International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce the bipartisan Rural Aviation Improvement Act. I am proud to join the senior Senator from New Mexico, a steadfast and resolute guardian of commercial aviation service to all communities, particularly rural areas that would otherwise be deprived of any air service.

It has always been true that reliable air service to our Nation's rural areas is not simply a luxury or a convenience. It is an imperative. Ask any town manager or mayor of a small community how critical aviation is to economic development. All of us in the Senate who come from rural states understand the vital role aviation plays in the moving of people and goods to and from areas that would otherwise face a paucity of transportation options. Quite frankly, I have long held serious concerns about the impact deregulation of the airline industry has had on small cities and smaller towns in rural areas, like those in my home State of Maine. That fact is, since deregulation, many of these communities across the country have experienced a decline in flights and size of aircraft while seeing an increase in fares. More than 300 have lost air service altogether.

This legislation will serve to improve the long-underfunded Essential Air Service program. The additional commitment of resources will augment the ability of the program to achieve its desired goals, reducing the impact on the general fund while providing small communities with a greater degree of certainty when planning future improvements or bringing enhanced service to their airports. The bill also gives those same communities a greater role in retaining and determining the sort of air service which they receive, and assists in making that service sustainable.

Increasingly, the Essential Air Service program has been plagued with a decline in the number of airlines willing to provide this critical link to the national transportation network. Not only have we lost a rash of participants in the program due to wildly fluctuating fuel costs and the omnipresent economic downturn, but in addition, a few `bad actors' have jeopardized commercial aviation for entire regions by submitting low-ball contracts to the Department of Transportation and then reneging on their commitment to the extent and quality of their service. Our bill will not only establish a system of minimum requirements for contracts to protect these small cities that rely on EAS, but it will also extend those contracts to 4 years from the current 2. This gives a heightened degree of stability in terms of air service, rather than having communities negotiating new contracts or receiving service from entirely new carriers every 18 months. Actively encouraging communities to get involved in the process, and build relationships with the carriers who serve them, can only bolster the quality of the program.

In the final analysis, everyone benefits when our Nation is at its strongest economically. Most importantly in this case, greater prosperity everywhere will, in the long run, mean more passengers for the airlines. We cannot afford to ignore rural America--which contains nearly a quarter of the population--as we move forward with aviation policy and the next generation air traffic system. Therefore, it is very much in our national interests to ensure that every region has reasonable, consistent access to commercial air service. That is why I strongly believe the federal government has an obligation to fulfill the commitment it made to these communities when Congress deregulated the airlines in 1978; to safeguard their ability to continue commercial air service.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2009, which will increase the access to quality, affordable health care for millions of small business owners and their employees. I am pleased that my good friends, Senator Bond from Missouri and Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, have agreed to cosponsor this critical, bipartisan piece of legislation. We have introduced this legislation together since 2005.

In order to help small businesses increase their employees' access to health insurance and other benefits, and help them compete for talented workers, we are introducing the SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act. This bill will enable small business employees to purchase health insurance with tax-free dollars in the same way that many employees of large companies already do--in their cafeteria plans. This legislation is modeled after the Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees SIMPLE, Pension Plan enacted in 1996.

As former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee, if there's one concern I've heard time and again--from small businesses in Maine and across the country--it's the exorbitant cost to small businesses of providing health insurance to their employees. Throughout America, health insurance premiums have increased by a staggering 89 percent since 2000--far outpacing inflation and wage gains. In Maine, the annual premium for the most heavily subscribed policy in the small group insurance market is $5,400 for individual coverage, and over $16,000 for a family plan.

Clearly our Nation's health care system is terribly broken--and the majority of the uninsured--52 percent--are either self-employed, work for a small business with 100 or fewer employees, or are dependent upon someone who does. I am pleased that the Congress is now in the midst of a serious reform effort that will result in a much better system of delivering health care. In order to address the problem of the working uninsured, we must address access and affordability in small businesses. The bill we are introducing today will do just that.

So why are our Nation's small businesses, which are our country's job creators and the true engine of our economic growth, not offering health insurance? Survey after survey tells us that the main reason is that they cannot afford to offer it, or other benefits. Still other small firms can only afford to pay a portion of their employees' health insurance premiums. As a result, countless employees of small business must try to obtain health insurance from the individual market rather than through their work place. As we debate reforming health insurance, we must consider cafeteria plans--Section 125 plans, as they are often known--which are a proven vehicle for access, and should be a key component to reform. I would like to add that another component to reform that must be considered is the SHOP Act, which I reintroduced yesterday with Senators Durbin and Lincoln, which would also help to reverse the pernicious problems of access and affordability of health insurance.

Currently, many large employers, and even the Federal Government, allow employees to purchase health insurance, and other qualified benefits, with tax-free dollars. Cafeteria plans allow employers to offer health benefits with pre-tax dollars. As the name suggests, cafeteria plans are programs where employees can purchase a variety of qualified benefits. Specifically, cafeteria plans offer employees great flexibility in selecting their desired benefits while allowing them to disregard those benefits that do not fit their particular needs. Moreover, the employees are usually purchasing benefits at a lower cost because their employers are often able to obtain a reduced group rate prices.

Typically, in cafeteria plans, a combination of employer contributions and employee contributions are used to fund the accounts that employees used to buy specific benefits. Under current law, qualified benefits include health insurance, dependent-care reimbursement, life and disability insurance. Unfortunately, long term care insurance is not currently a qualified benefit available for purchase in cafeteria plans. I will come back to long term care insurance in a moment.

Again, cafeteria plans already have a proven record of providing good benefits to a wide group of employees. However, in order for companies to qualify for cafeteria plans they must satisfy the tax code's strict non-discrimination rules and these rules are a major impediment to small employers being able to offer benefits to employees. These rules exist to ensure that companies offer the same benefits to their low- wage employees along with their highly compensated employees.

Now, I want to be clear. I believe that these non-discrimination rules serve a legitimate purpose and are necessary employee protections. Indeed, we need to ensure that employers are not able to game the tax system to benefit only upper income employees or the business owners. As with the SIMPLE pension plan, a small business employer that is willing to make a minimum contribution for all employees, or who is willing to match contributions, will be permitted to waive the non-discrimination rules that currently prevent them from otherwise offering these benefits. This structure has worked extraordinarily well in the pension area with little risk of abuse. I am confident that it will be just as successful when it comes to broad- based benefits offered through cafeteria plans. The SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act requires the employer to either match contributions of 3 percent of an employee's income or contribute 2 percent without the employee's contribution.

An essential change allows small business owners themselves to participate in cafeteria plans generally. Current law punitively prohibits the owners of small businesses from participating in these benefit plans. As a result, if a business owner is unable to obtain any benefit for himself or his own family he is unlikely to undertake the time and financial commitment of offering the benefit. It is time to remove this punitive prohibition which I believe will expand access to this flexible platform for employee benefits.

Another improvement generally applicable to all cafeteria plan law updates the rules regarding depended care flexible spending accounts, DCFSA. The bill increases the amount that can be excluded to $7,500 for one dependent or $10,000 for two or more dependents. Had the original $5,000 limit for DCFSA been indexed for inflation when it was created in 1986, it would have risen to $9,692. The bill also indexes these amounts for future inflation so that families will not see an erosion of their benefit in the future. In order for millions of working moms to be able to

work outside of the home, they must have help in addressing child care costs. It is critical to note that it is not just working parents but an increasing number of baby-boom adults who need help caring for aging dependent parents. Increasing the dependent care exclusion in flexible spending accounts is an essential update to cafeteria plan law for working families.

Another provision of the bill generally revises the use it or lose it rule under current law, and permits participants to carry over up to $500 left in a health-care or dependent-care flexible spending account to the next plan year. Such unused contributions could also be carried over to the employee's retirement account, such as a 401(k) plan, or to a Health Savings Account. In either case, any carried over contributions will reduce the amount that the employee could contribute to the flexible spending account or pension plan in the subsequent year. The bill indexes the carry-over amount for inflation.

Finally, the bill also works to address our aging populations' need for long-term care insurance which is also a probable component to the debate on health care reform. In the U.S., nearly half of all seniors age 65 or older will need long-term care at some point in their life. Unfortunately, most seniors have not adequately prepared for this possibility, just as many working age individuals have not given much thought to their eventual long-term care needs. With the cost of a private room in a nursing home averaging more than $74,000 annually, many Americans risk losing their life savings--and jeopardizing their children's inheritance--by failing to properly plan for the long-term care services they will need as they grow older.

To address this problem, this bill would allow employees to purchase long-term care insurance coverage through their cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements. Expanding eligibility of these benefits will make long-term care insurance more affordable and help Americans prepare for their future long-term care needs.

If more small business owners are able to offer their employees the chance to enjoy a variety of employee benefits these firms will be more likely to attract, recruit, and retain talented workers. This will ultimately make small enterprises more competitive. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Bond and Senator Bingaman and me in cosponsoring this important legislation as we work together to achieve broader health care reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, every year in the world's poorest countries, millions of girls are forced into marriage. Girls as young as age 8, but often 13, 14, and 15 years old, are sold by impoverished parents to settle debts or they are given away to become the wives of men who are years or even decades older. For a young girl, a child, to be forced into marriage to an adult man can only be described as a life of slavery, child molestation, and servitude. This is not marriage. It is a violation of the most basic human rights of a child.

On the floor today is S. 987, the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act, a bill that was passed unanimously in the United States Senate. Let me repeat. This bill passed unanimously. Every Republican and every Democrat in the Senate supported it.

I want to commend Senators Richard Durbin and Olympia Snowe, along with the other bipartisan cosponsors, for their tremendous efforts to protect vulnerable girls.

It is my honor to be the sponsor of the companion bill in the House, and I want to thank my Republican colleagues, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Schock, and Mr. Latham, for their bipartisan support for ending child marriage.

According to UNICEF, child marriage is ``the most prevalent form of sexual abuse and exploitation of girls.'' One in every seven girls in the developing world is forced into marriage sometime before the age of 15, millions of girls every year.

A 13-year-old that is forced into marriage will not go to school. She is most certainly guaranteed to be a victim of domestic violence. She is condemned to a lifetime of poverty, and she is more likely to die or be disabled in childbirth, and because she is a child, her infant is more likely to die.

HIV infection, maternal death, child death, gender-based violence, and extreme poverty are all deadly obstacles to development that destroys families, weakens communities, and destabilizes countries. Child marriage contributes to all of these destructive problems.

The photo I have with me was taken by a brilliant photojournalist, Stephanie Sinclair, who documented child marriage in Afghanistan. This 11-year-old girl in this photo, Ghulam, is not seated with her grandfather. The man next to this child is her husband-to-be. This little girl's father gave her away to be married because he was too poor to care for her. Ghulam's value to her husband comes from her ability to work in the field, care for animals, and

because she's a virgin. In this country, a man treating an 11-year-old as his wife would be imprisoned as a sexual predator, a pedophile. In Afghanistan, an 11-year-old's abuser is her husband.

It does not matter where in this world an 11-year-old girl is; she should never be anyone's wife. Today we have an opportunity to put the lives of vulnerable girls ahead of what is all too common at times partisan political games that take place in this House. Today we can show our constituents in the world that the life of every girl has value and limitless potential if they can grow up free from exploitation.

It is my firm belief that girls, girls everywhere--in America, in Ethiopia, in Afghanistan--deserve the right to enter adulthood with the freedom to decide for themselves who their husband will be. A girl is not a commodity to be traded. She is a precious member of a community who needs to be valued and allowed to grow into adulthood.

This Congress and the American people spend billions of tax dollars on foreign assistance. The U.S. has a direct interest and an opportunity to ensure that girls in the developing world can grow up to be healthy, productive, contributing members of their communities and their countries.

Not only do girls deserve the right to choose their future husband; they deserve the opportunity to get an education, to contribute their skills and their talents to develop their countries.

This legislation supports and expands the successful models already in place for promoting girls' education, protecting the human rights of girls, and eliminating the practice of child marriage. This bill authorizes existing State Department funds to be used to implement a strategy to protect girls from being forced into marriage. This bill does not spend one additional dollar that is not already appropriated by Congress for health, education, democracy, or other development activities.

Earlier this week, I was honored to receive a letter from Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, urging the House to pass S. 987. The letter says: ``Child marriage is a harmful practice that treats young girls as property, stops their education, and robs them of their childhood and dignity.'' The archbishop goes on: ``We thank you for your attention and dedication to passing this bill before Congress adjourns. By doing so, you may help make the difference between lives of opportunity or enslavement for millions of young girls in the developing world.''

Mr. Speaker, child marriage is sanctioned sexual abuse that destroys girls' lives. The choice before this Congress is to do nothing as young girls and children continue to be enslaved, raped, and condemned to a life of abuse and poverty; or we can join the U.S. Senate and vote to pass this legislation and have the United States stand with millions of girls today and tomorrow who seek nothing more than the freedom, the opportunity, and the time to be allowed to be children and grow into adulthood without being forced into marriage.

I thank Chairman Berman for his support, and I urge all my colleagues to vote to protect millions of girls in this world from sexual abuse.

The Elders Foundation,

London, UK, December 13, 2010.

Hon. Betty McCollum,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Ander Crenshaw,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives McCollum and Crenshaw: As Chair of The

Elders, I am writing to thank you for your leadership and

support of the International Protecting Girls by Preventing

Child Marriage Act (S. 987 and H.R. 2103). The Senate passed

the bill by unanimous consent on 1 December 2010, and we now

encourage the House of Representatives to pass this important

measure.

As an independent group of global leaders, brought together

by Nelson Mandela, we seek to address major causes of human

suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. Part

of that effort involves speaking out about gender

discrimination and the oppression of girls and women, issues

we know many members of the House care about as well.

Child marriage is a harmful practice that treats young

girls as property, stops their education and robs them of

their childhood and dignity. Child brides are at far greater

risk of dying in childbirth, while their children are also

less likely to survive infancy than the children of older

mothers. Often married to much older men, child brides are

more vulnerable than their unmarried peers to sexually

transmitted diseases including HIV and AIDS. There is

compelling evidence that child marriage is a significant

brake on the achievement of no less than six of the eight

Millennium Development Goals. UNICEF estimates that in

developing countries, 60 million girls now aged 20-24 were

married under the age of 18. That number is likely to

increase by 100 million over the next decade if these trends

continue.

In our recent Washington Post op-ed, President Mary

Robinson and I told the story of Dhaki, a 13-year-old girl

from Ethiopia who was married to a man eleven years her

senior. Her husband regularly forced himself upon her. Her

cries were ignored by neighbours who shunned her for not

respecting the wishes of her husband. Thanks to a local

development program, Dhaki has since been freed from this

torture and is continuing her education.

My fellow Elders and I strongly believe that the

International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage

Act can provide assistance to developing countries to help

them reduce child marriage rates and promote the empowerment

of girls and women worldwide. It will help innocent girls

like Dhaki who were trapped in abusive, forced marriages that

amount to a modern version of slavery. Please consider this

letter a public endorsement of this legislation by The

Elders.

We thank you for your attention and dedication to passing

this bill before Congress adjourns. By doing so, you may help

make the difference between lives of opportunity or

enslavement for millions of young girls in the developing

world.

God Bless You.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu,

Chair.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I rise, as do others on our side of the aisle today, as a supporter of efforts to combat child marriage in developing countries but in opposition to the Senate bill that we are considering today. I want you to know, before I make all my remarks, that I have actually seen forced child marriages in countries like Saudi Arabia firsthand. And it is a horrible thing, and I am very supportive of stopping that practice.

It's truly distressing to know that there still are countries where underage girls, like in Saudi Arabia, are compelled to marry much older men and lose their innocence and hope forever. The health of such young girls can suffer, as can their future opportunities to lead productive lives filled with normal social and economic opportunities, lives in which they can contribute with their full potential to their societies and their economies.

Concern over this problem is not a partisan issue. For example, in response to the plight of such young

women and to ensure that the prevention of child marriage is an integral part of U.S. efforts to promote respect for fundamental universally recognized human rights, in May of last year, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen of the Foreign Affairs Committee expressly included pertinent language in the Republican alternative version for the State Department authorization bill, H.R. 2475.

However, much has changed in our domestic fiscal environment over the course of the last 2 years. Here at home, we have Americans who are losing their houses, their homes, State and local governments that are on the verge of bankruptcy, cities that are reducing their police and firefighting forces, an economy that is close to stalling due to lack of growth, and I could go on and on. But in light of all these facts, even the provision that had been included in the Republican proposal, or the authorization of State Department operations, last year would now need to be revised to cut spending and address the budgetary challenges that we face.

Regrettably, the bill adopted by the Senate that we are considering today does not reflect the current fiscal realities. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the manner in which the provisions of this bill are drafted would result in $108 million of authorized funding and $67 million in actual outlays over the next few years, which is different than what we have heard here on the floor.

Further, despite inquiries to the Congressional Research Service and, through CRS, the State Department and Agency for International Development, there is apparently no available confirmed figure on exactly how much aid the United States already provides to fight child marriage overseas.

We do know that such U.S. assistance programs, programs that specifically include the prevention of child marriage as an objective, are already underway. But no one can tell us how much taxpayer funding is already being used to fight child marriage in developing countries.

To achieve the policy objectives we seek, while taking into account the economic challenges and limitations our Nation, our constituents are facing, this week Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen introduced a bill on the prevention of child marriage which enjoys the support of several of our colleagues in this House. That bill reflects modifications that Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen had sought to make to the Senate text before it came to the floor, but they were not accepted. Instead of the $67 million in outlays over the next 5 years in the Senate text before us, the provisions of that bill would have resulted in less than $1 million in potential costs.

The Republican alternative proposed the following:

First, we make it clear that child marriage is a violation of human rights and that its prevention should be a goal of U.S. foreign policy;

Second, since there's currently no legislative requirement for a U.S. strategy for assistance to prevent child marriage, we require the creation of such a multiyear strategy;

Third, we require a report within 1 year that would inform us on the progress of the required strategy and, perhaps more important, give us a comprehensive assessment of what we already are doing and funding in the effort to fight child marriage; and

Finally, that the practice of child marriage in other countries be reported each year as part of the annual Human Rights Report, and that the practice of child marriage also be reported for those countries that are potential recipients of U.S. security assistance.

I believe the alternative approach that was proposed would have achieved the goals we desire without adding to our economic burdens. Regrettably, we are faced with S. 987 and its price tag of $67 million.

Mr. Speaker, having outlined my concerns with the bill before us today, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers, but I will add one more comment if I may, and that is: Make no mistake about it----

Well, I have not yielded my time, so I will use my time. I will be happy to use your time.

I won't take the full minute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just say that I don't want anyone to think we're not very sympathetic to the problem. We are, but the fiscal problems we face in this country right now are of paramount concern to all of us. And for that reason, we must bring this to a vote, and that's the reason why I ask for it.

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

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

Mr. President, today, with the passage of the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act, the Senate takes a step toward ending child marriage.

Child marriage is often carried out through force or coercion. It deprives young girls, and sometimes boys, of their dignity and human rights. And it poses grave health risks. In some countries, it is not uncommon for girls as young as 7 or 8 years old to be married.

Child marriage also undermines U.S. foreign assistance to developing countries. We invest in education and skills-building for girls, improving maternal and child health, ending the transmission of HIV/ AIDS, preventing gender-based violence, and reducing poverty. But where the girls targeted for assistance are married, these development strategies only go so far.

UNICEF estimates that 60 million girls in developing countries now ages 20 to 24 were married under the age of 18. The Population Council estimates that the number will increase by 100 million over the next decade if trends continue.

The International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act seeks to reverse those trends. Thanks to Senator Olympia Snowe and 41 other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, the leadership of Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Representatives Betty McCollum and Ander Crenshaw in the House for supporting the legislation to make ending child marriage a priority in foreign affairs.

I would also like to thank The Elders, a group of world leaders including Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and President Jimmy Carter, who work together to address major causes of human suffering around the globe. Their help and persistence on the legislation have been invaluable.

The human rights community has rightly identified the practice of child marriage as a major concern that treats young girls as property and traps them in a life of servitude. It denies girls educational and economic opportunities, sustaining a cycle of poverty in some of the world's poorest countries.

Many child brides live their lives in crushing hopelessness. Some are driven to attempt suicide to escape their misery.

A recent New York Times article entitled, ``For Afghan Wives, a Desperate, Fiery Way Out,'' shared the story of Farzana, engaged at 8 and married by 12. By the age of 17, she had endured years of verbal and physical abuse from her husband and his family.

She thought of ways to get out. She thought of running away but worried it would offend her family's sense of honor.

Finally, seeing no other way out and desperate, Farzana doused herself in cooking fuel and lit herself on fire.

Before this hell, Farzana had dreamed of becoming a teacher. Now, after 57 days in the hospital and multiple skin grafts, she has recovered from burns that covered more than half of her body.

Today she says, ``Five years I spent in his house with those people. My

marriage was for other people. They should never have given me in a child marriage.'' Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, stories like these are common. Except, unlike Farzana, many succeed in killing themselves. Young girls in the developing world should not be made to face the choice between life as a child bride without hope or dying at their own hands to escape their torment.

In addition to denying tens of millions of women and girls their dignity, child marriage also endangers their health. Marriage at an early age puts girls at greater risk of dying as a result of childbirth. Pregnancy and childbirth complications are the leading cause of death for women 15 to 19 years old in developing countries. Their children also face higher mortality rates.

In September 2009, a highly publicized example of this occurred in Yemen. A 12-year-old girl died of severe bleeding after three agonizing days in labor. Her child died as well. She was married to a 24-year old man. Child brides are also at an increased risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease, including HIV and AIDS.

The bill we passed today would require our government to develop an integrated, strategic approach to combating child marriage with the goal of eliminating this scourge worldwide. It authorizes assistance to prevent child marriage in developing countries and to promote the educational, health, economic, social and legal empowerment of girls and women. It would require priority for regions in developing countries with a high prevalence of child marriage.

The bill also would require the Federal Government to do a better job of tracking child marriage prevalence overseas.

In the Senate today, we take a big step toward helping children we will never meet in places we will never visit. There are some issues we must look at through the shared experience of humanity. Ensuring that children throughout the world do not have their childhoods robbed of them is one such issue.

The United States has always tried to be a leader in international human rights. By passing this bill, the Senate shows its determination to keep the United States at the forefront of human rights protection around the world.

I urge my colleagues in the House to work with Representatives McCollum and Crenshaw and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Speaker Pelosi to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 987) to protect girls in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 987, the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010 and yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, S. 987, is the corresponding legislation to legislation introduced by our colleague from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), H.R. 2103.

Child marriage is one of the most harmful practices affecting girls in the developing world today. Globally, more than 60 million girls under the age of 18, many only 12 or 13, are married, usually to men more than twice or three times their age. Between one-half and three- fourths of all girls are married before the age of 18 in countries such as Chad, Mali, Bangladesh, and Nepal. Should these numbers remain consistent in the next 10 years, there will be 25,000 new child brides every day.

Marrying at such a young age comes at a terrible cost for these girls--girls who, in most developed countries, would otherwise still be happily playing sports and singing in their school choir. These young girls are at an increased risk for health problems like HIV/AIDS due to the sexual history of their older partners. In addition, young girls are at risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth. In fact, childbirth complications are the leading cause of death for women 15 to 19 years old in developing countries.

Not only are child brides at a higher risk for disease and death during childbirth, they are frequently victims of domestic abuse. Premature marriage deprives girls of their dignity and dooms these girls to a life of poverty and dependence. It is for these reasons, and many more, that child marriage is categorized as both child abuse and a violation of human rights.

Poverty and a lack of education are both key contributing factors to why young women fall victim to child marriages. Girls who live in impoverished homes are twice as likely to marry under 18, and 60 percent of girls involved in child marriages have no education.

Families struck by poverty cannot afford to keep their daughters in school and often do not have the resources to provide for their daughters at all. Marrying off female children is often the only alternative for struggling families. With an often false promise of a better life for their daughters, parents marry their girls off at an all-too-early age.

However, there are undoubtedly better alternatives. This bill before us seeks to eliminate the harmful practice of child marriage overseas. It requires an integrated, strategic approach by our government to reduce the incidence of child marriage by authorizing the President to provide assistance through multilateral, nongovernmental, and faith- based organizations to prevent the incidence of child marriage and to promote the educational, health, economic, social, and legal empowerment of girls and women. It also requires the President to establish a multiyear strategy in developing countries and promote the empowerment of girls at risk of child marriage.

Mr. Speaker, we need to invest in these young girls and provide safe spaces where they can evolve socially and become self-sufficient. Empowering young girls through education can help prevent child marriages and lead to a brighter and healthier future for millions worldwide.

I want to thank Representatives McCollum and Crenshaw for their leadership on this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, which will be an invaluable investment in the future of millions of girls around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the author, along with Congressman Crenshaw, of the corresponding House legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman from Indiana has no further speakers.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I would yield the gentleman such time as he may consume, up to a point, everything except 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I do it simply in the context of urging my colleagues to vote for this legislation; to point out, number 1, that this is not an entitlement program. This is an authorization. It is not an appropriation.

To the extent, after we pass this legislation and it is signed into law, that the statement takes its appropriated resources and uses some of those resources to develop the strategic plan to work with these organizations for what the gentleman himself concedes is a very important cause, those resources will come from some other form of resources. They will not be additional spending unless there is an appropriation. And this bill is not an appropriations bill; it is an authorization bill.

I urge my colleagues to support it. It's a critical issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.