Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel for, again, working so well together to bring this legislation to the floor; and Lee Zeldin, one of the principal cosponsors of the bill; and Doug Lamborn, of course, the prime author of this legislation.

I, too, am proud to be a cosponsor. This is a very important bill that will serve as a measure of justice for the memory of U.S. Army Officer Taylor Force and many others who have been victimized over the years by Palestinian terrorism subsidized by the Palestinian Authority. It is well past time for us to apply real pressure to the Palestinian Authority for continuing incitement for anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-American violence. This bill takes aim at the PA's ongoing financial incentivizing of murder.

Mr. Speaker, when you pay someone to kill somebody else and pay their family to kill somebody else, that is a crime. So this just ought to be seen as a step in trying to say we mean business. Those who authorize those payments ought to be held liable for these crimes.

Although 2 years ago Congress deducted the PA's compensatory payments to terrorists and their families from U.S. assistance, there has been no change in the PA's twisted and perverted policy. By conditioning most U.S. assistance to the PA on its commitment to cease payments to terrorists, the Taylor Force Act takes the necessary next and important step to guarantee that American taxpayer dollars are not being used to reward terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, the PA cannot be a partner for peace until it stops subsidizing terrorism. Amidst increasing talk of a new peace initiative in the region, we must be absolutely clear that there could be no true peace until Palestinian public policy stops inculcating a culture of death in the minds of the people.

Years of diplomacy, Mr. Speaker, and public pressure aimed at stemming Palestinian incitement have not succeeded. Congress must act now with the power of the purse.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us two pieces of legislation regarding the ongoing humanitarian and political crisis that is occurring in the country of Venezuela, which has been reduced to poverty and near starvation due to the repressive regime of Nicolas Maduro and that of his dictatorial predecessor Hugo Chavez.

I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. DeSantis, for introducing H. Res. 259, of which I am an original cosponsor, and to applaud Mr. Engel for highlighting the public corruption and threat to democracy in Venezuela via his H.R. 2658, the Venezuela Humanitarian Assistance and Defense of Democratic Governance Act.

I also would like to single out the lead Republican cosponsor of that legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida and my friend and colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her work over the years in calling attention to the deplorable human rights situation not only in Venezuela, but also in Cuba, Nicaragua, China and so many countries the world over.

As Ileana understands so well, it is the ideology of the Left--be it hard core Communism, or the Socialism of Hugo Chavez and

now that of his understudy in oppression, Nicolas Maduro--which has brought suffering to so many people.

The people of Venezuela deserve far better.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I held a hearing on the global challenge of Alzheimer's Disease. There are an estimated 47 million people in the world living with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia--more than the entire population of Spain--according to a report by Alzheimer's Disease International.

And according to Dr. Marie Bernard, Deputy Director of the National Institute on Aging who we heard from yesterday, this number is estimated to grow to 115 million by 2050 as populations around the world age. The total estimated global cost of addressing this condition today is $818 billion, but by as early as next year, it is estimated that this cost will rise to at least one trillion dollars.

Alzheimer's is a cruel disease, robbing its victims of their memories and their very identities, and robbing their family and friends of the person they know and love. It is excruciatingly painful for someone to lose themselves gradually. But what of those who love them? Death can rob you of a loved one suddenly, but Alzheimer's gradually takes them from you before your very eyes. There are isolated points at which they may be back to themselves momentarily, only to fade away once more.

In 1999, I co-founded the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, which I still co-chair today, to bring this disease to the forefront of the congressional agenda, advance support for federal research, and increase awareness. The Task Force worked in partnership with the Alzheimer's Association to unanimously pass the National Alzheimer's Project Act (PL 111-375) which established an Advisory Committee of private and federal experts to work with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to comprehensively assess and address Alzheimer's research, institutional services and home and community- based care, with a goal to identify a cure or disease-modifying therapy for dementia by 2025. Today, there are over 170 Members in the House and Senate.

This year, I worked with my Task Force Co-Chair, Representative Maxine Waters, to request an increase of $414 million to the Alzheimer's Research Funding at the National Institutes of Health. Under HHS Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole's extraordinary leadership, the Fiscal Year 2018 omnibus appropriations bill, passed on September 14, 2017 included a $400 million increase for Alzheimer's disease research at NIH. This would bring total funding to $1.814 billion. Currently funded at $1.4 billion, NIH spending on Alzheimer's research has almost tripled since Fiscal Year 2015, when $589 million was allocated for research.

The majority of people with Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia have not received a diagnosis so they are unable to access the care and treatment they so desperately need. This is true in the developed world, but it is even truer in the developing world. Michael Splaine points out in his testimony that detection and diagnosis are a stubborn problem everywhere. Research shows that most people currently living with dementia have not received a formal diagnosis. In high income countries, only 20-50% of dementia cases are recognized and documented in primary care. This `treatment gap' is certainly much greater in low and middle income countries. Without a diagnosis, there can't be treatment, care and organized support or opportunity to volunteer for clinical research.

Of course, even when Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia are diagnosed, care is too often fragmented, uncoordinated and unresponsive to the needs of people living with this condition. In response, last Congress I introduced the ``Health Outcomes, Planning, and Education (HOPE) for Alzheimer's Act'' of 2015 to provide Medicare coverage for a care planning session for patients newly-diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, family caregivers or legal representatives. In recognition of this great unmet need, this legislation garnered 310 bipartisan cosponsors. Ultimately, Medicare adopted an amended version of the HOPE benefit in the final rule for Calendar Year 2017 Physician Fee Schedule.

Of course, Alzheimer's robs its victims not only of their memories and awareness, but also their lives. In the American Journal of Public Health Research survey of years of life lost versus number of deaths between 1995 and 2015, annual deaths due to Alzheimer's complications in the United States alone rose from 20,607 in 1995 to 110,568 in 2015. During that period, Alzheimer's rose from the 14th leading cause of death among ailments in this country in 1995 to number six in 2015.

This was the fourth hearing I have chaired on Alzheimer's disease. On June 23, 2011 this Committee held a hearing on Global Strategies to Combat the Devastating Health and Economic Impacts of Alzheimer's Disease. On November 21, 2013 I chaired the Global Challenge of Alzheimer's: The G-8 Dementia Summit and Beyond. In December 2013, the G8 nations adopted a goal to identify a cure or disease-modifying therapy for dementia by 2025, which corresponds to the U.S. National Alzheimer's Project Act. The G8 agreement resulted in the creation of the World Dementia Council as a vehicle to drive forward the G8 commitments. Despite this progress, the massive health and economic threat of Alzheimer's and dementia globally is growing. On January 15, 2014, this Committee held a hearing to Report on the G8 Dementia Summit.

Yesterday's hearing was intended to examine the existing and potential options for prevention and treatment of this often devastating disease, and the harrowing statistics cited earlier likely would be much worse in developing countries if they had accurate identification of Alzheimer's and records of victims and deaths.

As our hearing testimony demonstrated, there is hope for Alzheimer's patients, their families and friends. For example, a research team from the Columbia University Medical Center in 2013 said they had finally traced Alzheimer's to its earliest developmental stages--a discovery that they believed could lead to more effective treatments. In Science Translational Medicine two years ago, Australian researchers explained a non-invasive ultrasound technology that clears the brain of neurotoxic amyloid plaques--structures that are responsible for memory loss and a decline in cognitive function in Alzheimer's patients. By 2016, scientists at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Zurich said they were amazed to find that patients treated with the highest dose of the antibody drug aducanumab experienced an almost

complete clearance of the amyloid plaques that prevent brain cells from communicating, leading to irreversible memory loss and cognitive decline.

Our witnesses yesterday told us more about these and other advances that offer hope that Alzheimer's--if not effectively prevented--can at least be more successfully treated. Once we in developed countries can get a better handle on diagnosing and treating Alzheimer's, we hope to share what we know with developing countries so their citizens can better escape what has in the past been a very bleak future for all concerned.

While we work to prevent and find a cure for Alzheimer's, we must not neglect those currently living with this disease and address the public health crisis we are currently facing. This Congress, I joined my colleagues in introducing the ``Building Our Largest Dementia (BOLD) Infrastructure for Alzheimer's Act''. This bill establishes Alzheimer's Centers of Excellence around the country, provides funding to state and local health departments to implement interventions and best practices from the Centers of Excellence; and increases the collection, analysis, and reporting of data on cognitive decline and caregiving to inform future public health actions.

Additionally, I have re-introduced Kevin and Avonte's Law to reauthorize and expand the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program to address the issue of wandering among individuals with Alzheimer's and children with disabilities. It's common for a person with Alzheimer's to wander and/or become lost, and it can happen at any stage of the disease. 6 in 10 individuals with Alzheimer's will wander at some point. They may try to go home when already there or attempt to recreate a familiar routine, such as going to school or work. Funding from this program could be used to provide proactive educational programing to prevent wandering to families & caretakers of individuals who wander, as well as training to first responders in order to recognize and respond to endangered missing individuals and facilitate their rescue and recovery. This funding could also be used for innovative locative technology for law enforcement that would facilitate rescue and recovery.

Next week, I will re-introduce the Global Brain Health Act to increase research on prevention and treatment of autism, hydrocephalus, Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. This legislation would encourage the building of treatment capacity for these brain disorders among caregivers in developing countries and support increased international cooperation in research and implementation of strategies on prevention and treatment. These actions also would benefit those with these disorders here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, November has been dedicated as Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. As such, I would like to help acknowledge all those affected by this type of cancer and to bring more awareness to the medical research needed to help fight this disease.

In June 2017, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network reported that pancreatic cancer is ranked the ninth most commonly diagnosed cancer among women and the 11th among men, and is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

In fact, I have been contacted by several constituents who have lost loved ones to pancreatic cancer.

According to the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, pancreatic cancer is often found in its advanced stages and is both difficult to detect and to treat. Unfortunately, major symptoms of pancreatic cancer, which include nausea, diabetes, abdominal or back pain, and loss of appetite, among others, are often overlooked as symptomatic of more common health conditions. The organization stated that about 71 percent of individuals will not live past the first year of diagnosis and the disease is projected to move from the third leading cause of cancer- related death to the second by 2020.

Tragically, the five-year survival rate for those with pancreatic cancer is nine percent--the lowest survival rate among major forms of cancer. We must utilize all federal resources available to meet this devastating disease head on and ensure better outcomes for patients and their families. That is why I have consistently advocated for an increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to ensure that projects--including those which seek to find cures, improve treatments and gain a better understanding of the complex causes of cancers that affect millions of Americans--are well funded. This fall, I supported an increase in funding for NIH in the FY 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which includes $5.5 billion for the National Cancer Institute.

I also urged the House Appropriations Committee to include pancreatic cancer as an eligible research category in the Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (PRCRP)--and the House bill, which passed on June 16th, maintained this eligibility. The Department of Defense conducts high-impact innovative research through the PRCRP that has been used to improve early detection of pancreatic cancer, to better understand the prognosis of pancreatic cancer patients, and to improve the well-being of individuals with a pancreatic cancer diagnosis.

While these resources for pancreatic cancer are an important investment, we know that so often laudable initiatives and innovative research projects sit idle because of funding limitations. Therefore, we must continue to work to ensure that these research projects receive sufficient resources.

Those suffering from pancreatic cancer, as well as their loved ones and caregivers, need vocal advocates on Capitol Hill to ensure access to quality care and treatments. We have a duty to see that programs which research detection and treatment are supported appropriately at a federal level. It is my hope that, by recognizing Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, we can raise awareness of the risks of pancreatic cancer and the urgency to treat it.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress and with advocates across the nation as we move forward in this fight against cancer

Mr. Speaker, last week I held a hearing on the political crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The DRC was supposed to conduct elections one year ago this month in order to achieve the required transition of political power by December 19. However, after years of stalling on making preparations for elections, the Government of the DRC failed to hold elections last year and relied on a constitutional provision that President Joseph Kabila could not step down until an election was held to select a replacement.

This interpretation is in apparent contradiction to other constitutional provisions requiring elections to be held on time and limiting Kabila to two terms. The election commission has just announced that elections cannot be held until sometime in late 2018, with an inauguration in early 2019. The prolonging of the Kabila regime has ratcheted up tensions in the country.

Polling has indicated that a majority of Congolese want the Kabila government to end and be replaced by a transitional government until a new one can be elected.

Enduring conflict hotspots in eastern DRC have seen recent flare-ups, while new hotspots have emerged in previously relatively stable areas, such as the central Kasai region and southeastern Tanganyika province. The conflicts in Kasai and Tanganyika alone have caused the displacement of nearly 2 million people since mid-2016, giving DRC one of the highest rates of human displacement in the world. Political unrest in urban centers, a string of large prison breaks, and violent attacks in Kinshasa by members of a religious sect that has declared itself in opposition to Kabila have further contributed to worsening insecurity.

The conflict in Kasai, which reportedly was first sparked in 2016 by the murder of a traditional leader by state security forces, has become a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, featuring severe atrocities and the widespread recruitment and abuse of children. Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict in eastern DRC at one time saw violent activity by two dozen militia groups and an out-of-control national army, resulting in the systematic rape of about 50 women and girls each hour.

The hearing intended to look at possible solutions to a political stalemate that could very well lead to further violence and upheaval in a large African country bordering on nine neighbors. It followed a successful resolution on DRC that I introduced and was passed by the House last year and new legislation that Ranking Member Bass and I are introducing soon.

We understand that there are no easy solutions to the current crisis in DRC. A negotiated transition likely could be achieved if President Kabila were convinced that neither he nor his family would be prosecuted for human rights violations or corruption. However, that would reward them for abusing their citizens and plundering the country's resources, and that is even if members of his government were not covered.

A palace coup might take place to oust Kabila. That is not unknown in the DRC. Kabila's father, Laurent Kabila, was assassinated in office in 2001. Mobutu Sese Seko, who the elder Kabila had overthrown, had himself overthrown an elected government in 1965. He was chased from power and fled into exile in 1997. However, a coup would not support international efforts to instill democratic practices in the DRC and could lead to protracted in-fighting and national chaos.

The status quo, as detailed earlier, is already leading to growing violence and will not lead to a peaceful solution the longer a transition is delayed. In fact, it is more likely violence could escalate and spill over into neighboring countries as did conflict in 1996 through 97 and 1998 through 2003.

Over the past year, we have heard many promises by the Government of the DRC about when elections would be held. There have been several dates given for when voter registration would be completed during this past year. The current government timetable calls for voter registration to extend to a point at which elections couldn't be held in the DRC until late 2018 with an inauguration early in 2019. That would mean that Joseph Kabila would have had an extra half-term in office, when the constitution precluded him from going past December 2016.

Consequently, we heard last week from the State Department on our government's diplomatic efforts to resolve the transition stalemate and the U.S. Agency for International Development on our government's programs on the ground to promote democracy and free and fair elections.

Our second panel last week consisted of scholars and activists who gave us their informed suggestions on how we can break this political stalemate and prevent more bloodshed in the DRC.

Again, no solution will be easy or without cost, but non-action would have an even higher cost in human lives. That we must not tolerate

Mr. Speaker, George Orwell wrote, in his novel 1984, ``Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.''

The context of this slogan is Winston's struggle to maintain his memory, his vital connection to truth--against the evil ambition of the all-powerful party to control what we remember of the past, and, through that, to control the pathways into the future.

That is also the context in which the Victims of Congress Memorial Foundation carries on its work. This outstanding foundation held a landmark three-day conference in Washington last week, marking 100 years since the Bolshevik revolution unleashed the evils of communism on the world.

The foundation works to ensure that the memories, the real experiences of millions of people who suffered under communism are preserved--notwithstanding the efforts of powerful persons, ideologies, and interests, for whom the memory of the horrific crimes of communism must be forgotten, or more or less subtly distorted so as to promote their own contemporary agendas.

On one level, reluctance to remember the communist crimes might seem an understandable human weakness--the sheer scale of communist crimes is so vast that it beggars our power of comprehension.

Since 1917 communism has claimed at least 100 million lives, in the Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, Eastern Europe, Indochina, Africa, Afghanistan and parts of Latin America according to the painstaking research of demographers.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal two weeks ago, Professor Stephen Kotkin specified that in China, ``Mao's program resulted in one of history's deadliest famines, claiming between 16 and 32 million victims.'' On Cambodia: ``All told, perhaps as many as 2 million Cambodians; a quarter of the population, perished as a result of starvation, disease and mass executions during the four nightmarish years of Pol Pot's rule.''

Yet we have a duty to remember the past accurately. Rather than dwell, today, on the many ways in which the memory of communist crimes has been obliterated or retouched, let's consider one thing that is common to most, if not all, of them: they deny the profound spiritual significance of the victims' experiences, and of the perpetrator's crimes.

No one has been more eloquent in calling us back to this than Alexander Solzhenitsyn. In 1983 the great writer received the Templeton Prize, which is made to honor an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension. He opened his remarks with these memorable words:

More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I

recall hearing a number of older people offer the following

explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia:

Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.

Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on

the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read

hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal

testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my

own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by

that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as

concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous

Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our

people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat:

Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.

Solzhenitsyn recalled us forcefully to the spiritual values that were always at stake in the communist assault on humanity--and remain at stake in the struggle to maintain the memory of what communism perpetrated on the peoples who fell victim to it.

Over my many years in Congress, I have been blessed to meet and work with many other men and women who have been great living witnesses to the effort to maintain a true memory of the crimes of communism. It's no coincidence that most of them have also been witnesses to God, and came into conflict with communism for that very reason.

Thirty-seven years ago, during my first term in Congress, I read Tortured for Christ by Romanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand.

It is the true story of unspeakable physical torture and psychological abuse of underground Christians under Romania's Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu--and of Pastor Wurmbrand's harrowing 14-year incarceration. Wurmbrand had defied the communists by declaring openly that Communism and Christianity were incompatible. Sabina, his brave wife, stood by him and also suffered prison and forced labor for her faith.

In 1964 the Wurmbrands were ransomed out of Romania for $10,000, and in 1966 Richard testified before Congress, taking off his shirt to show Americans the scars from his torture.

Like so many, both my wife Marie and I read his book and were inspired by Pastor Wurmbrand's indomitable faith, breathtaking courage and hope and challenged by his admonishment to believers to cease enabling evil by our naivete, cold-hearted indifference or cowardly complicity.

After being drugged and beaten Pastor Wurmbrand said he was in such bad shape that he even forgot the words to the Lord's Prayer so he simply prayed: ``Our Father I have forgotten the prayer, but you surely know it by heart. . . .''

Russia gave us many witnesses to the ugly reality of communism. In the 1980s, my first religious freedom mission was to Moscow and Leningrad in 1982 on behalf of Soviet Jews--the heroic refuseniks, like Natan Sharansky. I got to know many of them and their families. And when in 1989 Frank Wolf and I visited Perm Camp 35 the prisoners told us of their hunger--for food, and for Scripture as well.

In Moscow I also met, and prayed with the Siberian Seven--a group of Pentecostal Christians who fled to the U.S. Embassy and lived there for five years until finally getting exit visas. During that trip--and many subsequent trips to meet Orthodox clergy and believers--began to grasp Alexander Solzhenitsyn's astute observation that communism doesn't merely believe that God does not exist, it hates Him.

Solzhenitsyn called it ``militant atheism''.

Like many of you I saw that hate throughout the Soviet Union, in Romania, the Warsaw Pact Countries--and that God-hatred continues to thrive today within dictatorships like North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and China.

China has produced many witnesses, and because its communist dictatorship endures, and even hardens its militancy, today, we all have the opportunity to meet those who witness and document its crimes against the Chinese people. As the chair of the China Commission I have many times heard testimony from Bob Fu, Wei Jingsheng, Chai Ling, Harry Wu, Joseph Kung, and so many others.

One of the most memorable encounters I had was in China itself, in 1994. I had the awesome privilege of a private meeting with Bishop Su Zhimin. Bishop Su was the leader of the underground Catholic Church in Hebei province.

We met at dawn, for an outdoor Mass with many other believers. As we spoke and then prayed, the Bishop prayed for his persecutors, he prayed for the misguided leaders of the Chinese Communist Party. Bishop Su's body bore witness to the brutality of China's Communist Party. He was beaten, starved, and tortured for this faith and spent some 40 years in prison. Yet, he prayed not just for the persecuted church, but for the conversion of those who hate, torture and kill. His witness and his faith absolutely amazed me. Love those who hate you as Christ did from the cross? Do good to those who persecute you? For Bishop Su these were more than words, it was his faithful and faith filled response to one of our Lord's most difficult teaching. Unfortunately, only couple years later Bishop Su was arrested again and disappeared. He has not been heard from since.

Over and over in the lives of these heroic witnesses, we see that the effort to stand up for the truth against the communists cost them a great deal. Sometimes it cost them everything but their lives--and almost that too.

To follow in their footsteps, to remember the truth of what communism really was and did, will cost us something too. We will have to remember that what was at stake with communism was not a question of competing economic systems or system of social organization, but the question of God--the human being deprived of any divine connection. This will require us to swim upstream, against the dominant mentality. We will have to think, and at times to speak and act, differently. And this will not always be welcome.

We owe a profound debt of gratitude to the foundation and its supporters, who have done so much to honor the memory of the victims of communism.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 599 urges a political solution to the war in Yemen, condemns Iranian efforts to fuel the deadly violence, and calls on all parties to the conflict to increase efforts to adopt all necessary and appropriate measures to prevent civilian casualties and to increase humanitarian accesses.

Events of the past week demonstrate the urgency of resolving this perilous conflict. On Saturday, November 4, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen fired an Iranian-made ballistic missile at Saudi Arabia's capital. By Monday, Riyadh, in the midst of a massive palace shakeup, described the attack as an ``act of war'' by Iran and ordered all Yemen's land, sea, and air ports of entry closed.

Saudi Arabia said the port closures were necessary to prevent Iran from continuing to arm the Houthis, but the move also spelled dire consequences for Yemen's civilian population, suffering under its third year of punishing wartime conditions. In a country where nearly 70 percent of the population needs some form of humanitarian or protection assistance, port closures have the distinct look of collective punishment.

Although Saudi Arabia, this morning, announced it would begin lifting the restrictions, this dramatic sequence of events underscores the potential this war has on any given hour or day to explode into a regional confrontation and even greater humanitarian catastrophe.

From the regional perspective, Yemen remains a critical foothold for Iranian influence on the southern flank of the Middle East. The conflict there allows the Iranian regime to cynically sow instability that redounds to its own benefit and that of other avowed enemies of the United States and our allies. Gaps in governance around the region have served as an entryway for Iranian influence, most notably in Syria and Iraq, where Iran and Hezbollah leveraged the emergence of ISIS and al-Qaida to extend their influence.

Tehran is playing in a similar game in Yemen, where its campaign to undermine the country's government has benefited Iran-aligned Houthi militias; al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP; and Yemen's ISIS affiliate.

From the humanitarian perspective, Mr. Speaker, the ongoing costs of the war are absolutely catastrophic. In late September, the ICRC, International Committee of the Red Cross, warned that Yemen's cholera outbreak is exploding. It is now at 750,000, and could reach 1 million by the end of this year. In July, the WHO called Yemen's cholera outbreak the worst in the world.

In March of last year, Mr. Speaker, I chaired a congressional hearing on ``The Growing Threat of Cholera and Other Diseases in the Middle East.'' At that time, we focused especially on the outbreak in Iran and Syria brought about by the collapse of the healthcare sectors and sanitation infrastructure.

Today, that epidemic now is in Yemen, and it has overtaken even Iraq and Syria.

I appreciate the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 425-- the FTO Passport Revocation Act of 2017--by my friend and colleague Chairman Ted Poe. I cannot help but see this measure as a common sense tactic to prevent terrorists from entering or re-entering our country. However, more needs to be done to build on this useful foundation for security from terrorists originating in this country or foreign-based terrorists.

Just yesterday, the streets of New York were the scene of carnage caused by a man from Uzbekistan who won a diversity visa lottery to enter this country in 2010. He has lived here for seven years before going on the murderous rampage that killed 8 people and injured 12 others. Clearly, we need to look closer at the background of those admitted through this lottery as they could eventually obtain a U.S. passport. That was the conclusion by the Government Accountability Office ten years ago--three years before New York terror suspect arrived in this country.

The GAO report in 2007 called the diversity visa program ``an open door'' for terrorists. According to the report 9,800 people from countries designated by the State Department as State Sponsors of Terrorism had used the program to enter the country. These people could eventually qualify for a U.S. passport.

We also must be more vigilant about people coming from countries not designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism. The 9/11 Commission reported back in 2004 that as many as six of the hijackers of the three planes-- who were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates and Lebanon-- had used fraudulent or manipulated passports to enter the United States. In 2013, a Saudi citizen entering the United States through the Detroit airport was detained because he couldn't satisfactorily explain why he was carrying a pressure cooker like the one used in the Boston marathon bombing. However, upon inspection, his passport suspiciously had a missing page. Would that have been caught without the presence of the pressure cooker? We are told that even the slightest tweak to a passport will be caught, but one failure could result in a terrorist entering our country, and they could eventually become terrorist sleepers who acquire a U.S. passport.

Finally, in order for the FTO designation to be effectively used to stop terrorists from getting passports or having their passport revoked, our government must make that designation in the first place. I tried for two years to get the previous administration to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. They finally did so in 2013, but how many potential terrorists may have gotten through before then and acquire sufficient status to receive a U.S. passport? We also need to use the FTO designation to identify those giving support to terrorist organizations, especially in cases of such support coming from those living in the United States who could be or potentially could be U.S. passport holders.

As I said earlier, I consider H.R. 425 a common sense measure on which to build, but we must take steps to make this bill as meaningful as it must be for our security. I ask my colleagues to approve this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Ranking Member, Mr. Engel, along with Chairman Yoho, Mr. Chabot, and Mr. Sherman, for introducing H. Res. 422.

I am an original cosponsor of this legislation. As the Cochair of the bipartisan and bicameral Congressional-Executive Commission on China, I have been gravely concerned by the Chinese government's efforts to curtail Hong Kong's autonomy and crush pro-democracy voices in this city.

Twenty years ago, China promised to guarantee Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms for 50 years through the Sino-British Joint Declaration. These promises have been needlessly strained in recent years, calling into question the viability of a `One Country, Two Systems' model that has provided great benefits to both China and the world.

The threats to Hong Kong's autonomy and its freedoms are progressing. At the recent 19th Party Congress, Communist Party General Secretary and President Xi Jinping reiterated the fact that Hong Kong's autonomy is limited by Beijing's ``comprehensive jurisdiction''--meaning that Beijing has the final say on what freedoms are exercised in Hong Kong and who gets to lead the city's government.

On October 11, 2017, a British human rights activist, Benedict Rogers, was denied access to Hong Kong by the Chinese government. Mr. Rogers was also warned not to continue meeting with pro-democracy supporters in Hong Kong by the Chinese Embassy in London.

Beijing is now telling foreigners with whom they can meet in Hong Kong and barring entry to those who will not comply.

This is a chilling development that should be a concern from all countries and corporations that have an interest in Hong Kong's freedoms. Maintaining these freedoms and the rule of law are vital economic interests of the United States.

The governments and legislatures of the UK and the United States should work together to ensure that the Sino-Declaration Joint Declaration remains in force to protect Hong Kong's unique way of life.

Xi Jinping also said recently about Hong Kong that he would ``never allow anyone, any organization, or any political party, to separate any part of Chinese territory from China . . . and that attempts to endanger China's sovereignty and security, to challenge the power of the central government . . . [crosses] the red line.''

Given Beijing's expansive view of its own security to include anyone peacefully seeking political reforms or rights protections, these are ominous words indeed.

Beijing has ramped up efforts to destroy the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. This past year, six elected legislators were disqualified after the National People's Congress intervened in Hong Kong's judiciary. Then, in August, a Hong Kong court issued heavier sentences for Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Alex Chow, leaders of the peaceful Umbrella Movement of 2014.

Mr. Wong, Mr. Law, and Mr. Chow should now be considered Hong Kong's first political prisoners. Though Joshua Wong and Nathan Law are out on bail at the moment pending an appeal, they face other charges and may be put back in prison in the future. They likely will not be the last political prisoners in Hong Kong, as other Umbrella Movement leaders were convicted recently, including Professor Benny Tai.

Senator Marco Rubio and I, with whom I cochair the CECC, have announced our intention to nominate Hong Kong pro-democracy Umbrella Movement for the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize. I hope all Members will consider signing on to that initiative.

I support this resolution, but it should not be our last word. In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed the Hong Kong Policy Act, saying that U.S. policy toward Hong Kong was contingent on the preservation of Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms. With these fundamental elements being diminished by the Chinese government, we should consider amending a bill passed 25 years ago to better protect U.S. interests.

That is why I introduced, along with Congressman Tim Walz (a fellow CECC Commissioner), the Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act (H.R. 3856)--a bill that I introduced in the last Congress and which has been introduced by Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Ben Cardin in the Senate.

If Hong Kong is to be just another Chinese city, then we have the responsibility to reassess whether Hong Kong warrants special status under U.S. law.

We all have a stake in ensuring Hong Kong remains an open city, with the rule of law and guaranteed rights currently unavailable in Mainland China.

I support passage of this bill and thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of four critical pieces of legislation that will significantly strengthen our efforts to counter the Iranian menace in the Middle East.

Appropriately, these measures follow the President's determination, announced two weeks ago, that the suspension of sanctions under the Iran nuclear deal no longer serves the national security interests of the United States. President Trump's determination simply acknowledges the reality that has existed since day one of the deal--the nuclear deal put the United States on a perilous course to confronting a nuclear armed Iran.

By agreeing to submit to a minimal and inadequate standard of inspections, Iran earned international recognition of its enrichment program, reaped billions of dollars in sanctions relief, and positioned itself to become a nuclear threshold power by the time the deal expires in less than a decade. In addition to these unacceptable concessions, Tehran managed to secure an agreement that ignores its massive support for international terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear blackmail through an advanced ballistic missile program.

Mr. Speaker, the bills we are considering today are a first step towards correcting the balance in our relationship with the Iranian regime--a balance that must have as its first priority the national security interests of the United States and its regional allies, especially Israel.

My good friend and Chairman, Ed Royce, introduced two of these pieces of legislation that will expand and refine sanctions against Iran's ballistic missile program, its trade in conventional weapons, and the illicit network of financial support for its regional terrorist proxy Hezbollah. H.R. 1698, the Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act, and H.R. 3329, the Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Amendments Act of 2017, target the money and resources that enable Iran and Hezbollah to terrorize the State of Israel and other civilian populations across the region. Both of these bills rightly enjoy large bipartisan support--I am proud to join more than 320 of my colleagues in co-sponsoring H.R. 1698 and more than 110 have co-sponsored H.R. 3329.

Mr. Speaker, I also stand today in support of H.R. 3342, the Sanctioning Hezbollah's Illicit Use of Civilians as Defenseless Shields Act, introduced by my good friend Mike Gallagher, and H. Res. 359, introduced by my friend Ted Deutch, urging the European Union to designate Hezbollah in its entirety as a terrorist organization. These bills expose Hezbollah for what it is: a merciless organized crime organization wrapped in a terrorist organization, masquerading as a political party. H.R. 3342 directs the President to apply penalties, principally visa bans, against individuals determined to direct Hezbollah's use of innocent human lives to protect its cruel mechanisms of murder. Meanwhile, H. Res. 359 urges the European Union to recognize what should be plain as day: there is no merely political wing to Hezbollah. Rather, the entire organization is dedicated to expanding Iranian influence in the region and threatening Israel's existence by all means possible.

Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress must get these bills to the President's desk as soon as possible. Just this week, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the Israeli Knesset and underscored the urgent task of denying Iran's attempts to secure strategic footholds in Syria and acquire nuclear weapons. Also this week, Defense Minister Lieberman told Israeli legislators that a volley of rockets fired into the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights from Syria was ``intentional . . . carried out by a cell operated by Hezbollah.''

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that Monday was the 34th anniversary of the horrific 1983 bombing. of the U.S. Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut perpetrated by Hezbollah with Iranian support that killed 241 Americans. Just a few blocks away from here, at the Marine Corps Barracks in Washington D.C., Vice President Pence commemorated this anniversary on Monday, vowing that America will never forget those who gave everything in service to their country. Our fight against Hezbollah began that October day in Beirut and we must see it through until the evil of Iran and Hezbollah are completely vanquished.

I urge my colleagues to pass these critical measures to honor the memory of our fallen soldiers and our unfinished work against this pernicious threat.

Mr. Speaker, as we heard yesterday in testimony from General Wald, the Iran deal ``places Iran on a trajectory to become as intractable a challenge as North Korea is today--and very possibly worse.'' The general noted that ``while Pyongyang's relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons has only deepened its isolation and driven it toward bankruptcy, the JCPOA is doing the opposite for Iran.''

It was clear from the beginning that this deal was deeply flawed. It was clear that it was based on a fundamentally misguided premise: that Iran's manifest desire for a nuclear weapon could be considered separate from its development of a delivery capacity for that weapon or from the rest of Iran's violent campaign for regional hegemony. It should be self-evident that a nuclear warhead without a delivery vehicle is not going very far very fast. Iran's ballistic missile program is inseparable from its desire to impose nuclear blackmail on the U.S., Israel, and other regional allies.

Iran also exports its extremist revolution through proliferation of conventional weapons to terrorist proxies. The deal gave Iran an infusion of an estimated $115 billion dollars in unfrozen assets--and as John Kerry said in an interview that was carried by CNN, we don't know where that money is going and it will probably wind up in the terrorists' hands--not to mention other financial sweeteners like the $1.7 billion in small bills. As we heard yesterday, this money has helped Iran extend its malign influence to an unprecedented extent across the region--in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.

I'd like to thank Chairman Royce for his leadership on Iran these past several years, of which yesterday's hearing was but one example. Today we are considering one key measure, the Chairman's H.R. 1698, the Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act, which enjoys broad support in the House with 320 co-sponsors. This bill expands sanctions against organizations and individuals that facilitate Iran's ballistic missile program as well as its trade in conventional weapons. This bill is critical to our national security and that of our allies in the region, especially our good friend and ally Israel. It's time we start turning the tide back against Iran to guarantee that it never realizes its genocidal designs on the Jewish State or the other freedom-loving peoples of the region.

We help do that by passing H.R. 1698 out of committee. It is a bill I have cosponsored and I strongly support.

I also strongly support the Taiwan Travel Act (H.R. 535) and commend Chairman Chabot for introducing this legislation, of which I am a cosponsor.

The Communist Party leadership in China has tried to isolate democratic Taiwan, pressuring countries to break diplomatic relations and bullying the UN and multi-lateral agencies, such as the World Health Organization and INTERPOL, to exclude Taiwan from membership. These actions have created needless blind spots in global anti- terrorism cooperation and hampered coordination on key global health issues.

Just this March, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed the first human fatality from the H7N9 avian flu in Taiwan. This is a pressing global concern, as we know that SARS virus spread from Mainland China and Taiwan in past.

The U.S. and Taiwan are cooperating in containing H7N9 virus, as we did 14 years ago to contain SARS. As such, China's actions to exclude Taiwan from the WHO and other international bodies is dangerous and unacceptable. Taiwan should be allowed to join the WHO. It is not only an interest of Taiwan, it is in the interest of global public health.

Restrictions on the travel of Taiwanese officials to the U.S. and on high-level U.S. officials to Taiwan are self-imposed rules intended to placate Mainland China. In the current strategic climate, these rules are now counterproductive and the policy should be changed.

We should be expanding cooperation with Taiwan on a number of fronts, particularly now that Communist China has stepped up efforts to isolate and bully democratic Taiwan. If China persists in its efforts to exclude Taiwan from international bodies like Interpol and WHO and the International Civilian Aviation Organization, the U.S. should be sending cabinet level officials from HHS, Transportation, and the Justice Department to consult with Taiwanese officials--and to host their counterparts here in Washington. Such meetings will advance and protect American interests.

Under Xi Jinping's leadership, China has become more repressive domestically, more protectionist in its trade policies, and more assertive globally. As documented by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), which I cochair with Senator Marco Rubio, China's domestic repression is the fuel for its international aggression, threatening American jobs and security, including in the South China Sea, in the Taiwan Straits, and in Hong Kong, where the ``one country, two system'' model is fast eroding. China has also imprisoned Taiwanese citizen and democracy advocate Lee Ming-che, whose wife Lee Ching-yu, sat in this very room in July at a hearing I chaired and asked the international community to work for her husband's release.

China will never be happy with U.S.-Taiwan policy or the Taiwan Relations Act. Communist China will never be placated by our self- imposed restrictions on travel and consultations. We should not try. As China squeezes Taiwan's international space and openly threatens it militarily, the U.S. must have more direct consultations with democratic Taiwan, not less.

Mr. Speaker, today I held a hearing on the need for aid to be provided for victims of religious and ethnic persecution in Iraq and Syria. In August 2014, ISIS began committing genocide against Yazidis and Christians in Iraq. Three years later, they are still not receiving the assistance they need from the United States and so their survival in their ancient homelands is in jeopardy.

Two consecutive Secretaries of State and the Congress declared ISIS was responsible for genocide. This year, the President and Vice President declared the genocide and committed the Administration to provide relief to the surviving religious and ethnic minority communities. In the final appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2017, Congress required the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development to fund the assistance promised by the Administration.

But career staff at the State Department and USAID have ignored the law and thwarted the will of the President, the Congress and the people we represent. These bureaucrats have refused to direct assistance to religious and ethnic minority communities, even to enable them to survive genocide. This obstruction is unacceptable and I urge Secretary Tillerson and new USAID Administrator Green to put an end to it.

I chaired my first hearing on atrocities against religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq or Syria in September of 2013. The hearing today was the 10th I have chaired focused in whole or in part on their plight. Last September I introduced bipartisan legislation, coauthored by my good friend Anna Eshoo, explicitly authorizing the State Department and USAID to identify the needs of these communities and fund entities, including faith-based entities, effectively providing them with aid on-the-ground. Even though the U.S. already has the authority to provide such assistance, we were aware some in the bureaucracy inaccurately claimed they lacked the authority and so we wanted to remove this excuse. It was also important to have a detailed authorization as the foundation for forth-going appropriations. This bill would also set an important precedent for how the U.S. should respond to future crises in which religious and ethnic minorities are targeted for atrocity crimes.

Partially informed by my trip to Erbil last December to meet first- hand with genocide survivors, we reintroduced this legislation as H.R. 390 almost immediately after the start of the new Congress, with even stronger support from both sides of the aisle and many Yazidi, Christian, accountability and human rights groups and leaders. The House passed it unanimously in early June and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed it unanimously on September 19. There has been no subsequent action in the Senate. The appropriations bill for fiscal year 2017 has expired and the situation on-the-ground is deteriorating for these endangered communities. I respectfully ask the Senate to immediately pass H.R. 390.

This hearing explored the urgent crisis for Christian and Yazidi genocide survivors, especially in Iraq, what the Administration can do now to enable them to survive, and what the consequences will be for these communities and our national security if we fail to act. We heard from several of our witnesses, helping these communities survive and return to their homes will reduce threats from Iran. It will also deny ISIS a major propaganda victory and recruiting tool.

I should note the State Department and USAID were invited to testify. They were unavailable.

Our first witness was known to many of you, my dear friend for many years, the former Representative for the 10th district of Virginia, Frank Wolf. He is testified today as the Distinguished Senior Fellow at 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative and he visited Northern Iraq this August. In his written statement, Congressman Wolf warns ``if bold action is not taken by the end of the year, I believe a tipping point will be reached and we will see the end of Christianity in Iraq.'' About the Yazidis, he reports although ``Sinjar has been liberated from ISIS since the fall of 2015 . . . it is currently controlled by multiple different militia groups . . . few families have been able to return and few aid groups work in the area.''

Congressman Wolf also raised the alarm about Iraq-backed militias filling the post-ISIS liberation vacuum as part of Tehran's ``goal of creating a land-bridge from Iran [to] allow Iran to move fighters, weapons and supplies to aid Hezbollah and other terrorist groups'' and offered several concrete policy recommendations the Administration and Congress should heed.

Our second witness was Shireen, a Yazidi survivor of ISIS enslavement. She wrote in her statement for the record this ``captivity under ISIS . . . was like hell. They performed an abdominal surgery on me . . . and I am suffering from the effects of it . . . They committed all kinds of atrocious crimes against us including mass killing, sexual enslavement, and forced conversion.''

Shireen also wrote ``19 members of my family and my relatives are missing. They may be killed or still in captivity but we don't know anything about them . . . We are still waiting for action and the liberation of thousands of Yazidis from ISIS captivity.'' She warns that ``Yazidis, Christians and other religious minorities, especially the non-Muslim minorities, cannot survive in Syria and Iraq under the current conditions. Without serious action from you and the world governments, many of these people will continue to flee their ancient homelands of Syria and Iraq.''

Our third witness was Lauren Ashburn, Managing Editor and Anchor of EWTN News Nightly. She travelled to Northern Iraq earlier this year and has continued to report on the crisis. Her story-telling and video, rooted in more than 20 years as a journalist, has helped tell the stories of heroism, indomitable faith, and survival. As she reported in her written testimony for the hearing ``Christians in Iraq are on the brink of extinction . . . The United States is the only nation in the world that can provide concrete aid to rebuild the community that I saw in shambles.''

Our fourth and final witness was Stephen Rasche, Legal Counsel and Director of IDP Resettlement Programs for the Chaldean Catholic Archdiocese of Erbil, and Legal Counsel and Chief Coordinator for the Nineveh Reconstruction Committee. Mr. Rasche testified before a hearing I chaired of the Helsinki Committee last September, and he reported in his written testimony today, ``I regret to say that we have still yet to receive any form of meaningful aid from the U.S. Government . . . While we have found the political appointees much more willing to help us since January, the fact is that even after the better part of a year, they have been unable to move the bureaucracy to take meaningful action.''

The Obama Administration channeled all U.S. funding for stabilization in Iraq through the Funding Facility for Stabilization, administered by the UN Development Program, and the current Administration has continued this policy. Mr. Rasche testified in his written statement ``While status reports from UNDP work in

Nineveh purport to show real progress in the Christian majority towns, on the ground we see little evidence of it. Work projects are in most cases cosmetic in nature, and much of that cynically so . . . In effect, U.S. taxpayers are financing the spoils of genocide.''

As an alternative option for U.S. assistance, he details the Nineveh Sustainable Return Program, an initiative of the ecumenical Nineveh Reconstruction Committee to repair homes damaged or destroyed by ISIS. The Program has already rebuilt several thousand homes and enabled thousands of Christian families to return, mostly funded by the Knights of Columbus and Aid to the Church in Need, with some additional funding from the Government of Hungary. Last month, the Nineveh Reconstruction Committee USA submitted a proposal to USAID to ensure the project can be completed and many more families can return.

I strongly support this time-sensitive proposal and call on USAID Administrator Mark Green to ensure a decision is made about it soon. Because of the resistance among career staff at USAID to directing assistance to religious and ethnic minority communities, even though they were targeted for genocide, it is imperative officials appointed by the President are part of the review process and that the final decision be made by Presidential appointees. I included this proposal as part of the hearing record.

As Mr. Rasche warns in his written testimony, ``Today, as I speak to you, we are caught fully exposed and at-risk, finding ourselves at a critical historical inflection point, foreign aid decisions over which will determine whether Christianity, and religious pluralism--vital to the U.S. national interest and regional security--will survive in Iraq at all.''

Mr. Speaker, an overwhelming majority of Americans--some 60 to 64 percent, according to pollsters--support legal protection for pain-capable unborn children at, at least, the 20th week, or about 5 months.

Today we know that unborn babies not only die, but suffer excruciating pain during dismemberment abortion, a cruelty that rips arms and legs off of a helpless child. Even Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the court in the Stenberg vs. Carhart decision said: ``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.''

He points out that, with a D&E dismemberment abortion, ``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.''

Mr. Speaker, even if pain wasn't present, dismembering a child is violence against children, and it is inhumane. But these babies at this age actually suffer.

Dr. Robert White, a professor of neurology at Case Western Reserve University, has said: ``An unborn child at 20 weeks is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without question, abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for that child.''

Dr. Colleen Malloy, a professor at the Division of Neonatology at Northwestern, 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 inference or ultrasound imagery because such premature patients are kicking, moving, and reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit. ``

Again, these children are there being assisted, and if you touch them, if you try to dismember them once they are born, they will feel the pain. In like manner, an unborn child at 20 weeks' gestation will feel the pain. She points out that she would never, ever commit such cruelty to a child.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, H.R. 36.

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 thank my good friend for yielding, for his passion, for his courage, and for authoring the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and for doing so so informed. Trent Franks has been an incredible defender of life, and I want to thank him for his leadership on this extraordinarily important human rights piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, overwhelming majorities of Americans, some 60 to 64 percent, according to the pollsters, support legal protection for pain- capable unborn children.

Today, we know that unborn babies not only die but suffer excruciating pain during dismemberment abortions, a cruelty that rips arms and legs off of helpless children.

A former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, testified before Congress, before Trent Franks' committee. Here is a man who has performed 1,200 abortions, over 100 late-term abortions up to 24 weeks; and he said, and I quote in part: ``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 6 inches long. Reach in again''-- he goes on--``and grasp anything you can and out pops an arm.''

He noted that a ``second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure.'' So he says: ``Reach in again and again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart, and lungs.''

Mr. Speaker, even swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his dissent in the Stenberg v. Carhart decision, said about 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.''

Mr. Speaker, even if pain wasn't present, dismembering a child is violence against children, and it is inhumane. But these babies actually suffer in this process.

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

Dr. Anand wrote, and he is an expert on pain: ``The human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks' gestation. . . .'' He points out that it is even worse for an unborn child at that time period because ``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' gestation would experience a much more intense pain than older infants or children or adults.'' We have known this for some time, Mr. Speaker.

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 that day of the vote: How can anyone refuse to make child pain information part of an informed consent?

Congressman Trent Franks has authored four--count them, four-- extraordinarily important human rights bills over the years to actually protect pain-capable babies in Federal law from the violence of abortion, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that passed the House in 2013 and again in 2015. Tragically, President Obama vowed to veto this child protection legislation, and the Senate failed to pass it.

However, this year, we have a President who said, and he put out a Statement of Administration Policy: You present this legislation to me, and I will sign it.

Finally, not only will babies be protected by Trent Franks' law at 5 months, and the pain suffered by these babies will be averted, but H.R. 36 requires that a late abortion, permitted under very 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 the child'' to the same degree as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 prescribed.

Following the care required to be rendered, the born-alive child shall immediately be transported and admitted to a hospital.

Sixteen States have passed legislation that resembles this important legislation that we will have before us on this House floor.

My good friend and colleague talked about Dr. Gosnell. Four years ago, Dr. 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 Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where women died and countless babies were dismembered, all gruesome procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim.

This is a humane bill, a major human rights bill, and, again, I want to thank my great friend and colleague for his leadership. It is extraordinary.