Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Missouri for her outstanding leadership on behalf of the life issues, for her courage, and for her consistent approach to these vital issues that really are also passing. She has been a leader for so long. Thank you for organizing this, this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleagues, am grateful that the U.S. Supreme Court took up this critical case for religious liberty; and I--we, Mr. Speaker, are hopeful that the court will provide much-needed relief from this discriminatory ObamaCare policy.

Under the Obama administration's coercive mandate, family-owned businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood have found themselves in the impossible situation of being forced to violate their moral or religious beliefs or face crippling fines. This not only puts businesses in serious and unnecessary risk, but also employees who may lose their jobs, as well as their health care.

It is the height of hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, for the Obama administration to coerce family businesses that provide generous health care for their employees into a situation that may force them to close and to shutter their businesses.

The ObamaCare financial penalties are draconian, egregious, and without precedent in U.S. law. Under ObamaCare, family businesses that do provide health care for employees, like the Hobby Lobby, but object to covering certain drugs and devices--in their case, that provide for abortions--will be fined up to $36,500 per year, per employee. That is outrageous.

For the Green family of Hobby Lobby, this could mean an amount to nearly half a billion dollars in fines every year. There is no way they can absorb that kind of body blow without closing their doors.

I would note, parenthetically, that a company that does not provide any health care insurance--the gentlelady from Missouri spoke about this in her opening comments--will be fined some $2,000 per year, clearly, an unfair burden, but far less than the $36,500 per year, per employee, if they refuse, again, to include certain drugs or devices that violate their moral or religious tenets.

When you calculate that out for the Green family of Hobby Lobby, dumping their existing health care coverage for employees could result in fines up to $26 million per year; again, a huge penalty, but that is still $448 million less than if they actually provided health insurance and remained true to their core convictions, which they will do.

Mr. Speaker, this burdensome penalty is completely unfair, unreasonable. It is unworkable, and it is unconscionable. The Obama administration is saying: we will punish you, we will hurt you, we will even put you out of business for providing health care to your employees, unless you provide health care according to the government's conscience.

Also, employees currently on their business health plan could lose their coverage that they desperately need for their families, as well as for themselves. Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have no business whatsoever imposing their morality on people of faith, but that is exactly what their oppressive mandate does.

The Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, has a duty to protect the religious and conscience rights of the Greens and the Hahns and everyone else suffering government-imposed harm. The U.S. high court must act to protect the First Amendment rights of these families. Protecting these rights also protects their employees.

Let's make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. This mandate and its deleterious effects and consequences are very much Obama's willful intention. The imposition of this attack on religious freedom is no accident. It comes straight from the pages of ObamaCare.

In December of 2009, in the runup to the passage of that legislation, Senator Mikulski offered an amendment which provided the authorizing language for this oppressive mandate.

In 2009, the same year, when President Obama spoke at Notre Dame University, which parenthetically is also suing over the mandate, he spoke about drafting a sensible conscience clause--his words--and yet, today, protection of conscience is another highly visible broken promise of ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, to tell people that their conscience is irrelevant and that they must follow the Federal Government's conscience, rather than their own, is completely antithetical to the American principle of religious freedom and the First Amendment.

Unless reversed, Obama's attack on conscience rights will result in government-imposed discrimination against those who seek according to their faith and their moral code.

Under the weight of the mandate's ruinous fines and penalties, many businesses could be forced to shut down, eliminating jobs. I would never have believed that this kind of religious violation could occur in the United States of America, but it has. The Supreme Court must end this abuse.

I yield back to my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I convened a hearing that inquired into the Northern Ireland peace process, particularly that aspect of it which is called ``dealing with the past.''

Sadly, much of what we heard about amounts to failures to deal with the past, as in the rejection of the recent proposal made by Dr. Richard Haass. Dr. Haass served as Chair of the Panel of Parties in the Northern Ireland Executive--that is, he was asked to assist in brokering an agreement to move the peace process forward. In that capacity Dr. Haass spent months consulting and formulating a proposal. In the end, the proposal was not accepted by all of the parties, though it clarified where progress can be made and where sticking points remain.

One of the most important questions that Dr. Haass and the parties dealt with is what will be done with the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) and the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (PONI)--two key bodies established by the Good Friday agreement to investigate unsolved murders.

We discussed Dr. Haass' proposal to replace the HET and PONI with a Historical Investigations Unit and Baroness O'Loan's suggestion to replace them with a rather different Investigative Commission during the hearing. For now I want to underline this: both agree that the status quo way of dealing with Troubles crimes should be replaced. Likewise the parties in the Northern Ireland executive reportedly agreed with this aspect of Dr. Haass' proposal. So the agreement is broad on this point. It's time to move to a better system.

As Dr. Haass' proposal stated: ``The multiplicity of institutions and vehicles for justice in respect of conflict-related incidents, however, creates confusion and places enormous burdens on the police. The HET, PONI, and inquests also suffer from the perception that they have proceeded too slowly.''

The facts alone tell this story: of the more than 3,000 Troubles- related deaths that occurred between 1968 and 1998, the HET has yet to review some 600 cases, involving 800 deaths.

Dr. Haass' proposed Historical Investigations Unit has much to say for it--by establishing a single unit with full investigative

power it would eliminate the overlaps, contradictions, and waste of resources in the mandates of the HET and PONI.

Likewise the suggestion of Baroness O'Loan--who served very successfully as Police Ombudsman from 2000 to 2007--for an Investigative Commission that would be a ``totally independent investigative fully empowered and fully resourced body with a remit to examine any Troubles related cases involving death up to 2006 . . .'' Lady O'Loan's proposal emphasizes the need for an unimpeachably independent agency in order to win the trust of both communities.

In any case Dr. Haass' proposal remains extremely important on all points--those involved most closely in the peace process have expressed their confidence that it accurately reflects the current divisions and positions of the parties, and will likely serve as an important basis for future discussions.

We also heard about the Finucane case and the British Military Reaction Force. These aspects of `dealing with the past' were not covered by Dr Haass' proposal to the Northern Ireland political parties--because they deal with matters that are the responsibility of the British Government.

First, the British Government's failure to conduct the promised inquiry into collusion in the 1989 murder of Patrick Finucane. The British Government has a solemn obligation to initiate the full, independent, public, judicial inquiry that was agreed as part of the overall peace settlement in Northern Ireland during the Weston Park negotiations in 2001. This obligation, which was undertaken by both governments as part of the Belfast Agreement--one of the outstanding diplomatic achievements of recent decades--was an extremely serious undertaking. In order for the peace process to move forward, the British Government must honor it.

While Prime Minister Cameron admitted to ``shocking'' levels of collusion between the state and loyalist paramilitaries in the murder of Patrick Finucane, and apologized to the Finucane family for it, this does not substitute for a full exposition of the facts behind the British State's involvement in the murder. Rather the steady increase in the amount of evidence being revealed publicly that the British State colluded with the killers has made honoring that commitment more important than ever.

The British Government committed to implement the recommendation of a judge of international standing on six inquiry cases; in 2004, Judge Peter Cory recommended a public inquiry in the case of Patrick Finucane. To date, it remains the only case investigated where the recommendation has not been honored, a situation that is deeply unsatisfactory for many reasons but not least because it is evidently the one where the British Government is most culpable. Conversely, it is also the case in which--until the Prime Minister's announcement in December 2012--there has been the greatest level of sustained official denial by various state agencies.

The many previous denials and time that has passed have drained public confidence in the peace process and diminished respect for the rule of law in Northern Ireland. It must be said that there are those who oppose the peace process and their opposition is dangerous. The failure to address the case of Patrick Finucane in the manner promised by the British Government provides a readily available propaganda tool for those who would abuse it to further their own ends. In our view, this represents yet another reason why the Finucane case is one of the most important unresolved issues in the peace process.

Second, there is the matter of killings committed by the British Army's Military Reaction Force. From approximately 1971-1973 the British Army ran an undercover unit of approximately 40 soldiers, who operated out-of-uniform and in unmarked cars, mostly around Belfast.

On November 21, 2013, the BBC program Panorama aired a documentary in which former members of MRF broke silence on aspects of the unit's operations, confirming what many had suspected for a long time. The BBC reported that, ``we've investigated the unit and discovered evidence that this branch of the British states sometimes . . . shot unarmed civilians.''

The BBC spoke to seven former members of the MRF, and though the men were careful not to incriminate themselves or each other in specific killings, they made plain that, as The Independent fairly characterized the report, ``The unit . . . would carry out drive-by shootings against unarmed people on the street without any independent evidence they were part of the IRA.''

As one of the former members admitted to the BBC, ``We were not there to act like an army unit--we were there to act like a terror group.''

Now the onus is on the British Government to investigate and punish these crimes. The British Ministry of Defense has said that it has referred the matter to the police for investigation. Unfortunately, the BBC reported that ``these soldiers were undercover, and what they did has been airbrushed from the official record.''

Mr. Speaker, last week, I chaired a subcommittee hearing on U.S. policy toward Sudan and South Sudan. The hearing was very important, and not only because the United States Government has been involved in Sudan and its various crises for the past three decades. Many of us first became interested in Sudan in the 1980s because of the persistent reports of modern-day slavery, in which northern Arabs enslaved African southerners. My office helped to bring one of these unfortunate people to America for medical treatment after he was freed, and his story affected me deeply.

Ker Deng had been kidnapped into slavery while still a child, and while he was an adolescent, the man who held him in bondage rubbed peppers in his eyes, blinded him and later abandoned him. Ker is studying here in the United States thanks to his benefactor, Ellen Ratner, and is awaiting a second operation to help him recover at least some of his eyesight. How many other Sudanese will never have that opportunity or even achieve their freedom? For example, Ker's mother has never been freed from bondage.

We began supporting southern Sudanese efforts to end the oppression from the North in the mid-1990s. In 2005, we helped both North and South achieve the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, CPA, to end the long civil war and provide the steps for a mutually beneficial peace and productive coexistence. Unfortunately, the rebellion in the Darfur region distracted from efforts to fulfill that agreement.

Khartoum's alliance with the Janjaweed Arabs resulted in mass killings and displacement in Darfur. An estimated 1.9 million people were displaced, more than 240,000 people were forced into neighboring Chad, and an estimated 450,000 people were killed. At the time, Congress insisted that this was genocide. Eventually, the Bush administration concurred, but the United Nations declined to go so far in their terminology, calling what happened in Darfur ``crimes against humanity.''

A peace agreement between the main rebel force in Darfur and the Government of Sudan was signed in May 2006, but it did not last. In fact, no sustained agreement has been reached between the government and Darfur rebel groups--partly because these groups have continued to split and form offshoots, but also because the Khartoum government has not appeared willing to resolve the Darfur situation constructively. In June 2005, the International Criminal Court initiated an investigation that resulted in arrest warrants for Sudan President Omar al-Bashir and three other government officials and militia leaders. None of these warrants has been served, none of the four have been taken into custody and the Government of Sudan has refused to cooperate with the ICC.

Meanwhile, the CPA remained unimplemented. In January 2011, South Sudan, which had been a semiautonomous region of the country since the signing of the CPA, voted in a referendum on whether to remain part of Sudan or become independent. Having been marginalized and mistreated for decades, it was not surprising that southern Sudanese voted overwhelmingly--at the level of 98.8 percent--to become an independent nation. On July 9, 2011, South Sudan became the world's newest nation. However, these unimplemented elements of the CPA would bedevil the new country from its birth.

A referendum in the disputed Abyei region and consultations on the status of Sudan's Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states were never completed. In May 2011, Sudanese armed forces assumed control of towns in Abyei, quickly forcing at least 40,000 residents to flee. Within weeks, fighting spread to Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states, as Khartoum sought to crush the Sudan People's Liberation Army--North, which had fought with southerners in the North-South civil war. Northern attacks on residents in those three areas continue unabated.

Last year, Sudan and South Sudan engaged in a conflict over oil supplies from the South, involving allegations that Khartoum was undercounting the level of oil flow to cheat South Sudan, as well as the southern seizure of the oil town of Heglig. Again, this dispute was largely the result of unresolved issues from the CPA.

South Sudan continues to be engaged in a conflict that began last December, despite a cessation of hostilities agreement. Thousands have been killed and tens of thousands have been displaced. Exact figures are constantly shifting because this conflict continues. I will soon introduce a resolution offering a sequenced approach to reaching a lasting resolution to this newest crisis. This conflict also

is the result of too little attention paid to the warning signs because of preoccupation with one of the many crises in the two Sudans.

Over the last three decades, I and other committee and subcommittee chairs have held numerous hearings on Sudan--from the North-South civil war to the Darfur conflict to the fighting in Abyei, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile to the current conflict in South Sudan. All this attention is more than justified, but our approach to addressing them has been intermittent. Too often, each crisis is seen as a problem unto itself, unrelated to other issues in these two countries.

In fact, successive administrations and Congresses, advocacy groups and humanitarian organizations have focused so much on individual crises and issues that no one has created a panoramic view which shows how all these individual crises interrelate with each other. This ``stovepiping'' of government policy and public attention has meant that long-term solutions have been neglected while short-term eruptions have had to be dealt with. In reality, the two Sudans are inexorably linked and no crisis in either can be resolved successfully without taking into account the entire Sudan-South Sudan panorama.

We must end this cycle of myopic policy formulation based on the crisis of the moment and adopt a long-term, holistic vision of what the best interest of the people of Sudan and South Sudan demands--indeed, what would be in the best interest of the entire region.

As we learned in our subcommittee hearing on the Sahel crisis last May, Islamic extremists have their sights set on making inroads wherever there is conflict, across the belt of Central Africa stretching from Senegal to Sudan and beyond. Continuing unrest in the two Sudans only serves to provide training grounds or bases of operation for terrorists. Hardened ethnic conflict can spread to long- term enmity that no peace agreement alone can resolve. Hopefully, this will not be the case in South Sudan, but that conflict is headed in that ominous direction.

Two years ago, I held a meeting in my office with representatives from Sudan's Nubian, Darfuri, Beja and Nuba communities, who all believe that Khartoum is engaged in a long-term effort to exterminate non-Arab Sudanese. Have we missed such a pernicious campaign while hopping from one crisis to another as each appeared?

The purpose of last week's hearing was to examine current U.S. policy toward Sudan and South Sudan to see how we can unify our policy in order to more effectively end long-running tragedies that appear get worse despite all the busy attention to which we pay them. This involves more than what the Department of State and other executive agencies do, or even what support Congress can provide. Advocacy and humanitarian organizations also must join government in seeing the forest and not just the trees, so to speak.

We must develop, support and implement policies toward Sudan and South Sudan that make sense in the long term and not just produce temporarily satisfying peace accords that have no sustainability. Peace and prosperity for both countries are linked, and we must act accordingly. The hearing, we hope, will serve to highlight what must be done.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Ms. Ros- Lehtinen and Mr. Deutch for sponsoring this expertly-crafted and timely legislation.

It is also a substantive bill. It expands our relationship with our closest ally by supporting the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow-3 missile defense systems, transferring defense items to Israel, pre- positioning more military equipment in Israel that both allies would have available in a crisis, and by expanding cooperation in cyber security, energy, water, homeland security, agriculture, and alternative fuel technologies. All of these are important, and as a package they do a lot to strengthen our partnership with Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out Section 107, the amendment that I proposed at markup and which was accepted by the committee. It states the sense of Congress that the State Department should also increase its coordination with Israel on combating anti-Semitism.

While the State Department is doing excellent work in the fight against the unique evil of anti-Semitism, the government of Israel is going to have an indispensable perspective, experience--including tragic experience--and expertise on the Middle-Eastern security dimensions and implications of anti-Semitic incitement. Our government should be consulting, cooperating, and coordinating with them on this, benefiting from Israeli expertise.

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. Last February 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.

I'd like to put on the record my legislative intent that the State Department's engagement with Israel should include but also go beyond the Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. In 2004 I offered the amendment that created that office, and so I've followed and supported its excellent work. But this work is too important to be left to one small office--it should and must include the Department of State at the country team level and above.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment will add a new security dimension to our efforts to combat the pernicious evil of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is an ugly reality that won't go away by ignoring or wishing it away. Let's cooperate with Israel in this struggle as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HR 3370), and would like to thank Mr. Grimm and Mr. LoBiondo, all our colleagues from New Jersey, and the Republican leadership for working together to bring this much-needed legislation to the Floor.

After Superstorm Sandy devastated the Northeast, our communities rallied, coming together to help friends and neighbors recover and rebuild. While progress has been made, some shore towns and the families who live along our coast are still struggling. Thousands of homeowners are working to rebuild their properties, and their lives-- and the difficulties they continue to face cannot be overstated.

The coming rate hikes will have a chilling and dramatic impact on these communities, and mitigating the consequences for homeowners along the shore is a necessary step in the recovery effort.

At the start of this year, over 80,000 flood insurance policies were in force in Monmouth, Ocean and Mercer Counties in my Congressional District. The exploding cost of flood insurance--a program that many have paid into for years--threatens to roll back much of the progress made, and once again leave homeowners looking for answers.

The bill on the floor today makes targeted and necessary reforms and will prevent massive premium increases from hitting homeowners who simply cannot afford them--and cannot find a buyer to take them on, leaving them stranded and without a solution. Many cannot afford the recommended mitigation measures that may or may not reduce their premiums, creating a further environment of uncertainty.

Accordingly, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act slows the rate of increase that was included in the 2012 Biggert-Waters reform bill, allowing homeowners to remain in their homes and plan accordingly to continue flood insurance policies.

While not perfect, this bill will provide relief and stability to these homeowners and their communities while bringing reform to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It also provides a mechanism for enhanced community participation in the flood mapping process and increases transparency by making information publicly available to impacted parties.

Further, HR 3370 will provide individualized assistance by establishing a flood insurance advocate to help homeowners and towns obtain information and fair treatment during the mapping process. After hearing from hundreds of families, particularly in Monmouth and Ocean Counties, who are simply looking for information on how they will be impacted by changes to the flood mapping process, I am pleased that this important provision was retained in the final bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are NFIP-related issues that still must be resolved--such as ensuring proper and accurate flood mapping--but this bill is an important step in the right direction and will help mitigate the rate shock that many of my constituents are facing.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I chaired a subcommittee hearing on the persecution of Christians worldwide, a topic which has been neglected by our media and world leaders-- including those in the United States.

The focus on anti-Christian persecution was not meant to minimize the suffering of other religious minorities who are imprisoned or killed for their beliefs: as the poet John Donne wrote, ``Any man's death doth diminish me.''

We stand for human dignity and respect for life from the womb to the tomb, and the subcommittee has and will continue to highlight the suffering of religious minorities around the globe, be they Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, Ba'hai in Iran, Buddhists in occupied Tibet, Yazidis in Iraq or the Muslim Rohingya people in Burma.

Christians, however, remain the most persecuted religious group the world over, and thus deserve the special attention that the hearing gave them. As one of the hearing witnesses, the distinguished journalist John Allen has written: ``Christians today indisputably are the most persecuted religious body on the planet, and too often their martyrs suffer in silence.''

Researchers from the Pew Center have documented incidents of harassment of religious groups worldwide--a term defined as including ``physical assaults; arrests and detentions; desecration of holy sites; and discrimination against religious groups in employment, education and housing''--and has concluded that Christians are the single most harassed group today. In the year 2012, Pew reports, Christians were harassed in 110 countries around the world.

This is particularly true in the Middle East where, as one of those heard from, Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, has said, ``flagrant and widespread persecution of Christians rages. . . even as we meet.''

Archbishop Chullikatt was the papal nuncio to Iraq, where we have seen repeated violent assaults on Christians, such as the October 31, 2010 assault upon Our Lady of Deliverance Syrian Catholic Cathedral in Baghdad in which 58 people were killed and another 70 wounded. Attacks such as this have led the Christian population of Iraq--whose roots date back to the time of the Apostles--to dwindle from 1.4 million in 1987 prior to the first Gulf War, to as little as 150,000 today, according to some estimates. Much of this exodus has occurred during a time in which our country invested heavily in blood and treasure in seeking to help Iraqis build a democracy. As we witness the black flag of al-Qaeda again fly over cities such as Fallujah, which we had won at the cost of so much American blood, we wonder how it is that for Christians in Iraq, life appears to be worse now than it was under the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein.

If we turn to Egypt, we see a Christian population which dates back to the Apostle St. Mark also being oppressed. At a hearing we had last December 10--Human Rights Day--we heard how churches have been subjected to mob attacks and burned. For example, in April of 2012, St. Mark's Cathedral, seat of the Coptic Pope, was attacked by 30-40 Muslim youths. While dozens of Copts were sheltering inside, security forces joined the mob. Rather than dispersing the crowd, they participated in the all-night attack or stood idly by as rocks, gasoline bombs, and gas canisters were lobbed into the iconic cathedral.

Likewise, last year the subcommittee held a hearing on persecution of religious minorities in Syria. Syria had been a place of relative tolerance for religious minorities in the Middle East, including groups like the Mandeans, who trace their roots to the time of John the Baptist and whom they still revere.

It is this connection with the past which has helped bring radical Islamists to Syria, where not only do they seek to overthrow a violent dictator--Bashar al-Assad, but also seek to eradicate Christianity from the land.

Last September, members of al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda linked group, attacked the town of Malula. Why this is significant is because Malula is a living link with the time of Christ, a Christian village in Syria where Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is still spoken. It is for this reason that Malula was targeted--in the words of one of those attacking this small village whose way of life had remained largely unchanged over the centuries, the Mujahadeen are seeking to ``conquer the capital of the Crusaders.'' Such is the perspective of one whose vision has been distorted by hatred.

But it is not just in the Middle East where we see the persecution of Christians.

I would like to recall one story of one man I met, first in Jos, Nigeria, and then in Washington when we held a hearing on the terror group, Boko Haram last October. It was in the face of this one man that I was able to witness the face of the persecuted Church, which indeed is also the face of Christ.

Habila Adamu is a businessman from Yobe State in northern Nigeria. On the night of November 28, 2012, masked gunmen armed with AK-47 entered his home. They told his wife to leave, as they were here to ``do the work of Allah.''

The questioning began.

``Are you a policeman?''

``No.''

``Are you a Nigerian soldier?''

``No.''

``Are you a Christian?''

``Yes.''

They then asked him why he has not accepted Islam, when he has heard the message of Muhammad.

He replied that ``I am a Christian. We are also preaching the gospel of the true God to you and to other people who do not yet know God.''

They then asked, ``Habila, Are you ready to die as a Christian?''

``I am ready to die as a Christian.''

They asked him again, ``Are you ready to die as a Christian?''

He replied, ``I am ready. . .'' And before he had closed his mouth, a bullet ripped through him.

You can see the exit point of the wound in the photo before you. . .

How many of us, who profess Christ, would have been able to stare martyrdom in the face and refuse to renounce Christ?

Habila Adamu, by the grace of God, survived. The term ``hero'' is one thrown around loosely these days, but he is a hero of his faith.

And there are many more like him. We heard stories from around the world, where Christians are under attack simply for the beliefs they profess. We heard witnesses discuss persecution in places such as Burma, Vietnam, Eritrea, even in this hemisphere.

According to some estimates, China is on track to become the largest Christian nation in the world, though numbers are hard to pin down, because most of these Christians remain underground and cannot worship freely.

As US Commission on International Freedom Commissioner Elliott Abrams points out, independent Protestants and Catholics continue to face persecution for refusing to affiliate with government-approved religious groups. Protestant ``house church'' groups that refuse to join the state-approved Protestant religious organization are deemed illegal and experience harassment, fines, detentions, and imprisonment. Approximately 900 Protestants were detained in the past year for conducting public worship activities. Seven Protestant leaders also were imprisoned for terms exceeding one year. The Chinese Government issued a directive to ``eradicate'' unregistered Protestant churches over the next ten years, including through force. Police have embraced the plan, raiding meetings, seeking to break up large churches that previously operated openly, and detaining religious leaders.

The Chinese Government continues to appoint Bishops without Vatican approval and place them in leadership positions, setting back Vatican- Beijing relations. Dozens of Catholic clergy, including three Bishops, remain in detention, in home confinement, under surveillance, or disappeared. Bishop Thaddeus Ma Daqin, the Auxiliary Bishop of Shanghai, has been missing since he publicly announced his resignation from the state-approved Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association in June 2012. Bishop James Su Zhimin, arrested in 1996 while participating in a religious procession and convicted of QUOTE ``unregistered religious activity''--in other words for remaining loyal to the Catholic Church, and not the State-authorized Church. Bishop Su has not been heard of since his arrest, and the Chinese government has repeatedly rebuffed inquiries as to his condition.

In Vietnam, to name one of these countries, churches are forced to register, and worship outside of State-authorized churches is forbidden. Christian ethnic minorities, such as the Hmong and Montagnard, are allowed to exist in uneasy tension with the governing authorities, knowing that the heavy hand of the state could stop their worship at any time. Vietnam's Catholics, both clergy and laity, fill Vietnam's jails as prisoners of conscience, for calling the government to account to a higher law than that of arbitrary dictates. The attack on a Catholic funeral procession in the village of Con Dau in 2010 resulted in more than 100 villagers injured, 62 arrested, five tortured, and at least three deaths; this should remind one of the brutality that Christians in Vietnam face.

And I mention Vietnam because now, in secrecy, negotiations are being held over the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Vietnam seeks entry, and if we focus on the utility and profits of increased trade without holding Vietnam to account for its human rights record, we miss an opportunity to better the lives of those who are beaten, imprisoned and even killed for their faith.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 447) supporting the democratic and European aspirations of the people of Ukraine, and their right to choose their own future free of intimidation and fear, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and introduce extraneous materials on this measure.

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

I would like to thank my good friend and distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel, for introducing this bipartisan resolution supporting the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people.

It is a timely appeal to the Government of Ukraine to stand down and to avoid all further violence, to exercise the utmost restraint and avoid confrontation. It calls on the government to bring to justice those responsible for violence against peaceful protesters and to release and drop any criminal charges against those detained for peacefully exercising their democratic rights.

At this point, the government's crackdown has led to the deaths of at least four protesters--perhaps more--and throughout Ukraine to numerous beatings, arrests, detentions, abductions--including some from hospitals--

the harassment of activists, journalists, medics, lawyers, and pro- democracy NGOs.

On the Kyiv Maidan alone, or Independence Square, more than 1,800 individuals, mostly protesters but also some riot police, have been injured. Thirty-six persons are confirmed missing, 49 people remain in detention, and 26 are under house arrest. At least 30 medics working to aid the injured on the Maidan have been attacked.

Also, 136 journalists have been attacked on the Maidan, including investigative journalist Tetyana Chornovol, brutally beaten on Christmas Day, and who investigators, rather incredibly, claimed was a victim of road rage.

One of the most outrageous examples has been the case of activist Dmitry Bulatov, who was abducted for 8 days before being left in a forest outside of Kyiv, during which time he was tortured by his captors who tried to force him to say he was an American spy.

The heroism, Madam Speaker, of the Ukrainian people persistently demonstrating, struggling, and risking themselves for justice and dignity is deeply inspiring. The witness of so many clergy on the Maidan is a powerful reminder of the spiritual values that are at stake.

Just last Thursday, I had the high honor and privilege of meeting in my office with Patriarch Filaret of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Sviatoslav of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. These brave and holy religious leaders are deeply concerned for the faithful--and for the whole Ukrainian nation--and alarmed about the potential for even worse violence, perhaps even civil conflict.

Patriarch Filaret said recently:

I appeal to both the power and opposition to stop violence

and to come to the negotiating table. All of you are

responsible before God for your earthly doings.

At the Vatican, Pope Francis called for an end to the violence, and said:

I am close to Ukraine in prayer and, in particular, to

those who have lost their lives in recent days and to their

families. I hope that a constructive dialogue between the

institutions and civil society can take place, that any

resort to violence is avoided, and that the spirit of peace

and a search for common ground is in the hearts of all.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York expressed strong support for antigovernment protesters in Ukraine. Writing on his blog, he summarized the conflict as ``government thugs relishing the chance to bludgeon and harass the hundreds of thousands of patriotic Ukrainians,'' and described the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church as ``a church that has been starved, jackbooted, imprisoned, tortured, persecuted, and martyred by Hitler, Stalin, and company.''

That said, Madam Speaker, I do want to note that there is a paradox here. I know there are many outstanding people working in and for the Ukrainian Government who love their country and have its best interest at heart. Last year, for example, I met many times with Ukrainian ministers, high-level officials, and the ambassador, including meetings in Kyiv. This was because, in 2013, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kozhara chaired the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and made the fight against human trafficking a top priority for the organization.

In June, it held a high-level conference in Kyiv to investigate and promulgate best practices and ways that the 57 OSCE countries can better coordinate antitrafficking efforts, including through training transportation and hospitality industry employees in victim identification. The Kyiv call to action was serious and successful. I know because I was there. And what came out of that was a new OSCE plan of action to combat human trafficking.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that this resolution does not take any position on whether Ukraine should sign an Association Agreement with the European Union. That is a decision for the Ukrainians to make themselves.

At the committee markup, we decided to make that point clear, and the message should be clear. This is not about politics; this is about human rights. Congress is supporting the Ukrainian people in their defense of universal human values and not inserting itself into the question of what Ukraine does vis-a-vis the European Union.

Madam Speaker, the Ukrainian people have endured horrific suffering over the course of the last century, and this is what gives their peaceful resistance on the Maidan such power.

Two world wars were fought on their soil. In the 1930s, as we all know, Stalin inflicted a genocidal famine on them, which resulted in the death of millions of men, women, and children, to say nothing of 70 years as a captive nation in the Soviet Union.

In the 1980s, many of us in this Chamber, and on the Helsinki Commission especially, spoke out on behalf of Ukrainian human rights activists imprisoned in the gulag, called for the legalization of the then-banned and repressed Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and held several hearings on the Chernobyl disaster.

With Ukraine's long-awaited independence in 1991, newfound freedoms also became a reality--or, we thought. But since 2010, with the election of Viktor Yanukovych, human rights, rule of law, and democracy have been under relentless attack--symbolized by the continued unjust imprisonment of former Prime Minster and opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, whose daughter, Yevhenia, testified at a Helsinki Commission hearing I held in May of 2012 and on whose behalf I, along with my colleagues, introduced a resolution in the previous Congress.

It is the Ukrainian people's dissatisfaction with Yanukovych, his rollback of democracy, that drives the protest movement. The long- suffering Ukrainian people deserve a government that treats them with dignity and treats them with respect. I am confident they will prevail in their heroic struggle.

I strongly support this resolution and, again, thank my friend from New York for authoring it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), the cochair of the Ukrainian Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to take 30 seconds to respond and thank the gentlelady from Ohio for her very eloquent defense of the Ukrainian people and for, again, reminding Americans and the world of the pivotal role that the patriarch and the highest, as well as people who are just among the faithful, are playing.

The religious community is standing in solidarity with those who are aspiring for freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. And they have literally put themselves between the police and the barricades in a way that puts their very lives at risk, holding up crosses, holding up other, as the gentlelady said, icons of faith to say that we serve a God of peace and reconciliation.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, and I yield to the gentlewoman.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I am glad you brought up the interfaith aspect of this as well. I actually chaired another hearing on anti-Semitism just several months ago, and the chief rabbi from the Ukraine came and testified and gave very powerful testimony as to how the faith community is working side by side to mitigate and, hopefully, end the cruelty of anti-Semitism while simultaneously working with Christians and others on behalf of human rights.

Again, this demonstration of the faith community should go noted by everybody in this Chamber and, I hope, by everyone in the world.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I, again, thank my good friend and colleague from New York, Eliot Engel, for his sponsorship of this important resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Kyiv and so many cities and towns throughout Ukraine are right now struggling, praying, and risking--some of them really risking their lives on the Maidan for justice and human dignity.

The government's violent crackdown has led to the deaths of at least four protestors, and countless beatings, arrests, detentions, kidnappings or harassment of activists, journalists, medics and lawyers.

I want to join many of my colleagues in calling on the Ukrainian government to stop, now, these attacks on human life and the basic human rights of free expression, assembly and association--and immediately to release those detained for peaceful actions and account for missing persons.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should urge Ukrainians to find a peaceful, political settlement of the crisis through meaningful negotiations between the government and the opposition in order to get Ukraine back on the road to democracy. As to association with Europe, it is not our government's place to say what the Ukrainian government or people should do either way on this point, above all since we don't know what arrangements are on offer. But we do stand up for the right of the Ukrainian people to determine this according to their own constitution and laws, free from coercive pressures by any foreign government.

While the current Ukrainian government has committed grave injustices in the course of this crisis, I am encouraged by signs that it is taking steps to resolve the crisis, including the revocation of the onerous January 16 anti-protest laws and the resignation of the government.

The people of Ukraine have endured tremendous suffering over the course of the last century including two world wars and 70 years of Soviet brutality, most starkly illustrated by Stalin's genocidal famine which resulted in the deaths of millions. With independence came new- found freedoms, but these have been challenged by corruption of grotesque proportions. The long-suffering Ukrainian people deserve better--they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

Given the heroic strength and character and democratic maturity the Ukrainian people are showing in this crisis, I am confident that they will not be denied a more democratic future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Taryn Wilcox of Robbinsville, New Jersey for her tireless advocacy on behalf of those suffering from diabetes.

As you will read in her statement submitted for the Record, fourteen- year-old Taryn was diagnosed with Type I diabetes at the age of five. Serving as the American Diabetes Association's Teen Ambassador and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's Advocate, Taryn has chosen to make a meaningful difference by raising awareness of diabetes and joining the fight to find a cure.

I had the opportunity to meet with Taryn in my office and hear first- hand her testimony--and could not have been more impressed with her passion and focus. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly 26 million Americans--roughly 8.3% of the population--suffer from diabetes. Diabetes is a leading cause of heart disease and stroke, hypertension, blindness and eye problems, kidney disease, nervous system damage, and amputations, among other ailments. I've worked with diabetes advocates in the past on such things as legislation I authored to extend Medicare coverage for therapeutic shoes for elderly diabetics. This commonsense solution has helped countless numbers of senior diabetics over the last twenty years.

Many young Americans--an estimated 215,000 under the age of twenty, like Taryn--are suffering from diabetes. The relative rarity at this age bracket only leads to common misconceptions about those affected by juvenile diabetes. As Taryn states, she cannot simply take a break from diabetes--it is constant. She must monitor her disease twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, both checking her blood glucose and giving herself insulin injections up to twelve times a day.

Taryn writes about teachers and swim coaches who became frustrated with her need to monitor and manage her blood sugar and publicly questioned her ability to compete. But Taryn has refused to quit, using these all-too common incidents as motivation to succeed and accomplish her goals. She has achieved straight A's and has become one of the best swimmers in the State. Through her accomplishments, Taryn has shown that while diabetes is a daily struggle, increased awareness can assist those suffering from diabetes--providing them with positive support and enabling them to achieve their goals.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Taryn Wilcox of Robbinsville, New Jersey for her personal testimony and leadership in the fight against diabetes, and encourage all of you to read her testimony. Her efforts and her passion are an inspiration to us all.

Congressman Smith, I really appreciate the opportunity to

speak to you about how diabetes affects me and the importance

of finding a cure.

I am 14 years old and was diagnosed with Type I Diabetes at

the age of 5. I was hospitalized, during my diagnosis, two

months prior to entering kindergarten. I have had diabetes

for as long as I can remember . . . for most of my life.

To be honest, it has been challenging managing my diabetes,

a disease requiring 24/7 monitoring! I count carbohydrates in

everything I eat, check my blood glucose up to 12 times a day

as well as give myself up to 12 insulin injections a day. My

parents check my blood glucose 2-3 times every night while I

sleep! I've had over 68,000 needle sticks since my diagnosis.

If I stacked all the needles I've used, it would reach the

top of the Washington Monument 26 times!!!!

Although I try to stay positive, I'm fearful of the many

complications and challenges which can result from diabetes

such as blindness, amputations, cardiovascular disease,

kidney failure and the arduous task of maintaining my blood

sugar in a normal range. Sometimes my blood sugar will drop

too low or go too high and I feel HORRIBLE. My legs shake . .

. I can't think well . . . my heart beats rapidly and

sometimes my vision is blurred. There are times I have to sit

out during fun activities or miss class time and sit in the

nurse's office. It can be a very lonely feeling. Once, soon

after my diagnosis, I had a seizure while visiting my

grandmother in Arizona. It was an extremely scary experience.

It's frustrating not being able to have any time away or

vacation from diabetes, it always comes with me.

Managing my diabetes isn't the only challenge I've had to

face since my diagnosis. In 6th grade I asked my teacher to

go to the nurse's office to give myself an insulin injection

to lower my high blood glucose. She clearly wasn't happy

about me missing class time and said loudly in front of my

class. . . . ``You make diabetes convenient don't you!''

Trust me there's nothing convenient about having diabetes.

Years ago while in 2nd grade, I had to change schools

because my teacher started treating me differently from my

peers. No matter HOW much information was given to her about

the disease, she became frustrated with me whenever I needed

to manage my diabetes in her classroom. She couldn't

understand why I had to check my blood sugar several times

during school hours, leave class to go to the nurse's office

when my blood sugar was too high or low and told me how

unfair it was to drink juice in front of my peers. Looking

back, I don't understand why she didn't think how unfair it

was for a 7 year old kid to live with diabetes.

A similar challenge arose in when one of my competitive

swim team coaches thought it was RIDICULOUS I had to stop

swimming laps during swim practice to manage my blood sugar.

One day she crouched down and looked me in the eye in front

of my team mates and said, ``If you can't manage to swim

continuously during the 1 1/2 hours of practice, you will

NEVER make a state swim team!''

The good news is . . . I became a straight ``A'' student at

my new school and I placed 5th and 14th in State with my new

swim team! It's a frustrating feeling knowing I have to work

TWICE as hard as everybody else to achieve my goals because

of trying to balance my diabetes with everyday life. It makes

it even harder when some people around me don't have the

patience to try to understand my disease. I can't take a

``break'' from diabetes--it's constant.

Although, I face many challenges every day, living with

diabetes, I stay positive by spreading awareness and above

all, supporting the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation,

the American Diabetes Association and other organizations in

their mission to finding a cure and promoting advocacy. There

are over 26 million people in the U.S. who have diabetes so

it is important for Congress to fund diabetes research at the

highest level as possible. Hopefully, by working together

Congressman Smith, we can make a difference in the lives of

people living with diabetes to live a happy and healthier

life and one day soon, be cured.

Taryn Wilcox.

Mr. Speaker, a hearing that I held yesterday focused on the preparations for the upcoming Super Bowl to prevent human trafficking and strategies employed by airlines, busses, trains, and hotels designed to mitigate human trafficking.

In less than a week, New Jersey will be hosting the Super Bowl, and along with welcoming enthusiastic fans, the state also is preparing for a likely influx of both domestic and international traffickers.

Sadly, but almost certainly, they will bring with them sexually exploited trafficking victims--many of them from abroad--in an attempt to cash in on the Super Bowl crowds. We know from the past that any large sporting event--especially the Super Bowl--acts as a sex trafficking magnet. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that more than 10,000 exploited women and girls were trafficked to Miami for the Super Bowl in 2010.

This must not happen again. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has put in place a robust anti-human trafficking plan. For example, his Department of Homeland Security and Preparedness has stepped-up efforts to combat trafficking at the Super Bowl, distributing flyers to emergency medical services, fire department, law enforcement, and other emergency care professions so that these front line professionals will know when to be concerned that someone is a trafficking victim and how to respond appropriately. The transportation and hospitality training concept has proven straightforward, effective--and it is catching on.

On her way to yet another assembly and community awareness conference at St. Elizabeth's College in Morristown, NJ Assistant Attorney General Tracy Thompson, who is spearheading the Christie administration's anti- human trafficking effort, told me that they have trained 10,000 people, including a train-the-trainer initiative. She noted that the Super Bowl creates an increased ``breeding ground'' for sex trafficking.

She said, ``Today's victims can be any race, age or gender. Victims are exploited for prostitution, pornography and forced labor.

Traffickers control victims through force and fraud utilizing physical and psychological abuse, threats and isolation.

Know it. See it. Report it.''

According to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Super Bowl can be described as ``the single largest human trafficking incident in the United States.'' Capt. Doug Cain, Louisiana State Police spokesman, said after the 2013 Super Bowl in New Orleans, ``Any time you have a large influx of tourists in town and they're spending a lot of money, there's a criminal element that moves in to take advantage of that.''

Greece, which hosted the Olympics in 2004, saw a 95% increase in trafficking victims in the months leading up to and including the Olympics. Next month, Russia--a country ranked at the lowest Tier by the annual U.S. State Department's Trafficking in Persons Report--will host the winter Olympic Games. Since Russia does not have in place any formal national procedures to guide law enforcement in the identification of sex trafficking victims and does not fund trafficking victim care, I am very concerned that the 2014 Winter Olympics may turn out to be a trafficking nightmare.

Later this year, Brazil will host the 2014 World Cup and then the 2016 Summer Olympics. Although Brazil has improved their anti- trafficking laws and is taking steps to mitigate trafficking risks, the fact remains that Brazil will have to do much more if they want to protect their children from sex tourism. Numbers from Brazil's Federal Police indicate that between 250,000 and 400,000 children are forcibly prostituted.

Worldwide, the best estimates are that 600,000 to 800,000 trafficking victims are moved across international borders every year. Millions more victims are moved within national borders. But anti-trafficking efforts have only recently turned to equipping transportation employees to identify victims in transit. The training is easy, inexpensive, and is already saving lives.

In July of 2010, I chaired a conference in Washington, DC, 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 and one of today's witnesses, 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. Last year I joined Ms. Rivard at a training seminar in Kiev, Ukraine.

One of the earliest successes of the program was a call Ms. Rivard placed to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding a child she had observed on her flight from the Dominican Republic to Boston. That tip led to the break-up of a trafficking ring that had transported more than 80 children to the United States.

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

The New Jersey Human Trafficking Task Force, which was originally started with seed

money from a law I authored--the Trafficking Victim's Protection Act of 2000--is working overtime to mitigate sex trafficking and has released anti-trafficking brochures to bus and train employees in New Jersey, as well as reached out to another major industry on the front lines of spotting traffickers and victims: the hotels.

We had with us yesterday the NGO End Child Prostitution and Trafficking, or ECPAT-USA, which has been conducting hotel training on behalf of the task force in the lead-up to the Super Bowl. Hyatt, Hilton, Wyndham, Carlson, and Accor hotels have been establishing a new industry standard to ensure that their properties are not used for human trafficking.

In addition to reaching out to transportation employees and hotels, the New Jersey Human Trafficking Task Force has increased print and electronic public service announcements and training programs for law enforcement officials, health care workers, lawyers, and others on the front lines of potential interactions with trafficking victims.

In December, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 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 adopted my resolution to implement such training in each member country.

Any country that competes to host a major sporting event must be fully aware of the human trafficking vulnerabilities associated with such events and the best practices for protecting and rescuing the victims. In fact, the International Olympic Committee and the Feedeeration Internationale de Football Association, or FIFA, should take into consideration a country's anti-trafficking commitment and ability when awarding games. Standard anti-trafficking measures should be included along with the required security measures and stadium specifications.

Finally, the only standard that fits the crime of human trafficking-- zero tolerance--must be rigorously and faithfully enforced by arrests of those engaged in this nefarious trade--modern-day slavery. And there can be no higher priority than the liberation and protection of the victims. Combating human trafficking must be continuously prioritized at all levels of government, the faith community, civil society and corporations, including the National Football League. All of us must do our part to protect the women and girls.

Mr. Speaker, on December 11, the G8 convened a dementia summit in London to examine and presumably harmonize the various national action plans on the growing international crisis of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. The outcome appears to indicate a coalescing around the U.S. plan to make significant headway on addressing dementia by 2025, which would have significant implications globally, particularly in low and middle-income countries where increasing aging populations and numbers of people with dementia strain limited resources.

On January 4, 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Alzheimer's Project Act (NAPA), requiring the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish the National Alzheimer's Project. Among other provisions of that law, the administration was mandated to: create and maintain an integrated national plan to overcome Alzheimer's disease; coordinate Alzheimer's disease research and services across all federal agencies; accelerate the development of treatments that would prevent, halt, or reverse the course of Alzheimer's disease; improve early diagnosis and coordination of care and treatment of Alzheimer's disease; improve outcomes for ethnic and racial minority populations that are at higher risk for Alzheimer's disease; and coordinate with international bodies to fight Alzheimer's globally.

That congressionally-mandated plan apparently found favor with the G8, which endorsed that plan as being comprehensive and forward- looking. But even before the summit, the U.S. national plan on Alzheimer's led nearly a dozen other nations to adopt their own national strategies.

According to the testimony at this subcommittee's November 21, 2013 pre-summit hearing, this comprehensive approach is vital to meeting what is a looming global health crisis.

The World Health Organization and Alzheimer's Disease International 2012 Dementia Report estimates that there were 35.6 million people with dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, worldwide in 2010. This number is projected to nearly double every 20 years, increasing to 65.7 million in 2030 and 115.4 million in 2050.

The global cost of this condition totaled $604 billion in 2010, according to the Alzheimer's Disease International. To put this figure in context, Alzheimer's cost would equal the Gross Domestic Product of the 18th-place country in the world ranked by GDP.

While the other G8 countries may pledge funding to address Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia in the developing world, we are facing an impending global health crisis over Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. The FY2014 federal budget request for U.S.-funded global health programs was $8.3 billion. The focus is on achieving an AIDS-free generation and ending preventable child and maternal deaths through the Administration's Global Health Initiative. Under this budget, maternal and child health would receive $680 million, malaria program would receive $670 million, tuberculosis programs would receive $191 million, neglected tropical disease programs would receive $85 million and pandemic influenza and other emerging threats programs would receive $47 million.

WHO estimates that more than half of global dementia cases are in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where cases are projected to grow. Across Asia, Latin America and Africa, these developing countries are expected to see the most rapid growth in dementia cases over the next several decades. In 2010, roughly 53% of dementia cases were in low- and middle-income countries. By 2050, WHO expects 70% of all cases to be found in such countries. So how will this impact our foreign aid portfolio, especially as regards global health?

We need to better understand the level of international cooperation our government can expect in the search for early detection techniques, prevention and treatment of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. There has been collaboration among scientists across borders on HIV/ AIDS, but how much can we expect on the various forms of dementia? Many countries in the developing world don't even have surveillance adequate to provide reliable statistics on the incidence of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. Given the negative impact of the brain drain, they may not be able to be the active, effective partners we need them to be in this area. However, without their help, it will be difficult to even formulate programs to help such nations cope with this growing health threat.

These are questions we addressed at a recent hearing. The administration was unable to participate in my subcommittee's November 21, 2013 hearing on the subject, but we recently had the head of the National Institute on Aging to provide the administration's view on what the summit produced. We were also joined by two representatives from the NGO community who participated in the London summit to give us a private sector view of those proceedings.

We will need more than rhetoric to deal with this crisis. As more of us live longer worldwide, the threat of developing Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia grows exponentially. We cannot afford to have a robust domestic program to fight this condition and find that our international efforts are undermined by the failure of other donors to play their proper role in this effort.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I want to thank Virginia Foxx for her extraordinary leadership on behalf of the weakest and the most vulnerable among us.

Madam Speaker, because abortion dismembers, decapitates, or chemically poisons an unborn child to death, Americans have consistently demanded that public funds not pay for abortion.

I would note parenthetically--and we just saw this last week--since 1973, some 56 million babies, unborn babies, have been killed by abortion, a number, a death toll that equates with the entire population of England.

Madam Speaker, a huge majority--well over 60 percent according to the most polls--show that women and men in this country don't want to be complicit in abortion by subsidizing it. A December 2009 Quinnipiac poll found that 72 percent opposed allowing abortion to be paid for by public funds under health care reform.

Another poll asked: If the choice were up to you, would you want your own insurance policy to include abortion? Sixty-nine percent of women said no.

Madam Speaker, this is because an ever-growing number of people recognize that abortion isn't health care; it kills babies and it hurts women.

We live in an age of ultrasound imaging: the ultimate window to the womb and the child who resides there. We are in the midst of a fetal health revolution, an explosion of benign life-affirming interventions designed to diagnose, treat, and cure the precious lives of these youngest patients. Abortion is the antithesis of health care.

H.R. 7 will help save lives and it will reduce abortions. The Judiciary Committee report accompanying H.R. 7 notes that the high demand has saved over 1 million children, and the number is probably far larger because one in four women who would have had procured an abortion don't go through with it if public funding isn't available.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals:

One, make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibition permanent;

Two, ensure that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms with the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President;

And three, provide full disclosure, transparency, and the prominent display of the extent to which any health care insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion.

Madam Speaker, in the runup to passage of the Affordable Care Act, America was repeatedly assured by President Obama himself, including in a speech to a joint session of Congress in September of 2009, that: ``Under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.''

On March 24, 2010, President Obama issued an executive order that said the Affordable Care Act ``maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' Nothing could have been clearer. That seemed to be ironclad.

As far as my colleagues will recall, the Hyde amendment has two principles: it not only prohibits direct funding for abortion, but also bans funding for insurance plans that include abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

We now know that the Hyde amendment principles have not been extended to the newly created health insurance exchanges. H.R. 7 seeks to correct that.

Under the Affordable Care Act, Madam Speaker, massive amounts of public funds in the form of tax credits are today paying for, and will soon pay for, insurance plans that include elective abortion. That violates the Hyde amendment and that violates the President's solemn promise.

As we all know, the new law is poised to give billions of dollars-- they call them tax credits--directly to insurance companies on behalf of people who purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office counts the cost of these so-called tax credits under the ACA as either direct spending or revenue reductions. Direct spending involves funds taken from where? The Treasury, to subsidize health insurance coverage. According to the CBO, the ACA premium assistance credits will cost the Federal Government $796 billion over 10 years.

Absent repeal or reform of the law, taxpayers will then be forced to foot the bill for abortion. Again, an overwhelming percentage of the people have consistently polled they don't want to be complicit in the taking of human life.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her extraordinary leadership.

Madam Speaker, let me again convey to my colleagues the fact that H.R. 7 seeks to make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent.

Just a couple of weeks ago, as part of the omnibus bill, Members on both sides of the aisle voted to renew the pro-life riders for another year. Title I of H.R. 7 are those separate riders made permanent. That is all it is.

Secondly, it ensures that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms to the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President of the United States.

As the previous speaker just said, she believes it comports with the Hyde amendment. It doesn't.

The Hyde amendment is made up of two parts, I remind my colleagues: direct funding for abortion and no funds to any insurance policy, any coverage, any plan that includes abortion.

It couldn't be simpler. It is right there in the Hyde amendment. It has been there year in and year out.

I would note, parenthetically, that I authored the ban on funding for abortions in the Federal Employees Health Benefit program. We mirrored the language of the Hyde amendment so that today every single insurance plan in the FEHB does not include abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother, just like the Hyde amendment.

Let me also say to my colleagues that we need transparency. There is a galling lack of transparency in ObamaCare on a myriad of fronts, including whether or not a plan includes abortion.

In my own State of New Jersey, we tried and tried and took hours upon hours and finally found out that of the 31 plans offered in the State, 14 plans subsidized abortion on demand. Yet none of the plans--not one--makes this information available to the consumers shopping online.

Ditto for State after State. You can't find out. When you make those phone calls, you get conflicting feedback from the person on the other side, who himself or herself doesn't know either. Every single ObamaCare plan in Connecticut and Rhode Island includes abortion on demand. Every single one. You may be happy with that, but we see that as the taking of human life.

I remind my colleagues, look at what abortion does to the unborn child. The baby is either dismembered, chemically poisoned, or decapitated. The methods are horrific, and we live in a culture of denial that does not want to look at the method.

It also is highly injurious of women, especially on the intermediate and long-term basis, as relates to psychological health.

Let me also say to my colleagues as well: Do you want to know what ObamaCare is doing? Just look at our own plan. Look at the DC Health Link, our own portable health insurance. Of the 112 plans that you and I and our staff can obtain, 103 of those plans are

subsidized by Federal dollars, completely in violation of the Hyde amendment--and my amendment, frankly. Only nine plans are pro-life. And 103 of those plans that you and I can buy pay for abortion on demand.

Just look at the facts.

The rhetoric that is so attacking of our side on the issue--I believe in talking about the issue and not attacking my friends and colleagues, and I do count so many as close personal friends, but when it comes to this issue, we need to talk about victims. I work with a lot of women. I know a lot of women who are post-abortive. They are in need of help and reconciliation. Abortion is the abandonment of women and also the destruction of a child.

ObamaCare has not lived up to its promise. H.R. 7 gets it to the point where it does so.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for her leadership and her very eloquent remarks.

My friend from New York talked about a narrow agenda and a narrow perspective. More than 60 percent of every poll, in the case of one poll, 69 percent of all women in the United States of America say they do not want their funds being used to subsidize abortion on demand.

Let me remind my colleagues that this legislation accomplishes three goals:

One, it makes the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent. We just reauthorized all of those riders just a few weeks ago. This just makes them permanent;

Ensures that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms to the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President of the United States;

And provides full disclosure, transparency, and prominent display that is absolutely lacking right now of the extent to which any health insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion.

Madam Speaker, the President of the United States stood about 10 feet from where I am standing right now back in September of 2009 and told a joint session of Congress:

Under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund

abortion.

The executive order that was issued in March of 2010 said, and I quote, that the Affordable Care Act ``maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.''

Madam Speaker, that is simply not true. It is absolutely not true. As my colleagues know, the Hyde amendment has two parts. It prohibits direct funding for abortion, and it bans funding to any insurance coverage, any insurance plan that includes abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Earlier speakers have said not a penny will go to pay for abortion. Yet under the Affordable Care Act, massive amounts of public funds-- what are they if they are not public? They are public funds coming out of the U.S. Treasury in the forms of tax credits. That is the word used.

$796 billion in direct spending, over 10 years, according to CBO, will pay for insurance plans, many, perhaps most of which will include elective abortions, abortion on demand.

Madam Speaker, that massively violates the Hyde amendment. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you

are for the Hyde amendment and you are comporting with the Hyde amendment when you violate it in such a way.

Let me also point out to my colleagues that there are many States where pro-life individuals and constituents will have no opportunity to buy a plan that is pro-life on the exchanges. That includes Connecticut and Rhode Island. Every plan is abortion-on-demand, so their premium dollars, your tax dollars and mine, will be combining to buy plans that provide for abortion-on-demand.

In 2014, Madam Speaker, we have learned so much about the magnificent life of an unborn child. Increasingly, we have also learned about the deleterious effects that abortions have on women, psychologically, the children born subsequently to them and, of course, to other aspects of their physical health.

Please support H.R. 7.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Michelle Coyoti-Varela, Joyce Falotico, Morgan Fuerbacher, Jacqueline Hennessy, Adriana Poznanski, and Francesca Poznanski of Girl Scout Troop 1701 of Middletown, New Jersey for their breast cancer prevention and awareness campaign. Their national initiative, ``Do It For Your Daughter,'' encourages moms to get mammograms so as to ensure and promote early detection, and if necessary, effective treatment.

The National Cancer Institute estimates that in 2013 alone, 232,340 Americans were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 39,620 died as a result. Roughly one in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer sometime in their lifetime. For them and their loved ones, research and treatment provide hope as they fight the disease. Many survivors and their families commit to awareness campaigns as an opportunity to save lives and help others going forward.

Each of one of these extraordinarily bright and articulate girls has had their life touched by someone who has had breast cancer. They realized this common thread during their Troop Health Walk while discussing what they could accomplish as a troop--and how they could change the world for the better. Through research and meetings with health experts,

they learned that early detection can be key to survival. When breast cancer is detected at the localized stage--confined to the primary site--the five year relative survival rate is 98.6%. As the stage of the cancer progresses, the relative survival rate drops.

This knowledge led the girls to film a public service announcement (PSA) urging mothers everywhere to have mammograms done--if not for themselves, for their daughters. The PSA has played for several months on several TV channels, and the girls have appeared on shows like Good Day New York to spread their message. Through their campaign, the girls of Troop 1701 are educating us all--men and women--about the importance of early detection.

I hosted the girls in my office after they reached out to me about the project. Let me tell you, these are impressive young citizens. They are incredibly passionate and smart, and they truly are making a difference, both in our home state of New Jersey and across the county. The girls have already heard from dozens of mothers--and others--who have scheduled their mammograms after seeing the PSA. A number of organizations, both national and local--the American Cancer Society and Meridian Health of New Jersey, to name a couple--have joined the girls on the initiative.

The girls have implemented their campaign in a number of creative ways. They held the inaugural ``Jam for the Exam'' Health Fair at their school, attracting 400 attendees who were able to meet with health professionals and learn valuable health tips. It was there that they launched their ``Pinkie Promise'' campaign, having mothers sign a banner, making a pinkie promise to their daughters that they will get their mammograms done.

The girls were recently honored at the annual Girl Scouts delegate meeting where--after presenting their PSA and receiving a standing ovation--they received their Bronze Award in front of the New Jersey Delegates. It is the highest honor a Junior Girl Scout can achieve. As a fellow scout--a boy scout and Eagle Scout--I know that these girls exemplify the scout traits of courage, confidence, character, and citizenship.

This coming March, the girls will receive a further honor when they receive The Girl Scouts of the Jersey Shore's first-ever Junior Women of Distinction Award. The Woman of Distinction Award was traditionally reserved for adult women in the state and local community for making a positive impact.

The award is certainly well deserved, and these girls are just getting started. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking the girls of Girl Scout Troop 1701--Michelle Coyoti-Varela, Joyce Falotico, Morgan Fuerbacher, Jacqueline Hennessy, Adriana Poznanski, and Francesca Poznanski--for their truly impressive efforts in the fight against breast cancer. They are an inspiration to us all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my good friend and colleague.

I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her very eloquent remarks and for her leadership on behalf of the unborn and their mothers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mrs. Roby, thank you very much for, again, underscoring the viable option that is available and that is far too seldom selected, and that is the loving option of adoption.

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

Mr. Latta, thank you very much for your leadership and for your compassion for the weakest and most vulnerable.

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Dan Lipinski, the cochair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.

I thank my good friend and colleague for his leadership, for standing so strong, and for reminding everyone about the importance of the crisis pregnancy centers, which are a lifeline to so many women who might otherwise abort and make that irreversible decision. So thank you for underscoring that.

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from Nebraska, who has also been a tremendous leader in the cause of life and human rights in general.

I thank my friend for his very, very eloquent remarks.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann.

Thank you very much, Michele, for those very sensitive remarks. I really appreciate your leadership.

I now yield to my friend and colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Huizenga).

Thank you very much. That story about Sloan was great.

I would like to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from Missouri, a former U.S. Ambassador, Ann Wagner.

Thank you very much, Ambassador, for your very eloquent comments.

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Tim Walberg.

Thank you, Mr. Walberg.

I would now like to yield to Randy Hultgren, the gentleman from Illinois.

Thank you very much, I say to my friend from Illinois.

I would like to now yield to Mr. Huelskamp.

Mr. Huelskamp, thank you very much. And thank you for your work on the Pro-life Caucus. You have really stepped up, and it is deeply appreciated by all of us. Thank you so very much.

I would like to now yield to, we have a number of pro-life doctors in the U.S. House of Representatives, and we have two with us today. First, beginning with the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Thank you, Dr. Roe, for your very kind remarks, but more importantly, for your witness for life, particularly as an OB/GYN and for delivering those 5,000 babies.

I would like to now yield to another doctor, Dr. Andy Harris, the gentleman from Maryland, who works often at Johns Hopkins, and a great defender of life and an eloquent spokesman.

Thank you very much.

I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Thank you very much, Mr. Lamborn.

I'd like to now yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

I thank my friend for his very, very wise comments and very eloquent comments.

I would like to now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

I thank my friend.

I would like to now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Thank you, Mr. Pittenger.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Thank you very much, Dr. Benishek.

Just to close, Mr. Speaker, 41 years ago next week--January 22--marks the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous, reckless, and inhumane abandonment of women and babies to abortionists. Forty-one years of victims--dead babies, wounded women, shattered families. Forty-one years of government-sanctioned violence against women and children.

Since 1973, more than 56 million children have been killed by abortion--a staggering loss of children's precious lives--a death toll that equates to the entire population of England.

The passage of time hasn't changed the fact that abortion is a serious, lethal violation of fundamental human rights, and that women and children deserve better, and that the demands of justice, generosity, and compassion require that the right to life be guaranteed to everyone.

Rather than dull our consciences to the unmitigated violence of abortion, the passage of time has only enabled us to see and, frankly, better understand the innate cruelty of abortion and its horrific legacy--victims--while making us more determined than ever to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable.

All life is sacred, Mr. Speaker. No one, regardless of sex, race, religion, disability, or condition of dependency, is a ``throwaway.'' All of us, especially lawmakers and policymakers everywhere in this town and throughout the country, have a profound moral duty to protect the innocent and the inconvenient.

I yield back the balance of my time.