Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 618.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. He and I hold a deep, common conviction that Arizona is the most important and best State in the Union, and I don't think anyone here would debate that.

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, October 30, we were delivered the over- hyped ``bombshell'' story that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would introduce some damning evidence about President Trump's collusion with Russia via indictments.

On Friday, October 27, someone involved in the grand jury investigation--now, don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of a grand jury is secrecy, but someone in that organization leaked information to the press, specifically CNN, with no reasonable person being able to count as a friend to the President of the United States; and it caused every political pundit in the country to begin surmising who would be the first to fall.

Reporters were assigned the story, revisiting campaign notes and combing through stacks of research and fact sheets about so-called evidence of Russia collusion.

Then the big reveal: Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were indicted for crimes related to their business dealings with a Ukrainian politician clinging to power in a country undergoing a revolution, back in 2014. The FBI had been trying to indict them ever since. There was no mention of the Trump campaign, not any whatsoever in the 12-count indictment.

In other words, Mr. Speaker the announcement amounted to what many have called a ``nothing burger.''

Mainstream media members, who had spent all weekend promising the viewers and their readers some new damning evidence about Trump, were aghast.

Mueller had let them down. How could they face their audience now with nothing to show? But wait, another indictment snuck in in the last few hours, only a few hours later, right in the nick of time. George Papadopoulos--now, here is our guy. This is the guy. He actually went to Russia, and he proposed Trump meet with Putin. We have got him now.

Well, no. It turns out Papadopoulos was an unpaid intern who possessed a background in researching Russia. When he suggested Trump meet with the Russians, he was shot down quickly and firmly. The indictment against Papadopoulos didn't even have to do with his work on the campaign. He was indicted because he had lied to the FBI--again, no collusion with the Trump campaign found whatsoever.

But that didn't stop the media from sensationalizing the news. After all, they have a job to do. But the American people didn't fall for it, Mr. Speaker. The New Yorker's legal writer, Jeffrey Toobin, and the liberal vox.com have suggested Mueller seems to be conducting his investigation like he is going after a mafia mob boss.

The problem with treating the Trump campaign as an organized crime organization, clearly, is it presumes Trump's guilt. No matter how well-intentioned and full of integrity Mr. Mueller might be, if he is treating Trump like Al Capone, his tactics are wrong.

When trying to pursue charges on a mafia boss, the FBI pulls in the street guys, threatens them with life in jail or some other steep charge, unless they spill the beans on their superior. Once they crack, they bring in the next level, all the way to the top. This is a well- known tactic, and it incentivizes those arrested to invent some spurious testimony against their superiors.

Could Mr. Mueller be acting with vengeance or to vindicate his good friend and colleague, James Comey, who had a very public feud with the President? Well, we don't know, Mr. Speaker, but it is hard to take any charges with this investigation seriously when they are going about it in this fashion.

The main point is this, Mr. Speaker: at least James Comey, the media, and the Democrats desperately want collusion to exist between Trump and Russia. And when you want something that bad, you might even begin to believe it is true, even if it is not.

But there is good news. Anyone sincerely looking for the drama of American officials actually colluding with the Kremlin, need look no further now than the emerging scandal concerning the sale of American uranium reserves to Russia during Hillary Clinton's time at the State Department.

The FBI, in 2009, under the Obama administration, began investigating Russia's use of bribery, kickbacks, and extortion to gain a bigger foothold in the American atomic energy industry. They knew this was happening. The record is clear. Of course, Mr. Speaker, American nuclear resources are a critical component of America's national security. So any detail between Russian companies and U.S. atomic energy resources would require a signoff from the State Department.

After all, Russia is a hostile foreign government. Correct? Democrats certainly seem to believe so now, even though, in past years, most of them couldn't find Russia on a map.

So when Rosatom, a Russian energy group, took control of the Canadian Uranium One, which had control of mining and uranium stakes stretching

from Central Asia to the American West, that deal needed U.S. State Department approval. After all, this meant that Russia, a hostile foreign power, would control 20 percent of America's uranium industry. And, of course, as Obama's FBI was investigating Russia for bribes and extortion related to atomic energy, this deal should have raised a red flag for the State Department.

Vladimir Putin really wanted the deal to go through because, per The New York Times, it would allow him to realize his goal of becoming one of the world's major atomic energy players. The only thing standing in his way was Hillary Clinton's State Department. The month the deal was approved by Hillary Clinton's State Department, Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin for a ``speaking engagement'' in Moscow. Then, Mr. Speaker, Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make a series of donations to the Clinton Foundation, totaling $2.35 million.

Now, being under agreement to disclose all of their foundation contributions publicly, the Clintons neglected still to reveal the Uranium One donations. That is pretty convenient, Mr. Speaker. Are we paying attention here?

Now, since the media seems to have an insatiable appetite for Russian collusion, let's take a look at the Uranium One deal. That is a story worth looking into, Mr. Speaker. And I would bet the biggest stake in Washington, with anyone in this place, that if a special counsel was appointed to look into it, that investigation would bring some truly legitimate results.

Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment of our Constitution gives us this precious freedom of speech that we so cherish in America. Contrary to heated debate and public opinion, we, in the United States, rarely face the kind of persecution that necessitated this great protection. So I rise today to shed light on the abridgement of freedom of speech that is often widely discussed, but that few Americans ever have to endure.

Across the world, Mr. Speaker, individual freedom of speech is frequently infringed. A posted critique or just sharing one's views freely on the internet can be punishable, even by death.

Late one evening in September, a well-known Indian journalist, Gauri Lankesh, was murdered outside her

home. She was ``an anti-establishment figure with a reputation for her fearless criticism of undemocratic elements within the parties in power.'' The circumstances of her death were ``strikingly similar'' to the murders of three additional Indian activists.

Just weeks ago, another of India's most prominent political journalists, Professor Kancha Ilaiah, known for critiquing India's caste social order, was threatened by a Hindu member of India's parliament. This member of parliament, who is an ally of the current BJP government, issued a statement that Kancha should be ``publicly hanged.'' Kancha subsequently received numerous death threats.

These threats had a significant effect. A mob tried to attack Professor Ilaiah with stones as he and a coworker were driving to a meeting. Kancha is now under self-imposed house arrest because he is simply not safe otherwise.

Was Professor Ilaiah's crime significant?

Kancha was called a modern-day Dr. Ambedkar, who is known as the ``Father of the Indian Constitution,'' and Professor Ilaiah's crime was he was the author of ``Why I am Not a Hindu.''

A recent translation of his 2009 book ``Post-Hindu India'' is what seems to have sparked the threats against him. This book described the polarized context of modern-day India specifically dealing with the productivity of the Dalits and the ``low'' castes and the seeming spiritual and monetary monopoly of the ``higher'' castes. These critiques became even more relevant in India's growing agrarian crisis, the resulting farmer suicides due to hopelessness, and the massive joblessness due to demonetization and economic slowdown.

Mr. Speaker, I stand on the floor of the United States House of Representatives to state unequivocally that the United States and the entire global community is, and should be, deeply concerned about this threat to the life of Professor Kancha Ilaiah, one of the world's well- known intellectuals.

Our trusted ally and friend, India, is better than this, Mr. Speaker. Professor Kancha Ilaiah's right and freedom to speak should not be infringed; and his protection, and that of those like him, should be of the utmost priority to the Indian Government. I am able to express freely this viewpoint because we have freedom of speech in the United States of America, Mr. Speaker. May we remember at what cost and for what purpose we were given this priceless freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful that yesterday this Chamber passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, or Micah's Law. I am especially grateful to everyone who actually voted for it and had the courage and the humanity to do so.

In the years to come, no matter what else they do in this Chamber, I believe they will look back on that day as a day they stood for those who cannot protect themselves, for the least of their little brothers and sisters.

Mr. Speaker, it was just over 4 years ago that one Kermit Gosnell was convicted of killing a mother and murdering innocent late-term, pain- capable babies in his grisly torture chamber clinic even after they were born.

When authorities entered the clinic of Dr. Gosnell, they found a torture chamber for little babies that defies description within the constraints of the English language.

According to the grand jury report: ``Dr. Kermit Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies: he killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it `ensuring fetal demise.' The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called it `snipping.' Over the years, there were hundreds of `snippings.'''

Ashley Baldwin, one of Dr. Gosnell's employees, said she saw babies breathing, and she described one as 2-feet long that no longer had eyes or a mouth, but, in her words, was making like this screeching noise, and it ``sounded like a little alien.''

For God's sake, Mr. Speaker, this can't be America.

Kermit Gosnell now rightfully sits in prison for killing a mother and murdering innocent children just like the one I just described. And yet there was and still is no Federal protection for any of them, and if he had killed these pain-capable babies only 5 minutes earlier and before they had passed through the birth canal, it would have all been perfectly legal in many of these United States of America.

Now, supporters of abortion on demand have tried for decades to deny that unborn babies ever feel pain, even those, they say, at the beginning of the sixth month of pregnancy, as if somehow the ability to feel pain magically develops the very second the child is born.

Now that we have passed Micah's Law, Mr. Speaker, voices who have long hailed the merciless killing of these little ones as freedom of choice, freedom will now grow louder than ever, especially the ones who profit from it most.

I pray when Senators hear those voices, they will search their own souls and remember the words of President Abraham Lincoln when he said: ``Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and under a just God, cannot long retain it.''

Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln called upon us to remember that magnificent declaration of America's Founding Fathers, and said: `` . . . their enlightened belief that nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the word to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.''

He reminded those he called posterity, that when in the distant future some men, some factions, some interests should set up a doctrine that some

were not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that ``their posterity''--that is us, Mr. Speaker--``might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their Fathers began.'' Wow.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing to these little babies is real, and all of us here know that in our own hearts. So let me close with a final wise counsel from Abraham Lincoln, who stood so strongly for human dignity, and it desperately applies to all of us in this moment.

He said: ``Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered, in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the last generation.''

Mr. Speaker, what if the words of the American Declaration of Independence really are true? What if there really is a creator? And what if these little pain-capable human beings really are his children?

Madam Speaker, for the sake of all of those who founded this Nation and dreamed of what America could someday be, and for the sake of all of those since then who have died in darkness so that all of us as Americans could walk in the light of freedom in this moment, it is so very important that those of us who are privileged to be Members of this United States Congress pause from time to time and remind ourselves of why we are really all here.

Thomas Jefferson, whose words marked the beginning of this Nation, said: ``The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.''

The phrase in the Fifth Amendment encapsulates our entire Constitution. It says, no person shall ``be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.''

The 14th Amendment says, no State shall ``deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''

Madam Speaker, protecting the lives of all innocent Americans and their constitutional rights is why we are really all here, and yet today a great and tragic shadow looms over America.

More than 18,000 very-late-term abortions are occurring in America every year, placing the mothers at exponentially greater risk and subjecting their little, pain-capable unborn babies to torture and death without anesthesia or Federal protection of any kind; this in the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is the greatest and most insidious human rights atrocity in the United States today.

Almost every other major civilized nation on Earth protects pain- capable unborn babies at this age, and every credible poll of the American people shows that they are overwhelmingly in favor of protecting them, and yet we have given these little babies less legal protection from unnecessary cruelty than the protection we have given farm animals under the Federal Humane Slaughter Act.

Madam Speaker, it seems like we are never quite so eloquent as when we decry the crimes of a past generation. And how is it that sometimes we are so staggeringly blind when it comes to facing and rejecting the worst atrocities in our own time?

Today, Madam Speaker, I am especially thankful, because the winds of change are now beginning to blow and the tide of blindness and blood is finally turning in America.

There is a new leader who lives in the White House, and he is deeply committed to protecting the least of these, our little brothers and sisters.

Madam Speaker, today we are poised to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in this Chamber. No matter how it is shouted down or what distortions or deceptive what-ifs, distractions, divisions, gotchas, twisting of words, twisting of subject, or blatant falsehoods the abortion industry hurls at this bill and its supporters, this bill is a deeply sincere effort, beginning at their sixth month of pregnancy, to protect both mothers and their pain-capable unborn babies from the atrocity of late-term abortion on demand, and ultimately it is a bill all humane Americans will support if they truly understand it for themselves.

Madam Speaker, this will be a vote that all of us remember for the rest of our lives. It will be a time now for the U.S. Senate to find the courage and humanity to take a stand for these, the most helpless of all human victims. The Senate's action will be considered in the annals of history and, I believe, in the counsels of eternity itself.

Madam Speaker, passing this bill really shouldn't be so hard because, in spite of all the political noise, protecting little pain-capable, unborn children and their mothers is not a Republican issue and it is not a Democratic issue. It is a test of our basic humanity and who we are as a human family.

It is time for the Members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate to open our eyes and our souls and remember that protecting those who cannot protect themselves is why we are really all here. It is time for us, all of us as Americans, Madam Speaker, to open our eyes and our hearts to the humanity of these little pain-capable children of God and the inhumanity of what is being done to them.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House of Representatives will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and before that occurs, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor tonight and just remind all of us that the United States of America is, indeed, a unique nation that is premised on the foundation that we are all created equal and that each of us is endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to live.

But 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, numerous video recordings were released that incontrovertibly documented corporate officers and employees of Planned Parenthood casually discussing their rampant practice of harvesting and selling the little body parts from many of the hundreds of thousands of innocent babies they are guilty of killing in their abortion clinics across this Nation every year.

Now, these videos irrefutably reveal officers of Planned Parenthood haggling over the price of these little organs and body parts and casually describing ways of killing these little babies, often using much more painful methods, like partial-birth abortion, to make sure that the saleable organs of these little babies remained undamaged.

One of these videos described an incident where one of Planned Parenthood's employees calls one of the younger employees over to witness something that was ``kind of cool;'' that one of those baby's hearts was still beating. The older employee said: ``Okay. This is really a good fetus, and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. We are going to procure a brain.''

Then, using scissors, together the two employees, starting at the baby's chin, cut upward through the center of this child's face and then pulled out the baby's little brain and placed it in a container where it could later be sold.

Mr. Speaker, I find it so crushingly sad that the only time this little baby was ever held by anyone in his very short life was by those who cut his face open to take his brain.

Have we forgotten that, not so long ago, authorities entered the clinic of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, and there they found a torture chamber for little babies that defies, within the constraints of the English language, any description. The grand jury, at that time, reported: ``Dr. Kermit Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies. He killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it ensuring fetal demise. The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called it snipping. Over the years, there were hundreds of snippings.''

Ashley Baldwin, one of Dr. Gosnell's employees, said she saw babies breathing, and she described one as 2 feet long, that no longer had eyes or a mouth, but were, in her words, making like, this ``screeching noise.'' And she said it ``sounded like a little alien.''

For God's sake, Mr. Speaker, this can't be who we truly are. The fact is that more than 18,000 late-term, pain-capable, unborn children were torturously killed, without anesthesia, in America in just the last year. Many of them cried and screamed as they died, but because it was amniotic fluid going over the vocal cords, we couldn't hear them. It is the worst human rights atrocity in the United States of America.

Now, I know that many of those on this floor and the American media will hold to the standard line and try to cloak all of this in the name of freedom of choice; but I would beg them, Mr. Speaker, to open their hearts and ask themselves what is so liberating about brutally and painfully dismembering living, helpless little human babies.

In spite of all the political noise, protecting these little, helpless, pain-capable, unborn children and their mothers is not a Republican issue, and it is not a Democrat issue. It is a basic test of our basic humanity and who we are as a human family.

Mr. Speaker, the sands of time should blow over this Capitol dome before we ever give Planned Parenthood one more dime of taxpayer money. And in the name of humanity, Democrat Senators should not be allowed to filibuster the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in the Senate because passing it would prevent the vast majority of these ongoing evil acts of torture against helpless, little, pain-capable human babies that these videos have now shown so clearly to the entire world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the greatest pro-life champions in the history of the United States and a precious friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson.)

I am very grateful that you are here tonight, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I so sincerely thank the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my precious friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), and I thank him for coming to the floor tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

It is now my honor to yield to the honorable gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very sincerely for his remarks. I am glad he came this way here recently.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Texas very much for speaking on the floor tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Banks very much for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I simply say that sometimes I think we kind of get caught up in things and we grow used to something that otherwise would horrify us.

Before the sun set this evening, we saw 3,000 unborn little Americans die a tragic and lonely death. That is in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. Speaker, each time that took place, not only did a nameless little baby die a lonely and tragic death, but the mother was never the same again. All the gifts that that child might have brought to this world are now lost forever.

So, Mr. Speaker, I pray that somehow in this debate we would put aside which people are right and ask: What is the right thing for America?

The very creed of this country is the notion that all of us have the Imago Dei, or the image of God, stamped on our souls. If that is true, Mr. Speaker, then there is a far greater question here than we can ever imagine.

Mr. Speaker, I think if we ask ourselves the truest and deepest question, then perhaps we will begin to see the winds of change begin to blow in this country. That is very simply without all of the rationalization, without all of the gotchas and the what-ifs and the avoiding of the subject, and if we just ask ourselves one basic question: Does abortion kill a little baby?

If it does not, Mr. Speaker, then I sincerely am one that can get up out of this Chamber and never speak of it again. But if abortion really does kill a little human child, then those of us standing here in the seat of freedom, the greatest Nation in the history of the world, also stand here in the midst of the greatest human genocide in the history of the human family.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are called to do in this world, as the greatest Nation that ever had the chance to exist on this Earth.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that, as we debate the bill tomorrow, we can put aside anything but the truth and just examine in our own hearts who we really are. If we do that, I believe we will pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on October 3, 2017. By the grace of God, it will go over to the Senate and they will find a way to bring this bill to the floor and send it to President Trump, who I have every conviction will sign the bill, and for which I am very grateful.

Mr. Speaker, God bless America, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 445, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 446, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 447, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 448.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Brooks of Alabama

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the space-based missile defense layer that we debate today will be one of the most significant technological advancements in our missile defense capability since Ronald Reagan first brought this possibility to the Nation.

Mr. Foster's amendment would prevent the next revolution in missile defense as we seek to expand our umbrella protection into space, the ultimate high ground.

Mr. Speaker, the most critical priority of this Congress is the defense of the Nation. If we fail that task, little else we might do will be of any consequence.

To prohibit the development of the next generation missile defense capabilities because other countries will object is to grant our potential adversaries a veto over our national security. Mr. Foster's amendment would do just that.

It should be noted that every significant missile defense milestone ever achieved by this Nation has been over the objections of gentlemen like Mr. Foster and his supporters. They have been wrong about missile defense for decades, and they have a consistent record of demonstrably bad judgment on this issue. They have imposed their philosophy on the science and physics involved. Theirs is a broken record which began playing back in the 1970s. If we had listened to them, we would have no missile defense today and we would all be completely vulnerable to the likes of North Korea.

The reason it was called Star Wars was because they derisively renamed Mr. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative to Star Wars and said it was impossible because it would be hitting a bullet with a bullet. But, Mr. Chairman, today we not only hit a bullet with a bullet, we hit a dot on the side of a bullet with a bullet.

The technology is here. We have demonstrated it time and time again. It is important to defeat this amendment for the sake of the Constitution, for the sake of the United States of America.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I think I would just say that the opponents to missile defense, especially to space-based missile defense, have hilariously overstated the cost of this system.

A regionally deployed system would cost in the range of $20 billion over 30 years, and the cost would go down, as launch costs often do.

It is important to keep in mind that when two airplanes hit two buildings, it cost us $2 trillion.

What would that cost have been like if it had been a nuclear warhead that hit New York?

I would just suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is important that we do all that we possibly can to make sure that that does not indeed occur.

I don't know what price we put on national security, but the systems that we are talking about, our GMD system--our Ground-based Midcourse Defense system--was just tested against an ICBM target recently, and it was successful.

We have had 14 out of 14 successful tests with our THAAD system--our Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. The technology has been proven time and again.

We should not undersell the United States of America. We can build the system. We will build it. It will help us get to the left of the launch. It will help us to be able to have a boost-phase defense against missiles when they are in their most vulnerable position and over enemy territory.

This is vital for the American national security, for our future, for our children, and for our children's children. I would hope that we would defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 415.

personal explanation

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

Mr. Chairman, it has been 15 years and 10 months since the attacks on September 11, which killed nearly 3,000 people and wounded nearly 6,000 others.

Since then, America has fought five operations in eight countries, prosecuting wars against those responsible, their allies, and sympathizers, and the foundational ideology that fomented it. And 5,400 American heroes have given the last full measure of devotion in service to their country to combat this vile enemy.

Yet, in spite of all of this, there are those who continue to oppose any attempts to study the ideological roots of this enemy. Their zealous commitment not to understand our enemies' motivations would almost be impressive if it weren't so harmful.

As my friends across the aisle were so eager to point out, this is not a war which can be won with bombs and bullets alone. Despite the peerless capability of our warrior class, we cannot kill our way out of this problem, nor is this a war which can be won by increasing the State Department's budget for providing ``jobs programs'' for jihadists.

It has to be noted by even the most intransigent of those who would oppose my amendment today that so many of the young men who buy into this destructive movement come from families who are more than comfortable financially.

Osama bin Laden's family was not going hungry when he declared war on America, twice. Many of the significant leaders of the various groups and factions are men with postdoctorate degrees in Islamic studies from some of those most prestigious universities in the Muslim world.

Yet we are told by countless talking heads and politicians that men and women who carry out these terrible attacks and cry, Allahu Akbar, in that moment when they detonate bombs in the midst of the crowds of innocent men, women, and children, have nothing to do with Islamist ideology.

Mr. Chairman, to embrace that flagrant fallacy means we will never be able to address this evil on a strategic level, and our noble men and women in uniform will be forced to combat it on a tactical level only.

This present struggle against the vast majority of terrorism in the world is fundamentally one of ideas, and it will be won on the battlefield in the hearts and minds of human beings.

Mr. Chairman, I know that there are many brands of violent extremism, and I eagerly would join my colleagues in any effort to combat them all. If the FBI does not have enough resources to combat neo-Nazis or White supremacists, then I want to know about that,

and I want to help. There is no desire in my heart whatsoever to single out any group of innocent people or denigrate their faith in any way.

However, the reality remains that there is one spectrum of Islamic ideology whose variants are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, feeling the insurgency in Iraq, the countless attacks on civilians in Europe, and the boundless evil of the Islamic State.

In 2017 alone, there have been 1,134 attacks in 49 countries, in which more than 8,000 people have been killed and 8,000 more were injured.

Our allies across the world, including in the Muslim world, have now begun to study and analyze the ideology that foments Islamic terrorism so they can begin to resist it on a strategic ideological level.

If we in America do not also address this on a strategic level, this underlying ideology that catalyzes the evil of jihadist terrorism across the world, then its list of victims will only grow longer.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will help us to categorize those perpetrating violence in the name of Islam and help us to identify our allies within the Muslim world who can assist in countering the Islamic message of global jihad. Those who would oppose this amendment choose to continue the status quo, that is to say, no strategy at all.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would just implore the Members of this body to pass this amendment and join this sincere effort in finally identifying our enemies, empowering our friends, and ending this evil destructive ideology once and for all.

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

Mr. Chair, how much time remains on this side?

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will empower America to identify those heroes within the Muslim world who are working so bravely to counter the odious violent ideology which continues to use Islam to justify the murder of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. It will save American lives, it will save Muslim lives, it will save lives across the world, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I also want to sincerely thank Chairman Kevin Brady and the members of the Ways and Means Committee for their continued and invaluable work to protect America's children and strengthening our child welfare policy, as is in evidence in these five bills we are considering today.

Mr. Speaker, foster care issues rarely drive our national media headlines, yet, to the children who are in the child welfare system, the importance of finding solutions and eliminating the barriers that would ensure better futures, better outcomes, and a permanent connection to a loving family can make fundamental, lifelong differences to those who are some of America's most vulnerable children.

The goal of the Family First legislation, of which these bills are components, is to respond to the devastating data pertaining to the outcomes for foster youth who age out of care, often without any permanent connection and without the life skills and support systems necessary to thrive as independent adults.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard so many times from the States that there is a need to make our Federal child welfare funding flexible enough so that we never incentivize the placement of children into foster care who would safely receive care in their homes or with safe, loving relatives. This bipartisan package of child welfare system improvements makes important steps toward improving our child welfare system to better protect children and families, and I am certainly delighted to support its passage.

I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, again, those colleagues that have worked on this for their invaluable work on this critically important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Walker for this opportunity.

It is so appropriate on People's Night to talk about the very littlest people in America, isn't it?

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is a unique nation that is premised on that bedrock foundation that we are all created equal, and that each of us is endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to live.

That is why it is so important for Members of Congress to remind ourselves from time to time that protecting the lives of all Americans and their constitutional rights is why we are really all here. It is our sworn oath before God and the people of this Nation.

Yet today, a great shadow looms over America. More than 18,000 late- term abortions, very late-term abortions, are occurring in America every year, placing the mothers at exponentially greater risk and subjecting their pain-capable unborn babies to torture and death without anesthesia--this, in the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is the greatest human rights atrocity in the United States today.

Almost every other major civilized nation on Earth protects pain- capable unborn babies at this stage, and every credible poll of the American people shows that they are overwhelmingly in favor of protecting them. Yet we have given these little babies less legal protection from unnecessary cruelty than the protection we have given farm animals under the Federal Humane Slaughter Act.

But thankfully, Mr. Speaker, the winds of change have finally begun to blow, and the tide of blindness and blood is finally turning in America. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act has already once passed in this body, and it will again, Mr. Speaker; and these little babies now have a new and very powerful friend and protector in President Donald J. Trump.

No matter how it is shouted down or what distortions, deception what- ifs, distractions, diversions, gotchas, twisting of words, changing the subject, or blatant falsehoods the abortion industry hurls at this bill and its supporters, it will remain a deeply sincere effort, beginning at the sixth month of pregnancy, to protect both mothers and their pain-capable unborn babies from this torturous atrocity of late-term abortion on demand. Ultimately, it is one all humane Americans can support if they truly understand it for themselves.

So the question that now remains is whether the Republican leader in the Senate will find the courage to prevent pro-abortion Democrats from once again using the Senate filibuster to prevent this bill from even coming to the floor in the Senate for debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for all Americans to open our eyes and our souls and recognize the humanity of these helpless little babies and the inhumanity of what is being done to them. Protecting these little children of God and their mothers is not a Republican issue; it is not a Democratic issue; it is a decisive test of our own humanity and who we are as a human family.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Victor Marx is a man dedicated to spreading the great truth that even in the face of hate and violence, the love of God can heal even the most wounded among us. Victor's full life story has been chronicled in the book ``The Victor Marx Story'' and in a film by the same name.

Victor's animating, faith-motivated, moral imperative to help the suffering has fueled the mission of All Things Possible to free children from abuse and the effects of its trauma.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and to commend Victor Marx and All Things Possible Ministries for the work they do to reach out and embrace traumatized individuals across the world.

In 2015, All Things Possible launched high-risk missions to bring hope to those suffering abuse at the hands of evil in the Middle East. Victor and his team, including Dave Eubank of Free the Oppressed, visited Iraq to help over 300 young women and children who were previously held captive or traumatized by the violence of ISIS.

In an effort to provide children with tangible comfort, ATP launched the Lions and Lambs project. More than 11,000 little boys and girls have received stuffed animals that play cultural songs and prayers in a language native to their region. These signs of huggable hope remind them that they are not forgotten by the outside world.

In 2016, Victor and his team initiated efforts to find persecuted Christian families in northern Iraq and move them to safe havens in neighboring countries. To date, ATP has relocated more than 40 individuals specifically targeted by ISIS for elimination, giving them hope for a safer, better life, and restoring their faith in the human spirit.

Last year, ATP launched the third option with the goal of offering concrete alternatives to those vulnerable to ISIS recruitment. ATP unites with moderate leaders of the Islamic faith to pursue this goal. Recognizing Victor as a man of the book, a key leader of the Sunni Endowment is now working with ATP to craft a common narrative designed to prevent men of military age from being assimilated into ISIS.

Mr. Speaker, the prophet Isaiah said: The wolf also shall lie down with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Victor Marx and All Things Possible Ministries have brought this powerful ministry to life in a very touching way. It should encourage all of us to relentlessly pursue that day when the light of hope will fall across all of the lonely faces of God's children all over this world and to that time when future generations, of those whom Jesus called the least of these our brothers and sisters, will be able to walk in the sunlight of liberty for as long as mankind inherits the Earth.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Victor Marx and All Things Possible, and I thank them for trying to make a better world.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Black for this bill. It seems like whenever we talk about this issue, we always talk past each other. But the real question before us is: Does abortion kill a little baby?

If it doesn't, I am ready to quit talking about it. But if it does, then those of us sitting in the seat of freedom are also standing in the midst of the greatest human genocide in the history of humanity. And although we may not agree on all of the vicissitudes of abortion, one thing is certain: Some day, we, as a society, will look back, we will recognize the humanity of these little children of God and the inhumanity of what was being done to them, and we will regret these days.

Until then, at least can't we get together and say that we shouldn't force taxpayers to pay for the killing of innocent little human beings?

I pray that we can open our eyes to that truth.

Mr. Speaker, I came to this building some 30 years ago. Christopher Smith was here fighting the battle for these little babies, as he is tonight. I hold him to be a grand hero of humanity. Words fail me to express to him the honor, the respect, and the affection that is due him for his relentless, faithful commitment to these little babies that could never vote for him.

All I can say to Mr. Smith is that one day he will step over the threshold of eternity and God will say: Welcome home, Chris. You did a good job. You protected those who couldn't protect themselves.

I can't think of anything that I think points to a greater manhood, a greater honor, a greater stewardship of life than protecting those who cannot protect themselves. I just want to express that in the deepest way possible.

Certainly, Keith Rothfus, I love him. He is a wonderful man. We have so many here. But Chris has been here forever and he has stayed with it. He is getting to be an old guy, but he is not quitting. I am so honored just to be in the same room with him.

Mr. Speaker, as I often do around the 22nd of January to commemorate and to remember the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, I come with a sunset memorial because another legislative day has come and gone in Washington, D.C., and sunset approaches fast. So I stand here in this House with what I call a sunset memorial.

You see, Mr. Speaker, before the sun sets today in America, over 3,000 more unborn children will be killed by abortion on demand in the land of the free and the home of the brave. That is more than the number of innocent lives lost on September 11th in this country. It happens every day.

As much hope as there is in the day in which we stand in this place, in this new moment in American history, for these 3,000, hope will never come in time. I mourn that, Mr. Speaker, because it wasn't necessary.

It has now been 44 years since the tragedy called Roe v. Wade was first handed down. Since then, the very foundation of this Nation has been stained by the blood of almost 60 million of our own unborn children. So many of them, Mr. Speaker, cried and screamed as they died, but because it was amniotic fluid going over the vocal cords instead of air, we couldn't hear them.

All of them had at least four things in common, Mr. Speaker. First, they were just little babies who had done nothing wrong to anyone. Each one of them died a nameless and lonely death and each one of their mothers was wounded. Whether she realizes it or not, she will never quite be the same.

All the gifts that these children might have brought to humanity are now lost forever, Mr. Speaker, and that is worth mourning. Yet, even the glare of such tragedy brings a ray of hope because this generation, even though it still clings sometimes to a blind, invincible ignorance while history repeats itself over and over again, there is, again, a new beacon of hope breaking over the horizon.

Mr. Speaker, not so long ago I heard Barack Obama speak some very noble but poignant words that, whether he realizes it or not, applies so profoundly to this subject. So I am going to quote some excerpted portions of his comments.

Let me just say at the outset that I agreed with the words that he spoke. I am going to say that upfront. No one was a greater critic of the policies of Barack Obama than myself because I thought he missed the moment. I thought he missed his moment in history. He could have been a great and powerful friend to the helpless, yet he chose to be the one to oppose their chance to walk in the light of life.

He said: ``This is our first task--caring for our children. It's our first job. If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right. That's how, as a society, we will be judged.''

I agree, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Obama asked: ``Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence that is visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of freedom?''

The President also said: ``Our journey is not complete until all our children . . .'' are ``cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.''

``That is our generation's task,'' he said, ``to make these words, these rights, these values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness real for every American.''

Mr. Speaker, never have I so deeply agreed with any words ever spoken by President Barack Obama as those I have just quoted. Yet, when he was President, in the most merciless distortion of logic and reason and humanity itself, he refused to apply his incontrovertible words to the helpless unborn babies in this Nation.

How I wish, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Obama could have somehow opened his heart and his ears to his own words and asked himself in the core of his own soul why his words that should apply to all children could not have included the most helpless and vulnerable of all children. Nine million American unborn children died under the policies that Mr. Obama relentlessly supported.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that moment when President Barack Obama could have heard and responded to the silent

cries of these little forgotten souls has passed forever. Mr. Obama takes his place as the undisputed abortion President.

While I mourn that reality, Mr. Speaker, I take great hope in a new reality that Donald Trump is now President of the United States and that the winds of change are beginning to blow. I believe Mr. Trump will be a protector of these little babies that have waited so very long for someone to come along and help them.

So now I pray that the Members of this body and those in the United States Senate will remember the words of Thomas Jefferson when he said: ``The care of human life and its happiness, and not its destruction, is the chief and only object of good government.''

That phrase in the 14th Amendment that capsulizes our entire Constitution says: ``No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.''

Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of all Americans and their constitutional rights is why we are all here.

Mr. Speaker, there is hope now. We wait for that new day that has come to manifest and the sun to break through the clouds and shine once again on the faces of these little babies.