Mike Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some compelling arguments here on the floor in the last few hours and some important facts have been shared. I appreciate so much the eloquent words of my colleagues from Texas and Kentucky and Virginia and Pennsylvania and Florida and all over this great land of ours who have shared with us the importance of this landmark bill and this historic vote that we will take in this Chamber tomorrow. I just thought there were a few more facts that were important to summarize here at the end of our debate this evening. I wanted to quote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because they looked at this bill and they gave an exhaustive review of this, as so many have. This is their summary: ``The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a growth bill, achieving faster economic growth, encouraging job creation, and getting more money in Americans' pockets each year.'' I think that is a pretty good summary of what the bill will do and what it will accomplish. We brought just a couple of graphics here to illustrate the national impact of this landmark reform. When we pass this bill and we get this to the President's desk, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will lead to the creation of an additional 975,000 new full-time jobs across this country. It will raise after-tax income for middle class families by $2,598 each. That is an increase of 4.4 percent. That is real money to families who are struggling to make ends meet around this country. It will generate economic growth sufficient to increase Federal tax receipts by $1 trillion. That is real money. That is a real boost to the American economy. I brought another graphic here to show what this will mean in my district, by way of example, in Louisiana. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will mean a whole lot for my State. It will lead to the creation of an additional 13,293 jobs in my State of Louisiana alone. Those are good-paying, full-time jobs. It will raise after-tax income for middle class families in Louisiana by $1,857. That is real money. That will mean a lot to the families in my State. More specifically, let me talk about the Fourth Congressional District in northwest and west Louisiana, 15 parishes, about one-third of our State by land area; good, hardworking, God-fearing Americans. Let me tell you what it will mean to the people of Louisiana's Fourth Congressional District. Here are just four highlights. It will be a larger child tax credit. In my district, there are 53,918 taxpayers who claim the child tax credit every year. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will increase the child tax credit from $1,000 per child to $1,600 per child for each of those families. Let me give you another one: the tax relief for small businesses. This is a big thing in my district. 49,929 taxpayers in the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana have small business income, and that is a business that a taxpayer operates. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduces taxes for small-business owners. First, the bill implements a new, lower 9 percent tax rate on the first $75,000 of net business income for active small-business owners earning less than $150,000 through their businesses. That is a whole lot of people, a whole lot of LLCs and small companies in my district. Second, the bill lowers taxes on small business investment by creating a new 25 percent small business tax rate. That is capped at 25 percent. That is a big deal to people who are struggling to make ends meet. Number three, a third feature, the elimination of the alternative minimum tax, the AMT. 4,049 taxpayers in the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana are impacted directly by the AMT. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminates that factor. Another one is simpler taxes. Listen to this number: 67,543 taxpayers in the Fourth Congressional District, in my district back home in Louisiana, itemize their taxes. As a result of the near doubling of the standard deduction and other simplifications, many taxpayers will have much simpler returns. It is estimated, as we have said so many times tonight, that nine out of ten Americans will be able to file their taxes on a form the size of a postcard. That is a big change and a great simplification for the people of my district. We owe this to them. I wanted to share a few other facts that I think are important to highlight tonight, Mr. Speaker. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is more than just a win for our American economy. It is a win for our American values. Let me give you a couple examples of that. First, it is a win for free speech. The bill incorporates the language of our Free Speech and Fairness Act, which we filed as a standalone piece of legislation earlier this year in February. That will stop the IRS from policing the speech of churches and charitable organizations. That is a huge relief for men and women of faith, in particular, who watched the IRS breathe down the necks of nonprofits and religious entities, threatening to take away their tax-exempt status if they dare talk about the moral and social and political issues of the day. That is a big win for free speech and a big win for them. This bill is also a big win for American families. Let me give you a few examples of important features of how this helps the family in this country. The adoption tax credit has been restored. This is section 1102 of the bill. Now, this is a critically important thing to advance the policy, to advance and encourage and incentivize adoption in this country. This is something that all of us should agree on. Over 60 percent of adopted children are adopted by middle- and low- income taxpayers in this country. Almost half of the children adopted from foster care live in families with household incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Listen to this statistic: a study reported by the Federal Children's Bureau showed that the government saves between $65,000 and $127,000 for each child who is adopted rather than placed in long-term foster care. Studies comparing children who remain in foster care to children who are adopted show that adopted children are 54 percent less likely to be delinquent or arrested, 19 percent less likely to become teen parents, and 76 percent more likely to be employed. Can we all agree that the adoption tax credit being restored is an important part of this bill? I think we can. Here is another way it helps families, Mr. Speaker: the family tax credits. This is something that everybody back home should pay attention to. The child tax credit, section 1202 of the bill, this increases the child tax credit, as I mentioned a moment ago, from $1,000 per child to $1,600 per child. It provides a credit of $300 for each parent and nonchild dependent to help all families with their everyday expenses. The child dependent care tax credit helps families care for their children and other dependents, such as a disabled grandparent who may need additional support. Here is another feature: unborn children are recognized in the 529 education savings account provisions of the Tax Code. Our tax reform bill allows a 529 education savings account to be opened, for the first time, for an unborn child or a child in utero. We recognize the humanity and the sanctity of life of the unborn child. Here is another feature: the marriage penalties are finally removed. For too long, we have effectively penalized married couples in this country simply for being married. Our Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changes that. In most cases, married couples will no longer be penalized just for their choice to be married. Mr. Speaker, I will close with just a few more remarks. A lot has been said here tonight, more will be said in the morning preceding our vote, but this is a big day for Congress and a big day for the country. It has been over 30 years since we last updated our tax system. For reference, I was in the eighth grade the last time tax reform was accomplished in this Chamber. Many of those entering the workforce weren't even born yet the last time Congress fulfilled this responsibility. Today, Americans are struggling to make ends meet, to find decent- paying jobs, and to prepare for retirement. We must do right by our children and our grandchildren and give them a better future than our own. Fortunately, my Republican colleagues and I have put forth a framework to do just that. We have discussed for the last few hours in this Chamber as we have been talking that our plan will create more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks for working class Americans and small businesses. When businessowners are able to keep more of their profits, they will invest that money in their companies and in their employees, and that will spur economic growth, because they will expand their facilities, they will create and expand new product lines, they will add more jobs, and that is good for all of us. Passing meaningful tax reform isn't about sticker shock talking points that we have heard so much about. It is about real everyday Americans who want to grow their businesses, offer better wages to their employees, provide for their families, but who have struggled to do so because of our oppressive and outdated tax policy. Our plan puts Americans first and it offers real relief to those who need it most. The Federal Tax Code today is more than 70,000 pages long. For context, that is more than 60 times longer than the King James Bible, and it contains none of the Good News. It is time to simplify this Code and it is time to unleash the free market in our American economy again. We have that chance. This will be the biggest Christmas gift to the American people in over 3 decades. It is truly historic and it is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, we urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on this floor tomorrow. Let's make history together. Let's do right by the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my friend and colleague, Congressman Doug Lamborn, for organizing this Special Order series in recognition of the 76th anniversary of National Bible Week. I am delighted to stand with these other Members today to share our perspectives on why the Bible is so important to us and to our country. As we approach the Thanksgiving holiday, there is really no better time to present these reflections. I wanted to share the preface to a historic text that I have in my collection. What I am holding here is a copy of the New Testament Bible study course that was approved by and published for the public schools of Dallas, Texas, by its board of education in September of 1946. The preface was written by Henry Van Dyke, and it is a wonderful summary of what the Bible means to us and to the world. Mr. Speaker, let me read to you what it says here in the text: Born in the East and clothed in that form and imagery, the Bible walks the ways of the world with familiar feet and enters land after land to find its own everywhere. It has learned to speak in hundreds of languages to the hearts of men. It comes into the palace to tell the monarch that he is a servant of the Most High and into the cottage to assure the peasant that He is a son of God. Children listen to its stories with wonder and delight, and wise men ponder them as parables of life. It has a word of peace for the time of peril, a word of comfort for the time of calamity, a word of light for the hour of darkness. Its oracles are repeated in the assembly of the people, and its counsels whispered in the ear of the lonely. The wicked and the proud tremble at its warnings, but to the wounded and the penitent, it has a mother's voice. The wilderness and the solitary place have been made glad by it, and the fire on the hearth has lit the reading of its well-worn pages. It has woven itself into our dearest dreams so that love, friendship, sympathy, devotion, memory, and hope put on the beautiful garments of its treasured speech, breathing of frankincense and myrrh. No man is poor or desolate who has this treasure for his own. When the landscape darkens and the trembling pilgrim comes to the valley named of the shadow, he is not afraid to enter. He takes the rod and the staff of Scripture in his hand. He says to friend and comrade: Good-Bye; we shall meet again. And comforted by that support, he goes toward the lonely pass as one who walks through the darkness into light. Mr. Speaker, I love those words. I also love the words that are inscribed above the Speaker, where it says in the marble: In God We Trust. There is a reason for that. Our Founders understood that this is our foundation. George Washington, the father of our country, famously said in his Farewell Address: ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.'' Adams was our second President. He comes next. He said: ``Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.'' We have to remember these truths. I close with the words of ``The Gipper.'' Ronald Reagan said it more recently: ``If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, we will be a nation gone under.'' I am so grateful for National Bible Week. I am so grateful to my friends and colleagues here for our recognition of this great truth, what it means to our country, and what it means to each of us.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 3922, the Community Health and Medical Professionals Improve Our Nation Act. This legislation reauthorizes the Children's Health Insurance Program--or CHIP, as we know it--as well as funding for community health centers in a fiscally responsible manner. These programs have proven to be a valuable asset for many of the people in this country and many of the constituents that I have back home in Louisiana who don't qualify for Medicaid but still need assistance in accessing affordable health insurance. In Louisiana alone, insurance providers have projected that rates will increase substantially next year as healthcare options continue to dwindle. For that reason, many Americans are choosing to forgo healthcare coverage altogether rather than suffer under the weight of the new, increased costs. In times of high uncertainty in our healthcare system due to ObamaCare, this legislation makes meaningful reforms to ensure the most vulnerable among us, our children, remain protected. The Community Health Center Fund has proven to be a critical resource for Louisiana's Fourth Congressional District by delivering much-needed resources to my local community health centers. I just want to say this program, in particular, is vitally important for the safety and security of our children. Republicans in Congress have worked tirelessly to draft this legislation to ensure that this bill maintains important safeguards for our children and families and protects their access to critical care.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 469, the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. This is an important piece of legislation because, as has been noted here, it seeks to increase accountability on the regulatory process by providing greater scrutiny of sue and settle cases. Yes, they do exist. It requires the Department of Justice to release details of payments made through the Judgment Fund, and it strengthens Congress' ability to intervene on litigation regarding the constitutionality of congressional statutes. This legislation also includes H.R. 1096, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. That piece of legislation includes an amendment I offered, which would require the Secretary of the Treasury to clearly display the total expenditures, including the attorney's fees, interest, and all other payments made from the Judgment Fund on an annual basis. Hardworking taxpayers deserve to know where their tax dollars are being spent, and Congress must ensure that programs like the Judgment Fund are following the law. The American people must be allowed every available tool to keep their government accountable, and this will be an important tool. Also, it would ensure a terrorist organization is prohibited from receiving any taxpayer funds from the Judgment Fund by prohibiting any foreign terrorist organization, as defined in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That statute clearly classifies a terrorist organization as those who ``engage in terrorist activity or terrorism, and the organization threatens the security of the United States nationals or the national security of the United States.'' These terrorist organizations only seek to commit serious harm or potential targets, of course, including Americans, and I believe this prohibition is warranted to be included in this important legislation. Let me be clear. We should all agree that not a cent of taxpayer dollars should ever go to a state sponsor of terrorism or foreign terrorist organizations. A recent illustration of the need for this ban on funding to state sponsors of terrorism is what we now know about the previous administration. They paid $1.3 billion from the Judgment Fund to the nation of Iran in a settlement dating back over 30 years. Although all the information surrounding this payment was never made clear to the public, Iran still remains a state sponsor of terrorism, the most notorious one. Mr. Chair, again, I strongly support H.R. 469. We must never allow taxpayer dollars to be given to violent rogue nations that support terrorists or, obviously, terrorist organizations, and this will ensure a constitutional check on the Judgment Fund. This is about Article I, the authority of this body. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support it, and I encourage our colleagues to do the same.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary because it would exempt settlements that direct funds to remedy indirect harm resulting from violations of the Clean Air Act and other violations. But that is precisely the problem. How best to address indirect harm is a policy question that is properly decided by the elected representatives of Congress only and not by agency bureaucrats or prosecutors. An example that highlights this is the $2.7 billion mitigation fund that the Department of Justice required in its settlement of claims against Volkswagen. That fund mitigated direct harm, which is permitted under this bill. The problem was that, through a second fund, the Obama Justice Department required Volkswagen to spend an additional $2 billion on an administration electric vehicle initiative after Congress twice refused to appropriate funds for it. It is that subversion of Congress' power of the purse that this bill is designed to target. Nothing in this bill lets corporate polluters off the hook, and it is nonsense to say otherwise. If direct remediation of the harm is impossible or impractical, the full penalty is still paid, but it goes to the Treasury. After that, the decision on how best to use it is left to the people's elected representatives in Congress rather than the executive branch. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is unnecessary because it would exempt certain discrimination settlements from the bill's ban on third-party payments. But nothing in the underlying bill prevents a victim of discrimination from obtaining relief, and that is the important point. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016 explicitly permits remedial payments to third-party victims who are directly and proximately harmed by the defendant's wrongdoing. Nor does the bill preclude wider conduct remedies used in discrimination cases. For example, nothing in the bill bars the Department of Justice from requiring a defendant to implement workplace training and monitoring programs. The ban on third-party payments merely ensures that the defendant remains responsible for performing these tasks itself and is not forced to outsource set sums for the work to third parties who might be friendly with a given administration. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time about the brilliant amendment, it is, again, not necessary. And in response to the question, the court does not always approve every one of these; and that is the point. The gist of this amendment and the purpose of the bill is to restore and strengthen our Article I power under the Constitution. You may not like the way Congress operates, you may not like all of the decisions that are made here, but in their infinite wisdom, this is how the Founders designed our system. It has worked very well, and it will continue to do so. For that reason, I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, this amendment undercuts Congress' power. It is another attempt to do so, and it should be opposed for that reason. It would exempt settlements that direct funds to remedy indirect harm resulting from lead in drinking water. It is a terrible problem. The amendment is forced to focus on indirect harm because nothing in the bill prevents remediation of direct harm. But settlement provisions addressing indirect harm are precisely why this bill is needed. The bill's guiding principle is that once direct victims have been compensated, deciding the best use of additional funds to address related problems--whether that is addressing indirect harms or otherwise--is, again, a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors. We have proven the point. Last year, Congress actually acted on this. Congress appropriated $120 million to address drinking water problems in Flint, Michigan. If there is further need, Congress can make additional appropriations. The Department of Justice should not be permitted to augment those funding decisions entirely outside of the congressional appropriations and oversight processes because they are important to protect and preserve. Again, the spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in reining in the executive branch, and we cannot afford to weaken that essential congressional power. Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment on institutional grounds, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, this amendment would exempt settlements resolving allegations of predatory or fraudulent conduct involving residential mortgage-backed securities, as we have heard. Ironically, it creates an exception in the very situation in which the abuses we highlighted earlier arose. The key point here is that nothing in the underlying bill prevents direct victims of mortgage fraud from obtaining relief. The concern of this amendment is that there may be cases of generalized harm to communities that cannot be addressed by restitution, but this misses the fundamental point. The Department of Justice has authority to obtain redress for victims. Federal law defines victims to be those ``directly and proximately harmed'' by the defendant's acts. Once those victims have been compensated, deciding whether additional moneys, other than for penalties, should be allocated to address related problems becomes a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors. Indeed, Congress already funds homeowner assistance programs through the annual appropriations process, balancing it against competing priorities. As we have repeated throughout this debate, the spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in reining in the executive branch. This is true, by the way, no matter which party is in the White House. This amendment would weaken that essential congressional power, and, for that reason, we urge Members to oppose it on institutional grounds. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I would just respond to my learned colleague by quoting a renowned liberal legal scholar, the late Abner Mikva, who explained in a law review article back in 1986, that even if it were less efficient to go through Congress, that would be no reason to cede the point of principle. This is what he wrote: ``To ensure that Congress would act as the first branch of government, the constitutional Framers gave the legislature virtually exclusive power to control the Nation's purse strings. . . . They knew that the power of the purse was the most far-reaching and effectual of all governmental powers. . . . Doubtless they understood that a collection of diverse individuals representing diverse interests . . . would less efficiently and less coherently devise fiscal policy than would a single `treasurer' or `fiscal czar.' Yet they chose, for good reason, to suffer this cost and bear its risks.'' That is from a liberal legal scholar, and, of course, conservatives agree. The system that the Founders set up, the reason and purpose for Article I, is to allow these major decisions to be made by the elected Representatives of Congress, and, for that reason, we oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would exempt settlements providing restitution to a State, the idea presumably being that the State could then distribute money as it sees fit for generalized harm to its citizens, but nothing in this bill prevents Congress from making block grants to States to address generalized harm. Indeed, Congress regularly appropriates money to States to deal with challenges, including environmental cleanups. Examples of this include the EPA Superfund and the Brownfields grants. This bill merely insists that decisions on when such grants are appropriate and in what amounts, that those decisions be made by accountable representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats and prosecutors. Compensating direct victims is a job for the Justice Department. Broader projects are a policy question that should be decided by Congress. Mr. Chair, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I have the script right here. Let me tell you how I define them. I don't know. Bureaucrats. You tell me.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H. Con. Res. 71. It has been said frequently that our Federal Tax Code today is more than 60 times longer than the Bible, and it contains none of the good news. It has been more than 30 years since we updated our tax system, and many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, to find decent paying jobs and prepare for retirement. No matter where I travel in my district, Mr. Speaker, Louisiana's Fourth District, I hear story after story about how our excessive Tax Code and burdensome regulations continue to hinder our businesses and stunt our economic growth. Congress must act now and deliver a Tax Code that meets the current demands of the 21st century economy. Fortunately, my Republican colleagues and I have put forth a framework to do exactly that. Our plan will create more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks for working class Americans and small businesses. When the people are allowed to keep more of their hard-earned dollars instead of turning them over to an already bloated Federal Government, we will unleash the free market again. It is well past time we get our economy back on track, and passing meaningful tax reform is a crucial first step in completing that mission.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of this legislation, I rise towards the end of this long debate to reiterate a central idea: the reason behind this legislation is because of what we stand for as Americans. The Declaration of Independence, as we know, is our Nation's birth certificate, and it states very succinctly in the second paragraph what has come to be known as the American's Creed: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' The reason that the Founders put the right to life first, listed as our most fundamental freedom, is because they understood that we are made in the image of a holy God. Our creator, who gave us those unalienable rights, is the one who made each and every one of us. Because of that, there is a central truth that comes through: every single person, every single life, is of inestimable dignity and value. Your value is not related in any way to where you went to school, what you make for a living, how good-looking you are, how talented you are, what your fortune was in life, whether or not you have a physical disability. Your value is inherent in who you are as a creation of the God who made you. That is the reason we stand for this. It is the reason the bill is so important. We urge our colleagues to support it today.

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressmen Franks, Smith, Hartzler, King, and all of the others, all of my colleagues who have spent so many years working for the sanctity of every human life in this Chamber. For nearly 20 years, I have been working to defend the sanctity of every human life in the courts, and that brings us here today. You and I have talked about this many times that it is our Nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, which states so succinctly what has been known as the American creed. And in that creed, as articulated in the second paragraph of the Declaration--we know the language well--``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' The reason the Founders recognized that fundamental freedom, the right to life, and recognized it first is because it is so essential to who we are as human beings. The reason the Founders recognized that and sought to put it first is because they understood, they acknowledged, that we are made in the image of a Holy God. We are made in the image of that creator who gave us those rights. And because of that, every single human life has inestimable dignity and value. And are values not related in any way to our socioeconomic status, the color of our skin, where we went to school, what we make for a living, what we can contribute to society, our talents, how good- looking we are--totally irrelevant. Our value is inherent because it is given to us by our creator. So tomorrow, because of your hard work, we have a landmark opportunity with the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. I am proud to stand in support of that bill and to assist as a cosponsor and to encourage all of our colleagues to support this important legislation. Why do we do this? Because, as has been mentioned, at 20 weeks' gestation, a baby is developed enough to live and grow outside the womb, and at 20 weeks, a baby can feel pain. Yet, in the United States, we remain one of only seven nations on the planet--including North Korea and China, I might add--that allows abortions after 20 weeks. It is a practice that kills thousands of innocent babies each year, as we know. A law that allows someone to end the life of an unborn baby when that child can live outside the womb and feel the pain inflicted by this violent procedure is simply unconscionable. These procedures can be fatal not only for the child, by the way, but for the mother, as well, because abortion performed later in the pregnancy puts the mother at greater risk. We have to pass this bill to ensure that America leads in the fight to protect the most vulnerable among us. All life is precious, and this bill protects the life of the mother and that of the unborn child. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to stand with us in support of this important legislation and to join us in the efforts to defend the defenseless.