Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2892, the Reverse Mortgages to Help America's Seniors Act.

By removing the cap on the number of these loans that HUD can guarantee, this bipartisan bill allows the program to grow with demand.

A reverse mortgage is a creative financing tool that allows seniors to take some of the equity out of their homes without having to sell the home, or take on a new monthly mortgage payment.

Because it allows seniors to remain in their homes and provides them an income, it has proved very popular. These funds can be used for the everyday demands that many seniors face and that can become particularly urgent for those surviving on a fixed income, such as paying off existing debts, paying health care expenses, or paying daily living expenses.

When the statutory cap of 150,000 loans was reached this spring, there was consternation that the program would be suspended even though it is a win-win: it makes money for taxpayers and benefits seniors.

As those events demonstrate, the cap serves no useful purpose and should be removed. There is no reason to deny seniors this benefit if they decide it works for them, especially since it makes substantial money for the government--almost $40 million annually after the first year.

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2892 and make this financial tool available to any senior who wants to use it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the so- called Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, H.R. 4437. I am deeply

concerned with this legislation because it fails to seriously address our Nation's true immigration problems.

Our nation's immigration system needs a serious overhaul, but this is not it. This is a bill that has been rushed to the floor, about a week after it was introduced and after only one committee hearing that later discharged the bill on a party line vote. For an issue as important as this, we should work together, we should work towards consensus, we should take the time it takes to get it right. Instead, the Republican leadership is more interested in passing legislation that may look good on a press release, but does not solve our immigration problems and is not realistic.

If the Republican leadership was serious about securing our borders and preventing the entry of undocumented immigrants, they would fully fund the additional 10,000 border agents that we authorized when we passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, Public Law 108-458, last year. The addition of these agents, which had broad bipartisan support, was a provision that would have a direct impact on securing both our Southern and Northern borders and had broad bipartisan support. However, when it comes time to fund these additional agents, Congress consistently comes up short.

This bill is strongly opposed by a broad range of organizations such as U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Farm Bureau, National Association of Homebuilders, Catholic Charities USA, Associated Builders and Contractors, United Auto Workers, among others. This broad coalition of organizations and interest groups understands that H.R. 4437 is not a solution to our existing immigration problem and in fact may exacerbate it.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this administration, in concert with this Congress under this leadership, has given us five years of record debt and deficits. It seems that with each new month comes a new dubious record--just last week we learned that the trade deficit for October hit another all-time high.

This reckless fiscal policy has come on the heels of the thriving economy of the 1990s, when we showed that government can be fiscally disciplined and compassionate to our neighbors most in need at the same time.

That time and that economic philosophy is a distant memory, having given way to misguided priorities. Now, instead of fundamentally changing the economic approach that

turned record surpluses into record deficits and that has floated us down a river of red ink, we have the bill that is before us. It gives no real help to our debt and deficits, and it targets programs that need help the most.

By cutting less than one half of one percent of the projected $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years, we are not returning to fiscal sanity, as supporters of this bill claim.

And despite what some on the other side of the aisle might think, slashing programs that help low-income Americans and our seniors stay healthy and help our young go to college is not sound policy. A $12.7 billion cut to student loans will not help educate Americans. A $6.9 billion cut in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program will not keep low-income Americans healthy. And a $6.4 billion cut in Medicare is not beneficial to the well-being of our nation's seniors.

Instead, this bill shows a lack of compassion and a lack of vision for the long-term health and productivity of our Nation. It would be more beneficial if we returned to the sound, balanced-budget vision that guided us through the prosperous '90s.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this uncompassionate bill and to instead focus on a revision of our economic direction.

Mr. Speaker, America's servicemen and servicewomen are the bravest, most valiant and skillful soldiers on earth and because of them, our military is the best in history. As the daughter and brother of war veterans, I am particularly supportive of our Nation's soldiers. The men and women serving America deserve the full support of our Nation. This is why it is particularly distasteful and dangerous when elected officials in Washington play politics with legislation that affects our troops serving right now in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

It is tremendously disappointing that the leadership from the other side of the aisle has decided to play politics with this bill. They have taken a straightforward bill to fund our military, knowing that it is destined to pass, and hung politically controversial and unacceptable legislation to it. They have given us a withering Christmas tree.

This is politics at its distasteful worst, and it must be rejected. I am voting ``no'' on this bill because of the bad governance it represents and because of the bad policy attached at the last minute.

Opening part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling creates environmental harm in pursuit of a band-aid for our Nation's energy problems. Instead of putting adequate resources into developing alternative energy sources, which could solve our long-term problems, some in the Congress and the administration find it easier to go rushing into a treasured wildlife sanctuary for a short-term stopgap.

They were unable to get what they want through the normal legislative process. So, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle used a ploy-- they attached their legislation to a defense bill, literally in the middle of the night.

As if that weren't bad enough, this bill has also been saddled with an irresponsible gift to drugmakers, shielding them from liability and giving victims only phantom protections. This is another proposal that did not go through the regular legislative process and could not have passed on its own merits.

Added on to all of that is a one percent across the board cut that will affect homeland security, education and health care programs. It will even chop $4 billion from the defense budget that supports our troops. Again, this did not go through the regular process and could not have passed on its own merits.

Though I cannot vote for this bill on principle, I am glad that it includes the restoration of $125 million for sick and injured 9/11 responders. The money was taken back from the responders at the president's request in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill we passed recently. My colleagues in the New York delegation and I worked hard to ensure that the 9/11 heroes can keep the assistance many of them so desperately still need. We were informed shortly before Thanksgiving that the Speaker would find a way to salvage the funds, and I thank him for following through with this action.

Despite the positive aspects of this bill, the other side of the aisle has attached--literally at the last minute--many unrelated items, which makes it impossible to support its passage. Such actions shouldn't be tolerated by this House. I wish to be associated with the comments of my friend and colleague, Mr. Obey, who has spoken strongly in opposition to the process under which this final bill was created.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.''

I am thrilled that this legislation includes provisions to provide retirement credit to the members of the National Guard serving on State duty who responded to the 9/11 attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.

I, along with Representative King and other members of the New York delegation, introduced legislation earlier this year which would accomplish the same goal, and I am thankful that the committee has worked with us to correct this inequity.

I especially would like to thank Chairman McHugh for his steadfast support of these provisions.

My friend and colleague Representative King has been invaluable in this endeavor, and I thank him for his efforts.

I also would like to commend Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, Ranking Member Snyder, and their staffs for their work on this issue.

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge Senator Clinton for her support and for introducing the companion legislation in the Senate.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the National Guard responded to the call of duty heroically.

While others were moving toward safety, the Guard moved into unknown dangers around Ground Zero.

They did not know if another attack was coming, but they did not hesitate to respond. All they did was their selfless duty.

For almost a year after 9/11, these National Guard heroes streamlined the movement of rescue personnel during the critical first phases of the response and they endured the toxic air conditions of Ground Zero with thousands of responders.

However, the National Guard units that served in the disaster zones of New York after 9/11 did not receive Federal retirement credit, while the National Guard units that protected Federal sites like West Point are receiving Federal retirement credit.

While protecting Federal sites was an important duty after 9/11, those who risked their lives at Ground Zero, in the most dangerous conditions anywhere in the country, deserve the same fair treatment.

By including these provisions in this conference report, we are showing our gratitude to the brave men and women who responded on September 11th by giving them the retirement benefits to which they are entitled.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the deposit insurance provisions of this legislation which implement reforms that are long overdue and that I have worked on for a long time. I strongly support the Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2005, which provides for establishment of the Deposit Insurance Fund and for the merger of the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund into it. I also support the Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, which revises requirements for deposit insurance.

Unless this bill passes before year end, community and regional bankers could face higher deposit insurance premiums, taking capital out of communities and sending it to Washington.

Congress has been considering major reforms to the nation's federal deposit insurance system for several years. From the time I joined this Committee at the close of the S&L crisis, I have been committed to legislation and oversight of the banking system, including deposit insurance reform, that ensures we will not repeat that crisis.

Just this year the House voted 413-10 to pass deposit insurance reform as a stand-alone bill, H.R. 1185. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 1185, as well as its predecessor in the 108th Congress, I am a long-time supporter of this reform bill.

It is long past time to merge the insurance funds. Additionally, eliminating the 23 basis point cliff and providing a new premium system that takes into account the past contributions of institutions are major steps forward. The mechanism for determining credit for past contributions is based on an amendment I cosponsored with former Rep. Bereuter last Congress. This provision is critically important as premiums banks pay to the FDIC limit their ability to make loans in the communities they serve. This balanced amendment is now part of the legislation.

In the House bill there was debate over what number should be the new limit of insured funds. The budget reconciliation conferees crafted a compromise that will provide safety and stability to our nation's financial system by giving the FDIC increased flexibility to administer deposit insurance. It will also benefit consumers by raising coverage levels for certain retirement accounts and adjust coverage for inflation.

For over 70 years our constituents--both banks and accountholders-- have depended on the deposit insurance system to protect their savings and maintain the safety and

soundness of the banking system. We should pass this legislation to ensure the future of deposit insurance and our banks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very, very strong support of this important legislation for the Indian American community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 358, the Little Rock Commemorative Coin Act, introduced by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder). This bill authorizes the Treasury to mint a dollar coin during the year 2007 in honor of the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of the Little Rock Central High School in 1957.

Those events, which have gone down in history, were the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in schools was unconstitutional.

None of us who were alive in 1957 will ever forget seeing those nine African American children walk bravely into Central High School surrounded by Federal troops and a raging mob. Their courage in the face of hatred and their resolute determination to overcome bigotry serves as a shining light to all of us. I don't believe any one of us are aware of what a historic event it was and what a history changing event it has become. Imagine the strength that it must have taken.

Only days before one of the students was almost lynched when she attempted to enter Central on the first day of school, and the Arkansas National Guard kept the other African American students out. The events of the next few days are the stuff of legends.

NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall and a future member of the Supreme Court obtained a Federal ruling preventing Governor Orval Faubus from using the National Guard to keep the nine children out of Central High. Although Faubus announced on TV that he would comply with the court order he added that the nine should stay away, and I quote from his own words, stay away for your own safety, end quote. Encouraged by his comments, a mob surrounded the school.

Finally, at the request of Congressman Brooks Hays and Mayor Woodrow

Mann, President Eisenhower dispatched 1,000 troops of the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to protect the nine school children and federalized the Arkansas National Guard so that Faubus could not order them to intervene.

Incidentally, Brooks Hays lost his next election because of the strong feeling of the community. It was an act of bravery on his part.

On September 25, 1957, the Little Rock Nine, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Melba Patillo, Jefferson Thomas, Carlotta Walls, Terrence Roberts, Gloria Ray, Thelma Mothershed and Minnijean Brown, entered Central High School and went to class.

A year later, in 1958, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., attended the graduation of Ernest Green, the first African American student ever to graduate from Central High. Mr. Green is now a partner in Lehman Brothers. In fact, all of the Little Rock Nine went on to professional achievements in and strong contributing lives to their communities.

This bill has over 300 bipartisan cosponsors and has been passed by the House by voice vote in June. We consider today the bill, as amended by the Senate, which contains a provision requested by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) to fix a problem that we learned of after House passage.

The amendment provides that the Little Rock School District can satisfy the statutory requirement of matching private funds through a local bond issue. In light of the unique circumstances of the Little Rock historical site, I would like to deeply thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their help in solving this problem and moving this legislation forward.

On the 40th anniversary of the Little Rock Nine, President Clinton gave a Congressional Gold Medal. There was a celebration here in the Library of Congress, and in this Congress I had the opportunity of meeting many of them and congratulating them for their historic life- changing courage that helped so many others through their courage and acts.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the author of this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who incidentally, was born in New York State.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers. I congratulate Mr. Snyder for his leadership on this legislation and Mr. Renzi, and their leadership on many other issues.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge the unanimous support of this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 487, supporting the goals and ideals of Korean-American Day. This important resolution also recognizes the 103rd anniversary of the arrival of the first Korean immigrants to the United States.

In January 1903 the first Korean immigrants came to the United States. Since then, Korean-Americans have raised families, participated in their communities, and contributed to the economy.

I am proud to represent the thousands of Korean-Americans living in my congressional district. These hard-working individuals have started numerous businesses which help to strengthen the economy of New York City.

Our nation's diversity is one of its greatest strengths, and I am pleased that this resolution honors the achievements of this vibrant community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this extremely important bill.

And I rise in strong support of the extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act for an additional 2 years.

The creation of antiterrorism insurance after 9/11 stabilized our Nation's economic footing, but it is set to expire at the end of this year. Businesses in my district with insurance policies that have expired since this September have told me that they cannot find insurance coverage in this country anywhere. They have been forced to look in England. Homeland security includes economic security, and after 9/11, of all the acts of this body, the most important was the antiterrorism insurance. It helped us start to rebuild and to build our economic foundation in New York and across this country.

That is why it is so very important that we pass this extension. Clearly, the terrorist threat remains, and TRIA is still an economic necessity.

I am disappointed that the good work of the Financial Services Committee to create a stronger bill that would help the private sector take on the problem of terrorism insurance has been set aside in favor of a more limited bill that simply kicks the can down the road, as Chairman Oxley so correctly put it and as Ranking Member Frank and Mr. Kanjorski have highlighted. The bill before us would be better were it to extend to group life, domestic terrorism and if it covered nuclear, biological, chemical or radioactive events, and were it to create the commission to study the problem and make recommendations, as included in the House bill. We should task the private sector with developing innovative solutions instead of just relying on the government.

Because I feel these elements are so very important, I am cosponsoring a bipartisan bill with my New York colleague Vito Fossella to establish the commission and to provide flexibility in extending coverage for target sites such as Ground Zero.

Though the House bill did much better than this bill, we need to pass what we have before us today and continue to work on the problem together.

Once again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their help and support to New York City, and I thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for backing this bill and passing TRIA. It is important, and we will continue to work together.

Mr. Speaker, I will always support our troops, and I thank them and honor them for their bravery and valor during the difficult task of fighting the insurgents in Iraq. I also commend and admire the people of Iraq for their determination and bravery in the historic elections this week. The turnout was impressive--it was a testament to the spirit of the people and it will hopefully lead to a strong democracy.

I hope and pray that we are successful in Iraq--that the violence ends, that the country is stabilized and that our soldiers come home safe, sound and soon. Unfortunately, more than 150,000 of our best and bravest remain in Iraq having been given no real plan to win the peace and no defined terms of victory. Indeed, they were sent to Iraq by an administration that was unaware of the circumstance in Iraq and unprepared to win the peace.

I plan to vote ``present'' on this resolution because it calls for ``complete victory'' without actually defining victory. The administration has set tangible dates for elections and for the creation of a government, but why is it always vague about the terms of ``victory''? We have trained 100,000 Iraqi troops, will ``victory'' be achieved only after we train 100,000 more? Can victory only be won after our troops remain in Iraq in full force for another ten years? Longer than that?

Our military is the best in history, and it can achieve victory in any situation, as long as it is told what victory entails.

Elections are important milestones, but they are not magic pills. In 1967, there was an historic vote in South Vietnam, similar to the elections Iraq is holding now. As we all know, hostilities in Vietnam would continue for 7 years after those elections, with 50,000 more Americans losing their lives.

We continue to wait for the Iraqi forces to be capable of securing Iraq themselves, but the vagueness of our goals and the vagueness of ``victory'' in this war gives them little incentive to take over from our military. We badly need a timetable, but, ``When they stand up, we'll stand down,'' is hardly adequate.

Mr. Speaker, today I reintroduce legislation that allows veterans to use their guaranteed VA loans to purchase co- operative housing units. FHA and other government agencies already have programs to give loans for co-operative residential units, and most banks accept co-operative shares as collateral. The Department of Veterans Affairs should do the same. For many veterans who live in communities where co-operative housing is common or where the cost of houses and condominiums can be high, a co-operative residential unit is an affordable alternative.

Mr. Speaker, OPEC and the U.S. Energy Department delivered another blow to financially strained American consumers Monday when they announced that high energy prices are here to stay.

During a meeting in Kuwait, OPEC members said they may cut production of oil, increasing prices here in the U.S. At the same time, U.S. Federal energy forecasters projected the current high gas prices will last until at least 2014. This news comes at a devastating time for millions of families currently struggling to pay mounting home heating costs.

The onset of bitterly cold winter weather in New York City and across this Nation means that many people will have to make difficult sacrifices to afford these added expenses; and yet, Republican leaders in this body recently passed legislation that provides billions of dollars in financial assistance to energy companies, while cutting vital funds from LIHEAP, the low-income home heating assistance program.

Mr. Speaker, this is unconscionable. We should be increasing the LIHEAP funding and assistance and spreading this to the needed families over this holiday season.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.

Unfortunately, this bill does not do enough to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans. Clearly, preventing another terrorist attack should be our highest priority. However, it should not be done at the expense of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and that is what I fear we are doing today.

Like the version of this legislation I voted against in July, this conference report would make permanent 14 of 16 provisions included in the original PATRIOT Act passed in 2001. I continue to have serious concerns about how this administration and future administrations could apply the provisions included in this bill. I simply do not believe that this body should relinquish its oversight duties. Many of these provisions should still have sunset clauses, and Congress should not be abrogating its responsibilities to review how these laws are being implemented.

By agreeing to this conference report today, the House will effectively give up its oversight over sneak-and-peek searches, secret search orders, and surveillance authority provided by this bill given how little oversight we have had on these issues. Our constituents expect more from us. Why are oversight and an independent review so opposed?

While I applaud the efforts of the conferees to reduce the extension of two key provisions relating to roving wiretaps, which allows taps on multiple phones and computers of a suspect, and business and library records from 10 years to 4 years, this legislation is woefully inadequate. My constituents are concerned that the government is watching them just because they are visiting their local library or bookstore. Under the PATRIOT Act, these records could be obtained with insufficient oversight by the courts or any independent review. Law enforcement should spend its time going after the terrorists, not using valuable resources reviewing the library records of innocent people. Unless we have an independent review, I know that I will not be satisfied that our rights are being protected.

To make matters even worse, there are entirely new provisions in the conference report to expand the Secret Service's ability to restrict free speech by creating ``exclusion zones.'' These provisions were included in neither the House nor the Senate version of this bill. I would think that this expansion of the Secret Service's authority at the very least deserves serious consideration by this body, and should not be slipped in at the last minute without any hearings or markups.

My constituents have legitimate concerns about the lack of independent, judicial oversight over the provisions included in the PATRIOT Act. We all want terrorists to be apprehended before they commit horrific acts of violence against innocent people. All we are asking is that we prevent unnecessary civil rights violations by ensuring that the administration is not abusing its powers. But this new provision is just the most glaring example of the lack of diligence that this Congress appears to have on protecting our rights.

I am incredibly disappointed that throughout the entire debate on this legislation, the leadership of this House has refused even to discuss the topic of civil liberties, the very issue that makes this legislation so divisive. When the House debated this bill in July, the Rules Committee denied a bipartisan effort to debate an amendment offered by Representatives Christopher Shays, Tom Udall and myself that would have made the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, more robust. This board would have been in line with what the 9/11 Commission envisioned when they issued their report. Today, 3 days before the 1 year anniversary of the signing of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board has yet to hold its first meeting and the 9/11 Commission has given Congress and the President a D for our work implementing this board. It appears to me that Congress and the President refuses to even have a discussion about our civil liberties and are opposed to implementing commonsense protections. This bill is just another example of that.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Lantos for yielding me this time, and really thank him for his consistent voice and work for human rights across the globe and for his particular focus on moving this legislation forward as well as Chairman Smith. And to my dear friend and colleague Deborah Pryce, with whom I worked on the End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act, which has been incorporated in this bill, I thank her for her tenacious, determined persistence in working towards bringing this to the floor. I thank you deeply.

This bill seeks to reduce the demand for sex trafficking by providing critical funding to law enforcement to prosecute the demand side, the purchasers of commercial sex acts, sex traffickers and exploiters. Sex trafficking in people is modern-day slavery, and human trafficking is the slavery of the 21st century.

I had no idea what a huge, huge problem it is: Over 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders each year, mostly women and children, and potentially many more are trafficked within our own borders. This is a $10 billion worldwide industry and the second largest organized crime ring in history.

On the committee on which my colleague Deborah and I serve, she serves as the chair and I as the ranking member, the Domestic and International Monetary Policy Subcommittee, we had a series of hearings earlier this year on tracing and trying to track the flow of funds that are derived from trafficking.

For many years, I have been working with Equality Now and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to end sex tourism and shut down sex tour companies based in New York and in my district. This legislation will help stop sex tour operators, like Big Apple Oriental Tours, which is based in my district, from advertising and taking sex tourists to Thailand, the Philippines and other countries to exploit impoverished young girls and boys. We need to protect all people who are being manipulated and tricked into entering a life of prostitution, no matter where they are from.

The State Department has been issuing this excellent report, Trafficking in Persons report, and it tracks what is happening internationally, and it rates what other countries are doing; but we cannot focus only on what other countries are doing without working with law enforcement to address the problems here in the United States, and that is what this bipartisan legislation will do. It will provide critical assistance to the victims of sex trafficking, and it will also go after the purchasers of commercial sex acts by providing law enforcement with grants and with improved tools to fight sex trafficking.

It is important that we protect the victims of the sex trade industry and punish the predators and those who are doing this terrible thing.

Many, many people were part of this passage. I would like to thank Lifetime TV, which has highlighted it in programs that they have put on TV. They have also championed Ms. Pryce's bill and my bill and started a letter-writing campaign in support of it. Oprah Winfrey advocated for those who have no voice and started the Stop Child Sex Trafficking, a letter-writing campaign in support of this bill.

I want to thank everyone who has worked on it. I thank the ranking member, Mr. Lantos, for yielding me this time and for his extraordinary leadership on this and so many other areas, as well as Mr. Bobby Scott for all of his hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I spend a great deal of time working on women's issues. The stories I have heard from American girls that have been trafficked have been the most heart-wrenching, the most terrible stories I have ever heard in my entire life. This bill will save lives. It is important. It is will protect young girls and boys. It will go a long way toward ending this terrible attack on human dignity; and I include for the Record a list of organizations that have come out in support of this bill.

The following groups/individuals have endorsed the end

demand for Sex Trafficking Act: AEGIS Foundation; Basic

Ministries, International, of Midland, TX; Breaking Free;

Coalition Against Trafficking in Women; Concerned Women for

America; Dignity House; End Child Prostitution, Child

Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes-

USA, Inc.); Equality Now; Faces of Children; Hudson

Institute; Institute on Religion and Democracy; Institute on

Religion and Public Policy; Leadership Council for Human

Rights; National Association of Evangelicals; Polaris

Project; Religious Freedom Coalition; Salvation Army; Shared

Hope International; Southern Baptist Convention; Standing

Against Global Exploitation (SAGE); Survivor Services and

Education NetWork; Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of

America; VERONICA'S Voice; World Vision; Professor Donna

Hughes; Oprah Winfrey; Lifetime Television.