Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and for her leadership, and for reminding us that this bill passed the House last year in identical form. The only thing changed are the dates, because obviously they had to be updated. It is a 12- page bill which can be very quickly read by any Member. And the only reason we have to be here is because the Senate wouldn't provide a vote on it. So the Senate just shelved it, and we are now bringing it back up on the floor.

Madam Speaker, because abortion dismembers, decapitates, or chemically poisons unborn children to death--the part of abortion that my friends on the other side of this issue have a keen reluctance to not look at and to avoid, abortion methods--we know we will soon have the pain-capable legislation on the floor, and it will come to the floor. We know that children suffer excruciating pain from dismemberment. Piece by piece, a child is literally pulled apart--arms, legs, torso, and decapitation. That is the reality of abortion, Madam Speaker.

Because of all of this, Americans have consistently demanded--and now in ever-growing numbers--that public funds not pay for abortion. I would point out to my colleagues that yesterday the Marist Poll found that 68 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions, and that includes 69 percent of women; 71 percent of the next generation, the millennials, oppose taxpayer funding for abortion.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 will save lives. We know the Hyde amendment has probably saved at least 1 million lives, children who are on soccer fields today or in school, perhaps even getting married, people who live because the Hyde amendment has been in effect since the 1970s. Over a million children are alive because of that restriction of abortion from Medicaid funding.

H.R. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals. It makes the Hyde amendment and other current funding prohibitions permanent, so they don't have to be included in the annual appropriations bills. It ensures that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms with the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President.

It provides full disclosure, transparency, and prominent display of the extent to which any health insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion. Now, that is all being done stealthily, hidden from the consumer. They have no idea when they are buying a plan that the plan is paying for abortion on demand.

Let me remind my colleagues that in the runup to passage of the Affordable Care Act, Americans were assured by President Obama himself, right there at the podium, and he said in September of 2009 that ``under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.'' That is the President's word.

He also said on March 24, 2010, in order to get a number of pro-life Democrats, he gave them his word and wrote that the Affordable Care Act ``maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' Nothing, Madam Speaker, could be further from the truth.

We asked the General Accountability Office last year to look into how many of these plans were paying for abortion. They came back and said well over 1,000 insurance plans on the exchange were funding abortion on demand, completely contrary to what our President told us would be the case in a speech to all of us in 2009 and then in an executive order that he issued.

Agree or disagree on the abortion issue, but let's always be truthful. President Obama told us funding wouldn't be in there, yet it is.

There is also problems with transparency. Senator Ben Nelson, in order to procure his vote, said there has to be two payments for abortion if it is included when the bill is on the Senate side.

He said: ``If you are receiving Federal assistance to buy insurance and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately, and you must pay separately from your own personal funds--perhaps a credit card transaction, your separate personal check, or automatic withdrawal from your bank account--for that abortion coverage. Now, let me say that again. You have to write two checks: one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion.''

That is not being implemented either, so the premium is all rolled into one. Again, conscientious pro-life Americans who do not want to be complicit in the wounding of women and the killing of babies are paying for

abortion, and many of them don't even know it.

I hope that Members will vote for the rule, and to those who think that there will be no debate and vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, that will come to the floor; and, again, you defend dismemberment abortions at 20 weeks, 21 weeks, 23 weeks, where the child suffers excruciating pain.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues that H.R. 7 passed last year. It passed with an overwhelming majority. It is the same bill. It went through regular order. Hearings and a markup were held, and the legislation came through regular order in the House of Representatives. The problem has been the Senate, which has refused to take up this bill for well over a year, so we are back to take up a bill that has already been approved by the House in regular order.

Let me remind my colleagues as well that, next week, we will be taking up a number of bills that will combat human trafficking. Madam Speaker, I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Americans' landmark law to combat the hideous crime of sex trafficking and labor trafficking.

We have a number of important antihuman trafficking bills that passed the House but sat over on the Senate side for a year or more--some of them--including two of mine, and we are talking about bringing those bills up next week. Regular order was followed last year on those bills--just like H.R. 7. Those bills languished on the Senate side. Surely, we can come together to combat human trafficking. The flaw in the process was the Senate and its former leadership unwillingness to vote on House-passed legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Pitts so very much.

Madam Speaker, on September 9, 2009, President Obama stood 6 feet from where I stand now, right at that podium, and told lawmakers and the American public in a specially called joint session of Congress on health care reform that ``under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.''

In an eleventh hour ploy to garner a remnant of pro-life congressional Democrats--and they were convinced, and they were deceived--needed for passage of ObamaCare legislation, the President issued an executive order on March 24, 2010, and it said, in pertinent part: ``The act maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly-created health insurance exchanges.'' That is absolutely, I say to my friends, untrue.

Despite an appalling degree of nontransparency, we finally asked the Government Accountability Office to look into it. Last September, they came back and said 1,036 ObamaCare exchange plans covered abortion on demand. GAO also found that a separate billing of the abortion surcharge required by the act is not being enforced by the administration, and the abortion funding premium, again, in 2015 is being illegally rolled into the total plan costs.

Health care consumers are, therefore, unaware when they buy their health insurance whether or not they are paying for abortion on demand. If the Hyde amendment had been applied to ObamaCare, the number of ObamaCare plans covering abortion on demand would be zero.

At its core--I believe my colleagues should know this by now, some don't on this side of the aisle and some on that do--the Hyde amendment has two indisputable parts. It prohibits direct funding for abortion and funding for any insurance plan that includes abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

ObamaCare violates the Hyde amendment by funding insurance plans that pay for abortion on demand. H.R. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals: make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions current--and that includes the D.C. rider permanent; ensure that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms with the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President of the United States; and provide full disclosure, transparency, and prominent display of the extent to which any health insurance plan funds abortion on the exchanges.

Last January, the House passed H.R. 7 by a vote of 227-188. It languished in the Senate for a year--never took it up. This is the same bill. It has been through regular order. Hearings have been held, as well as markup.

The American people, Madam Speaker, strongly oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. The Marist poll that was just released yesterday found that 68 percent of all respondents oppose using taxpayer funding for abortion, and a whopping 69 percent of women are against taxpayer funding for abortion, and 71 percent of the millennials are against taxpayer funding for abortion.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend.

We live in an age of ultrasound imaging, the ultimate window to the womb and the child, that precious child, who resides there. We are in the midst of a fetal health care revolution, an explosion of benign interventions designed to diagnose, treat, and cure the precious lives of these children.

Abortion is antithetical to that. It dismembers, chemically poisons, shots to the heart, to stop the heart from beating. As you know--and I know my friend from New York is next to speak--at testimony before your committee, Dr. Levatino said--and he is an abortionist--he said the baby can be in any position in the uterus.

You just reach in with a Sopher clamp and grasp whatever you can. You pull out an arm, he went on to say. You pull out and reach in again and again, and you tear out the spine, intestine, heart, and lungs.

These are gruesome procedures. That is what abortion is all about: the dismemberment and chemical poisoning of children.

H.R. 7 will save lives. There is no doubt about that. The Hyde amendment--I remember when Henry Hyde was told that 1 million, maybe even more than 1 million children have survived because of the Hyde amendment.

Tears came down his face, knowing that those kids are now in the world, going to school, having their own families, playing soccer, and doing other great things.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, one of the things that people seem to forget here is that ObamaCare

both authorizes and appropriates the money so that it is outside the purview of the HHS appropriations bill. That is why this legislation is needed. The President promised he would apply the Hyde amendment, but he has not.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend for yielding and thank her for her strong leadership for human rights and for the unborn.

Mr. Speaker, pain--we all dread it, we avoid it, we even fear it, and we all go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and its duration; yet an entire age group of human beings are, today, subjected to a deadly, extraordinarily painful procedure, one of which is called the dismemberment method, the D&E.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a modest but necessary attempt to at least protect babies who are 20 weeks old and pain capable from having to suffer and die from abortion. Children, including children with disabilities, Mr. Speaker, deserve better treatment than pain-filled dismemberment.

One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Anand, at the University of Tennessee, stated in his expert report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice:

The human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain

from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain

perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that

perceived by term newborns or older children.

Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, said:

When we speak of infants at 20 weeks postfertilization, we

no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound

technology, because such premature patients are kicking,

moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the

neonatal intensive care unit.

In other words, there are children the same age who, in utero, can be killed by abortion--and painfully--or who have been born and who are now being given lifesaving assistance. She went on to say:

In today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this

age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth.

Dr. Malloy concludes:

I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to

horrific procedures such as those that involve limb

detachment or cardiac injection.

Again, that is what the abortionists do.

Surgeons today, Mr. Speaker, are entering the womb to perform life- enhancing and lifesaving corrective surgeries on unborn children. They have seen those babies flinch, jerk around, move around, and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. As they seek to heal, surgeons are today routinely administering anesthesia to unborn children in the womb--a best medical practice--to protect them from pain. We now know that the child ought to be treated as a patient and that there are many anomalies, sicknesses, and disabilities that could be treated with a degree of success while the child is still in utero. The child ought to be seen as a patient. When those interventions are performed, again, anesthesia is given.

Last June, TIME Magazine's cover story, ``Saving Preemies,'' explored the preemie revolution and how cutting-edge medicine and dedicated caregivers are helping the tiniest babies to survive and thrive. TIME says:

Thanks to advances that had not been made even a few years

ago, the odds of surviving and thriving are improving all the

time.

Abortionists, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, are in the business of ensuring that children neither survive nor thrive. Children, including children with disabilities, deserve better treatment than pain-filled dismemberment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of our Special Order.

I yield to the distinguished gentlelady from Missouri, Ann Wagner.

I want to thank Ms. Wagner for her very eloquent statement and for her long service on behalf of the unborn and equally for their mothers as well.

I yield to Tim Walberg.

I now yield to the gentleman from Indiana, Marlin Stutzman.

I want to thank my friend for his, again, very fine statement and for his leadership as well.

I yield to Chris Stewart from Utah.

Mr. Stewart, thank you very much for your statement and your leadership as well.

I now yield to Mr. Yoho, the gentleman from Florida.

I now yield to Doug LaMalfa from California.

I thank the gentleman for his incisive comments and for welcoming the marchers tomorrow, which will be a great celebration of life but also a restatement of the determination we have in defending life.

I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

I thank Mr. Rothfus for his statement today. He has been a true rising star and a leader in defending the sanctity of life.

I now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a physician who has delivered over 5,000 babies.

Thank you very much for your kind statement, and also for your leadership both as a physician, a obstetrician, and also as a lawmaker. It has made a huge difference. I want to say that publicly. You provide insight and guidance that all of us benefit from.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Thank you very much for sharing that very personal story, which is very touching.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Huizenga. I want to thank you, Bill, for your leadership on pro-life issues in general, but especially for your legislation that deals with the detainees issue because that could quickly emerge as a trouble spot if we are paying for abortions of people who make it across the border. That would be unconscionable to think that we would be enabling the killing of those precious children, so thank you.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Thank you very much, Mr. Latta.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Thank you, Chairman Mica.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Joe Pitts, and just before I do, I note that Mr. Pitts not only chairs the Subcommittee on Health for the Energy and Commerce Committee, but prior to coming to Washington, he was one of the prime authors of a sweeping pro-life law in Pennsylvania that has saved countless lives.

Thank you very much, Mr. Pitts. Again, I want to thank you for your leadership both at the State and, now, Federal level, especially as chairman of the committee that deals with health. Thank you so much.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who has also been an outspoken champion of the right to life.

Thank you, Doug.

I would like to now close, and I want to thank my distinguished colleagues for their eloquent statements in defense of life.

Mr. Speaker, 42 years ago tomorrow marks the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous, reckless, and inhumane abandonment of women and babies to the abortionists--42 years of victims, dead babies, wounded women, shattered families; 42 years of government-sanctioned violence against women and children. Since 1973, more than 56 million--maybe 57 million--children have been killed by abortion--a staggering loss of children's lives, a death toll that equates to the entire population of England.

The passage of time has not changed the fact that abortion is a serious, lethal violation of fundamental human rights. Rather than gull our consciences to the unmitigated violence of abortion, however, the passage of time has only enabled us to see better and to understand better the innate cruelty of abortion and its horrific legacy-- victims--while making us more determined than ever to protect the weakest and most vulnerable.

In his inaugural speech, President Obama said in pertinent part:

Together, we resolve that a great nation must care for the

vulnerable, that all are created equal, and our journey is

not complete until all our children are cared for and

cherished and always safe from harm.

Yes, Mr. President. We must care for the vulnerable, but that also includes unborn children and their mothers. No one gets left out or left behind. All people are created equal, and our journey is not complete until all of our children, including the child in the womb, are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.

Last night, right here in this Chamber, the President said to tell every child in every neighborhood, ``Your life matters.'' Again, Mr. Speaker, the President is leaving out a whole class of human beings, who because of the fact they are in utero--the fact that they are yet to be born--they are construed to be excluded from humanity and, therefore, from their basic human rights. It is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker. It is unconscionable.

Let me also say, in talking about victims, a couple of years ago, I met a woman named Linda Shrewsbury--an

academic, an African American, with a degree from Harvard, who had an abortion. She said:

The lies that brought me to that day and to its sorrowful

aftermath are crystal clear in my mind--falsehoods and

deceptions that concealed the truth about abortion. Lies

planted in my thinking by clever marketing and media

campaigns and endless repetition led to a tragic,

irreversible decision--the death of my first child.

Ms. Shrewsbury went on to say:

I really didn't understand back then. At age 20, I had no

inkling of the mental and emotional darkness I was about to

enter. I couldn't have grasped the immense psychological toll

it would take for years into the future--unrelenting tears,

guilt, shame, and depression. After spending many years in

denial, I did eventually find healing.

Linda goes on to say:

When I understood and rejected distortions about fetal

development, doublespeak about choice, rights, and planned

and wanted children, I understood the reality and victimhood

of my aborted child.

She went on and concluded:

I understood the absence of moral basis for choosing to

disentitle an innocent human being of life. When I embraced

the truth, the truth set me free, and I, finally, gained

inner peace.

Some of my colleagues have mentioned the historic vote that we will take tomorrow on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, as you know, is a modest but necessary attempt to at least protect babies who are 20 weeks old and who are pain capable from having to suffer and die from abortion.

I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I, like, I think, most people, avoid pain at almost all costs. When I have surgeries--when anyone has surgeries--I am put locally or generally under anesthesia so that I do not have to feel the pain. The unborn child, when he or she is getting an intervention to help cure a disability or to deal with disease or illness, gets anesthesia because we now know beyond any reasonable doubt that unborn children who are at least at 20-weeks' gestation feel that pain.

When the abortionist commits a D&E abortion or one of the other abortions--D&E is literally a way of dismembering the child--they feel this pain--``they'' being the children--and it is excruciating. Children, including children with disabilities, deserve better treatment than pain-filled dismemberment.

I would point out to my colleagues the expert testimony of Dr. Anthony Levatino's before the House Judiciary Committee. He is a former abortionist who has performed hundreds of dismemberment abortions. He described D&E. He said:

The baby can be in any position inside the uterus. Just

reach in with a Sopher clamp, and grasp whatever you can.

The former abortionist went on to say:

Pull really hard, and out pops an arm. Reach in again and

again, and tear out the spine, intestines, heart, and lungs.

Pull out a severed arm. Tear out the spine, intestines, heart, and lungs. This is child abuse, Mr. Speaker. Not only is this assault on a child inhumane, it is extremely painful as the child experiences that dismemberment. Again, I say that children, including children with disabilities, deserve better treatment than pain-filled dismemberment.

Again, tomorrow is the March for Life, and there will be tens of thousands of people there who are speaking out for the unborn and equally for their mothers. There will be numbers of women there from the Silent No More Awareness Campaign--all women who have had abortions and who now speak out eloquently and with great compassion to say to women who are post-abortive that there is hope, that there is reconciliation. Face the truth, and that is the beginning to that reconciliation.

We will be there tomorrow, praying, working, of course--even fasting--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, when every life is welcomed no matter the inconvenience.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for the Cuban people, who have suffered for so many decades under the brutal regime of the Castro brothers, and to thank my colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her leadership in calling for statements on the record on the deplorable human rights situation in Castro's Cuba.

Her leadership and moral clarity on this issue stands in contrast to that of the Obama Administration, which once again has demonstrated its fecklessness. The events of this past weekend--where the absence of our President among so many bold Heads of State who marched in Paris for freedom and against extremism was so glaring--underscores how this Administration scorns our friends while coddling this country's enemies. The disregard this Administration showed for the people of France is part of a pattern, a pattern of contempt which includes disrespect to our great ally Canada and Prime Minister Harper over the crucial Keystone pipeline, which includes allowing Administration spokesmen to insult Israel's courageous Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu in the most juvenile fashion, and which includes abandonment of our Polish and Czech allies when they sought to base a missile shield in their countries in 2009.

By this move to normalize relations with Cuba without consultation with either Congress or the State Department, and without holding the Castro regime to minimum standards of protection of human rights and commitment to democracy as prerequisites to negotiations, the Administration betrays the aspirations of the Cuban people while embracing the brutal dictators and oligarchs who turned an island paradise into a gulag.

Again, there is a pattern here, a pattern of embracing our enemies, be it Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the mullahs of Iran, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, whose rise this Administration helped facilitate. And with each embrace of dictatorships and murderous regimes, the Administration showed its contempt for the downtrodden of these countries--the masses of people in Venezuela who suffered first under the dictator Chavez and now suffer under his understudy in oppression, Nicolas Maduro, who continues to persecute democracy advocates such as Leopoldo Lopez.

This Administration was also silent when the Muslim Brotherhood Morsi regime oppressed the Coptic minority in Egypt, and it lifted no fingers to support the people of Iran during their peaceful Green Revolution protests in the wake of the 2009 election in that country, which were met with batons and pepper spray.

And now the President embraces the Castro brothers, who were tutors to Hugo Chavez in the ways of oppression and whose support of so-called revolutionary movements has brought so much suffering to countries in Latin America and around the world. Let's be clear about this: Cuba has been a state sponsor of terrorism, supporting violence against allies of the United States such as Colombia.

I have been a consistent supporter of the Cuban people in resisting tyranny. I am fortunate to have known many great Cuban dissidents, first and foremost Armando Valladares, whose autobiography Against All Hope was a first-hand account of Castro's tyranny, on par with the great work of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I have also stood with the Ladies in White, or Las Damas de Blanco, and courageous leaders such as Ivonne Malleza Galano, and with heroes such as Dr. Oscar Biscet, a medical doctor and courageous human rights advocate who testified before our human rights subcommittee in February 2012 on ``Further Human Rights Violations in Castro's Cuba: The Continued Abuse of Political Prisoners.''

Dr. Biscet's story is far too commonplace to ignore. For the QUOTE UNQUOTE ``crime'' of organizing meetings on behalf of human rights, Dr. Biscet was first arrested and detained by Cuban police in 1999 along with two dozen other advocates. He was released after 5 days, but was rearrested again later that year, this time spending three years in prison. After he got out, he was rearrested a third time in December 2002, beaten and released. Presumably, the Castro regime saw his beating as sufficient warning not to speak out in defense of liberty and human dignity. When he continued to do so, however, the Castro regime arrested him a fourth time, in March 2003, and sentenced him to 25 years in prison.

Fortunately, the Catholic Church intervened to secure his release and that of 50 other unjustly-jailed dissidents in March 2011. He was able to testify via phone at our hearing from Cuba from the US mission. To this day he is unable to leave the Island, prevented by the Castro Brothers.

Dr. Biscet is just one example of the many who suffer under the Castro Brothers. I join my voice with those of my colleagues to express my dismay that the Administration would squander so much leverage in seeking this rapprochement with Cuba, and not doing more to gain concessions from the Castro regime to advance the cause of human rights, offering so much in exchange for so little.

Despite today's news confirming that Cuba released 53 dissidents, which we welcome, since the Administration announced that it would seek normalization of relations with Cuba, hundreds have been arrested, and critics of the government who thought this might signal a new openness continue to be suppressed. This includes Cuban artist Tania Bruguera, who along with other freedom advocates was detained following her attempt to speak and assembly freely in Havana's Revolutionary Square.

There should be no easing of the pressure until Cuba has met definitive and concrete human rights and democratic milestones. Among this is the release of all political prisoners, the end of harassment and a policy of releasing and then re-jailing, the ending of restrictions on freedom of speech and the press, and on the rights of Assembly. Moreover, the Church must be allowed to conduct its affairs fully and freely without government interference.

And, finally, the Castro regime must be held to account for their harboring of some seventy fugitives from justice, including Joanne Chesimard, who was convicted of killing a state trooper from my home state of New Jersey in 1973, Werner Foerster, leaving his then-young wife a widow. The events of the past several weeks remind us how political violence done in the name of ideology destroys lives and creates deep divisions in the fabric of our society. That this Administration would fail to condition normalization upon the return of fugitives such as Joanne Chesimard, who is on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list, shows where its priorities are.

In closing, I want to assure the Cuban people that I will do everything to make sure that human rights milestones are met before our government makes concessions that are effectively unilateral, squandering leverage. Mind you, this lifeline thrown by the Obama Administration to the Castro regime came at a time when Cuba's oil patrons, Russia and Venezuela, were themselves hurting for cash, and unable to continue subsidizing the regime in Cuba.

To that end, I plan to hold a hearing on the human rights situation in Cuba, focusing in particular on the plight of Afro-Cubans. I also intend to seek a visa to go to Cuba, so I can meet with political prisoners languishing in jail and visit churches, which are spheres independent of government control. I have on multiple occasions sought a visa, only to never have one granted. I say to the Cuban regime--if today marks a new day of openness, then prove it, and let one of your most consistent critics visit Cuba and have freedom of movement to meet with victims of the regime. And, finally, I will introduce legislation to make sure that human rights are not forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Frank Wolf of Virginia will cast his last vote this week, capping off a remarkable 34-year career of altruistic deeds, selfless service, bold humanitarian initiatives, and durable achievement.

Both of us got elected in 1980, the Ronald Reagan class. Many of us wanted to have a Special Order tomorrow night, including the gentleman from Virginia, Bob Goodlatte, to honor him. But he said, ``Absolutely not.'' That is the kind of guy he is. He never seeks any attention. But I am here today. Tough. I am going to speak about him.

At home and overseas, Frank Wolf, the William Wilberforce of the United States House of Representatives, has been an indefatigable defender of human rights and human dignity. Last week, WORLD magazine named Frank Wolf the 2014 Daniel of the Year.

Whether it be helping a young mother in a refugee camp in Sudan or political prisoners in Russia or jailed pastors in China or any number of the marginalized and persecuted, Frank Wolf has always sought to rescue and to protect.

Frank Wolf is the author of the landmark International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which established both an independent commission and a State Department office led by an ambassador at large wholly dedicated to safeguarding--via sanctions, if necessary--religious freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I saw firsthand his devotion to human rights in a myriad of ways, including trips with Frank to a prison camp in the Soviet Union, the infamous Perm camp 35; a gulag in China, Beijing prison number 2, right after Tiananmen Square; Vukovar, a city under military siege during the war in Yugoslavia; and Romania on behalf of persecuted believers, just to name a few. He has chaired the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission with great distinction.

A man of deep Christian faith, Frank Wolf not only passionately believes in Jesus Christ but ``walks'' as St. Paul admonishes us, in a way worthy of his calling. Frank Wolf is a devoted family man. He, along with his wife, Carolyn, have five adult children and 16 grandchildren, all of whom are the apples of his eye.

In his district, Frank Wolf has delivered as well. His casework is superb and responsive; his staff reflects their boss' commitment to assist and to solve problems big and small.

As chairman of several Appropriations subcommittees over the years-- including his latest assignment as chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science--he has authored nine major appropriations laws, including five transportation statutes that funded major projects in his district and throughout the Nation.

Frank Wolf's many other accomplishments include: His bipartisan Bring Jobs Back to America Act, designed to return manufacturing jobs to the U.S. from countries like China; raising awareness of the growing threat from cyber attacks; efforts to address America's unconscionable debt-- it is $18 trillion now--through bipartisan reforms; the formation of two anti-gang task forces operating in the region, as well as the creation of the National Gang Intelligence Center in the FBI; and the funding of the 103-mile Metrorail system.

He led the way in obtaining about $1 billion to extend Metrorail through Tysons and out to Dulles Airport and to Loudon County. He pushed for lower carpool restrictions on I-66 and has helped many commuters get to the Capitol and to Washington. He led efforts to place Ronald Reagan Washington National and Washington Dulles International airports under a regional authority, providing the capital to build a new terminal at Reagan National and vastly expand Dulles.

He has been a leader in fighting with great tenacity Lyme disease. He has fought to address hunger by creating the Feds Feed Families food drive, which has generated more than 15 million pounds of donated food. And in 2014, he put language into an omnibus bill to create the National Commission on Hunger.

And one of the Nation's newest national parks is in his 10th District, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park, established in 2002 through yet another one of Frank's laws.

Finally, let me make it clear: Frank Wolf's departure from the House is only the end of his current place of service to humanity and marks a new beginning, a transition to the private sector, where he will continue and even expand upon his extraordinary life's work.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5656) to authorize the Feed the Future Initiative to reduce global poverty and hunger in developing countries on a sustainable basis, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Global Food Security Act, H.R. 5656, is a bipartisan bill with 21 cosponsors, including Betty McCollum, our lead Democrat, who has worked very hard on this issue.

I would also like to thank House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, Ranking Member Eliot Engel, Ranking Member Bass. I would like to thank Jeff Fortenberry, who has played a key role, as well as Erik Paulsen and, again, other Members who have joined across the aisle to work on this legislation and to work on the language.

I also want to thank the staff that worked tirelessly on this. In particular, Jenn Holcomb, Kelly Stone from Congresswoman McCollum's office; Joan Condon, Katy Crosby, and Janice Kaguyutan from the full committee; and from my own staff, Pierro Tozzi. Thank you so much for your work in helping to make this bill a reality and bringing it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation which will help provide a long-term solution to global hunger by authorizing and strengthening the existing national food security program coordinated by USAID, commonly known as Feed the Future. This program strengthens nutrition, especially for children during the critical first 1,000-day window-- from conception to the child's second birthday. It also teaches small- scale farmers--in particular, women--the requisite techniques and best practices to increase agricultural yield, thereby helping nations achieve food security, which is something that is, first and foremost, humane but also in the national security interests of the United States.

As USAID Administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah has pointed out--who, I want to point out, parenthetically, has done a tremendous job as the Administrator of USAID--this program encourages self-sufficiency and operates in targeted countries where the host governments have committed to investing in local agricultural development and to undertaking reforms that allow the private sector to flourish. Its hallmarks are the building of local capacity and sustainability, as well as resiliency in linking local entrepreneurs to the global economy, while boosting transparency and accountability.

The end result of this can be seen in lives saved and in lives enriched. In the past year, the Feed the Future program has helped 7 million farmers across the globe to increase harvests, resulting in improved nutrition for some 12.5 million children. To give one example, in Ethiopia, stunting rates were driven down by some 9 percent in just 3 years, resulting in, roughly, 160,000 fewer children suffering from malnutrition.

Yet, today, even though progress has been made, malnutrition is the underlying cause of death for at least 3.1 million children per year around the world and is responsible for 45 percent of all deaths among children under 5. More than 800,000 babies--one in four newborns--die each year because they are born too soon or they are too small as a result of poor maternal nutrition.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first laws that I wrote over 30 years ago was the Child Survival Fund--a $50 million program that included vaccinating kids to protect against preventable diseases like polio, pertussis, and diphtheria, as well as oral rehydration for kids at risk of death from repeated bouts of diarrheal disease. What we discovered then was that, for mere pennies on the dollar, we could intervene before problems arose, not only saving lives but also saving money in the long term. This Global Food Security Act has the potential to be equally transformative in the lives of so many.

Malnutrition, in addition to death, leads to the stunted growth of children. Stunted children become adults who suffer from diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease--conditions that not only result in poor health but that also impede earning capacity and result in lower incomes. Of particular concern, women affected by stunting give birth to children who are also likely to be afflicted by this preventable condition, perpetuating the cycle of malnutrition and of poverty.

Adequate nutrition for pregnant women, lactating moms, and all women and adolescent girls of childbearing age needs to be prioritized in food policies for the sake of children, women, and, by extension, nations. By ensuring comprehensive prenatal, maternal, and robust support, including nutrition--again, through that first 1,000 days of life--government health workers, civil society, and others will not only prevent many deaths, but children will be stronger, healthier, happier; their immune systems will be boosted; and as they matriculate to adulthood, they will be more prosperous. If women of childbearing age are well-nourished, they are healthier and are able to provide nourishment for their children.

I remember being in so many refugee camps. At a Darfur refugee camp, on one of many trips to Africa, I remember the women there were so concerned that they would be able to breastfeed their children, but they were so malnourished that that was next to impossible. After several weeks, they were able to do so.

I should also add, when these children--healthy children--get this kind of help, it also ensures greater not only physical but cognitive development. Healthy children thrive and are empowered to become healthy adults. Again, they can make, because of that, meaningful contributions to their families and society.

Finally, I note that the program authorized by H.R. 5656 is not only penny-wise, but it is also pound-wise. It is economical in the long run, and it should lead to a reduction in the amount of money we spend on emergency food aid. A comprehensive food security strategy outlined in the bill, as well as in the policy, also helps us to do more with less by leveraging our aid with that of other countries, the private sector, NGOs, and especially faith-based organizations, whose great work on the ground in so many different countries impacts so many lives.

By statutorily authorizing this program, which has its roots in the Bush administration and was formalized by President Obama and, thus, is an example of bipartisan success on both the executive and legislative levels, we are also increasing oversight by requiring the administration to report to Congress.

H.R. 5656 demonstrates, again, strong bipartisan support that does exist for assistance, and it is a strategy that truly gives people the tools to let themselves out of poverty and to live healthier and better lives.

I implore you, my colleagues, to vote in favor of it, and, hopefully, this legislation can become law by the end of this session.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of the Appropriations Committee and also one of the sponsors of the legislation before us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is also one of the sponsors of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas) for his leadership. This truly is a bipartisan bill. I want to again say how grateful I am to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Betty McCollum, to be working with her and her staff. Our staffs are all trying to make sure we have a bill that will make a huge difference not only in putting our arms around the existing program but in strengthening it and taking it to the next level.

I do want to point out that this is about a whole of government strategy:

all in on the part of the U.S. Government so that everyone is working on all six cylinders to make sure that sustainable development occurs throughout the world in target countries and, as those targets increase, that it is totally inclusive of women.

When we worked on issues like microtargeting, we found--particularly in most parts of Africa--that women have really stepped up to the plate and have done yeoman's work. They are fully included in this effort.

Again, I want to thank all of my colleagues. I want to thank the leadership, the gentleman from California, Kevin McCarthy, and Speaker Boehner, for making sure that this legislation got to the floor. Our hope is that the Senate may take it up. If not, we will be right back here next year. But I do hope that they will take it up because delay is denial. This is an important piece of legislation that will save lives.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I convened a hearing that was the first in a series probing the question whether China's `soft power' educational initiatives are undermining academic freedom at U.S. schools and universities. We see it manifested primarily in two ways. The first is in the building of satellite campuses in China for American universities, where Chinese ``rules of engagement'' are said to hold sway--in other words, places where no criticism of the government, or promotion of democracy and freedom, is allowed. Second, we see it in the myriad outposts of Chinese soft power that have opened on campuses throughout the United States, so-called ``Confucius Institutes,'' whose curricula integrates Chinese Government policy on contentious issues such as Tibet and Taiwan and whose hiring practices explicitly exclude Falun Gong practitioners. It should be noted that we are seeing emerging faculty opposition to these Institutes, as well as to the all-too cozy and lucrative arrangements which American universities have with institutions affiliated with the Chinese government.

This prompts us, however, to ask the question: Is American higher education for sale? And, if so, are U.S. colleges and universities undermining the principle of academic freedom--and, in the process, their credibility--in exchange for China's education dollars?

A number of years ago the author James Mann wrote a book called ``The China Fantasy,'' where he recounts how in the 1990s some American business leaders and government officials put forward the ``fantasy'' that free trade with China would be the catalyst for political liberalism.

I was in China in the early 1990's. Despite the ongoing jailing and executions of dissidents, American businessmen in China told me that if we just trade more, the dictatorship will soon matriculate into a democracy.

As we all now know now, China has failed to democratize, despite increases in the standard of living of its citizens. Political repression is an all-too-common occurrence. Yet U.S. policy toward China continues to overlook abuses of fundamental human rights for the sake of business opportunities and economic interest.

But what about U.S. universities, who often tout their adherence to higher ideals, and equate their ``non-profit'' status of a badge of good citizenship which puts them above reproach. Perhaps they too are engaged in their own version of a ``China fantasy,'' willing to accept limitations on the very principles and freedoms that are the foundation of the U.S. system of higher education, justifying quiet compromises they would never entertain at home by telling themselves that they are helping bring about change in China.

As Dr. Perry Link brilliantly argued, these compromises often take the form of self-censorship of what universities and faculty teach, who they invite to speak, what fellows they accept in residence. So long as the dragon is not provoked, they think they will be allowed to continue doing their work, slowly changing China from the inside. But are these American universities changing China, or is China changing these American universities?

What is the reason that New York University, for example, terminated the fellowship of the world class human rights advocate and hero, Chen Guangcheng? NYU is one of those prestigious universities for which China built a campus, a satellite of the university in Shanghai. Though the Chinese Government laid out the funds, the transaction involved a moral cost: As certain members of the NYU faculty wrote in a letter to the university's Board of Trustees, the circumstances surrounding the launch of NYU satellite campus

in Shanghai and the ending of Chen's residence created a ``public perception, accurate or otherwise, that NYU made commitments in order to operate in China.''

We have repeatedly invited NYU's President and faculty to testify before this committee, without success. On five separate occasions, we gave NYU 15 dates to appear. As this is the first hearing in a series of hearings we intend to hold on this topic, I hope that they will agree to come at another time, so they can fully state their case.

On a personal note, I spent considerable time with Chen Guangcheng when he first came to the United States, having worked his case since 2004 which included four Congressional hearings exclusively dedicated to his freedom. It is my impression that NYU officials and others sought to isolate him from supporters viewed as too conservative or from those they considered Chinese dissidents. We may never know if NYU experienced what Chen himself termed as ``persistent and direct pressure from China'' to oust him, or if it was simply an act of prudent self-censorship to keep in Beijing's good graces.

I don't know the answer, but it is my conviction that self- censorship and the chilling effect this has is an even more pernicious threat to fundamental freedoms and the principle of academic freedom. One of our witnesses, the respected academic Dr. Perry Link, has made this case repeatedly over the years, drawing on his own personal experiences, and I thank him for being here today.

We were not there to re-litigate the sad divorce of Chen Guangcheng and NYU. It is only a small, disheartening part of the larger issue: whether American universities will compromise academic freedom to get a piece of the lucrative Chinese education market which is roughly $27 billion dollars a year.

The hearing I held last week marked the beginning of a long hard look at the costs and benefits of the growing number of Chinese educational partnerships started by U.S. universities and colleges, including exchange programs and satellite campuses in China and Confucius Institutes in the U.S.

While foreign educational partnerships are important endeavors--for students, collaborative research, cultural understanding, and even for the host country--I think we all can agree that U.S. colleges and universities should not be outsourcing academic control, faculty and student oversight, or curriculum to a foreign government. Unfortunately, there is now some evidence emerging that gives rise to the need for this hearing.

The American Association of University Professors, or AAUP, along with its sister organization in Canada, published a report in July, blasting the Confucius Institute model as a partnership ``that sacrificed the integrity of the [host] university and its academic staff'' by requiring ``unacceptable concessions'' that allow ``the Confucius Institutes to advance a state agenda in the recruitment and control of academic staff, in the choice of curriculum, and in the restriction of debate.''

The AAUP concluded by saying that ``Confucius Institutes function as an arm of the Chinese state and are allowed to ignore academic freedom'' and recommended shutting down U.S. Confucius Institutes unless they could meet certain standards of academic freedom and transparency.

The Confucius Institutes are China's major soft power push, an attempt to increase the number of young people studying (and ideally coming to admire) Chinese culture and language. This is not harmful in itself, for Chinese culture and language--as distinct from its political culture--is, indeed, admirable. But while some U.S. university administrators say the influence of Confucius Institutes is benign, University of Chicago professor Marshal Salhins, has called Confucius Institutes ``academic malware'' inimical to the U.S. model of academic freedom.

What we should do is welcome U.S.-China educational partnerships that promote cultural understanding and critical language skills and protect academic freedom, that allow the teaching of sensitive topics, and are not subject to any of the same rules that govern Chinese academic institutions--where professors are fired or jailed for exercising the universal right to free speech.

Indeed, there is a U.S. national security interest in having U.S. students learn Chinese, but such language skills should be taught on our terms and without the baggage brought by Confucius Institute ties. And, if those freedoms are violated or compromised, we need to find some recourse, whether through withholding Department of Education funds or State Department exchange program funds from schools that willingly compromise the principles of academic freedom and human rights to gain a small share of the Chinese educational market.

I will be asking for a GAO study to review the agreements of both satellite campuses in China and of Confucius Institutes in the U.S. I would like to know if those agreements are public, whether they compromise academic or other freedoms of faculty, students, and workers and whether Chinese teachers are allowed the freedom to worship as they please and teach about Tiananmen, Tibet, and Taiwan.

I will also ask the GAO to study whether U.S. satellite campuses in China operate differently from Chinese universities and whether there is a two-tier system in place, where Chinese students and faculty have more restrictions placed their activities and research than U.S. students and faculty. I will also ask whether Communist Party committees operate on campus, whether fundamental freedoms are protected for both Chinese and U.S. students and faculty--religious freedom, Internet freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and whether the universities are required to enforce China's draconian population control policies.

These are important questions. We need to look at whether these issues can be handled by the universities, their faculties, and trustees themselves or if there is something the U.S. Congress must do to ensure academic freedom is protected.

U.S. universities and colleges should reflect and protect the highest principles of freedom and transparency. They should be islands of freedom where foreign students and faculty can enjoy the fundamental freedoms denied them in their own country.

Thank you, Dr. Roe, for yielding and also for helping bring this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2921, which would designate the VA community-based outpatient clinic in Galesburg, Illinois, as the Lane A. Evans VA Community Based Outpatient Clinic.

As a cosponsor of the House version of the bill, I appreciate the work that both the House and Senate VA Committees have done and the leadership of both Chambers to bring this bill to the floor. I especially want to thank Senator Durbin for authorizing this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, for 24 years, Lane Evans served with distinction as the Representative of Illinois' 17th Congressional District. We mourn his tragic

passing last month at the age of 63. Even as he suffered from Parkinson's disease, Mr. Speaker, Lane Evans heroically and tenaciously fought for veterans in the years leading up to his retirement in 2007.

When Congressman Evans retired, the Vietnam Veterans of America said:

Lane's compassion for his fellow veterans and his

commitment to do right by them has come right from the heart.

As ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee during my tenure as chairman of the committee, I saw firsthand how he turned his knowledge, compassion, and expertise--his heart--into effective advocacy and how he worked to make a tangible difference in the lives of veterans and their families around the country.

Mr. Speaker, during our tenure as chair and ranking member, we were able to craft and shepherd into law numerous bills that expanded care and service for our Nation's veterans, including expansion of the GI Bill and assistance to homeless veterans.

Lane's commitment to ensuring that men and women who wore the uniform had timely access to world class medical treatment that they have earned was, in a word, extraordinary.

Of particular interest to Lane, a Vietnam veteran himself, was health care for veterans exposed to agent orange during their service in Vietnam. Throughout the 1980s, it was an honor to work side by side with Lane and others, like Congressman Tom Daschle, in an effort to convince a highly reluctant Department of Veterans Affairs and Pentagon that agent orange severely injured many who served in Vietnam.

In 1991, Lane introduced the Veterans' Compensation Amendments of 1991, which became part of the Agent Orange Act, to provide presumptive service-connected disability assistance to veterans with diseases linked to agent orange; thus the gentleman from Illinois helped ensure that veterans received the care and the compensation they deserved, while not being saddled with the onerous burden of proof for injuries due to exposure to a herbicide that was laced with dioxin.

It is, therefore, highly fitting to name a community-based outpatient clinic after a remarkable lawmaker who fought hard for veterans, health care, and compensation during his time in Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me and all the leadership here on the floor in supporting S. 2921 to honor the legacy of Congressman Evans as a remarkable veterans' advocate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as co-chair of the Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease to help raise awareness about the impact of Alzheimer's and the importance of increasing federal resources to assist individuals, families and caregivers.

In the United States, Alzheimer's has reached epidemic proportions. Today, the disease--a degenerative condition for which there is no cure or any effective treatment--is the 6th leading cause of death in our country, with a 68 percent increase in deaths caused by Alzheimer's within the last 10 years. Over 5.2 million Americans currently have this form of dementia and the number of family members and caregivers affected reaches more than 15 million. In my home state of New Jersey, an estimated 170,000 Garden State residents suffer from Alzheimer's, and 443,000 caregivers provided unpaid care. As our elderly population grows, the number of Americans affected by this disease is expected to triple by 2050.

The economic consequences of Alzheimer's are immense, and resources and assistance must be allocated appropriately to change the trajectory of the disease. Alzheimer's currently costs Americans $150 billion annually in Medicare and Medicaid programs alone. By 2050, care of Alzheimer's patients could reach $850 billion in Medicare and Medicaid costs. Including out of pocket and other expenses, the number totals one trillion.

Sharing the impact of the disease are the 15 million family members and others who act as caregivers and provide an estimated 17 billion hours of unpaid care--often relinquishing their jobs and other obligations to do so. These caregivers also endure significantly high rates of physical and emotional stress while attending to their loved ones. While their sacrifices are born of love and remain personally priceless, the economic costs of unpaid care are estimated to exceed $200 billion annually.

Research and preventative services are important tools that not only raise the quality of life for patients and families but serve as an investment that will reduce future costs. Accordingly, I worked with former Congressman, now Senator, Ed Markey (D-MA)--then Co-Chair of the Task Force--in 2010 to write the House-version of the National Alzheimer's Project Act (NAPA) which became Public Law 111-375. Our legislation established the ambitious goal of preventing and successfully treating Alzheimer's disease by 2025 in the United States, and required an annual National Plan to achieve this goal.

It is vital that we commit ourselves fully to this objective and time is of the essence.

We must make a robust investment in research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institutes on Aging (NIA). The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS & Education recently approved their FY 2015 bill, which calls for an additional $100 million in funding at the NIA. This funding will go a long way toward meeting the goals laid out in NAPA.

But we can do better--not only with funding but with better information and planning.

On that note, the Subcommittee also included language directing NIH to submit a professional judgment budget for Alzheimer's disease research. As a cosponsor of the Alzheimer's Accountability Act (H.R. 4351), I firmly believe that unfiltered information specifying the resources necessary to meet the goals and objectives laid out in the National Plan would provide Congress with a valuable tool for setting research and service priorities.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Rep. Maxine Waters--the current Co-chair of the Task Force--and I sent a letter to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Appropriations Committee requesting that they include the Senate Subcommittee's funding level and the language requiring a professional judgment budget in the coming spending package.

I urge my colleagues to accept this request and work with the Task Force to continue to boost funding for Alzheimer's research and services in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act or ``the ABLE Act,'' legislation I cosponsored that is designed to improve the quality of life for individuals with disabilities by assisting in long- term financial planning.

As the founder and co-chair of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, I understand the financial demands of raising a child with support needs. Education, housing, transportation, employment support, medical care, and other life expenses can quickly add up for persons with disabilities.

A study published this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics found that the lifetime cost for an individual with ASD averages $1.4 million. These costs jump to $2.4 million when autism involves intellectual disability--an estimated 40 percent of individuals with autism also have intellectual disability.

Unfortunately, under current law, saving more than $2,000 jeopardizes access to services and supports, such as Social Security and Medicaid. If enacted, the ABLE Act--which establishes tax-exempt accounts, similar to the current 529 Education Savings Plans--will no longer force parents to choose between saving for their child's future and sacrificing the assistance their child requires.

I commend Speaker Boehner for bringing this bill to the floor today. It is especially timely for the autism community as we continue to address the looming crisis of aging out. Every year, 50,000 age-out of their support system and into a society that disincentivizes employment and financial security. Enactment of my legislation--the Autism CARES Act--earlier this year began the conversation of how to better address the needs of individuals with ASD who are aging out and we have much work to do.

The ABLE Act is a step in the right direction. While I have concerns regarding the Medicare physician services offsets, ABLE accounts are a sensible and fiscally responsible tool that will benefit some of the most vulnerable members of our society. It is a smart piece of legislation to assist families in saving and planning for the long-term needs of individuals with disabilities and a more secure future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleagues Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Deutch who worked on the House version of this much-needed and timely bill.

This substantive bill expands our relationship with our closest ally by formally declaring Israel a ``major strategic partner'' of the U.S. It provides for increased cooperation in many spheres, including homeland security, cyber security, defense and intelligence, as well as water, energy, agriculture, and alternative fuels. This will send a signal to Israel's enemies that, despite their manipulative and dishonest global campaign against Israel, the U.S.-Israel relationship continues to deepen--as it should. It is right and good for both of our countries.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is largely a response to anti-Semitism--to militant, military and terroristic, and profoundly evil expressions of anti-Semitism. That's what poisons the hearts and minds of those who launch rockets at Israel and tunnel under its borders.

As we see on a sickeningly regular basis, many governments in the Middle East (and elsewhere) propagate anti-Semitic incitement as an official or quasi-official state ideology--the hate that still kills. They do this in order to distract people from their own authoritarian rule and human rights abuses. This constant incitement is a major factor in the security situation in the Middle East. In February of last year I chaired a hearing at which we heard important testimony from Dr. Zuhdi Jasser on this subject. He made the point that it is not only Jews who suffer from this incitement, but that Muslims suffer too, as Middle-Eastern despots deploy anti-Semitism as one of their principal tools in the subjugation and impoverishment of entire Muslim peoples.

Mr. Speaker, this bill fights the evil effects of anti-Semitism. I urge my colleagues to support this outstanding bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, energy has become vital to modern societies. We no longer have to shop for food each day because refrigerators keep food cold and preserved longer-- whether in our homes, in restaurants or during the process of trade. Cell phones, computers, televisions and other electronics require electrical power to allow us to lead more productive lives in the modern world. As we have seen in the current Ebola epidemic, it is necessary that medicines and plasma be kept cold so that they do not lose their potency.

It is both unfortunate and unnecessary that more than half a billion Africans, especially in rural areas, live without electricity.

Perhaps, the great irony is that Africa has more than enough energy capacity to join the rest of the world in utilizing modern technologies that require regular energy supplies. Ironically, 30% of global oil and gas discoveries over the past five years have been in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet currently, only 290 million out of 914 million Africans have access to electricity, and the total number lacking such access continues to rise. Bioenergy, mainly fuel wood and charcoal, is still a major source of fuel. Hydropower accounts for about 20% of total power supply in the region, but less than 10% of its estimated potential has been utilized.

A hearing I convened last week examined the current and prospective impact of U.S. government programs such as Power Africa and Electrify Africa, as well as private international energy projects.

Last year, Chairman Royce--backed by Ranking Members Eliot Engel and Karen Bass--and I introduced H.R. 2548--the Electrify Africa Act. This legislation seeks to build the African power sector--from increased production to more effective provision of energy. H.R. 2548 passed the House this past May, but has languished in the Senate ever since. If no Senate action is taken during the remaining days of this session of Congress, this legislation will have to be reintroduced next year.

Days after the Electrify Africa Act was introduced in the House, the Administration announced its Power Africa initiative and has committed up to $7.81 billion in various types of U.S. technical and credit assistance and other aid to build the capacity of the African power sector.

It seems that every few months, there is yet another discovery of petroleum or natural gas in Africa. Nevertheless, African countries remain net importers of energy, and the distribution of power from the many new sources of energy in Africa remains unfulfilled. This constrains trade and economic progress, social development and overall quality of life in Africa. Even now, one country--South Africa-- accounts for two-thirds of Africa's electricity generation. All of Africa produces less than 10% of the energy produced in the United States.

Meanwhile, people across the continent are forced to meet their energy needs by gathering or purchasing charcoal or wood, often putting women in dangerous situations too far from home. Even when such fuels are safely brought back home, their use produces indoor pollution that too often contributes to sickness and early death.

The current situation cannot continue much longer. Even with 13% of the world's population, Africa represents only 4% of the world's energy demand, but this situation is changing. According to a report this year by the International Energy Agency (IEA), since 2000, sub-Saharan Africa has seen rapid economic growth and a rise in energy use by 45%.

We often speak of the rise in African economies, but for that rise to be truly realized, the rates of power generation and supply must match the growing demand for power. Those cell phones that are transforming all forms of commerce in Africa must be charged. The consumer goods the growing African middle class is purchasing need electricity. Africans are increasingly unwilling to accept the blackouts and power surges that have made life so difficult for so long. Africans who have traveled or lived elsewhere know this doesn't have to be their lot in life. In fact, even those who don't travel have seen how others live on their televisions--when power is available for them to operate.

During the colonial period in Africa, countries were limited in their industrialization, but that period is now long past. It must no longer be used as the reason why African countries are behind in the process of industrialization or power generation. Today, this lag in power generation is more due to inadequate or unrealistic regulation, lack of finance for significant power generation projects, underinvestment in power generation even when financing is available, the disconnection of rural populations from national and regional power grids, high costs for electricity and other factors.

These obstacles can be overcome, but they will require international and national collaboration, public-private partnerships and the will of governments and their citizens. We will not get to the point we believe is necessary overnight, but we will not get there at all if we do not take serious measures now and implement them faithfully and completely.

African people, like people everywhere, deserve the benefits that modern technology has produced. Africa has become a prized global consumer market, but that market cannot be fully realized without electricity. Anyone visiting stores in Africa can see the many modern technologies offered to African consumers today; they merely need guaranteed electricity for those goods to be useful.

With regular electricity, young students can not only study under electrical light, but also use computers to advance their studies. Homemakers can keep food fresh longer with refrigerators and can stretch household income farther. And hospitals can preserve blood plasma and medicines that can save lives.

The two panels at the hearing I held last week examined international and national programs to achieve regular, sufficient electrical power in Africa and private projects to add to the supply of energy on the continent. The future of energy in Africa is brighter than it has been in the past, but diligent actions must be taken now to seize the opportunities that lay before us.

Mr. Speaker, the world community has known of the Ebola Virus Disease, more commonly called just Ebola, since it first appeared in a remote region near the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1976. In previous outbreaks, Ebola had been confined to remote areas in which there was little contact outside the villages or areas in which it appear. Unfortunately, this outbreak, now an epidemic, spread from a village to an international center for regional trade and spread into urban areas in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone that are crowded with limited medical services and limited resident trust of government. The unprecedented west African Ebola epidemic has not only killed more than 5,000 people, with more than 14,000 others known to be infected. This situation has skewed the planning for how to deal with this outbreak.

In our two previous hearings on the Ebola epidemic, on August 7th and September 17th, we heard about the worsening rates of infection and challenges in responding to this from government agencies such as USAID and CDC and NGOs operating on the ground such as Samaritan's Purse and SIM. The hearing I held yesterday was intended to take testimony from non-governmental organizations providing services on the ground currently in the affected countries, especially Liberia, so we can better determine how proposed actions are being implemented.

In its early stages, Ebola manifests the same symptoms as less immediately deadly diseases, such as malaria, which means initial health care workers have been unprepared for the deadly nature of the disease they have been asked to treat. This meant that too many health care workers--national and international--have been at risk in treating patients who themselves may not know they have Ebola. Hundreds of health care workers have been infected and many have died, including some of the top medical personnel in the three affected countries.

What we found quite quickly was that the health care systems in these countries, despite heavy investment by the United States and other donors, are quite weak. As it happens, these are three countries either coming out of very divisive civil conflict or experiencing serious political divisions. Consequently, citizens have not been widely prepared to accept recommendations from their governments. For quite some time, many people in all three countries would not accept that the Ebola epidemic was real. Even now, it is believed that despite the prevalence of burial teams throughout Liberia, for example, some families are reluctant to identify their suffering and dead loved ones for safe burials, which places family members and their neighbors at heightened risk of contracting this often fatal disease when patients are most contagious.

The porous borders of these three countries have allowed people to cross between countries at will. This may facilitate commerce, but it also allows for diseases to be transmitted regionally. As a result, the prevalence of Ebola in these three countries has ebbed and flowed with the migration of people from one country to another. Liberia remains the hardest hit of the three countries, with more than 6,500 Ebola cases officially recorded. The number of infected and dead from Ebola could be as much as three times higher than the official figure due to underreporting.

Organizations operating on the ground have told us over the past few months that despite the increasing reach of international and national efforts to contact those infected with Ebola, there remain many remote areas where it is still difficult to find residents or gain sufficient trust to obtain their cooperation. Consequently, the ebb and flow in infections continues. Even when it looks like the battle is being won in one place, it increases in a neighboring country and then reignites in the areas that looked to be successes.

The United States is focusing on Liberia, the United Kingdom is focusing on Sierra Leone, and France and the European Union are supposed to focus on Guinea. In both Sierra Leone and Guinea, the anti- Ebola efforts are behind the pace of those in Liberia. This epidemic must brought under control in all three if our efforts are to be successful.

Last week, I, along with Representatives Karen Bass and Mark Meadows of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, introduced H.R. 5710, the Ebola Emergency Response Act. This bill lays out the steps needed for the U.S. government to effectively help fight the west African Ebola epidemic, especially in Liberia--the worst-hit of the three affected countries. This includes recruiting and training health care personnel, establishing fully functional treatment centers, conducting education campaigns among populations in affected countries and developing diagnostics, treatments and vaccines.

H.R. 5710 confirms U.S. policy in the anti-Ebola fight and provides necessary authorities for the Administration to continue or expand anticipated actions in this regard. The bill encourages U.S. collaboration with other donors to mitigate the risk of economic collapse and civil unrest in the three affected countries. Furthermore, this legislation authorizes funding of the International Disaster Assistance account at the higher FY2014 level to effectively support these anti-Ebola efforts.