PROTECT Our Children Act of 2017

Madam Speaker, a former abortionist, Dr. Levatino testified before Congress and described how he and other abortionists actually kill helpless babies. He killed 1,200 of them. He said: ``Imagine, if you can, that you are a pro-choice OB-GYN like I was. Using a Sopher 13-inch clamp with rows of ridges or teeth, grasp anything you can inside the womb. Once you grasp something inside, squeeze on the clamp, set the jaws and pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go, and out pops a fully formed leg about 6 inches long.

Reach in again and grasp anything you can, and out pops an arm. Reach in again, and again, and again with the clamp, and tear out the spine, the intestines, the heart and lungs.''

Even if pain wasn't present, Madam Speaker, dismembering a child is violence against children, and it is inhumane. But these babies actually suffer excruciating pain during the abortion.

Dr. Colleen Malloy from Northwestern University has said: ``In today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at 20 weeks and are able to witness their ex-utero growth. I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment.''

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 36.

Overwhelming majorities of Americans--some 60-64% according to pollsters--support legal protection for pain-capable unborn children.

Today we know that unborn babies not only die but suffer excruciating pain during dismemberment abortion--a cruelty that rips arms and legs off a helpless child.

A former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, testified before Congress that he had performed 1,200 abortions--over 100 late-term abortions up to 24 weeks.

Dr. Levatino described what the abortionist actually does to the helpless child. ``Imagine if you can that you are a pro-choice obstetrician/gynecologist like I was.'' Using a Sopher 13'' clamp with rows of ridges or teeth, ``grasp anything you can'' inside the womb. ``Once you've grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp anything you can . . . and out pops an arm.'' He noted that ``a second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure.'' He said, ``Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.''

Madam Speaker, even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy gets it. In his dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2000 Stenberg v Carhart decision, Justice Kennedy observed that in D&E dismemberment abortions, ``The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.'' Justice Kennedy added in the Court's 2007 opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart that D&E abortions are ``laden with the power to devalue human life . . .''

Even if pain wasn't present, dismembering a child is violence against children and inhumane. But these babies actually suffer.

Dr. Robert White, professor of neurosurgery at Case Western Reserve University said an unborn child at 20 weeks gestation ``is fully capable of experiencing pain . . . without question, (abortion) is a dreadfully painful experience . . .''

In an expert report prepared for the U.S. Justice Department, Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand, a pediatrician specializing in the care of critically ill newborns and children who has conducted intensive research of pain and stress in the human newborn and fetus said: ``. . .the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by the fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children . . .'' Why? Dr. Anand points out that ``the highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero from 20 to 30 weeks gestation . . . Thus, a fetus at 20 to 32 weeks of gestation would experience a much more intense pain than older infants or children or adults.''

Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at the Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee said: ``When we speak of infants at 20 weeks post- fertilization we no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving and reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit.''

Dr. Malloy went on to say, ``in today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth.'' She says ``I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection''

In an undercover video released by David Daleidan, a Planned Parenthood Medical Director explains that before beginning a late abortion she completes a clinical documentation form that says ``I intend to utilize dismemberment techniques for this procedure.''

Notice the words--``dismemberment techniques''--in order to ``extract the fetus in multiple parts.''

But seriously, we've known much of this for years. In 2006 I authored the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act that garnered 250 votes in favor-- including 40 Democrats--to 162 against. I remember thinking on the day of the vote: ``how can anyone vote to refuse to make child pain information part of informed consent?''

Congressman Trent Franks has authored four extraordinarily important bills over the years to actually protect pain-capable babies in federal law from the violence of abortion including Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts that passed the House of Representatives in 2013 and again in 2015. Tragically, President Obama vowed to veto this child protection legislation and the Senate failed to even pass it. However, should the House pass H.R. 36 today and if the Senate passes it as well, President Trump has said he would sign it.

Not only will babies be protected by federal law at five months and the pain suffered by these babies averted, but H.R. 36 requires that a late abortion permitted under limited circumstances provide the ``best opportunity for the unborn child to survive'' and that ``a second physician trained in neonatal resuscitation'' be ``present and prepared to provide care to a child'' to the same degree as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.

Thus, ``any health care practitioner present at the time shall humanely exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to a child born alive at the same gestational age in the course of a natural birth.''

Moreover, ``following the care required to be rendered . . . the child born alive shall be immediately transported and admitted to the hospital.''

Sixteen states have enacted pain-capable unborn child laws that closely parallel the bill before us today. These include Ohio, Texas, Nebraska, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that my colleagues respect unborn children as our nation's littlest patients who like any other patient may need diagnosis and benign interventions to treat disability or disease.

And preemies are surviving earlier and healthier as technology and medical science advance. Micah Pickering is a healthy 5 year old today. He was born prematurely at 20 weeks and was the size of this M&M candy bag. Micah is the face of the pro-life movement. That is why the bill before us today is ``Micah's Law.''

A recent study of nearly 5,000 babies published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed that nearly a quarter of the premature babies born at 22 weeks survived. (Let me note that the 22 weeks gestational age referred to in the study is equivalent to 20 weeks fetal age using the age dating system employed by H.R. 36).

Researchers at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) are developing a technology that they hope--in a decade--will be the new standard of care for extremely premature infants. Building a bridge between the mother's womb and the outside world, the artificial wombs provide a soft, sterile, fluid filled environment for the child to continue to grow.

The babies we seek to protect from harm today may survive if treated humanely, with expertise and compassion--not the cruelty of the abortion.

Four years ago, Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder, conspiracy to kill and involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Even though the news of Gosnell's child slaughter was largely suppressed by the mainstream media, many of my colleagues may remember that Dr. Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where women died and countless babies were dismembered or chemically destroyed often by having their spinal cords snipped----all gruesome procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim.

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Micah's Law, is needed now more than ever because there are Gosnells all over America, dismembering and decapitating pain-capable babies for profit. The bill protects kids from preventable pain--and death.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, before I start, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida for her consistent work on this legislation. For those of us who have served, we certainly are well aware of the work that has been done, and I have been very privileged on the Judiciary Committee to join with her work, and I just want to congratulate her on that.

As we begin, let me also take just a moment to acknowledge, again, the massacre that occurred on Sunday night in Las Vegas, Nevada. As I was pondering the actions of this body last evening with a moment of silence, I wondered whether that--although it is of much reverence-- whether that, in fact, will heal the wounds of those who lost their loved ones or those who are still mending--the 500-plus who were in the hospital and have been in the hospital.

So before I speak to S. 782, I want to make it clear that I think it is crucial that the letter that both Mr. Conyers and I signed regarding asserting jurisdiction on the silencer bill is crucial. And as well it is crucial that this body does more than this, in essence, a moment of silence to heal the wounds of those who are now speechless about the loss of their loved ones. And as well it might be time to take a knee or to kneel, but it is time to pass legislation.

I would hope that we would pass legislation that has been offered, the King-Thompson bill, and a number of other legislative initiatives that many of us have.

With that, I rise in support of S. 782, the Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2017.

This legislation will reauthorize the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program by amending the language in section 105(h) of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, introduced by then- Senator Joe Biden.

This bill authorizes appropriations for this program in the amount of $60 million for each fiscal year from 2018 through 2022. These figures are consistent with current appropriated levels.

We have a special responsibility to protect our young people. For that reason, I support S. 782, a bill that will provide adequate resources to help eradicate the cyber threats that continue to threaten the lives of our children.

I support this important bipartisan measure for several reasons. First, it will facilitate more comprehensive investigation into violent acts perpetrated against innocent children.

The task force program creates a coordinated group of investigative task forces representing 3,500 Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.

Second, this bill will provide support to officers that will allow them to better identify these threats, conduct investigation and training, and enforce the laws.

The task force is particularly important because it becomes a specialty entity that deals with saving our children.

The task forces aid local and State law enforcement in creating and implementing effective responses to technologically facilitated child sexual exploitation and internet crimes against children.

As the internet becomes more sophisticated and there are those who would want to be bad actors and utilize this very important national/ international asset, this task force is crucial. They provide law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies with guidance on victim support, forensic investigations, training and technical assistance, prevention, and community education--all crucial elements to a holistic approach to stopping the attack on our children, stopping the sexual exploitation on our children, and stopping the internet crimes against our children.

In the Judiciary Committee today, we were dealing with another aspect of this issue, which is sex trafficking and human trafficking.

This is an important component, again, to giving our children back their innocence and letting them be strong in the knowledge of the love and affection the Nation has for them and protecting them as they grow and thrive.

Finally, this bill will provide the technological resources to detect online threats in real time and provide a platform on which law enforcement can operate in order to bring these perpetrators to justice.

Just this morning, the Judiciary Committee, as I indicated, held a hearing regarding online sex trafficking. We are all in agreement that we must eradicate this threat to our young people and that we must take action against other victimization of children that can occur online. This legislation is, in fact, a key element of that. Although we still have work to do to address these problems, this bill is a good start.

For the foregoing reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 782, the ``Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2017.''

This legislation will reauthorize the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program by amending the language in section 105(h) of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, introduced by then- Senator Joe Biden.

This bill authorizes appropriations for this program in the amount of $60,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2018 through 2022. These figures are consistent with current appropriated levels.

We have a special responsibility to protect our young people.

For that reason, I support S. 782, a bill that would provide adequate resources to help eradicate the cyber threats that continue to threaten the lives of our children.

I support this important bipartisan measure for several reasons.

First, it will facilitate more comprehensive investigation into violent acts perpetrated against innocent children.

The Task Force Program creates a coordinated group of investigative task forces representing 3,500 federal, state and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.

Second, this bill will provide support to officers that will allow them to better identify these threats, conduct investigation and training, and enforce the laws.

The Task Forces aid local and state law enforcement in creating and implementing effective responses to technologically facilitated child sexual exploitation and internet crimes against children.

They provide law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies with guidance on victim support, forensic investigations, training and technical assistance, prevention and community education.

And finally, this bill will provide the technological resources needed to detect online threats in real-time and provide a platform on which law enforcement can operate in order to bring these perpetrators to justice.

Just this morning, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing regarding Online Sex Trafficking. We were all in agreement that we must eradicate this threat to our young people, as we must take action against other victimization of children that can occur online.

Although we still have work to do to address these problems, this bill is a good start, and for the foregoing reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who has been a key supporter and advocate for this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the full committee and Ms. Wasserman Schultz for very instructive and important statements, particularly the plea that Ms. Wasserman Schultz made that we must reauthorize and, more importantly, fund these task forces, because they do, in fact, save lives.

Let me acknowledge the chairman of this committee for the collaboration on this bill, and let me again emphasize that we must make sure that it is authorized at the amount of money needed.

If there is ever an unfortunate and tragic example, it is that of the story of Alicia. She represents the Johnnys and Marys and Tommys and Shirleys and Quamis and Lateshas and others across the Nation who fall victim to this kind of cruel and almost inhuman attack on our children, innocent as they are, smart as they are, using the internet as they do online for any number of reasons, but then wooed by a dastardly person who wants to do them harm.

The task forces that are now based upon knowledge, expertise, commitment, passion, and with number of staffing that they need, can really be for not only prevention, but the intervention to stop our children from falling victim.

So I ask my colleagues to support S. 782, the Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2017--or the PROTECT Our Children Act--as quickly as possible so that it can move to the President's desk and, as well, that we continue the pathway not only of intervention and prevention, but completely ceasing the online violence against our children because we have been able to ensure that these individuals, in large numbers, are brought to justice. By that very point, they cease to survive and thrive on the internet.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of S. 782, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Conyers and I can remember the same type of hearings and the same type of legislation many years ago, again denying women their constitutional rights. I can see as clear as I can see you, Madam Speaker, the women who were sitting and begging us not to undermine them, their doctor, and their faith.

So I rise today to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You have got it wrong. There are no mass abortions. There is no call for mass abortions. The women that are undergoing these procedures are women who have prayed and who have looked to their faith, their doctor, and their family.

So I oppose this bill because it puts the lives of women at risk, it interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and it diverts attention from the real problem facing American women. Let us reauthorize SCHIP. People are crying about that in my district. How outrageous.

One of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 20 weeks.

What number did I say? 10? 20? 1.5, and this is not diminishing the aspects of this.

But it is those women who have prayed. They have sought doctors' help, and they, as well, have sought their family's consultation.

We are making a mockery of these women. These women are not standing on the street corner saying, ``I want to have an abortion.'' They have a serious situation, like April Salazar.

At 18 weeks, she and her husband found out that their baby had a lethal diagnosis, and if she carried the pregnancy to term and he was born alive, he would die shortly from suffocation. It is not pain of getting him out--he would die. April hoped the news wasn't true, so she requested more tests to confirm the diagnosis. At 21 weeks she had an abortion. This bill would have stopped April.

This would have stopped April, her husband, her family, her God, and her doctor from making the decision.

Even the exceptions are bogus because you frighten these women. The idea of Jeni, in my home State, where they had a 2-day waiting period listening to a mandatory script about abortion and a sign-off from two separate doctors. Once you start this, you are taking it away from women who have sought their faith leader, their doctor, and their family.

This is a bad bill. We need to do some important things. I would hope with the carnage of Las Vegas, to save lives, we would ban assault weapons and we would not have that gentleman having 42 guns in his home and in his possession. That is what we need to fight to save lives, not this bill that undermines the rights of women and their faith and their doctor.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the ``Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act'' and the underlying bill.

I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation the last time it was brought to the floor.

I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people.

A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2017.''

Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to help rebuild the ravaged communities hit by hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.

Madam Speaker, we could and should instead be voting reauthorize the important SCHIP program that has helped families get on their feet for years.

Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

The one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 20 weeks.

Women like Jeni from Texas, who, at 21 weeks, was told that her fetus had multiple severe defects.

Jeni could end the pregnancy or wait for the fetus to miscarry or die.

There was no way that the pregnancy would end in a live, healthy baby.

Jeni and her husband chose to terminate the pregnancy, but because they live in Texas, they were forced to endure several cruel restrictions: a two-day waiting period, listening to a mandatory script about abortion, and a sign-off from two separate doctors.

Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different.

No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.

These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 36 because it lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability.

While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post- fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 36 violates this clear and long standing constitutional rule.

Madam Speaker, the constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.

I strongly oppose H.R. 36 and urge all Members to join me in voting against this unwise measure that put the lives and health of women at risk.

I would like to include in the Record stories from two women:

April Salazar, New York: ``It would have been too hard for

me to carry to term, and it

seemed pointless to make the baby suffer too when she would

never survive.''

At 18 weeks, April and her husband found out that their

baby had lethal skeletal dysplasia. He would never be able to

breathe on his own. If she carried the pregnancy to term and

he was born alive, he would die shortly after of suffocation.

April hoped the news wasn't true, so she requested more tests

to confirm the diagnosis, which took two weeks. At 21 weeks,

she had an abortion. April shares her story because she has

found that it can change opinions. Several people she knows

personally who previously had been anti-abortion told her

that they would have done the same thing she did.

Julie Bindeman, Maryland: ``Everything about a later

termination is already so incredibly difficult even just

picking up the phone to make the appointment. The 20-week ban

adds another hurdle. It's just cruel.''

Julie's doctor told her and her husband that their son's

brain had a serious abnormality, a diagnosis that they

confirmed with tests, more ultrasounds, and an MRI. If the

baby survived birth, he would never speak, walk, or have

conscious thoughts based upon what had developed in his

brain. Julie and her husband decided to end the pregnancy,

and the soonest they could get the appointment was at 22

weeks. Julie could not find a surgeon in Maryland at that

time willing to perform the procedure, so she had to be

induced for labor and delivery. Her baby was born alive and

died very shortly after.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her commitment, for her work, and for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I spent 5 years as a proud member of the Judiciary Committee. I miss it and I hope to return one day to add on to my responsibilities as a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I also thank Mr. Goodlatte for his leadership and solid, consistent support for this program over the last decade.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 782, Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act--or the PROTECT Our Children Act--because at this very moment there are thousands of children out there waiting to be saved.

Our children deserve, as we all agree, a future that is healthy, prosperous, bright, secure, and, most of all, safe. That is, of course, what every parent cares about the most: the safety of their children. But, sadly, our children are vulnerable when they are online.

With the proliferation of the internet and wireless technology, online child pornography has become an epidemic, and I don't use that term lightly. The ever-increasing reach of the modern internet has facilitated an exploding, multibillion-dollar market for child pornography.

Tragically, the demand for this criminal market can only be supplied by graphic new images, and these images can only be supplied through the sexual assault of more children. Let's not forget that these are not just heinous photos or images. They are, simply put, crime scene photos created by a thriving industry that uses children as sexual commodities.

Ten years ago, I introduced H.R. 3845, the Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2007--or PROTECT Our Children Act of 2007.

At a House Judiciary hearing on that bill, my colleagues will remember we heard from a very brave young woman, Alicia Kozakiewicz. She had been abducted by an internet predator when she was just 13 years old. She was held captive in his dungeon basement and sexually tortured for 4 days.

The FBI found Alicia because the Virginia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force--or ICAC--had the technology to lift the digital fingerprints of this perpetrator's crimes. They were able to discover the location where he held her captive, chained to the floor, connected to a collar around her neck. Internet crimes officers tracked the IP address back to his door and literally rescued Alicia from death.

I remember Alicia's testimony like it was yesterday because it moved many of the members of that committee, including myself, to tears. Over the course of that next year, we learned a lot about these types of offenders: who they are, how they operate, and, most importantly, where they are.

We saw detailed law enforcement maps that showed the locations of hundreds of thousands of sexual predators, over half of whom had actual child victims waiting to be rescued.

That number might lend people to think: Come on, that has to be an exaggeration. It is not. I have seen the evidence before my eyes: hundreds of thousands of sexual predators, each on a computer uploading pictures of child victims that they are sexually assaulting. Those maps described the truly harrowing environment.

Congress did what it was supposed to do. We acted. We passed H.R. 3845 and, the following year, passed its companion, S. 1738. This legislation established the National Internet Crimes Against Children-- or ICAC--Task Force Program, a specialized group of law enforcement officials dedicated to the protection of our children.

In 2009 and 2010, Congress funded the ICAC Task Force at close to their full authorization levels of $50 million per year. The task forces grew from 42 to 61, and arrests and child rescues doubled.

Literally thousands more predators were apprehended and children rescued. An untold number of sexual assaults were prevented by virtue of the fact that the most dangerous offenders were sitting behind bars, where they could no longer harm our children.

In 2011, however, the ICAC Task Force budget was slashed, cut from $50 million to where it is today at $27 million. So, with all due respect, I have to correct my colleagues. We are not funding the ICAC Task Force at authorized levels.

This cut remains intact, despite the fact that, as of August 2017, law enforcement has seen nearly a half million unique IP addresses trafficking in sexual abuse images in the U.S. That is hundreds of thousands of separate online sexual predators, and that number is only from January 2017 to August 31, 2017.

Even more heartbreaking, law enforcement officials tell us that the victims are getting younger, most under the age of 10, and the abuse is getting more sadistic. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 44 percent of the images, Mr. Speaker, they viewed in 2016 depicted sexual torture.

Law enforcement also tells us that only 7 percent of the top 100 traders on peer-to-peer networks trading these types of images are even under investigation.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just unacceptable; it is tragic. We owe our children much better than that. They deserve our help and a Congress that will do whatever it can to ensure their health and safety.

S. 782, the Senate version of a bill that I introduced in March of this year with my colleague and friend, Lamar Smith, as the chairman kindly thanked us, reauthorizes the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

According to estimates, half of the arrests made by ICAC teams lead us to the door of a hands-on offender and, thus, a child waiting to be rescued.

The PROTECT Our Children reauthorization before us today will help us continue to provide the safety net we so desperately need by allowing these highly successful ICAC Task Forces to continue to support State and local law enforcement agencies.

While I applaud House leadership for making sure this crucial child rescue program and funding is not allowed to expire, I beseech my colleagues to also make sure that the ICAC Task Forces are fully funded. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I press for that every year.

We have to do better. We have to get as close to the authorization level as we can, because we actually rescue children with the more resources we put into this.

Mr. Speaker, we must give the protection of these children our full focus and efforts. Please think about these precious babies being victimized. If you are a parent--and many of us are--God forbid if it was your own child. It could be any of our children, because of the prevalence of our children being online.

Let's give these ICAC teams the resources they need to rescue as many children as possible. If we do that, thousands more innocent children will be protected from these unspeakable crimes. There, but for the grace of God, go our families and children.

I thank my Republican lead cosponsor, Congressman Lamar Smith, for teaming up with me again to reauthorize this for yet another 5 years for this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to support the PROTECT Our Children Act reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 548, I call up

the bill (H.R. 36) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 36.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, also known as Micah's Law.

This bill prohibits most elective abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization and thereafter. That is the beginning of the fifth month of pregnancy. That is the point in a pregnancy when a substantial body of medical evidence shows that a baby in the womb can feel pain.

H.R. 36 is humane legislation for innocent babies and for mothers. It includes exceptions for the life of the mother and exceptions in the case of rape and incest. Additionally, this bill imposes criminal liability only on the medical professional performing that abortion, not on the mother.

Mr. Speaker, there is broad consensus within the medical community babies at 5 months in the womb are not only able to feel pain, they can hear music. They can even respond to human voices.

America is one of only seven countries in the world that still allows elective late-term abortions, joining North Korea and China.

Today, we understand so much more about a baby's development during a pregnancy. Voluntarily terminating the life of an innocent baby when we know that baby can feel pain can no longer be acceptable, and a majority of Americans agree.

Hearts and minds are changing. How many of us have marveled at the vivid sonogram images of a soon-to-be-born son, niece, or grandchild? How many of us have been amazed and so very grateful that babies born early, as early as 20 weeks, have a very real chance of survival?

Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects today's medical understanding about a baby's ability to feel pain. Micah's Law reflects those changing hearts and minds of Americans. Micah's Law reflects the higher aspirations of this Nation, a truly moral nation, to foster a culture of life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 36.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my esteemed colleague, the Judiciary Committee chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), my colleague and the lead sponsor of Micah's Law.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman and physician from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have heard many impassioned stories this afternoon.

Much has changed since Roe v. Wade was upheld in the 1970s. We have made extraordinary medical advances. Today, we know with great certainty that babies in the womb, starting at the fifth month of pregnancy, do indeed feel pain.

It is extraordinarily heartbreaking when an unborn baby is diagnosed with a severe and life-threatening abnormality, still that baby deserves a right to life and right to dignity.

My sister was born with no esophagus and given little hope to live. By the grace of God and a miracle, within just weeks of her birth, a new technology, a new treatment came forward. Today, she is the proud mother of my two nieces.

Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It is a just bill. It is a moral bill to do what we are called to do, not just as Americans but as human beings: to protect lives of the most innocent.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support and urge every colleague to vote in support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.