Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, while the Affordable Care Act has been in effect since 2010, it has only provided actual access to health insurance benefits through the exchange and Medicaid expansion for a little over 3 years--beginning in 2014.

In that short period of time, however, serious problems and flaws have been exposed, yet in recent months the law's systemic problems have been trivialized or ignored by many.

Today, buying an insurance policy on the exchanges with high premiums, high copays, and most importantly, exceedingly high deductibles make the actual utilization of health benefits far costlier than originally advertised.

Americans were told repeatedly that the ACA would save up to $2,500 in premium payments per family per year. President Obama said: ``I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year.''

That didn't happen--not even close.

Nationwide, since 2016, gross premiums before subsidies in the Bronze-priced tier rose a whopping 27 percent, silver 24 percent and gold 32 percent.

That should come as no surprise. As early as August 2012, Politifact found President Obama's promise to be untrue and labeled the statement a ``promise broken'' in a Politifact report entitled: NO cut in premiums for typical family.

Health insurance consumers were promised they could keep their insurance plan if they liked it and keep their trusted doctors as well. That didn't happen either.

As a matter of fact, several million were kicked off insurance plans they were very satisfied with--like my wife and I--only to be forced into an Obamacare plan that we didn't want and was more expensive.

Also, in New Jersey--like much of the nation--insurance companies are pulling out of the exchanges. Insurers continue to exit the individual market and the exchange has experienced a net loss of 88 insurers. Today, five states only have one insurer option. At home, last year five insurance carriers offered plans on the New Jersey exchange, today only two remain. The exodus of insurance companies from the individual market is an unsustainable and ominous trend.

Mr. Speaker, almost twice as many Americans have paid the financial penalty--pursuant to what is euphemistically called the ``individual mandate''--for not buying a health insurance plan--or have received an exemption from the individual mandate as those who have actually purchased a plan through the exchange. By the numbers that means 19.2 million taxpayers either paid the individual mandate penalty or claimed an exemption, compared to 10.3 million individuals who paid for plans on the Obamacare exchanges.

Obamacare also increased taxes by about one trillion dollars.

For example, beginning in 2020, a new 40% excise tax on employer provided comprehensive health insurance plans is scheduled to take effect. Any plan provided by an employer exceeding $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families will be taxed at 40 percent for each dollar above those numbers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation this so-called Cadillac tax will hit 26 percent of employers by 2020.

According to the IRS, approximately 10 million families took advantage of the chronic care tax deduction which is now been redefined out of reach for many. New taxes combined with skyrocketing premiums, copays and deductibles underscores the need for serious review, reevaluation and reform.

That said Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned--and will vote no today--largely because the pending bill cuts Medicaid funding

by an estimated $839 billion over ten years according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), rolls back Medicaid expansion, cancels essential health benefits such as maternity and newborn care, hospitalization, pediatric services, and mental health and substance use treatment, and includes ``per capita caps''--all of which will likely hurt disabled persons, the elderly and the working poor.

For years, I have supported Medicaid expansion as a meaningful way of providing access to health care for struggling individuals and families living above the poverty line but still poor despite being employed--80 percent of all Medicaid enrollees in New Jersey are families with at least one working adult in 2017.

Although more than 800,000 children are served by Medicaid in my state, the bulk of Medicaid funds are spent assisting the disabled and the elderly. In New Jersey approximately 74 percent of all Medicaid spending goes directly to assist persons with disabilities and senior citizens. Two out of every five people in nursing homes are on Medicaid.

According to the New Jersey Department of Human Services, in New Jersey total enrollment in Medicaid in February 2017 was 1.77 million people. Of that a significant number are newly enrolled under Medicaid expansion--663,523 ``newly eligible.''

These people are in need and deserve our support. Current law provides states that opted to embrace Medicaid Expansion--like New Jersey--95 percent of the costs for the ``newly enrolled.'' The federal share drops to 90 percent by 2020.

The proposed American Health Care Act continues Medicaid expansion however only until 2020. Those enrolled before December 31, 2019 would be grandfathered in at the 90 percent match rate but the federal-state match formula would then be reduced to a range between 75 percent-25 percent to 50 percent-50 percent or any new enrollee.

What does that mean?

The United State Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote each of us on March 17th: ``. . . it is our assessment that some provisions are commendable (and they reference the pro-life safeguards and other noteworthy provisions in the bill) . . . while others present grave challenges that must be addressed before passage . . . millions of people who would be eligible for Medicaid under current law will be negatively impacted due to reduced funding from the per capita cap system proposed in the legislation, according to the CBO. Those struggling families who currently receive Medicaid coverage from the recent expansion will see dramatic changes through the AHCA as well, without clear indication of affordable, adequate coverage to replace their current options. Many states begin their legislative sessions every cycle by attempting to overcome major deficits. State and local resources are unlikely to be sufficient to cover the gaps that will be created in the health care system as financial responsibility is further shifted to the states. Congress must rework the Medicaid- related provisions of the AHCA to fix these problems and ensure access for all, and especially for those most in need.''

A letter led by the Consortium For Citizens with Disabilities, and signed by over 60 organizations states:

``Dramatic reductions in federal support for Medicaid will force states to cut services and/or eligibility that puts the health and wellbeing of people with disabilities at significant risk. In fact, people with disabilities are particularly at risk because so many waiver and home- and community-based services are optional Medicaid services and will likely be the first services cut when states are addressing budgetary shortfalls. The health, functioning, independence, and wellbeing of 10 million enrollees living with disabilities and, often, their families, depends on funding the services that Medicaid provides. Likewise, Medicaid Expansion provides coverage for millions of people with disabilities and their caregivers who previously fell into healthcare coverage gaps. For many people with disabilities, being able to access timely, needed care is a life or death matter. The drastic cuts to Medicaid that will result from per capita caps and the ultimate elimination of Medicaid Expansion will endanger millions.''

Autism Speaks, a leading autism awareness, science, and advocacy group, further articulated another concern, that ``the choice of 2016 as a baseline year for per capita caps may prevent states from addressing the needs of children with autism. In July 2014 the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services issued an informational bulletin clarifying Medicaid coverage of services to children with autism, including benefit requirements for the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Although EPSDT is a mandatory Medicaid program, few states in 2016 funded autism services at the required standard of care. Locking in 2016 as a baseline year can only perpetuate this historic underfunding of EPSDT benefits.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give additional recognition to the tireless advocacy of the staff and volunteers of the American Heart Association, as well as the organizations in my home state of New Jersey and across the country and to mark the end of American Heart Month.

Their ongoing efforts to combat the leading cause of death among men and women are essential, this month, and every month. On February 7, 2017, in an effort to raise particular awareness of the risk this disease poses to women, the Coalition for Heart and Stroke, which I co- chair, held a briefing in coordination with the American Heart Association and WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease. Despite the fact that heart disease is the number one cause of death among women in the U.S. and almost 400,000 women succumb to this disease annually, heart disease is often erroneously thought of as a man's disease. Awareness campaigns like Heart Disease Month aim to correct misinformation and can help save lives.

Among the issues discussed at our February 2017 Heart Month kick-off was the importance of having women, in representative numbers, in federally funded studies so that we can understand how heart disease presents differently in women; if current diagnostic methods are effective in detecting cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women; and if women react similarly to men to different therapeutic treatments.

On February 14, 2017, the American Heart Association released a new study that included projections for the prevalence of heart disease in 2035. These projections show that in the next two decades, the number of Americans with CDV will rise to 131.2 million people. This represents a dramatic increase from the last report, published in 2011, which estimated that 100 million Americans would suffer from CVD by 2030. However, the previously projected estimate of 100 million was already surpassed in 2015. That same year, the death rate from heart disease rose by 1 percent for the first time since 1969.

This report also shows that by age 45, the risk of developing CVD rises to 50 percent, and it increases to 80 percent by age 65.

Not only does CVD extract a devastating human toll, it is also the costliest disease in America, inflicting a $555 billion impact in 2016. The report released last week indicates that by 2035, the cost of heart disease will approximately double to $1.1 trillion. That cost is borne in no small part by the American taxpayer, with CVD accounting for significant spending through Medicare Fee-For-Service.

While heart disease and stroke account for 27 percent of all deaths combined, the NIH invests only 7 percent of its budget on related research.

That is why, as co-chair of the Congressional Coalition on Heart and Stroke, I have worked to increase funding for critical programs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For FY 17, the Heart and Stroke Coalition requested $3.4 billion for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and $1.8 billion for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Despite the $2 billion increase in funding for NIH in FY 2016, NIH's purchasing power was 19 percent less than in FY 2003 last year. This loss has occurred at a time of heightened scientific opportunity and enhanced investment in the scientific field by other countries. We need to restore our purchasing power for NIH and capitalize on investments to improve health, spur economic growth, innovation, and advances in science.

The Coalition also requested $160.037 million for CDC's Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program. Funding for this CDC program goes toward State Public Health Actions on Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention as well as for the actions to prevent obesity and diabetes. Funding for this also goes into national surveillance on stroke and heart disease.

The Coalition additionally requested a combined $42 million for CDC's Million Hearts and WISEWOMAN (Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women across the Nation) programs. These programs offer preventative health services, referrals to local health care providers, and lifestyle programs and health counseling tailored to identified risk factors for those most vulnerable.

American Heart Month has motivated life-saving initiatives across the country. For instance, in my home state of New Jersey, in my district, the Monmouth Medical Center, Southern Campus is on the forefront of the fight against CVD. This year, the Medical Center hosted its fourth annual American Heart Month event on February 11, providing cardiac screenings to nearly 100 people.

February 22, 2017 marked the first annual National Heart Valve Awareness Day. This year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has for the first time ever listed this day on the National Health Observances Calendar. More than 5 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with this particular disease, which involves damage to one or more of the heart's four valves and can result in reduced blood flow, causing the heart to work harder and the body to get less oxygen.

Tragically, more than 22,000 people in the U.S. die from this condition every year. It is my hope that inclusion of this day in Heart Month will raise awareness of the risks of heart valve disease among those at risk, as well as the medical community.

I am honored to once again serve as the co-chair of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition, which was founded in 1996 for the purpose of raising awareness of the seriousness of cardiovascular diseases and to act as a resource center for heart and stroke issues, including biomedical research, quality and availability of care, health promotion and disease prevention. Over the past twenty-one years, this bi-partisan, bi-cameral coalition, which now numbers nearly 150 members, has also worked to advance public policy aimed at fighting cardiovascular diseases.

I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who are fellow members of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition and thank them for their efforts. I encourage those members who have not yet joined the Coalition to do so.

I would also like to thank WomenHeart and The American Heart Association for their dedication and impact and look forward to continuing to work in cooperation with them throughout this Congress.

Those suffering from cardiovascular disease, 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 aimed at combating CVD, as well as medical research for prevention and treatment of stroke and heart attacks are supported appropriately at a federal level. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress and with advocates across the nation as we continue this critical work throughout the year in the fight against America's number one killer.

I thank the gentlewoman for her extraordinary leadership on the life issue.

Madam Speaker, subsidized by over $500 million taxpayer dollars each year, Planned Parenthood dismembers or chemically poisons a baby to death every 2 minutes, killing over 7 million innocent children since 1973.

Undercover videos in 2015 exposed, in numbing candor, several high- level Planned Parenthood leaders nonchalantly talking about procuring children's organs for a price. They describe altering gruesome dismemberment procedures to preserve intact livers, hearts, and lungs from freshly killed babies.

All of this begs the question, Madam Speaker, why are U.S. taxpayers giving half a billion dollars each year to Planned Parenthood?

H.J. Res. 43 simply allows States to redirect funds away from abortion clinics and does not reduce funding for title X by so much as a penny. Those funds are just redirected to other health clinics that provide women's health care and don't engage in abortion.

In mid-December, on his way out the door, former President Obama finalized a rule that coerces States to fund Planned Parenthood with their title X money.

Prior to the Obama rule, States had chosen, five of them, to award title X funds to non-Planned Parenthood entities. These five States, Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Ohio, account for nearly $16 million in annual title X funding and serve over 279,000 individuals a year. These five States redirected those funds to other health clinics.

But under the Obama rule, these State recipients are threatened with losing all--I say again--all of their title X support if they do not comply. This is the definition of coercion.

The Obama administration essentially told States: You must use your family planning dollars to support abortionists, or we will take away your family planning dollars.

I thank the gentlewoman for her courage, for her insight, and for offering this rule for our consideration today.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to thank her for her leadership, for being one of the prime cosponsors of the bill, H.R. 7, along with Mrs. Black, Ms. Foxx, Mrs. Wagner, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Noem, Mrs. Hartzler, and all the others who have joined in as sponsors of this lifesaving legislation.

I would also like to thank Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy, Whip Scalise, and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers for their extraordinary leadership in defending the most innocent and the most vulnerable among us, unborn children, as well as providing protections for their mothers, and for bringing this legislation, H.R. 7, to the floor.

Forty years ago, Madam Speaker, Congress enacted the Hyde amendment, a law that continues to this day to proscribe Federal Medicaid funds from being used to subsidize abortion in most circumstances.

More than 20 peer-reviewed studies show that more than 2 million people are alive today, 2 million, because of the Hyde amendment. Two million people who would have been aborted, instead, survived because public funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise, while their mothers benefited from prenatal health care and support; 2 million survivors who have had the opportunity to live and to enjoy the most basic and the most elemental of all human rights, the right to life.

Madam Speaker, we are experiencing a megatrend in America, consistently reflected in polling data, including the most recent polling data from the Marist Poll yesterday, that showed that 61 percent of Americans are against public funding for abortion, and most want, even those who identify as pro-choice, more restrictions to protect the innocent unborn.

People are seeing the truth of who abortion actually destroys, as today's proudly shared, first baby pictures are most often of ultrasound imaging photos depicting the amazing miracle of the developing child in the womb.

Growing numbers of Americans are often shocked to learn that the methods of abortion include dismemberment of a child's fragile body, including decapitation, and the severing of arms and legs, or the use of drugs like RU-486 that literally starve the child to death before forcibly expelling her or him from the safety of the womb.

Yet, the billion-dollar abortion industry continues to cleverly market the chief sophistry of choice, while going to extraordinary lengths to cover up, ignore, and trivialize the battered victim child in the womb.

Madam Speaker, pro-life Americans struggle for the day when abortion violence will be replaced by compassion and empathy for women and respect for

the weak and most vulnerable among us, the child in the womb. They believe, as do my pro-life colleagues, that we ought to love them both, mother and child, and not fund the destruction of children through abortion.

Lawmakers also need to hear the courageous voices of women who are silent no more, a rapidly expanding number of women who share the agony and heartbreak that they have endured after procuring an abortion.

As I mentioned, yesterday there was a poll that came out, and, again, it found that 61 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion, and only 35 percent support it, which is precisely what we seek to accomplish with enactment of H.R. 7. It would make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding restrictions permanent and government-wide.

I would note, parenthetically, that soon after the Hyde amendment was enacted in 1976, other abortion funding riders were enacted into law, and Hyde itself was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980.

In 1983, I authored the ban on funding abortion in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. Most must be renewed legislatively each and every year. This legislation would make it permanent.

The legislation ensures that the Affordable Care Act, until repeal, conforms with the Hyde amendment.

I would remind my colleagues that just a few feet from where I stand, on September 9, 2009--and I have his speech right in front of me--the President of the United States said: ``And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up--under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place.''

Well, on the latter, the conscience laws remained in place, but they were just simply not enforced.

And of course we know now, as my good friend, Ms. Cheney, mentioned, we know that, according to the GAO--because people kept saying in the early years, oh, there is no funding, public funding for abortion, so we asked GAO to look into it. They came back and said there is much-- over 1,000 plans pay for abortion on demand.

Madam Speaker, I will just remind Members that, in order to gain votes of several pro-life Democrats needed for passage of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama issued an executive order on March 24, 2010, and it said:

The Affordable Care Act maintains current Hyde restrictions

governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to

newly created health insurance exchanges.

The problem is, it never happened.

There were people who are saying even today that there is no taxpayer funding for abortion. Yes, there is. We finally went to the GAO. We asked them to do a study, an audit. They spent a full year on it and confirmed that the plans that we were subsidizing with taxpayer dollars covered abortion.

I remind my colleagues that, under the Hyde amendment, plans that pay for abortion are precluded from receiving government funding. 1,036 Affordable Care Act exchange plans were found to have abortion on demand being paid for by the taxpayers.

So if the Hyde amendment had been applied as former President Obama had said it would, there would have been zero coverage for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Madam Speaker, I want to first thank the distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend Diane Black, for her extraordinary leadership. I also want to say to my colleagues--and I hope this really is accepted for the profound change that it underscores--the Hyde amendment has saved 2 million lives; 2 million survivors who would have died had Medicaid funding for abortion not been available.

This is over the course of 40 years, but 2 million lives, some of whom are 39, 38. It is about 60,000 children every year. And if you look at where this comes from, much of the mega-analysis comes from a peer review done by the Guttmacher Institute in 2009. They have found that there is a 25 percent

reduction in Medicaid abortions when Medicaid money is not available to effectuate the dismemberment and the chemical poisoning of an unborn child.

Defense of the unborn child is a human rights issue of our time, Madam Speaker. We talk about the unborn child, we degrade them, we treat them as if they are tumors or warts to be excised rather than children growing, developing, and maturing.

Ultrasound imaging, as we all know, has shattered the myth that somehow an unborn child is anything but human and alive. And I hope that the science, which is very readily available, catches up with the policy.

This makes Hyde and all of the other amendments permanent. We know that every year we have an annual battle over several of those amendments. It also, finally, title II, takes out of ObamaCare the facilitation and the funding of abortion.

When President Obama did his executive order in December of 2010, he said that the Hyde amendment would be applied to the ObamaCare exchanges. For months and years after that in-House debate, people have said that has happened. It did not. We know beyond any reasonable doubt--and we enlisted GAO to look at that--well over 1,000 plans pay for abortion on demand in the ObamaCare exchanges.

So that got the votes the pro-life Democrats needed to effectuate the passage of the Affordable Care Act. But, frankly, it hasn't happened. Title II of this bill says the Hyde amendment will be applied to the ObamaCare exchanges. Had that been done faithfully by the President, there would be no need for title II of this bill.

I remember when the President stood right there in September of 2009 and said: Under our plan, no taxpayer funding will be used to pay for abortion. Absolutely untrue. This language in H.R. 7 makes that true. We don't want to be complicit in the killing and the maiming of unborn children. As we know now, beyond any reasonable doubt, post-abortive women increasingly are coming forward and speaking out, those especially who found peace and reconciliation to say abortion also hurts women.

There are two victims in every abortion: mother and baby. Two million lives saved. That is what we should be all about, life affirming and the saving of human rights.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague said ``prove it'' about the 2 million. Well, there is a very extensive study done by Michael J. New. The Review of Literature done in June of 2009 by the Guttmacher Institute found: ``Approximately one-fourth of women who would have had Medicaid-funded abortions instead gave birth when this funding was unavailable.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, Jim Banks, as our first speaker tonight, a former State senator in Indiana. He served since 2010, a new Member of the House. He served as chairman of the senate Veterans Affairs and The Military Committee with great distinction, and now he has actually joined the Veterans' Affairs Committee as well as other committees here in the House.

I thank my good friend for his remarks.

I now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, who has been outspoken for years on behalf of the innocent and inconvenient unborn children.

I want to thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee for her kind remarks and again thank her for her leadership for so many years.

I now yield to the gentleman from Arizona, Congressman Andy Biggs. While a new Member of the House, he is a very experienced lawmaker, having served 14 years in the Arizona Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership in the legislature before. As the gentleman so aptly pointed out, the numbers of abortion come down when even modest restrictions are passed. The law is a great teacher. We are so happy to have the gentleman from Arizona here in

the House, and I know I speak for many of us on the Pro-Life Caucus.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his eloquence, for his commitment, his passion, and for that steadfastness that will one day yield the result when the unborn are protected in our laws against the violence of abortion. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for participating, but most importantly for his years of service on behalf of his constituents and the unborn.

I now yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa's leadership, which has been over many decades. I want to thank him for his eloquence and his steadfastness. The day will come when the unborn are protected, and he will be a major part of that.

I would also concur with the gentleman from Iowa fully in how much we miss the great Henry Hyde. He was extraordinary. He was irreplaceable. And the fact that his amendment has saved 2 million lives, at least-- some estimates put it even higher--is a testimony to his vision, which we now carry on with.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert). I again thank him for his outspokenness on behalf of the weakest and most vulnerable.

I thank the gentleman for his very passionate and incisive remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure, the Agriculture, and the Natural Resources Committees. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

I thank the gentleman so very much for his kind remarks, but also his very eloquent concern for post-abortive women and those who may be contemplating abortion. You know, the Pregnancy Care Network, 4,000 strong throughout the United States, is there as a front line to say: We love you both, mother and baby.

So I thank the gentleman for bringing attention to that as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice), a member of the Oversight and Government Reform, and the Natural Resources Committees.

Thank you very much for your eloquence and reminding us all that the Supreme Court itself said that we need not resolve the difficult question of when human life begins; then they went on to say that any child, at any point until birth, could be killed by way of an abortion. They resolved it, but they

resolved it in the negative without science, without the information. Ultrasound certainly has shattered that myth, and I thank you for reminding all of us about that.

I also would remind my colleagues that Jean Garton--a great leader-- ran Lutherans for Life for years. She was preparing a presentation on abortion that included some actual pictures of aborted babies. It was late at night, but her young child walked in while she was doing this and said: Mommy, who broke the baby?

So even a small child could recognize--and did recognize--that abortion destroys the life of a baby. Sadly, the Court has not been able to. With all of their much-vaunted intelligence capacity, they missed it by a mile. So thank you for reminding us of that.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains.

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

Mr. Speaker, ex-President Barack Obama, the abortion President, has done serious harm. No human rights abuse, however, need be forever. Today, we have an extraordinary opportunity. We have, I would submit, a duty to protect the weakest and most vulnerable and to reassert protections that have been sadly lacking for the last 44 years. Protecting unborn children and their mothers is the most important human rights cause on Earth. And this week, on Friday, thousands are expected to march for life, to march for this fundamental human right-- the right to live.

Now, as never before, we must work, pray, and fast for that day when every life is cherished as a gift; every life loved, despite one's disability, race, sex, color, religion, or condition of dependency; and every life welcomed, no matter the inconvenience. Earlier in this Special Order, Steve King talked about caring for people at every stage of development--every stage--including the unborn. Birth is an event that happens to each and every one of us. It is not the beginning of life.

Again, ultrasound imaging of the unborn child has just opened up everyone's eyes to the little child--twins if there are two--that resides within.

He also talked about, and I would agree with him, children with disabilities need to be welcomed. A prenatal diagnosis of disability should mean empathy and concern for the child, not exclusion or a death sentence, because every life is a gift.

Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging as to how many young people are stepping up to protect and lead in this human rights cause. Increasingly, the young people on college campuses, Students for Life, and so many young people in their 20s, the millennials--and the polling shows the millennials are pro-life--are stepping up.

Tom Brokaw often talked about the Greatest Generation. They are stepping up as the next Greatest Generation who by their compassion, faith, and determination will transform America into a culture of life.

All of us in the pro-life movement are especially thankful for the growing number of courageous women who are silent no more. Some of the groups are called the Silent No More Awareness campaign. For example, women, all of whom have had abortions, have suffered psychological and emotional harm, and yet they, thank God, have found reconciliation and peace, often through faith. But now they blaze a hope-filled path for other post-abortive women to find healing, reconciliation, and inner peace. They admonish society not to offer the false solution of killing an unborn child.

There are two victims in every abortion: the baby, the most obvious, but equally the mother. Women deserve better than the false solution of dismembering or chemically poisoning unborn children. The other side of the issue seldom talks about the child, if ever, don't even use the word abortion much anymore, just choice or reproductive rights, and just refuses to accept or to acknowledge or to debate what the deed actually does.

Children have their arms and legs torn off their bodies by the abortionist as well as decapitation. Chemicals literally starve the child to death. RU-486 is euphemistically called medical abortion like the other pills that are provided. First, the child starves in the womb, and then another chemical brings on labor.

For the pro-life movement, we all acknowledge that the way forward is fraught with obstacles that must be overcome. The promotion of human rights is never easy. The promotion of human rights is never obstacle free. If past is prologue, the history of the pro-life movement, however, shows that we will never quit.

Earlier today, the House voted on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, H.R. 7, to end taxpayer complicity and funding of abortion. I especially want to thank our very principled leadership, great people like the Speaker, Paul Ryan; Kevin McCarthy, our majority leader; Steve Scalise, our whip; and Cathy McMorris Rodgers; and so many others who take a principled stand for the unborn and equally for their mothers.

No matter what The Washington Post or The New York Times might say, they are willing to stand into the wind rather than to go along with it because the sanctity of life--the preciousness of those children and equally of their mothers--demands it. I want to thank them for their extraordinary leadership. As we all know, the bill passed 238-183.

The extraordinary news is about the Hyde amendment and its consequences. It has saved the lives of over 2 million children, and that is a conservative estimate. There may be many more. Other funding bans at State levels, as well as our funding bans in our Federal policies, including the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, have also saved lives because the money was not there to facilitate the demise--the violent demise--of those children.

Even the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, acknowledges that about 25 percent of the Medicaid abortions that otherwise would have occurred do not occur. Those children go on to be born, and that is where the 2 million figure, about 60,000 per year--children who evade the scalpel or the chemical poisoning of abortion.

Forty years ago, Congress enacted the Hyde amendment. It has been continued every year, and now it will be made permanent if this bill were to become law. We know, as was said during the debate by my friends on the other side of this issue, that they are determined to eviscerate the Hyde amendment, and those 2 million children, had they had their way over the last 40 years, would have been killed.

We also want to take abortion out of ObamaCare. The President stood right at that podium, Mr. Speaker, in September of 2009, and said: ``Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. . . . ''

We know that is absolutely untrue. He also signed an executive order where he said that the Hyde amendment would be applied to the plans in the exchanges. So we went to the Government Accountability Office and asked for a study. It took about a year, and they came back and said that 1,036 insurance plans across the country paid for abortion on demand with taxpayer funding. H.R. 7, title II, would end that complicity of the taxpayer with the procurement of abortion.

Let me also say that we hope to bring up in this House a bill that was sponsored last Congress and is again today by Trent Franks of Arizona, a great champion of life. It is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to legally protect most babies at 20 weeks postfertilization. Of course, many of those kids die of dismemberment. Again, we need a national debate on abortion because the methods have been hidden by the facade of the abortion industry. They have been very good at cloaking, concealing, and diminishing any focus on what happens to the baby. Even when abortion is through ultrasound-guided abortions and the mother is there, semi-sedated, they turn the screen away from her so she doesn't see the dismemberment of the child, because, obviously, as Dr. Nathanson, the founder of NARAL and an abortionist, once said--he came to the conclusion after having killed 60,000 children and then became a pro-lifer--he said that if wombs had windows, if everyone, including the woman, could see the child, she would run out of that abortion mill.

So, again, I want to say thank you to Trent Franks. I know he is here, and

I hope that he will join us tonight. He has led on born-alive legislation, which is also transformative.

Imagine that the former President of the United States, Barack Obama, said that he would veto a bill that would provide a standard of care, including a right to private action, when the child is born alive from a later term abortion. We can't even help that child? Yet Obama, the abortion President, said: No, we can't. Trent Franks, again, has been the leader on that as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) who is a good friend and colleague, and then to close, Congressman Trent Franks.

I thank the gentleman so much for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce that my friend Anna Eshoo and I today introduced the Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and Accountability Act of 2017 (H.R. 390).

H.R. 390 would require the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development to identify the urgent humanitarian needs of Christians and other genocide survivors from religious minority communities and to start supporting some of the entities effectively aiding them on-the-ground.

This bill is urgently needed because Christian survivors of the ISIS genocide are facing an emergency. Just before Christmas, I went to Erbil in the Kurdistan region of Iraq to meet with these survivors. They told me the United States had abandoned them. I saw first-hand how the Obama administration has failed to help them.

I was in Erbil at the personal invitation of the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Erbil, Bashar Warda. More than 70,000 Christians--10,500 families--who escaped from ISIS have relied on the Archdiocese of Erbil for food, shelter, and medical care to survive. Yet the Obama administration and United Nations have refused to give a single dollar to the Archdiocese to help them. They have been kept alive only because of the generosity of organizations like the Knights of Columbus and Aid to the Church in Need. However, the needs are so great that the Archdiocese is chronically in crisis mode, unsure whether it will soon run out of resources to sustain these Christians.

The winter temperatures are freezing and the risk of related illness is high. Iraq's Christian population is less than 250,000, down from up to 1.4 million in 2002, down from 500,000 in 2013 just before ISIS began targeting Christians for genocide.

Having fled ISIS, these Christians may have to flee their homelands. Perhaps they will take the little money they have left, and pay smugglers to get them to Europe. They would risk becoming prisoners of human traffickers or perishing in the Mediterranean Sea, where more than 5,000 refugees and migrants died or went missing in 2016.

For a few of these genocide survivors unable to return home, the only long-term option may be resettlement in a country like the United States as a refugee. Our legislation would create a Priority Two designation that they are of ``special humanitarian concern'' to the United States. The P-2 designation would ensure that they are able to get an overseas interview with the U.S. government to be considered for the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program without needing a referral from the United Nations, an NGO, or another U.S. government entity. This would not guarantee acceptance and admission and they would have to clear the same security screening as every other Iraqi and Syrian refugee before being admitted. But at least they will be considered.

The other key element of our bill focuses on accountability. It would require the U.S. government to identify and support some entities that are conducting criminal investigations, and collecting evidence, on perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Iraq and Syria. This evidence is usable in future criminal trials. Until now, the State Department has been considering these crimes merely as human rights violations, rather than as crimes.

Archbishop Warda has put it clearly. ``These coming months may well decide the fate of Christianity in Iraq: whether it survives and is given a chance for rebirth; or whether it perishes, existing only as a few scattered museum pieces with caretaker clergy, of interest to tourists and academics perhaps, but without the Christian people who had lived there for two-thousand years.''

As the Syriac Archbishop of Mosul, who had to seek refuge in Erbil from ISIS together with his people, told me during my mission, ``We pray that President Trump will help us. We are the last people to speak the Aramaic language. Without help, we are finished.''

Archbishop Nicodemus had reason to be hopeful. On September 9, 2016, at the Voter Values Summit, then-candidate Trump said, ``ISIS is hunting down and exterminating what it calls the Nation of the Cross. ISIS is carrying out a genocide against Christians in the Middle East. We cannot let this evil continue.''

If our legislation moves quickly onto the floor for a vote and to President Trump for his signature, I am confident that he will sign it and ensure that it is fully implemented. The Christians of the Middle East are counting on us.

Many groups support H.R. 390, including the Knights of Columbus, Family Research Council, In Defense of Christians, 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, Commission for International Justice and Accountability, HIAS, Aid the Church in Need USA, Open Doors, A Demand for Action, Yezidi Human Rights Organization International, Religious Freedom Institute, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, and Syrian Accountability Project, and Civitas Maxima.

It is also supported by all the former U.S. Ambassadors-at Large for War Crimes, David Scheffer (1997 through 2001), Pierre Prosper (2001 through 2005), Clint Williamson (2006 through 2009), and Stephen Rapp (2009 through 2015), as well as the Founding Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, David Crane, the Director of the Center for Religious Freedom Nina Shea, and the author of Defying ISIS, Rev. Johnnie Moore.

Fifteen of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, are original cosponsors of H.R. 390. I call on my other colleagues to cosponsor this bill and help ensure that it gets to the new President as soon as possible so that Christian genocide survivors in Iraq and elsewhere get the help they so desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and for offering this important resolution, along with the ranking member, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.

President Obama's decision to abstain and not veto Security Council Resolution 2334 seriously undermines the peace process, abandons Israel at a critical hour in its life as a nation, and does serious injury to the historical record.

The egregiously flawed U.N. text says that all Israeli settlements after the 1949 armistice line including East Jerusalem and West Bank have no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.

The pending House resolution repudiates 2334 and makes clear that a durable and sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will only come through direct bilateral negotiations, not one-sided, anti-Israel U.N. resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, the U.N. resolution could open Israeli leaders and even average Israeli settlers to criminal prosecution. Israel's enemies are likely to exploit 2334 by seeking prosecutions in venues like the International Criminal Court for construction activities, even though the vast majority of this activity takes place legally, pursuant to Israeli law.

A few hours ago, the European Jewish press reported that ``Leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called for France to cancel or, at least, postpone what they called an `ill-conceived, poorly timed and damaging' event--the Paris Mideast conference--scheduled for January 15.''

I hope that we will also call upon our government not to go to this right before a transition of the White House and the Presidency and mischief that could be forthcoming from that.

They pointed out in their statement that ``Israel has long sought direct talks'' and ``it is time for the Palestinian leaders to stop evading their responsibility and seeking to use international fora to avoid the only true path to a lasting peace''--and that is a negotiated settlement.

Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America pointed out that the U.N. has a long-established bias against Israel. As my good friend from Florida said a moment ago, 20 anti- Israel resolutions against just 4 in 2016--a bias and a discrimination against Israel.

President Obama's decision to abstain and not veto Security Council Resolution 2334 seriously undermines the peace process, abandons Israel at a critical hour in its life as a nation, and does serious injury to the historical record.

The egregiously flawed UN text says that all Israeli settlements after the 1949 armistice line including East Jerusalem and the West Bank have no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.

The pending House resolution repudiates 2334 and makes clear that a durable and sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will only come through direct bilateral negotiations not one-sided anti-Israel UN resolutions.

With over three thousand years of Jewish history bound up in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, it is preposterous to assert that Israel has no legitimacy in defending its connections to this extraordinary heritage. Sadly, these kinds of prejudiced and revisionist claims are all too common in the United Nations where UNESCO voted just a couple months ago on measures that excise any mention of Judaism and Christianity's ancient ties to East Jerusalem.

Mr. Speaker, the UN Resolution could open Israeli leaders and even average Israeli settlers to criminal prosecution. Israel's enemies are likely to exploit 2334 by seeking prosecutions in venues like the International Criminal Court (ICC) for construction activities, even though the vast majority of this activity takes place legally, pursuant to Israeli law.

By calling on countries to distinguish between the State of Israel and Israeli settlements, 2334 enables the narrative of the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, or BDS movement, that is aimed at delegitimizing Israel.

And in mere days, the error of 2334 could be further compounded.

A few hours ago the European Jewish Press reported that ``Leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called for France to cancel or, at least, postpone what they called an `ill-conceived, poorly timed and damaging' event--the Paris Mideast conference--scheduled for January 15th.''

``The international community should not plunge forward with the ill- conceired and poorly timed Paris conference,'' CPMAJO Chairman Stephen M. Greenberg and Vice Chairman and CEO Malcolm Hoenlein said in a statement . . . According to the Conference of Presidents, there are a number of compelling reasons to postpone the Paris event, including the impending transition to the Trump administration, just five days later. ``It makes no sense that the next administration is precluded from participating in a discussion of an essential component of U.S. foreign policy with which it will be engaged,'' they explained.

`` `Israel has long sought direct talks, it is time for the Palestinian leaders to stop evading their responsibility and seeking to use international fora to avoid the only true path to a lasting peace,' they added. Hoenlein cautioned it was possible the Obama administration could--following the recent passage of the anti-Israeli settlement Security Council resolution--take a `further damaging step against the Jewish state before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.' ''

Nathan Diament, Executive Director of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, wrote me a letter today and said, ``On December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, a blatantly anti-Israel resolution condemning Israel's building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It has long been U.S. policy that any progress toward an agreement in the region must be based on direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, not a vote of third-party nations at the UN.''

``Unfortunately the UN has a long and established bias against Israel. In 2016 alone, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 anti-Israel resolutions and just four against other countries: North Korea, Syria, Iran and Russia. The World Health Organization condemned Israel as the world's only violator of `mental, physical and environmental health,' while the U.N. Women condemned Israel as the world's only violator of women's rights. The International Labor Organization condemned Israel as the world's only violator of labor rights. These same UN committees were silent on the issue of human rights violations in China, Libya, or the Congo.''

``Clearly, the UN has an agenda to undermine and delegitimize the state of Israel, and in that regard UN support for Resolution 2334 was not surprising. What was surprising--and deeply concerning--was the silence of the United States on this issue. Rather than exercising its veto power, the United States chose to abstain from voting, and thereby threatened the trust and support Israel has long placed in its most important ally. Over the course of his presidency, Mr. Obama has repeatedly assured American Jews and others concerned about Israel's security and welfare that his commitment to U.S. support for Israel's security was `unshakeable.' By allowing the UN Security Council's resolution to pass in the final weeks of his Administration, President Obama undermined his legacy and threatened the longstanding alliance between the United States and Israel.''

``Whether the abstaining vote was a parting statement from the Obama Administration or the influence of anti-Israeli forces at the UN, the incoming Trump Administration and the

115th Congress must make the United States' support of Israel and our common goals of peace, democracy, and fighting terrorism--a pillar of its foreign policy. Today's resolution condemning UN Resolution 2334 will send an important message to the world that the United States stands with Israel and will continue to support our common goals.''

Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I would like to note that many of us in Congress have been warning about these kinds of reckless gambits for months. Three-hundred and eighty of us in the House signed a letter in April to President Obama specifically calling on him to veto any one- sided resolution like 2443 if it were raised in the Security Council. In late November, the House voted overwhelmingly for H. Con. Res. 165 further stressing the need for the United States to stand by Israel and veto biased Security Council measures.

I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 11 to denounce this dangerous Security Council action. I look forward to working with President-elect Trump to align U.S. policy with the overwhelming consensus in Congress: that we are and remain committed to Israel's sovereignty and security.

OU Advocacy Center,

Washington, DC, January 5, 2017.

Hon. Chris Smith,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Smith: On behalf of the Union of

Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (Orthodox Union)--

the nation's largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization--

please accept our gratitude for your support of today's

resolution opposing UN Security Council Resolution 2334, and

thank you for submitting this letter to the official record

of the House of Representatives.

On December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed

Resolution 2334, a blatantly anti-Israel resolution

condemning Israel's building of settlements in the West Bank

and East Jerusalem. It has long been U.S. policy that any

progress toward an agreement in the region must be based on

direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders,

not a vote of third-party nations at the UN.

Unfortunately, the UN has a long and established bias

against Israel. In 2016 alone, the UN General Assembly

adopted 20 anti-Israel resolutions and just four against

other countries: North Korea, Syria, Iran and Russia. The

World Health Organization condemned Israel as the world's

only violator of ``mental, physical and environmental

health,'' while the U.N. Women condemned Israel as the

world's only violator of women's rights. The International

Labor Organization condemned Israel as the world's only

violator of labor rights. These same UN committees were

silent on the issue of human rights violations in China,

Libya, or the Congo.

Clearly, the UN has an agenda to undermine and delegitimize

the state of Israel, and in that regard UN support for

Resolution 2334 was not surprising. What was surprising--and

deeply concerning--was the silence of the United States on

this issue. Rather than exercising its veto power, the United

States chose to abstain from voting, and thereby threatened

the trust and support Israel has long placed in its most

important ally. Over the course of his presidency, Mr. Obama

has repeatedly assured American Jews and others concerned

about Israel's security and welfare that his commitment to

U.S. support for Israel's security was ``unshakeable.'' By

allowing the UN Security Council's resolution to pass in the

final weeks of his Administration, President Obama undermined

his legacy and threatened the longstanding alliance between

the United States and Israel.

Whether the abstaining vote was a parting statement from

the Obama Administration or the influence of anti-Israeli

forces at the UN, the incoming Trump Administration and the

115th Congress must make the United States' support of Israel

and our common goals of peace, democracy, and fighting

terrorism--a pillar of its foreign policy. Today's resolution

condemning UN Resolution 2334 will send an important message

to the world that the United States stands with Israel and

will continue to support our common goals.

Again, thank you for your support of Israel and today's

resolution. I urge all members of the United States Congress

to stand with Israel and vote in favor of the McCarthy-Royce

resolution.

Best Regards,

Nathan Diament,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday my colleague Mr. McGovern and I introduced the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.

In November of 2012, almost every Member of this House voted for the forerunner of this legislation, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, which was included in Public Law 112-208. The 2012 law focused on perpetrators in a single country, Russia, and authorized and required the President to list and sanction individuals who the President determined was responsible for the detention, abuse, and death of Sergei Magnitsky, as well as other gross violations of human rights.

This law sent a strong message of personal responsibility by targeting bad actors, publicly naming and shaming individuals who commit horrific abuses.

My new bill builds on these provisions and expands the law globally. It requires the President to determine when foreign persons are complicit in egregious, internationally recognized human rights abuses or major acts of corruption; and then prohibits them from coming to the United States, remaining in the U.S. if they are already here, or owning property in our country. Further, my bill will require the administration to publish their names in an annual ``Global Magnitsky List'' unless there is a compelling, national security reason not to.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that the U.S. should not provide refuge for those who commit human rights abuses. We can and should take away the privilege of U.S. visas that afford a measure of respectability as well as a quick exit for those who worry daily that they may be held accountable for their crimes against their countrymen. This bill will help bring human rights victims some justice, and deny perpetrators the respectability, mobility, and wealth they crave.

Specifically, the bill I introduced Friday expands and strengthens the Magnitsky law in several key ways, and keeps some of its key provisions:

Like the Magnitsky law, it authorizes and requires the President to sanction perpetrators of human rights violations, rather than simply allowing him to do so.

The bill prioritizes violations against people who ``seek to expose illegal activity carried out by government officials; or to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections,'' but it also allows for the sanctioning of individuals for heinous human rights abuses against other victims.

It requires the President to issue an annual report--on December 10th, Human Rights Day--with the names of persons who have been sanctioned or were removed from sanctions over the previous year, providing Congress and the public with the opportunity to review the implementation and impact of the Magnitsky List and to discuss who is or should be on the List.

If the President decides to include a sanctioned person in the classified section of the annual Global Magnitsky List for national security reasons, he will be required to list their country of citizenship and the number of people sanctioned from each country. This information will give us a better understanding of whether particular countries with many known perpetrators are being overlooked.

As introduced, the Global Magnitsky Act will also require an independent audit by the Government Accountability Office to ensure the provisions are being implemented effectively, efficiently, and as Congress intended.

I urge my colleagues to help us continue the legacy of Sergei Magnitsky--the brave man for whom this bill is named--and cosponsor this legislation. Murderers and torturers, and their money, are not welcome in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 515, the Clerk be directed to make the correction I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and thank her for her leadership, especially on this extremely important bill, H.R. 398, the Trafficking Awareness Training for Health Care Act of 2015.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would direct grant money to the development of best practices for medical professionals so that they will know how to recognize trafficking victims and how to respond if a potential victim comes into their hospital or clinic.

Mrs. Ellmers and I, and others, were inspired to do this bill by a Global Centurion report, in collaboration with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, that showed some 88 percent of domestic trafficking victims sought health care at some point during the time that they were being trafficked. That is absolutely amazing. These victimized women have come in contact with health care professionals, and then they leave and go out the door and nothing is done because the health care professional did not recognize the signs of human trafficking. They were in a clinic, hospital, or doctor's office when they were being trafficked, right back out the door to be trafficked again.

With 99 percent of trafficking victims reporting serious health consequences of being trafficked and pimps eager to get their victims healthy for continued exploitation for profit, medical professionals are on the front lines of trafficking interventions. We must make sure that the health care professionals are equipped to assist in effectuating freedom for trafficking victims whenever possible. We must think carefully about protocols for how to report suspected victims to authority. We don't want to put her in further danger. We must strategize ways to ensure the victims receive the help that they need.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very important bill, and I do hope my colleagues will support it. Again, I thank Mrs. Ellmers for her leadership on it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Royce, for his very kind words and for working to expedite the consideration of these important bills. This is an historic week in the House as we seek to pass 12 bills to fight human trafficking.

As the prime author of the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as well as reauthorizations in '03 and '05, I believe the bills under consideration by the House today will further prevent the horrific crimes of human trafficking, protect and assist the victims, and aid the prosecution of those who exploit and abuse.

I would also like to offer my profound appreciation to Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy for ensuring that all of the hard work done in a bipartisan way in the House in the 113th session is not lost nor will it be delayed but, rather, immediately sent back to the Senate for action.

Leader McCarthy has explored numerous ways, in meeting after meeting with Members, again, on both sides of the aisle, to find ways to prevent, to prosecute traffickers, and to protect victims. His deep personal commitment to ending modern-day slavery has and will continue to make a major difference.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this bill on behalf of myself and the gentlewoman from California, Ranking Member Karen Bass, who is the chief cosponsor.

I am proud to say the United States continues to lead the world in our trafficking responses at home and abroad, charting the course of best practices for other countries to follow. One of the most successful ways the U.S. transmits our best practices and ensures accountability for the minimum standards to eliminate human trafficking is the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons in the U.S. Department of State.

Over the last 15 years, this Office has been led by talented and dedicated Ambassadors--including the most recent one, Luis CdeBaca, with whom we work very closely--who have produced the annual Trafficking in Persons Reports, laying bare the record of almost every country for the world to see and summarizing the country's progress in what we call the annual tier rankings.

For the record, the TVPA established Tier 1 countries. They are the ones that fully meet the minimum standards prescribed in the law. Tier 2 countries do not meet the minimum standards but are making a significant effort to do so. Tier 2 Watch List countries are in a grace period and in real danger of becoming Tier 3 without real action, not just promises of action.

Tier 3 countries do not meet the standards and are not making significant effort to do so. Along with the embarrassment of being listed on Tier 3, Tier 3 countries are susceptible to sanctions by the U.S. Government.

Since the TIP Report's inception, Mr. Speaker, more than 100 countries have enacted anti-trafficking laws, and many countries have taken other steps required to significantly raise their tier rankings-- citing the TIP Report as a key factor in their new anti-trafficking efforts. It is a very robust effort in our Embassies, and every country of the world is a part of it.

We have found a system that works; but, tragically, it is sometimes misguided, muffled, and marginalized by unrelated bilateral concerns and by the internal structure of the U.S. Department of State.

As my dear friend, the chairman of the committee, said a moment ago, it was Ambassador Mark Lagon who talked about how they produce a great report, but then, typically, due to the urging of regional specialists rather than the TIP Office's dedicated experts, the ranking and the process goes awry.

The Human Trafficking Prioritization Act, or H.R. 514, will remedy this problem by keeping the fight against human trafficking from being lost in the politics of other U.S. interests.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 514 will raise the status of the J/TIP Office to that of a bureau, ensuring that the leadership of J/TIP is present and has an equal voice at meetings with the other bureaus and the Secretary of State.

Former colleague, John Miller, an Ambassador at Large from 2002 to 2006 said:

Upgrading the status of the Office to a bureau will not

create additional bureaucracy--it will simply give J/TIP and

the Ambassador at Large who heads it equal standing with

regional and functional bureaus at the State Department. That

standing is absolutely essential for the issue to remain a

priority, especially when multiple U.S. interests are

engaged.

We are not authorizing the J/TIP Office to be larger, but for the excellent work of the Office to be consistently heard at a higher level.

In addition, the bill stops countries and other State Department bureaus from gaming the tier ranking system by limiting the time problem countries can use promises of action to avoid a tier downgrade.

Currently, a country can sit on the Tier 2 Watch List for up to 4 years with Presidential waivers, effectively stringing the U.S. along with promises to take action, but never actually taking action. After 4 years, by law, the country must be automatically downgraded to Tier 3.

The law worked very well in its first implementation in the 2013 reporting cycle, but we discovered a problem in 2013, when China was prematurely upgraded from Tier 3 to the Tier 2 Watch List. As the law is currently written, Mr. Speaker, China can, again, game the system with promises and no action for 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Trafficking Prioritization Act will hold countries like China accountable by limiting to 1 year the amount of time a country can stay on the Tier 2 Watch List after the country was previously auto-downgraded to Tier 3.

The Human Trafficking Prioritization Act builds on the successes of J/TIP and the tier ranking system for the sake of approximately 21 million people still living in modern-day slavery and, again, does so without increasing the cost of government.

The Human Trafficking Prioritization Act will give J/TIP the integration, it will give it the voice it deserves within the State Department, and it will ensure accurate accountability for countries failing to meet minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and, again, I thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership and for marking this bill up in the last Congress. We went through it in regular order. Chairman Royce, Eliot Engel, and staff were outstanding.

I also want to thank Bob Goodlatte, who has been a very strong proponent of this legislation, as well as Albio Sires, who is the chief Democratic sponsor, and our other cosponsors: Mrs. Hartzler, Carolyn Maloney, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Poe of Texas, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Yoho.

Mr. Speaker, there is no higher duty or responsibility of government than to protect children from violence and predatory behavior. We have a duty to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable. The International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking, H.R. 515, will protect children from child sex tourism by notifying destination countries when convicted pedophiles plan to travel. And to protect American children, the bill encourages the President to use bilateral agreements and assistance to establish reciprocal notification so we will know when convicted child sex offenders are coming here.

Mr. Speaker, I actually got the idea of International Megan's Law in a conversation with a Trafficking in Persons delegation from Thailand during a meeting in my office in 2007. I asked the Thai officials what would they do if we were to notify them of travel by a convicted pedophile. Each of the dozen officials said they would bar entry into their nation of such a predator.

Today will mark the third time in 8 years that this bill has passed the House--and I do hope it will pass--with strong support from both sides of the aisle, the second in its present, more streamlined form. The only change in this version is an additional clause in 8(c) underscoring the fine investigatory work of the Department of Homeland Security in the area of child exploitation and Congress' support for its continuance in Angel Watch, as well as in the investigations of the Cyber Crimes Center.

This provision is not intended to supersede notification requirements elsewhere in the bill.

I am encouraged that the Senate has signaled its support and willingness to improve commonsense U.S. procedures preventing the sex trafficking of children by high-risk predators. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the other body.

Mr. Speaker, child sex predators thrive on secrecy, a secrecy that allows them to commit heinous crimes against children. In 1994, a young girl from my district was lured into the home of a convicted pedophile who lived across the street from her. Megan Kanka, 7, was raped and murdered. No one, including Megan's parents, knew that their neighbor had been convicted of child sexual assault. The outrage over this tragedy led to the enactment of Megan's Laws--public sex offender registries--in every State in the country.

It is imperative that we take the lessons we have learned on how to protect our children from known child sex predators within our borders and expand those protections globally.

Mr. Speaker, a deeply disturbing 2010 report by the GAO, entitled ``Current Situation Results in Thousands of Passports Issued to Registered Sex Offenders,'' found that at least 4,500 U.S. passports were issued to registered sex offenders in fiscal year 2008 alone.

Meanwhile, law enforcement and media reports continue to document Americans on the U.S. sex offender registries who were caught sexually abusing children in East Asia, Central and South America, and elsewhere in the world. It is the same horror movie replayed over and over.

Homeland Security's Angel Watch program has been doing an outstanding job in alerting countries about potential danger from American sex offenders. H.R. 515 would codify and streamline this excellent program, ensuring that actionable information about child sex offender travel actually gets to the destination country in time for those countries to assess the potential dangers and respond appropriately, whether that is to allow entry, deny entry or a visa, monitor travel, or limit travel. Once notified, nations are empowered to take protective action.

International Megan's Law also directs the President to include guidance in diplomacy, training, and technical assistance abroad on how other countries can create their own public or private sex offender registries similar to what we have in the United States, and how we can use these registries to alert the United States when a child sex offender is intending to travel here to abuse our children. The goal is reciprocity, reciprocal notice to protect children at home and abroad from known sex offenders.

I personally have spoken to foreign officials and nongovernment representatives who have asked me when the United States Congress is going to do something about American sex offenders who are traveling to their country to rape their children. I hear this especially in the developing world. H.R. 515, the International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking, is a serious response to that question.

I would also point out parenthetically, as the Special Representative for Combating Trafficking at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly last year, we got passed a resolution calling for this kind of noticing country to country so the secrecy is taken out of sex tourism designed to exploit and abuse children.

I urge Members to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 357, the Human Trafficking Prevention Act by the gentleman from New York, Sean Patrick Maloney.

Mr. Speaker, human trafficking is a global scourge. Time and time again, there are missed opportunities to identify and assist victims of human trafficking. This may be due to a lack of training to recognize signs of trafficking, or perhaps a hesitancy to intrude into the ``privacy'' of others.

There are numerous points of contact with the victims of trafficking, however, and at each point there are people who can intervene if they know how to identify victims of trafficking.

Traffickers often move their victims to avoid detection. Whether by plane, train or bus, they come into contact with flight attendants and the like, as well as border officials.

In July of 2010, I chaired a conference in Washington, D.C., to bring together the relevant U.S. agencies, such as the Customs

and Border Patrol, various U.S. airlines, and non-governmental organizations to focus on interdicting traffickers by training commercial transportation employees to recognize the indicators for trafficking. Speakers, including Deborah Sigmund, founder of a non- government organization called Innocents at Risk, explained how flight attendants were the ``first line of defense'' in the fight against human trafficking.

Flight attendants are in the unique position to observe a potential trafficking in progress and then call a trafficking hotline or inform the pilot to radio ahead so that the proper authorities can intervene.

Former flight attendant Nancy Rivard, President of Airline Ambassadors International, told us how she and other flight attendants compared notes one day and were shocked and dismayed at how often they had noticed what they suspected was a trafficked woman or child on their flight, but had no training or protocol to do something about it. Nancy has been doing a great deal about it ever since, training airline employees around the United States and world.

Just last year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a similar training initiative, the Blue Lightning program, to domestic U.S. airlines--including Delta, JetBlue, Allegiant, and North American Airlines. With minimal modifications, the training is also easily adaptable to bus drivers and station operators, train conductors, trucking associations, and other transportation industry professionals.

In December 2013, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, which comprises 57 countries from Europe and North America, endorsed my plan to make anti-trafficking training for airline employees, other public and commercial carriers, as well as hotel employees, a primary goal in the international strategy to combat human trafficking. In an earlier session, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCEPA) adopted my resolution to implement such training in each member country.

But what about our State Department personnel working overseas? Are they properly trained to be able to recognize the signs of this heinous crime and violation of fundamental human rights?

Current law does require that State Department personnel be trained to identify trafficking victims, and there are many fine foreign service officers tasked with addressing trafficking issues.

But, it does not prescribe any minimum training requirements. H.R. 357, the Human Trafficking Prevention Act, would mandate several minimum training requirements on this issue within the Department of State.

These would include a training course for Department personnel who deal with trafficking issues, in addition to trafficking briefings for all Ambassadors and Deputy Chiefs of Mission before they depart for their posts. The legislation also requires that annual reminders be sent to appropriate personnel on key trafficking issues related to their countries of focus.

By specifying the minimum requirements for such training, this bill strengthens the existing law. And notably, it does so at no additional cost to taxpayers.

I want to thank Mr. Maloney for authoring this measure, and adding to the body of legislation developed by the House to address this critical issue.

I thank Mrs. Noem for yielding and for the leadership that she has demonstrated, along with Congresswoman Wagner. As Judge Poe said, women of our caucus have stood up and are leading the fight to combat human trafficking with a zero tolerance policy.

This is an historic week in the House as we seek to pass 12 bills to fight human trafficking. As the prime author of the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 as well as reauthorizations of that law in 2003 and 2005, I believe the bills under consideration by the House today and tomorrow will further prevent horrific crimes of human trafficking, protect and assist victims, and aid the prosecution of those who exploit and abuse.

A special thanks to our Republican leadership, especially Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who have made this a priority for the House. Hopefully, it will be extended to the Senate, and the President will follow that lead.

When I first introduced TVPA, Trafficking Victims Protection Act, in 1998, the legislation was met with a wall of skepticism and opposition. People both inside of government and out thought the bold new legislation that included sheltering, asylum, and other protections for the victims, long jail sentences and asset confiscation for the traffickers, and tough sanctions for governments that failed to meet minimum standards was merely a solution in search of a problem.

Mr. Speaker, for most people at the time, the term ``trafficking'' applied almost exclusively to illicit drugs or weapons. Reports of vulnerable persons, especially women and children, being reduced to commodities for sale were often met with surprise and credulity or indifference. It took 2 years and numerous congressional hearings to overcome opponents and muster the votes for passage.

Now, according to the ILO, approximately 21 million people are victimized. Some put the number as high as 36 million subjected to modern-day slavery. The ILO also says that traffickers make profits in excess of $150 billion a year.

We do have a tier system. We have a trafficking office, an Ambassador at Large; we have a robust effort on the State level. Many States have passed laws that mirror what we have done on the Federal level, so that there are more tools in the tool box to put these traffickers behind bars and to liberate the women and children.

For the past 15 years, we have seen progress on a number of anti- trafficking fronts, including laws, over 300 laws around the world to combat trafficking; and an estimated 125,000 victims have been rescued worldwide.

We also, over the past decade, have had federally funded some 42 anti-human trafficking task forces and 85,000 law enforcement officers have been trained; still, there are still far too little prosecutions and far too few liberations of those who have been trafficked.

The best estimates available now are that there are at least 100,000 American children, mostly runaways. The average age of initial enslavement is 13 years old. Let me say that again: 13-year-old girls are exploited in the commercial sex industry each year.

These children, when found, are often unnecessarily charged for prostitution, fined or put in juvenile detention, when there are other options available. They need to be protected, not prosecuted.

Again, I want to thank our leadership for making this such a high priority. This is modern-day slavery. I thank my good friend and colleague for her leadership. We have got to end modern-day slavery.