america is engaged in spousal abuse? where's the proof? people are trying to sell cars and help them get into transportation. and oh, by the way, mr. speaker, almost, almost every american now has one of these.
go to your smartphone and google auto finance, and guess what, at least on mine comes up state farm, lending tree, chase, road loans. nobody forces you to take the financing package of the dealer even though often it is a better choice than other lenders. it is so easy, mr. speaker, to come to the floor and say, my lord, the charge is serious. therefore, you must be guilty until proven innocent. this is an embarrassing day for the house, mr. speaker. absolutely embarrassing. we should stand for the rule of the law. when my friends on the other side of the aisle so jealously guard the sanctity of dodd-frank, why haven't we heard their voice today? why aren't they defending dodd-frank today? ecause dodd-frank itself, as coming down from mount sinai
said, thou shall not regulate auto dealers. so now we're throwing dodd-frank overboard. we're calling auto dealers racists. it is indeed outrageous comments, and come here to the house floor and recklessly make that accusation is an outrage and that's why we need to ensure that s.j.res. 57 is voted on affirmatively today, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 872, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. the question is on third reading of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 united states code of the rules submitted by bureau of consumer financial protection relating to indirect auto lending and compliance with the equal credit opportunity act. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the
joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 house will please come to order. members, please take your seats. the house will come to order. members, please take your seats. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. crowley: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 2-a-1 of the , i give -- i rise questions of the privileges of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. mr. crowley: the form of the resolution is as follows -- whereas the tradition of the house chaplain dates to the earliest days of the house of representatives beginning in 1789 -- >> the house is not in order.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will please come to order. the gentleman will continue. whereas the role of house chaplain has been filled by 60 individuals of various religious denominations serving members of congress of all faiths. whereas father patrick conroy has served honorably as house chaplain since may 25, 2011, when he was appointed by then speaker john a. boehner in consultation with democratic leader nancy pelosi. whereas father conroy had been reappointed and elected by the house of representatives on hree separate occasions. most recently january 3, 2017.
the s on april 16, 2018, nation's first jesuit and only the second catholic chaplain of the u.s. house of representatives submitted his resignation before the full house. whereas the chaplain had only eight months remaining in his . rm of service to the house whereas this resignation was requested by the office of paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. whereas the speaker's office said, quote, the decision to remove the chaplain was his, speaker ryan's. whereas on may 3, 2018, father conroy submitted a letter
retracting and rescinding his resignation which was accepted by speaker ryan. whereas despite the speaker's statement accepting this retraction letter, a number of members of congress remain concerned about what motivated the original request for father conroy to resign and the lack of adequate notification or explanations given to members. whereas the rights of members of the house of representatives were undermine when the leader of one party made a unilateral decision to ask for resignation of the chaplain. whereas this resignation and circumstances behind it has compromised the integrity of the house of representatives by politicizing the office of the house chaplain. resolved, that there is hereby established a select committee to investigate the circumstances behind the resignation of the house chaplain. the select committee shall be compromised of six members of which three shall be appointed
by the chair of the committee on ethics and three by the ranking member of the committee on ethics. the select committee shall investigate the motivations and actions that led to the resignation of the chaplain, including the decisions to remove the chaplain and the process by which members of congress were notified of the resignation. the select committee shall provide a report to the house y july 13, 2018. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now recognize the gentleman from new york to offer the resolution just noticed. does the gentleman offer the resolution? mr. crowley: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: whereas the tradition of the house chaplain dates to the earliest days of the house of representatives beginning in 1789. whereas the role of house chaplain has been filled by 60 individuals of various religious denominations serving members of congress of all faiths. whereas patrick -- father patrick conroy has served
honorably as house chaplain since may 25, 2011, when he was appointed by then speaker john a. boehner, in consultation with democratic leader nancy pelosi. whereas father conroy has been reappointed and elected by the house of representatives on three separate occasions, most recently january 3, 2017. whereas on april 16, 2018, the nation's first jesuit and only the second catholic chaplain of the house of representatives submitted his resignation before the full house. whereas the chaplain had only eight months remaining in his term of service to the house. whereas this resignation was requested by the office of paul d. ryan -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. the clerk will continue. the clerk: whereas this resignation was requested by the office of paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. whereas the speaker's office said the decision to remove the
chaplain was his, speaker ryan's. whereas on may 3, 2018, father conroy submitted a letter retracting and rescinding his resignation. whereas despite the speaker's statement accepting this retraction letter, a number of members of congress remain concerned about what motivated the original request for father conroy to resign and a lack of adequate notification or explanation given to members. whereas the rights of members of the house of representatives were undermined when the leader of one party made a unilateral decision to ask for the resignation of the chaplain. whereas this resignation and the circumstances behind it has compromised the integrity and the dignity of the house of representatives by politicizing the office of the house chaplain. resolved that, hereby establish a select committee to investigate the circumstances around the resignation of the house chaplain. the house select committee shall be comprised of six
members which three shall be appointed by the chair of the committee on ethics and three of the ranking member of the committee on ethics. the select committee shall investigate the motivations and actions that led to the resignation of the chaplain, including the decisions to remove the chaplain and the process by which members of congress were notified of the resignation. the select committee shall provide a report to the house by july 13, 2018. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution qualifies. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk will first report the motion. the clerk: mr. mccarthy of california moves to lay the resolution on the table. the speaker pro tempore: parliamentary inquiry. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, is his motion privileged? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has offered a motion to table the
question. mr. crowley: i'm asking on the underlining before you, is it a privileged resolution? the speaker pro tempore: the chair announced that the resolution qualified as privileged. mr. crowley: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state the inquiry. mr. crowley: could the house consider this motion immediately? the gentleman from new york requests, can the house consider this motion immediately? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will first entertain the pending motion to table. mr. crowley: further parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. crowley: will the speaker rule as to whether or not the house could consider this otion immediately? the speaker pro tempore: the first is -- the house will first consider the motion to table. if the motion fails, then the gentleman would be in order. mr. crowley: one more further
parliamentary inquiry. the vote to table prevent this measure from coming to the floor today, is that not true, mr. speaker? the speaker can't hear my question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has the floor. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, the vote to table that you're speaking of will prevent this measure from coming to the floor today immediately, is that not true? the speaker pro tempore: the house will consider the motion to table. and the question is on the motion to table. the question -- all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote.
for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. delauro: i ask unanimous consent that i may hereafter be considered to be the primary sponsor of both h.r. 1587 and h.r. 4199, bills originally introduced by representative louise slaughter of new york, for the purposes of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: i send a privileged report from the committee on rules. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 879 providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3055 to amend the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my wrarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to celebrate the baptism of dr. frank
gaskell and his two children, owe he livia and maddux, of charlotte, north carolina, this past weekend. on may 6 at the united methodist church i was able to celebrate a member joining the church of faith. he is a psychologist and author who has dedicated his life to helping children withs a bergers. ter earning his bachelors of arts, ph.d. in sigh colk at chapel hill, he has developed a practice that's been the best run practices in the united states. i look forward to the positive impact the doctor will have and overjoyed by his commitment to his faith. as you again this new part of our life, look to psalm 37:3 to trust in the lord and do good, dwell in the land and cultivate faithfulness. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend
my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. i rise : mr. speaker, today in honor of america's teachers. in classrooms across the country, teachers are doing an excellent job in educating our children and preparing them for their future success. teachers are much more than educators. they are leaders and they are role models. mr. speaker, this week is teacher appreciation week, and i ask that my colleagues join me in honoring our teachers, not just today, but every day. and on a personal note, i ask that my colleagues join me in honoring three teachers in my life. my father, the late congressman donald payne sr. was a high
school teacher who used his time in congress to fight for k-12 education, home and abroad. my sister, wanda payne, just retired last year from teaching kindergarten and pre-k and special needs children for 31 years. and my sister, nichole payne, was director of alternative education for the patterson school district in new jersey. my fathers and sisters, like teachers across this country, help young people grow into strong, capable adults. for that, let's honor them. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request to speak to the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss a creative solution to
enacting term limits without amending the constitution, h.r. 5539, the thomas jefferson public service act of 2018. under this proposal, after six terms in the house or two in the senate, members of congress will only receive $1 a year in compensation for their service, effectively implementing real term limits. again, no constitutional amendment necessary. critics may say this will create a congress full of rich people but in fact people using his is who we need to weed out. mr. rooney: the culture of term limits would be set in and they would be widely opposed, criticized and thrown out. 86% of our customers want term limits. as a business person i am figuring out how to get them what we want. in the real world, satisfy customers. thank you. i yield the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. kihuen: i rise to recognize carrie parsons. she lived by her favorite saying, live, laugh, and love. she enjoyed playing softball d working at the saving firm agelon. she just got engaged and excited to start their life together. she went to the route 91 festival in las vegas on october 1 for a girls' trip. she loved singing to her favorite country songs and she made sure everyone was having a good time. her friends remember her as being one of a million who was young, vibrant, and full of life. i would like to extend my condolences to her family and friends. please know the city of las vegas, the state of nevada, and the whole country grieve with you. i yield back the balance of my
time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, may is mental health awareness month, and i'd like to take this opportunity to discuss the need for increased mental health awareness and resources in our communities. mr. fitzpatrick: i'd like to recognize an organization in my district in bucks county, pennsylvania, that does just that. the bucks county crisis intervention team, founded in 2008, brings together law enforcement, mental health professionals, and local officials to reinforce the treatment of mental illness as a disorder, not as a crime. i'm appreciative of the law enforcement officers who last month became certified as members of the bucks county crisis intervention team. the 18th class to do so. i'd also like to thank mental health advocate sharon, whose
involvement with this program and work with a foundation makes bucks county a safer and more accommodating community. mr. speaker, working together with this group, we look forward to expanded access to quality mental health care to anyone in our community who is in need. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. ms. tenney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize a constituent from the 22nd district of new york. cooper bush, better known as super cooper. coop ofer bush -- cooper bush, a spunky 4-year-old. born with down syndrome, cooper was diagnosed in november, 2016, with acute my lloyd leukemia. sweet ay, may 6, sadly
cooper passed away. he's survived by his parents, brother, sister. in his last months he received a surprise total bedroom makeover. he threw out the first pitch for the rumble ponies and dropped the puck for the devils. volunteers sent in meals for the bush family and sold super cooper t-shirts. a local artist wrote and illustrated a book called "cooper saves the day." our condolences are with the entire bush family during this difficult time. cooper's enduring spirit and bravery are an inspiration to all of us. super cooper's super personality, zeal to live each day to the fullest no matter how challenging, no matter how much time will be allotted on this earth may be his legacy. may super cooper rest in peace. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: any further requests for one-minute speeches? 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. mr. speaker, it's my privilege to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives and to take up any of the topics that are in order here which is most every topic delivered in a decent fashion, but i have some things to talk about here tonight that are a bit celebratory, things i am pretty happy about. and i wanted to discuss, mr. speaker, the narrative of a significant accomplishment as i think in the end will save the lives of perhaps millions of innocent unborn babies in this country. and the history of roe vs. wade goes back to january 22, 1973, when the united states supreme court came down with a decision coupled -- was two cases, same
day, roe vs. wade, doe vs. bolton. and those two cases that were delivered launched abortion on demand in america. it was a stunning set of decisions that the scope of which, the magnitude of which could not have been comprehended at the time. i remember then when they came down, we had no children yet at that point. marilyn and i were married. at that age in life and not having any experience with the impact of such a decision, america didn't have that experience, the way we analyze that thing didn't understand how severe this would be. and yet, once the decision came down, there's something that i learned, mr. speaker. and that is that people say, you can't legislate morality. and so i've always thought that was a pretty weak statement and not very defensible, but you hear it quite often, you can't legislate morality, you can't
legislate morality. legislation is a reflection of morality. i mean, for example, we have laws against murder and rape and assault and battery and armed robbery and the list goes on and on of the things that are prohibited. they are the reflections of the morality of a nation. and the lack of legislation would indicate only one of two things. either it's the lack of morality or it's a nation that doesn't need laws to frame it because the morality of the nation is so enshrined in the culture that there doesn't need to be laws. for example, one of those examples -- one of those examples would be that for centuries marriage was between a man and a woman. we didn't need laws that said so because everybody knew that marriage defined a union between a man and a woman. in my case, joined together in holy matrimony. so as the legislation came forward, i was in the iowa designate at the time, i remember some of that debate
and discussion. it was, why do we need to pass law to defend marriage, the defensive marriage act? and i helped write part of that language, mr. speaker. i had a little hard time explaining why it was important we move it. more or less an insurance policy so we can protect marriage in iowa against the movement that had just begun not very much earlier than that i will litigation out in hawaii. and then the conflakes between vil unions and -- conflation between civil unions and marriage, senator after senator stood on the floor and said, why do we need to do this? this is a redundant exercise. it's a waste of our time. everybody knows marriage is between a man and a woman. and we passed the defense of marriage act. there were only three or four that voted against it. we wondered why they did that. they were out there in the fringes, so we thought at the time. that was about 1998.
and by 2009, that would only be 11 years later, the united states supreme court came down with a -- excuse me -- the iowa supreme court came down with a decision which imposed same-sex marriage on iowa, the transform mation of a culture that -- transformation of a culture a law to protect marriage if we needed to protect it. thousands of years, marriage was between a man and a woman and it changed. so when something became per miss i, the permissiveness of it changed the morality of the -- of it. that's not a good example of what happened with abortion circumstances in america. we understood then that life begins at the moment of conception. but when roe v. wade came down with the decision that said that prohibited the states from regulating abortion and
prohibiting abortion, then it became permissible and permissive and it became pervasive in the same time. so with some of our peek incidents of abortion got up from 1973 until the latter part of that decade, up to 1.6 million abortions a year. and today, after 45 years of roe v. wade, this nation has seen 60 million, some say 61 million, bays by aborted. babies that would be growing up in our society today. going to school. playing ball. studying. going to church. loving their brothers and sisters, their mothers, their fatherses, their grandparent, their aunts, their uncles. they're gone. 0 million little babies, gone. not only 60 million. there's no way you describe 60 million babies as only but in addition. there are roughly another 60
million who were not born because their mothers were aborted. a population threen 100 million and 120 million americans are missing today because of roe v. wade's decision and the roe v. wade and doe vs. bolton and unsoundly and unjustly decision that came down from the united states supreme court. and one of the problems we have in this country is we have three branches of government. a lot of government teachers and constitutional teachers instruct that it's three co-equal branches of government. but that's not what our founding fathers expected. they defined it instead as that the judicial branch of government would be the weak thoves three branches of government. and yet our society, our culture, our civilization gives such reverence to the united states supreme court that they can't even get their minds around the idea, what do you do if the court come downs with an atrocious, outrageous, erroneous, nonconstitutional
decision that visits 60 million deaths of innocent baby on our country? and another 60 million babies that are not born because as a result of it, a missing 100 million to 120 million babies, decision of the supreme court and what do we do? we accept the decision as if the the decisions of the supreme court are utterly sacrosanct and the only way they can change is if the circumstances of that court should change in such a way that the poims and the confirmations to the court could transform and reverse the erroneous decisions in the past. there are circumstances where the supreme court has reversed their own decision. we had a dred scott decision that wasn't reversed. that was a decision on slavery. some say that was an erroneous, poorly found decision. and i think i side with abraham lincoln that it was constitutional at its time, probably was a decision that conformed to the constitution, however morally wrong it was,
and then along came the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments that rectified the situation that was put upon us by dred scott. and by the way, 600,000 lives lost in the civil war putting an to end slavery and resolving the union was the union going to be something that one could separate from or once you're part of the union, are you always part of the union? and has this turned out -- as this turned out, 600,000 americans were killed in the civil war, putting an end to slavery. 600,000. sounds like a lot until you compare it to 60 million babies aborted. mr. speaker. his is the worst atrocity ever -- accumulated effect of it, the worst atrocity committed on american soil and it was sanctified by the supreme court
in an unsoundly founded decision and now the thing that obstructs us from getting pro life legislation passed is, a few people that profess they are pro life, a pro life organization, they say we have to respect the supreme court decision. it is sacrosanct. the supreme court laid out the parameters of viability not only roe v. wade and doe vs. bolton but also in planned parenthood vs. casey in 1992. this viability concept which is that if a baby can't survive outside the wound it's not alive. well we know better than that. we can hear their hearts beat we feel can watch them move around inside the womb. we can watch them squirm. we can watch them suck their thumb. we can watch them move their lips like they're trying to talk. we bond with these babies now through ultra sound. the ultra sound is just about as good as skype with our children and grandchildren that are out here breathing this free air.
that's the circumstances that have changed. we know that it is life. supreme court's decision wasn't soundly found. they weren't looking at an ultra sound then back 45 years ago. we didn't know whether we had twins or singles or triplets or quadruplets then because we didn't have enough ability to even listen to the heart beat precisely enough. today we can, mr. speaker. today we're listening to heart beats. and today we're watching babies squirm and move and suck their thumb and move their mouth like they're trying to talk and get their exercise inside the wufmente now we know. we can't deny. it's not a blob of tissue. it's not some kind of intruder. this is a unique, unique d.n.a., innocent, unborn human life. and we brought legislation here to this congress called the heart beat legislation, h.r. 490. and in this legislation it says
this, that before an abortionist sets about committing an abortion, he must first check for a heart beat. with transabdmal ult tra sound which picks up a heart beat between seven and eight weeks from fertilization. fertilization or conception. you must first check for a heart beat if a heart beat is detected the baby is protected. this rings not only in our heart bus it rings true in our conscience because we know that where there's a heart beat there's life. nd we know that if you go in and surgically or by any other method snuff out that heart beat you're snuffing out life. the most innocent among us. father jonathan morris, priest from new york that we see on fox news in the morning, one day was commenting about how the ladies
and mothers in the church, when their babies start to cry too loud they get up and hustle them out of the church and he said why would you do that? those are the only innocent voices in that church. the most innocent are in the womb. the most innocent have been victimized by this idea of convenience or women's rights or that it's not somebody else's business to tell someone else what to do with their body. well it isn't about their body, mr. speaker. it's about that unique being with that unique combination of d.n.a. and that's how precious this is. we never know the potential of a baby, an innocent, unborn baby, but there was a story in the news a couple of days ago, now there are those who would predict that inside the womb you can identify down syndrome and other afflictions and those other afflictions, they might argue, make that baby "less than perfect."
but those babies, when they're loved, are perfect for those who love them we feel can't decide with a level of certainty regardless when they're in the womb. if there's a heart beat there that's an innocent life that's deserving of protection. and if we would not end that life of that baby outside the womb, we would not end, should not end it inside the womb. and so if a heart beat is detected, the baby is protected, h.r. 490 as 171 co-sponsors here in the house of representatives. it's come further and faster than any significant piece of pro-life legislation, i believe, since 1973 in roe v. wade in the first place. and we need to get this bill to the floor of the house and send it over, put it on mitch mcconnell's desk, there's hardly any room left on mitch mcconnell's desk these days, must be up to 500 bills or so on his desk, we can put heartbeat
on the desk, that's the highest priority, whatever son top of the desk is highest priority. we can say to mitch, bring this to the floor of the senate and send heart beat up to the president's desk. if you can't do that, sent the -- send the president to the states where the democrats who vote no on it are running for office and remind them that america is now a pro-life nation. and this pro-life nation wants to pass pro-life legislation and if they can't do it with the senators seated over there now they can do it with the senators that can be seated over there next january. and i believe that the conscience of america will be reflected when we send that over and put the bill on mitch mcconnell's desk. here's the polling we have also. there are some people that worry about public opinion. they should know their conscience and act off their conscience but off public opinion it work this is way. the heart beat bill, h.r. 490, we have a barner poll conducted february of last year, but it says this.
86% of republicans support heart beat bill out exceptions. and 61% of independents support it without exceptions. and 55% of democrats support the heart beat bill without exceptions. that's an astonishing thing to see that we have a majority of democrats. i would call that a landslide if i won by 55% or more. this is a landslide among democrats where we do have a democrat or two or three that will vote for this bill. but for the most part, that's been polarized here also. we used to have as many as 60 different pro life democrats that would come in and vote on pro life legislation. now i count maybe three. i hope that number is more. i regret that the parties have got then polarized. but some of this stuff happened, we lost some good democrats when they had to walk the plank to vote for obamacare and the people who replaced them were conservative republicans, that's one of the reasons we have so many co-sponsors here on the
republican side, 171 co-sponsors here. 162 national organizations or lead verse signed on. i notice that reverend franklin graham sent out a tweet in support of heart beat legislation a couple of days ago. i'm a great admirer and respecter of reverend graham. i believe his moral barometer is -- matches that of any mortal. so support for this bill has come along well and i'll circle back to the resistance we have that we need to overcome yet, mr. speaker. but while we reached a plateau on the heartbeat bill, it became apparent to me that having one line in the water, however good that line is in the water here in the house of representatives, behind h.r. 490, it was also important to get some other lines in the water and the one thing i could do was to take the heart beat bill and offer it up to the iowa legislature. so i had a conversation with
congressman, excuse me, with state senator brad zahn, he had a shot, would have made a good cookman. but he's chairman of the judiciary committee in the iowa senate today. had that conversation with him and a conversation with senator jason schultz and they took the heart beat legislation and brought that in to the iowa senate. and that draft of that legislation was adapted to a bit of a degree so to conform to the state legislature and they worked that bill around through their caucus a little bit. and the chairman of the judiciary committee there, senator brad zahn, said i'm bringing this bill through committee. and he was keeping me up to speed with what was going on. so that was an intense hearing before the committee, i'm just going to speak on what i hear back channel, not that i was in the room, there were some people that wanted to stage a protest against the heart beat bill so chairman of the judiciary committee looked at them before he gaveled in the committee, anybody come here to protest,
raise your hand, i'll i'll throw you out now. i like his approach. there was no need to throw them out they behaved. it was quiet but an intense hearing and markup before the iowa senate judiciary committee and the republicans all voted for the heart beat bill. and then here it sitz on the calendar of the floor of the iowa senate. and now the next big milestone needed to be reached. and that is that the majority leader, bill dix, brought the topic up before the caucus, and that's closed door, so i'm only speculating on what i picked up also back channel, mr. speaker. but he said to the 29 republicans seated there in the caucus, is there anybody here that doesn't want to vote for this heart beat bill? no one raise their hand. so the decision was made, we'll bring it to the floor. well, it had been assigned to the chair of the subcommittee
for the bill was amy sinclair and amy sinclair was -- put together the subcommittee effort, prepared herself for an intense debate, and it was expected to be an intense debate. i pointed out to her that my first debate on the floor of the iowa senate took me 7 1/2 hours before i got my bill passed. it was official english, by the way. it was a long, hard slog, to quote rumsfeld. but hers was entirely different. i thought there would be six, seven, eight, 10 hours of debate. and she brought the bill up, made eloquent opening remarks, rebutted a few of the remarks that were made on the other side and 24 minutes later, the vet went up on the board, 30-20, independent voted also and his name is david johnson, voted for the heart beat bill in the iowa senate along with all 29 republican senators. 30-20 on 24 minutes of debate and it rocketed over to the house of representatives and once again, i had the
misconception of thinking to myself, this is going to be easy. . like a lot of things in life it wasn't easy. we were going to see how the bill was going to move, if it moved at all in the iowa house, what it was they didn't think they could move it, have the votes. the first whip check card we worked on there was 30 -- we needed 51 votes. there is 100 in the iowa house. of the 51 we only had 35. a bunch of us went to work. by the way, one of the people at the top of my list to thank here in this congressional record here tonight, mr. speaker, is iowa representative of national right to life who is not supporting this bill at the national level and they need to lead, follow, or get out of the way, but the iowa representative is scott
valencia. iowa right to life. he was magnificent in the work he did and the strategy that unfolded and the network he put together with the pro-life community within iowa. i could always count on scott being at the center, the nexus of the communications on who was thinking what, who was saying what and helping to inform us in the spreadsheet we put together to whip the votes. and also on that list would be rom the family leader -- well, bob van der plotts, who i campaigned a lot with. we worked together to vote three supreme court justices off the iowa bench. he and his team at the family leader, including chuck hurley, longtime friend, danny carroll, former representative, were stellar in their efforts in focusing on how we would pull the votes together in the iowa house. and then we had -- there are 32 organizations in the iowa
pro-life coalition. those are the organizations i recognized scott valencia that kept his finger on that pulse but many are people i worked with for years, going back 20, 30 years on this issue. i am so proud of the work they did. and our former majority leader here in the united states house of representatives, tom delay, made the trip up to iowa to testify in favor of the heartbeat bill before a hearing in the iowa house of representatives, along with dr. cathy altman, witness for us here in congress as well, mr. speaker. so i'm very, very grateful to all of these folks and many more. but the jobs that they did, jobs that they did helped move this thing in the right direction. the hearing was intense and there was strong testimony on both sides. but the voice for the unborn, the voice for the most
innocents prevailed in that hearing and it gave more confidence to some of the people, some of the people that were reluctant to vote in favor of the bill that night. and one of those people i suspect, and i suspect only would be dave heaton who i count as a good friend. i always enjoyed him. had a certain affection for the of aable gentleman who got so many prime ribs down there in his restaurant down in southeast iowa. when he voted yes coming out of committee, he said yes for now. i thought that maybe it was the end of it. it turned out we needed 51 votes. he retires. god bless you, dave. i appreciate your vote. i appreciate the vote and the work of so many there in the house, including speaker utmire, who is second generation of speaker of the house of representatives who has earned her place there and has become a very stable and
master strategist on how to move legislation through the legislature. along with majority leader chris hagenow who was for the heartbeat bill from the beginning and kept a low profile publicly but did a lot behind the scenes. then another individual whose character i know well and that's the speaker pro tempore, very inshettle, a very, steady hand, a very clear strategist, somebody you want to ride the river with. from over there in the river bottom not very far from me, and i appreciate the strategy and work that each of these individuals did. this doesn't stop at this point either, mr. speaker. the chairman of the human resources committee, joel frye, did master work on it as well as the floor manager in the iowa house, shannon lundgren. shannon, i believe, is in her first term, and i haven't
gotten to know her personally. here's the narrative that i get from the way she managed that debate in the house. it's a lot longer in the house. it went on for hours. five to seven hours, something like that. the bill passed around 11:30 that night. and shannon, when she brought the bill up, this is the critique that came to me is that she started out slow and you might start to wonder if she was going to be able to hold her own through that very, very grueling trial that had been assigned to her that she was i think eager and proud to take on and she should be proud because she got stronger as the night wore on. so did a number of the other members of the iowa house. and so they stepped up to defend their positions and to advocate their narratives. one of them would be steve holt who is -- he and also sandy salmon who introduced her own bill, own pro-life legislation,
they strong and many others strong in the way they handled their debate. i didn't put together a complete analyzed list here, mr. speaker, because one thing, i didn't have the time. i recognized the risk naming names. there are people that i left out. there will be others i will thread in here that i have -- but there will always be people left out. some of them in the middle of this, though, jack witfer, who is the leader in the iowa senate and i mentioned amy sinclaire, the chair of the subcommittee and the floor manager in the senate. but senator brad zahn, whom i've talked with a lot and grown to admire and i appreciate his drive. he doesn't hesitate, doesn't equivocate, he strategizes and acts upon it. i want to thank every representative and every senator who spoke and who voted
for the heartbeat bill in the owa legislature. it was a phenomenal accomplishment. they passed the 20-week -- many people call the pain-capable bill. t came back this year. and passed heartbeat legs. not only was it the debate, work, negotiations and votes that were counted and the effort on the whip team from the -- from those elected members who worked inside the house of representatives and the senate but also the outside groups, the 32 outside organizations and then some that came together and it was a phenomenal effort that brought this together. i want to say, also, couple of words about how difficult this was for some of the most pro-life people that we had.
because i am not one who believes in exceptions. i don't believe that a baby that is a product of rape should be executed for the crime of their father. and neither do i believe that should be the case for a baby who is the product of incest which might be the crime of the father and might be the crime of the father and the mother. but those babies are innocent and they should have every right to life of every other baby conceived at any other time under any other circumstances. but it came to that place where they were either going -- there were either going to be exceptions or no bill passed. i think there might have been a way to resolve that. when it came to that place on the calendar, the place on the clock, the place on the legislative clock, a decision had to be made. we going to bring a bill to the floor of the iowa house with exceptions or are we going to have no bill whatsoever? and that was a decision, that
was the crux of the matter. and coming to that place of decision, the right decision is, let's save all the lives we can, let's take all we can and get as much done as we can. if we could come back with heartbeat after the 20-week bill last year, maybe next year we can come back to eliminate the exceptions or perhaps even do personhood which is the goal of the pro-life community and should be that case worldwide. and so i know it was a very difficult decision for some. and i happen to know that skylar wheeler may be the most pro-life member of the iowa house of representatives and it was a very difficult decision for him. but with skylar wheeler we got to 51. and we have a bill that was sent on its way to the governor's desk. before i mention the governor any further, i want to mention
some of the help we had. this promise on heartbeat legislation is rooted back to a request made by phyllis just days before she passed away that i would draft and introduce heartbeat legislation here in congress. i followed through on that commitment. she was in a time of her life a living, breathing icon. the clearest political thinker of our time. a pure constitutionalist. a strong, faithful christian woman who left her mark and imprint across this nation and many, many -- in many, many ways. powerful respect for phyllis, for her life, for her contribution, for her judgment and for the promise that i made on the day of her funeral. i made that promise sitting in discussion and consultation with janet porter of faith to action who has been the driving force on this, the launching force on this from the beginning.
janet porter. and janet porter now may be the most driven pro-life activist in america and she's accomplished a lot to get this started and teamed up with tom delay, our former majority leader here, and made his -- made his fame as the whip who may be the best whip we have ever seen here in the house of representatives. both of them worked probono on this to work -- pro bono on this and get co-sponsors here in congress which gave a lot of credibility to put the heartbeat bill on its way to the iowa legislature. in addition, one of the pushbacks we got in the iowa house was, we don't want to spend taxpayers' money defending this legislation he. it's something that they believe -- some of the folks would say we will lose in court. so if you know you're going to lose, you can't spend taxpayers' money knowing you're going to lose. my response back to that was, we know we're going to lose at
the lower court level. anybody that argues that's a reason not to move pro-life legislation is because we'll lose at the district court level, we'll lose at the circuit level, that's a given because we have a strong precedent established by the united states supreme court in oe vs. wade, doe vs. bolton, planned parenthood vs. casey. those respecting the supreme court will not try to overturn the supreme court decision. we have to accept the idea this will be litigated. it will go through the lower courts. as it goes in the lower courts we will lose at each turn until we get to the united states supreme court. and to give an example of how this worked in the past on the ban on partial birth abortion which came to us about the end of the -- the end of the 1990's, as i recall, in the initial case. ban on partial birth abortion,
that gruesome and ghastly procedure that is so, so awful to describe it here on the floor of congress is more than i will do here tonight, mr. speaker. but congress banned that procedure. having banned that procedure, it was litigated by -- guess what -- planned parenthood, the advocacy groups for abortion itself and the supreme court struck down our ban on partial birth abortion. of course, they have to use the rationale. so their rationale was that the act of a partial birth abortion wasn't precisely enough defined that it was vague and if it was vague, then how would the abortionist know if he's committing a crime or not? you're killing a baby. that ought to be enough. but instead, the supreme court ruled to strike down our ban on partial birth abortion. they wanted a more precise description of it, and they
argued that congress had not established that a partial birth abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. and so i arrived in we went to work on this. the chairman of the constitution committee at that time, where i'm the chair of the constitution committee today is steve chabot of cincinnati, a strong pro-life advocate and we held hearing after hearing. to the chairman of the full committee, as was sitting here ust a few minutes ago, mr. jim sensenbrenner at that time. we established through hearings and wrote a new ban on partial birth abortion that precisely defined the act that we would prohibit by statute and congressional findings after hearings that it'ser