Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding the time.

I do encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Recently, National Geographic ranked this as the third best Civil War site to visit--the third best--and there is a reason for that. It is because of the dedication of the National Park Service personnel that are there at the Shiloh battlefield and the local volunteers from Tennessee and Mississippi that work to preserve and to enhance.

Mrs. Torres was so right when she talked about the relevancy of the site and the opportunity for introspection and remembrance and the importance of preservation and the lessons that can be learned as individuals go and visit this park. It is significant, and in our Civil War history it is significant that we preserve this and work with the National Park Service.

The Battle of Shiloh was fought on April 6 and 7 in 1862. It was the bloodiest battle of the Civil War up to that point: 23,000 Americans died. General Grant's Union Army was victorious. The Confederate forces withdrew to Corinth, and the outcome of the battle eventually led to the fall of Vicksburg in July of 1863. This permanently divided the Confederacy and crippled the Southern war effort.

As we look at this legislation that goes around this battlefield, it does preserve the historical legacy of Tennessee, of Shiloh, and of our Nation. It gives the Park Service the authority that they would like to preserve more than 2,100 additional acres of the historic Shiloh National Military Park.

As the gentleman from California said, Fallen Timbers, Davis Bridge, and Russell House are all included in this, as well as Parker's Crossroads Battlefield, which would be named an affiliated area.

As we look at visitors to our Nation's park, the Shiloh National Military Park welcomes more than 500,000 visitors each and every year.

I thank my colleagues for the time and the support.

Mr. Speaker, it's with great honor that I rise today to recognize the Keep Tennessee Beautiful organization for receiving the Keep America Beautiful State Affiliate Innovation Award for their publication of Nancy and Sluggo Love Tennessee: A Story About Keeping Tennessee Beautiful.

Written and illustrated by Guy Gilchrist, this story showcases the remarkable attractions, natural resources, and historic landmarks of the great state of Tennessee, all while promoting the importance of taking care of our community by recycling and not littering. Nancy and Sluggo Love Tennessee is a treasured keepsake that educates children and instills a sense of pride in being a Tennessean.

As proven by their achievement, Keep Tennessee Beautiful does outstanding work in innovatively educating and engaging the young minds in our community and I applaud their dedication to our state.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time members of this House rise, address the body to honor events in their districts, members of their communities, or occurrences in their towns. To be read into the Congressional Record is an honor our constituents cherish. Today, though Mr. Speaker, the honor is all mine to rise and tell this body about one of the Tennessee 7th Congressional District's most cherished and devoted citizens, Wayne Oldham, as his life and homegoing is celebrated this week.

Wayne was born in Montgomery County and made his life there and at every stage of his life, he would be found championing the conservative cause. From creating the Austin Peay State University College Republican chapter still in existence today, to being the longest serving State Executive Committee member of the Tennessee Republican Party, Wayne had a drive and a passion to support the people and causes he held dear. There was never a meeting too small or a race too insignificant for Wayne to attend and support. He was a fixture in Clarksville and his absence will be felt for years to come.

There are those whose light shines so brightly, boldly, and consistently that we are confident their legacy will remain long after they are gone. I join with family, friends, political activists, neighbors, committee members, and all those who will miss Wayne's supportive phone calls, his never-fading friendship, and his heart-felt laugh. I ask my colleagues to join with me in remembrance of my dear friend. May his life's work be a reminder in serving the world around us, no matter how big or small.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this morning to talk about a piece of legislation that is going to be before us this week, and we are bringing it forward through the Congressional Review Act.

In our office, we have had so many people ask: What is a Congressional Review Act, and how is it that you can recall these rules?

This allows Congress to exercise their authority over the agencies and the administration and the executive branch interaction where they make rules. Many times they do these rules, as this previous administration did, at the last minute, as they are heading out the door, trying to put their thumb and their imprint on actions and prohibit Congress or prohibit the States from taking an action.

So as we meet in this Chamber this week, we are going to take up H.J. Res. 43. H.J. Res. 43 is a resolution which will disapprove of one of these last-minute rule changes that President Obama made as he was exiting his office. This one deals with title X funds and the grant allocations that come through title X funds.

Now, title X funds were put in place to serve women and their healthcare needs, underserved women in underserved areas, and to make certain that there were provisions so that they could access women's health and have access to preventive screenings, to annual immunizations, those checkups that they need to have each year. Many times these funds have been used by individuals who will say: We do women's health and we also do abortion services.

Now, what the rule would have done was to block the States and to take away their ability to go in and ask: Who is going to have access to these funds, and are we going to disallow them to go to entities that provide abortion services?

So H.J. Res. 43 repeals the previous administration's rule and it restores and gives back to the States the flexibility that they want and desire to have to distribute these title X grants under the parameters for which this program was designed.

States should be able to offer family planning funds to providers that offer a full and complete range of healthcare services for women, but do not participate in elective abortions.

Title X funds, outside of the Affordable Care Act, were intended to help keep patients healthy and to help them on the road to a better quality of life and better health outcomes, not to take away life.

H.J. Res. 43 also redirects title X grant funds to other clinics comprised of local health departments, hospitals, and federally qualified health centers that seek to protect life and offer healthcare services to women.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 43, which repeals the previous administrative efforts which undermine State laws and restores to the States the title X grant program for its original purpose.

Mr. Speaker, there are those who live their lives with distinct intentionality. They have the ability to inspire their communities by bringing innovation and change in their relentless pursuit to make the world a better place. They use their creativity to bring beauty and encourage leaders to reach their fullest potentials. I am saddened by the loss of my friend, Kitty Moon Emery. I was fortunate to have met her early in my career and always appreciated her advice and counsel as she was one of those special leaders.

Kitty was a Nashville native who had an endearing love for Tennessee and our country. She worked as one of only two female press secretaries in the Senate under Senator Bill Brock. She later went on to become the Assistant National Director of Advertising for the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan. Kitty was eventually appointed by Secretary Henry Kissinger to a United Nations Advisory Committee. In these spheres she broke many barriers by filling positions that were not traditionally held by women.

Kitty was a treasured advisor to many. She served as the chairman for the Metro Sports Authority and played a vital role by serving on many boards including the Country Music Association, the CMA Foundation, the Rotary Club of Nashville, and Leadership Music. More recently she founded the consulting firm Kitty Moon Enterprises to support leaders in the Middle Tennessee Region.

Kitty's presence in Nashville will be deeply missed. Her love and devotion to community brought people together and made Tennessee a much better place to live. I rise today to celebrate her lasting achievements and ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring her life.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 290) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the procedures followed by the Federal Communications Commission, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record on the bill.

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

I am pleased to support H.R. 290, a bill to reform the FCC, sponsored by the chair of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has a unique history. It has been passed out of the House not once or twice, but four times already in the last three Congresses. The last three times this bill has come to the floor, it has passed on suspension with full bipartisan support. That support speaks to the deep necessity for fundamental reform of the Federal Communications Commission.

As Members of Congress, we hear from constituents whose applications at the FCC are left to languish unresolved while consumers and businesses let opportunities slip by because they haven't received approval yet from a Federal Government agency. It is even worse when the FCC, under its public interest mandate, decides to put its

thumb on the scale in favor of one technology sector or another, often without providing reasonable evidence that its intervention is necessary and appropriate.

While I have faith that Chairman Pai will bring about real reform at the FCC, without legislative changes, I am afraid that this type of jury-rigged rulemaking will return under a future administration. That is why I have supported this bill each time it has made its way through our committee and each time it has come to the House floor. I believe that strong process can restore the agency's integrity and rein it back in the interest of the stakeholders and the society that it should serve.

The bill requires the FCC to conduct a notice and comment rulemaking in order to adopt clear rules to guide its own process. By giving the FCC flexibility when setting procedures and deadlines, we are not hamstringing the agency; rather, we are providing them with goals to meet and allowing them to determine the best way to meet those goals.

We are asking the FCC to consider and adopt rules for itself that would provide clear deadlines on starting and stopping comments, clear deadlines for resolving petitions filed by the public, clear notice of status to those affected by petitions and rules, and clear schedules of statistical reports.

The bill also requires the FCC to consider publication of Commission documents to be considered at an open meeting and to consider whether cost-benefit analysis just might improve their rulemakings. This legislation also changes the existing Sunshine Act to allow for greater collaboration between Commissioners.

There was fine bipartisan work that went into these bills, and I thank my Democratic colleagues for working with us to improve the agency.

This country is blessed with the most creative and competitive technology industry in the world. The agency charged with overseeing this robust and dynamic sector should be open and transparent and foster continued growth, and I believe this bill will help in achieving that goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the author of the legislation and the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 423) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand and clarify the prohibition on provision of misleading or inaccurate caller identification information, and for other purposes.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 423, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2017. Today we are considering a very worthy piece of legislation, which has been introduced in each of the last two Congresses by Vice Chairman Barton, Vice Chairman Lance, and Representative Meng. All of them have put a lot of hard work into this bill, and I thank each of them for their dedication in pursuing a much-needed update to the Truth In Caller ID Act.

Spoofing is the act of altering the number that will appear on the receiving end of the caller ID. It is a trick that has been around for more than a decade. Spoofing provides a false identity to bad actors and criminals who seek to harass and defraud our hardworking taxpayers, oftentimes through various scams.

Sometimes the scams are elaborate, and other times they are simple. But these schemes are all petty; and once carried out, they are criminal. Spoofing lets the bad guys disguise their identity and will often pose as official entities, such as credit card companies, hospitals, and government agencies to target their unsuspecting victims. These crooks regularly target seniors and use intimidation tactics to extract personal and financial information.

The FCC has the authority to levy penalties and criminal fines against individuals that use fake caller ID information for the purpose of defrauding or harming another. However, current law only covers traditional voice calls. While this was considered a good fix when it was enacted in 2009, the Truth in Caller ID Act no longer sufficiently protects consumers. New communication methods and an evolving consumer trend towards text messaging have left the law with significant holes for the fraudsters to fly through and avoid prosecution.

H.R. 423 would extend and clarify provisions of the Truth in Caller ID Act to include text messages and Voice over Internet Protocol services and would also apply the penalties to violators outside of the United States.

The bill would also seek to make it more challenging for those using fake caller ID information. In the past, you needed to have advanced skills and expensive equipment in order to spoof. Nowadays, it isn't hard. All someone needs to have is a smartphone and access to any of the various apps on the market that can instantly generate a fake caller ID.

This is another classic case where technology has outpaced the laws that govern it. We will never be able to legislate ahead of technology advancement, nor should we try to do so. But when we find areas where legislation can help shield our consumers and hold the bad guys accountable, it is incumbent on us to act.

I believe that the legislation we are considering today is a good next step in our pursuit of stronger protection for our consumers. This bill will not prevent spoofing and it will not make our constituents invincible from the related scams and harassment, but what this bill does is important. By updating the law to more accurately reflect today's environment, we will be equipped to hold violators subject to the penalty of law.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the committee report for this legislation from the last Congress.

H.R. 423, Anti-Spoofing Act of 2017

background and need for legislation

Spoofing is a practice in which a phone number shown on a

phone or caller identification device is deliberately

falsified, often to portray an official entity such as a

government agency or credit card company, typically with

malicious intent. Spoofing is a commonly used tool for a

number of illegal practices, including phishing for personal

information and swatting--calling in a fictitious crime in

progress in order to generate a police response. The original

Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 prohibits spoofing voice

caller identification. However, as communications methods and

consumer habits continue to evolve, so too do the attempts by

third parties to fraudulently gain personal information for

criminal use. Many Americans are now relying on text

messaging to stay connected, and this method of communication

has become a target for spoofing in much the same way voice

calls have been.

H.R. 423 extends the provisions of the Truth in Caller ID

Act to include text messaging as well as Voice over Internet

Protocol services. The legislation, introduced by Rep.

Barton, Rep. Lance, and Rep. Meng, also addresses the growth

of services that allow users to knowingly transmit misleading

or inaccurate caller identification information by adding a

definition of ``spoofing service'' to the Truth in Caller ID

Act.

In amending H.R. 423, the Committee significantly changed

the definitions of ``text message'' and ``text messaging

service.'' The changes are designed to exclude from these

definitions those online messaging services that use

traditional telephone numbers for the purpose of identifying

a user's account, just as other online services may use an

email address or username for a similar purpose. The excluded

services do not use telephone numbers to interconnect with

the public switched telephone network or enable communication

with individuals who do not subscribe to the same messaging

service. The Committee intends the Commission to devise its

rules using the meanings set forth in the legislation.

``Short message service'' and ``multimedia message service''

should be narrowly interpreted consistent with current

industry standards (see, e.g., ETSI, Technical Specification,

3GPP TS 23.040 version 12.2.0 Release 12, ETSI TS 123 040

v12.2.0 (Oct. 2014), available at www.etsi.org).

The Committee takes notice of the fact that the language

set forth in the version of H.R. 423, as ordered reported, is

identical to the text relating to the same subject contained

in S. 253, the Communications Act Update Act of 2016, as

passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, on September 27,

2016. The House passed S. 253, as amended, by unanimous

consent. The foregoing discussion should therefore serve as

an explanation of that bill's provisions for purposes of

legislative history.

section-by-section analysis of the legislation

Section 1. Short title

This section provides that the Act may be cited as the

``Anti-Spoofing Act of 2017''.

Section 2. Spoofing prevention

This section amends the Communications Act to expand the

Truth in Caller Act to include text messaging services, as

well as communications from outside of the United States.

This section defines the terms ``text message,'' ``text

messaging service,'' and ``voice service.''

This section also requires the Commission, in coordination

with the Federal Trade Commission, to develop consumer

education materials regarding caller ID scams and

technologies that can help consumers protect themselves

against fraudulent activity.

This section also requires a Government Accountability

Office report on the actions taken by the Federal

Communications Commission and FTC to combat caller ID fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a new member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

When disaster strikes, there is a lot of hard work to be done, and every second counts. First responders go into action for those that need help. Relief organizations and volunteers rush in to begin the process of cleaning up. Utilities and service providers must be on the ground repairing damaged infrastructure.

All of these mission-critical tasks require a functioning communications network. People turn to the network for potentially lifesaving information and rely on its functionality to reach emergency services.

We are here today to consider this bill. Representative Pallone--I want to give some credit to him--has been a champion of following the eye-opening effects of Superstorm Sandy. He has worked tirelessly on this legislation since October 2012.

In total, the Sandy storm resulted in roughly $74 billion in damages in the U.S. alone. Sometimes we forget the magnitude of that storm. Damage to power and communications infrastructure, it knocked out about 25 percent of the cell sites in its path. In some of the hardest-hit counties, 50 percent of those sites were down.

When the networks go down, public safety communications and emergency response services are threatened. In order for the networks to get back up and running, telecommunications providers need access to critical resources and permission to enter the disaster area.

The chaos immediately following a major disaster makes it challenging to obtain resources and entry to the affected area. What we saw after Sandy were communication providers being turned away from the disaster area and denied resources because they were not considered essential to the recovery effort. This bill seeks to change that.

In the wake of Sandy, and as a result of repair workers being barred from the recovery effort, communication networks remained offline for hours and, in some cases, days longer than need be. This left those who were still vulnerable in the disaster area without critical information and no means to call for help.

There are numerous entities that are essential for the rescue and recovery phase following a disaster. The affected area needs power. Water is critical. The bill would clarify that communications networks are also an essential service.

Whether it be wireline, mobile telephone, Internet, radio or television, communication services play a key role in facilitating recovery. In some cases it can be the difference between life and death. By defining these types of providers as essential, telecommunication companies will be granted the access and resources needed to get their networks back online.

The bill would also require the FCC to conduct a study on the feasibility and benefits of making WiFi access points available to the general public to access 911 services during times of emergency.

I would also like to recognize that the original version of this bill included a number of wireless provisions designed to increase preparedness. These provisions were removed, however, because the five largest wireless carriers voluntarily adopted these provisions.

H.R. 588, in its current form, combined with the voluntary framework established by the wireless carriers, leaves us with a strong, bipartisan bill that will improve the resiliency of our Nation's communications infrastructure to avoid a recurrence of the widespread and extended service outages, as experienced in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.

I thank our colleagues from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for working with us on this bill, and I urge the support of my colleagues for the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank Mr. Pallone for his diligence in solving this problem not only for his constituents there in New Jersey after Superstorm Sandy, but many of my family were down in south Mississippi and we know what happened in Katrina with those in the Gulf region around New Orleans and over in south Mississippi and the loss of communications that were there.

This week we are seeing it in Mr. Carter's district in Georgia, again, the impact that a storm has when people cannot reach their loved ones and when they cannot get in contact to let people know the services that they needed or the injury that they are experiencing. So we are fortunate to be able to bring this bill forward. We extend our condolences and concerns to Mr. Carter for what is going on in his district.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) to speak on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there are coaches that have the exceptional ability to cultivate greatness within an athlete, a team, and school. They can help an athlete live up to his or her potential and challenge them to exceed every goal and expectation set before them. Today, I rise to honor Coach Barbara Campbell who has exemplified these traits and led her team to another State Championship this past fall. She has made a tremendous impact during her tenure coaching the Brentwood High School volleyball team in Brentwood, Tennessee.

Barbara Campbell has been coaching at Brentwood High School since 1988. She has a record of over 1500 wins, twelve State Champions and seven state runner-ups. She has a reputation of creating well-rounded and hardworking athletes who have continued their volleyball careers beyond high school. She pushes each player to not only be motivated in athletics, but academics as well and fosters character development with student success.

Brentwood High School is a powerful force in volleyball. These young athletes have made their mark in the world of high school athletics due to the talented persistence and drive of Coach Barbara Campbell. Now I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Coach Campbell for the numerous successes and wins she has accomplished and for the investment she has made in the lives of our communities and young people.

Mr. Speaker, as we were home over the Christmas holiday break, so many calls that came into my office dealt with the ObamaCare issue--the rise in premiums, the lack of affordability.

Here is one example. A 64-year-old man, his premiums $30,000, deductible $12,000--indeed, too expensive to afford and too expensive to use.

But we do have a plan for repealing and replacing. You will find it at A Better Way. This will help lift the financial burden from many Americans

who are currently facing high costs due to ObamaCare. Our plan allows patients greater access to affordable care and affordable insurance.

Our next step includes my legislation, H.R. 314. It is the Health Care Choice Act of 2017. What it will do is allow greater access, more choice, and more options by allowing across-State-line purchasing of health insurance. You find the plan that is most suited to you and your family at a price that you can afford.

It is time for us to repeal and replace with good patient-centered options.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 288) to ensure that small business providers of broadband Internet access service can devote resources to broadband deployment rather than compliance with cumbersome regulatory requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 288, the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act. I am glad that the House is taking swift action on this bill, which would protect small Internet service providers from the enhanced disclosure requirements laid out in the 2015 Open Internet Order.

After adopting the Open Internet Order, the FCC recognized the importance of exempting small ISPs from these enhanced transparency rules and subsequently granted a temporary exemption to broadband providers with fewer than 100,000 subscribers. However, the Commission failed to reach an agreement to grant another exemption before the deadline last December and, as a result, has left hundreds of our Nation's small providers vulnerable to cumbersome rules.

FCC Commissioners Pai and O'Rielly have taken action, since the exemption expired, to reassure our small broadband providers that the rules will not be enforced until the situation has been addressed by the Commission, but Congress should go a step further and provide certainty to our Nation's small businesses and pass this bill.

Rather than a 1-year exemption to the enhanced disclosure requirements, this bill would exempt for 5 years broadband providers with fewer than 250,000 subscribers from the enhanced reporting obligations, providing them with the regulatory certainty to invest in their business.

At our hearing last January, we heard from multiple witnesses just how cumbersome and burdensome these rules are. One witness described the difference to be as significant as the need to hire regulatory counsel versus the ability to build another tower to provide service. For a small business in a capital-intensive industry, that could be the difference between getting more people connected to the Internet and going out of business.

We cannot let our small businesses and hardworking taxpayers be saddled

with more onerous rules and the costs that they bring. In addition to regulatory relief for small ISPs, the bill adds certainty for our Nation's small ISPs by extending the exemption for 5 years.

It was disappointing to see the Commission fail to reach an agreement at the end of last year to extend the exemption, and it is why we are here today. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support from Congress and President Obama's Small Business Administration, negotiations fell short, and our Nation's smallest and most competitive Internet service providers were left to bear the burden.

In today's 21st century economy, we need to do more to encourage connectivity, and this bill embodies that spirit. Congress is poised to provide the regulatory certainty small businesses are seeking in order to invest in stronger networks and foster a better consumer experience.

I want to thank Chairman Walden and Mr. Loebsack for acting quickly to reintroduce this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the commonsense measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the author of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a new member of our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I will just encourage my colleagues to join us in passing H.R. 288.

As my colleague from California said, this is one of those commonsense measures. When you talk about removing the burden of regulatory overreach from our Nation's small business, and in this case, our small Internet service providers, this is something that will help get that job done. It is also something that will help extend Internet service to more Americans, and that is a goal that we all share.

So at this time, in closing, I encourage passage of H.R. 288.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, talk about fantasy. I think that it finds its root in this comment from Jonathan Gruber, who was the architect of ObamaCare:

If you had a law which said that healthy people are going

to pay and sick people would get money, it would never have

passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.

Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but

that was critical for the thing to pass.

Mr. Speaker, that is the fantasy on which this was based. It does not work. It has driven up costs. Indeed, we know that 70 of our Democrat colleagues have crossed the aisle and have voted with us to repeal different provisions of this law because it does not work. It is not making insurance more affordable. It is costing more.

One of my constituents is Emily. Her insurance was $57 a month before ObamaCare. After ObamaCare, with the subsidies, it was $373 a month. Another constituent, Jimmy, is saying he can't afford to offer the benefits now because of the way ObamaCare has driven up the cost of insurance. It is offer insurance or close his business. Those are the choices. That is why we are here. It does not work, and it is time to get this law off the books.

Yes, there are lots of ideas. Mr. Speaker, just for my colleagues to know, at Energy and Commerce, we have over 100 bills that have been filed that would repeal different provisions of this law, and we are doing it because the American people have said, We are tired of this. It is damaging health care. It is returning us to the day of the old major medical when you had higher premiums, when you had higher out-of- pocket costs, and when you had fewer benefits.

Now, our colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, may say that those are not suitable plans, but guess what? That is what ObamaCare plans are becoming. It is time to get it off the books and restore choice and option for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to come to the floor at the end of the Special Order hour that Mrs. Noem and Mrs. Wagner have organized to join my colleagues in talking about the bills that are before us.

Human trafficking is an issue that affects every single county and community across this country--every single one. In my State of Tennessee and in the greater Nashville area, we have a wonderful organization, End Slavery Tennessee, that is doing great work to reach out, to minister, and to help.

I am so pleased that this week we are going to take the time to bring to the floor legislation that will be of help in training our medical personnel, that will also empower and encourage our law enforcement organizations and our faith-based and not-for-profit organizations.

This is a tragedy, modern-day slavery, that is taking place, the sex trafficking and the human trafficking, and I am so pleased that Congress is standing together to do something about it.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her diligence and efforts on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I think we all are pleased to have so many of our constituents in town today who are supporting life and supporting that concept of life, liberty, and freedom.

It is such an honor today to come to the floor and talk about an issue that 68 percent of the American people agree on. Listening to my colleagues talking about how this is partisan and just for our base, I am glad that they think 68 percent of the American people are our base--because they do agree with us. Seventy-one percent of millennials agree with us on this issue. And the issue is simply this: there should not be taxpayer dollars used to pay for abortions.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has done a tremendous amount of work on this bill. I thank him for his diligence, his attention, and for working to get H.R. 7 in the right form, ready to move forward and to bring this issue into the light.

We have got three things we want to focus on in this bill. Number one, there is enormous bipartisan support--I would say near unanimous bipartisan support--for the Hyde amendment language. Title I of this bill is going to make that permanent.

Madam Speaker, what that means is no longer do we have to revote this over and over and over. The Hyde amendment language will be the applied standard.

Title II of this bill will apply that to ObamaCare.

Madam Speaker, what it will do is apply that to ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act.

Now the reason it is imperative, the President promised on numerous occasions, Madam Speaker, that there would be no taxpayer dollars, which become Federal funds, used for abortion. This was a big debate as we went through the Affordable Care Act.

What we have learned from not us but from the GAO is that we have in the marketplace 1,036 plans. We have over 1,000 plans that allow those dollars into those plans. What this bill will also do is bring transparency not only to the plans but to the money flow, so that hardworking American taxpayers who do not want their money used to pay for abortion--68 percent agree with us--will have clarity and certainty on the issue.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of charges and accusations that were made by some of my colleagues as they have chosen to describe the bill before us today, H.R. 7, so I want to be clear about what the bill before us does do and does accomplish.

This bill follows a longstanding principle, as my colleague said, going back to 1976, the principle that the American people and Members from both sides of the aisle in both Chambers of Congress have supported for decades, and that is taxpayer dollars should not be spent on abortions and abortion coverage. The vast majority of my colleagues voted for this exact same principle in countless appropriations bills, including a bill that we passed out of this Chamber last month. Yet today, some Members are fighting the widely shared belief that taxpayer dollars should not be used to take an innocent life.

The bill before us today also provides much-needed transparency regarding which health plans on the exchange pay for abortions. The Obama administration promised to provide Congress and the American people a list of plans in ObamaCare that covered abortion, yet they refused to live up to that promise. They forced Congress to act. And, indeed, the GAO has informed us that 1,036 plans include abortion coverage. There is no excuse--no excuse--to hide information about abortion coverage from the American people.

Madam Speaker, 68 percent, a vast majority of the American people believe there should be no taxpayer money used for abortion and abortion coverage.

HHS has forced Congress to act on this issue. The commonsense transparency requirement that is in H.R. 7 is needed, and it is supported by all Members. So that is what this bill is about, following an established bipartisan principle and providing transparency.

I urge my colleagues, each and every one, to vote to protect life, to vote to protect taxpayer dollars, and to promote transparency by rejecting the motion to recommit and supporting the underlying bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on the recommittal.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I rise today in support of my amendment to freeze the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which was unlawfully created by executive memo on June 15, 2012.

My amendment prohibits Federal funding, fees, or resources from being used to consider or adjudicate any new, renewal, or previously denied application for any alien requesting consideration for deferred action.

Article I, section 8, clause 4 states that the Congress shall have power ``to establish an uniform rule of naturalization''--Congress, not the Executive. President Obama has circumvented Congress and unilaterally rewritten immigration law from the Oval Office.

A Federal judge in Pennsylvania said President Obama's amnesty is unconstitutional and that, number one, ``Inaction by Congress does not make unconstitutional executive action constitutional''; and, number two, ``Executive action goes beyond prosecutorial discretion. It is legislation.'' That is the reason we bring the amendment.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), who is one of our Members who had truly a significant career as a prosecutor before coming to this Chamber.

Madam Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side?

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let's talk about a couple of these things. The Democrats like to say, Madam Chairman, that this is radical.

Let me ask you a question, let me ask my colleagues a question: Is it radical to support the rule of law? Is it radical to fight for American workers who are going to lose their jobs to illegal aliens? Is it radical to prioritize legal immigrants that are coming to this country? Is it radical to try to protect children that are in this program via the Office of Refugee Resettlement?

Democrats are over there saying that Republicans are playing politics with national security. Let me ask you another question: Why were they saying nothing this summer when the southern border was being overrun with all sorts of trafficking--human trafficking, sex trafficking, weapons trafficking, drug trafficking?

Here are the facts. DACA became effective August 15, 2012. In fiscal year 2014, the Office of Refugee Resettlement released 53,518 unaccompanied children here in the U.S. It is a magnet.

Seventy-five percent of all Americans reject the Obama executive amnesty. Eighty percent of Americans don't want foreign workers taking jobs from Americans.

Those are the facts, Madam Chairman.

To my colleagues, that is why we are here. We have two choices. We are either a Nation of laws or we are lawless.

President Obama is turning every State into a border State, every town into a border town; and unfortunately, the lawless amnesty has taken Democrats from the party of ``yes, we can'' to acting like the party of ``because we can.''

With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.