Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, lawyer Xie Yang was tortured for the better part of two years because he dared to represent China's poor and persecuted. The account of his detention is both harrowing and horrible. Xie Yang was sleep deprived and kept in isolation. Squads of police punched and kicked him for hours at a time. He was forced to sit still for hours on a precarious stack of plastic chairs; his feet dangling painfully off the ground. Police made threats to his wife and children and said they would turn him into an ``invalid'' unless he confessed to political crimes. Xie Yang and his fellow human rights lawyers wanted the best for China, but they got the very worst. Since July 2015, almost 250 lawyers and legal assistants were detained sending a chilling message to those fighting for legal reforms and human rights. At yesterday's hearing in the human rights subcommittee that I chair, we came together to shine a light on the brutal, illegal, and dehumanizing use of torture and forced disappearance of human rights lawyers and rights advocates in China. We shine a light on dictatorships because nothing good happens in the dark. And, as we learned yesterday, there are some very dark places in China. Chinese officials repeatedly tell me I should focus more on the positive aspects of China and not dwell so much on the negative. That is a difficult task when you read Xie Yang's story, read Gao Zhisheng's account of his torture, or read the accounts of Yu Jie or Golog Jigme or Yin Liping. It is a difficult task when you look at Li Chunfu and his brother Li Heping. These are some of China's best and bravest--now with broken bodies, shattered minds and faces that have aged 20 years after two years of solitary confinement and torture. It is shocking, offensive, immoral, and inhumane. It is also completely possible that Chinese officials believe the international community will not hold them accountable. While President Xi Jinping is feted at Davos and lauded in foreign capitals for his public commitment to openness, his government is torturing and abusing those seeking rights guaranteed by China's own Constitution and its international obligations. One Oxford university scholar has said that Xi has built the ``perfect dictatorship''--an increasingly repressive garrison state that avoids any international censure. Through the UN and the sanctions available in the Global Magnitsky Act, we should be seeking to hold accountable any Chinese officials complicit in torture and illegal detentions. Xie Yang identified at least 10 police officers who tortured him. We are in the process of gathering names and identifying information. I will then send those names to President Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and the Chairs and ranking members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We will seek UN investigations into the torture of China's human rights lawyers and human rights defenders because their treatment in detention violates China's obligations as signatory of the UN Torture Convention. We will also seek investigations under the Global Magnitsky Act. I introduced the House version of that bill, which was signed into law last year. That law says explicitly that any foreign government officials who engages in or is complicit in torture can be sanctioned--by denying entry visas into the United State or by imposing financial sanctions. Those who tortured Xie Yang and Li Heping should never benefit from access to the United States or our financial system. We will hear testimony yesterday from the wives of detained human rights lawyers. We also heard from Ms. Li Ching-Yu, the wife of detained Taiwanese democracy advocate Lee Ming-che. After entering mainland China in March of this year for a personal trip, Mr. Lee went missing for 10 days before Chinese officials confirmed that he was being held on so-called ``national security'' grounds. Many fear Mr. Lee is being detained under a harsh new Chinese law to monitor and control foreignfunded NGOs, enforced earlier this year as part of a crackdown on civil society. His detention fits the trend of the Chinese government targeting activists, dissidents, or even scholars based abroad. The Taiwan government is working behind the scenes to resolve Lee Ming-che's case, though I am sure such efforts are hindered by Taiwan's lack of international clout and its complicated diplomatic ties with Beijing. As I have said before, Taiwan is an important democratic ally and a beacon of peace and democracy in Asia. The U.S. should remain committed to the Taiwan Relations Act and the ``Six Assurances'' as cornerstones of U.S.-Taiwan relations. Political issues between China and Taiwan should be resolved through appropriate mechanisms between the two sides. The Chinese government decision to detain Lee Ming-che signaled Chinese officials' willingness to break its international human rights obligations for political gains, needlessly straining cross-strait relations. We welcomed Ms. Li Ching-Yu's testimony yesterday in order to increase the level of international interest and attention to her husband's case. The Chinese government is facing a new and unexpected phenomenon-- effective advocacy campaigns waged by the wives of tortured and detained rights advocates. I truly admire the brave women who are challenging the Chinese government to live up to its highest ideals. They are an inspiration. Through the testimony provided during yesterday's hearing, we considered the almost two year effort by President Xi Jinping's government to eviscerate China's network of human rights lawyers and consider how the continued detention of Lee Ming-che has negatively impacted cross-strait relations between Beijing and Taipei.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my capacity as Co- Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, I participated in a hearing to examine Russian military threats in the OSCE region. Russia today stands in violation of the central commitments of the Helsinki Final Act. These commitments include respect for the territorial integrity of States, fundamental freedoms, and the fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law. In violating these commitments, Russia is threatening the foundations of European security and recklessly endangering the lives of millions. One such victim of Russian aggression is Joseph Stone, the 36-year- old American medic who was killed by a landmine while on patrol in separatist-controlled eastern Ukraine with the OSCE's Special Monitoring Mission on April 23rd. If it weren't for Russia's unjustifiable aggression toward Ukraine's sovereignty there would be no need for such a monitoring mission. And yet, day after day, OSCE monitors put themselves in harm's way to try to reduce the tensions created by the reckless conduct of Russia and its proxies in eastern Ukraine. It is a conflict that has already claimed over ten thousand lives, and sadly is sure to claim more. Russian aggression is not a localized phenomenon--it threatens the entire region. Moscow has seized sovereign territory by force, threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons against other countries, harassed U.S. and NATO military assets, and abandoned key transparency measures and commitments. These actions are unacceptable. In the face of such provocations, the United States must leave no doubt that we stand behind our Eastern European and Baltic Allies. There is no time to waste: we must ensure the confidence of our friends at this critical juncture. One way to do this is to continue building a credible conventional deterrent to Russian aggression alongside our allies, in particular Poland and the Baltic States. I have consistently supported robust funding for the European Reassurance Initiative. With the support of this initiative, since 2014, NATO members have held over 1,000 military exercises in Europe. ERI has allowed the U.S. to participate more extensively in such exercises and increase its deployment of soldiers and military assets in allied countries. Furthermore, it has helped us to build the capacity of our partners and generally make our commitment to European security felt. These kinds of activities must be sustained and expanded to ensure that we are ready to counter any threat at any time. Mr. Speaker, the United States must act, bilaterally and within NATO, to robustly deter, defend against, and roll back Russian aggression in the OSCE region. This includes ensuring that Ukraine has the defensive weapons it needs to more effectively repel Russian occupying forces and respond to Russian-backed proxies. As Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko told a joint session of Congress several years ago, ``One cannot win the war with blankets.'' That is at true today as it was then. If Russia's invasion, occupation, and fracturing of Ukraine stands, then Russia will be emboldened to do likewise in other neighboring countries. It is in the interests of the United States to help ensure that the Russian Federation does not become the new Soviet Union, invading, occupying and annexing its neighbors.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 672, the Combating Anti-Semitism Act of 2017, sponsored by my friend Nita Lowey. I and all of our fellow Co-Chairs of the Bi-Partisan Task Force for Combating Anti-Semitism are original cosponsors. Among its provisions, the bill would require the State Department to include in existing annual reports information about the security challenges and needs of European Jewish communities and European law enforcement. This report would also document related U.S. government efforts to partner with European law enforcement agencies and civil society groups. H.R. 672 is important and timely. As witnesses testified at a hearing I chaired in March on ``Anti-Semitism Across Borders,'' physical attacks on European Jewish communities, and other forms of anti-Semitic hatred, remain rampant on the continent. Rabbi Andy Baker, Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office on Combating Anti- Semitism and Director of International Jewish Affairs at the American Jewish Committee noted that even after the deadly anti-Semitic attacks in Paris, Brussels and Copenhagen, ``problems still remain. Governments have taken different approaches, and some only in stop-gap measures.'' Rabbi Baker also emphasized that ``We need to be clear-eyed in confronting and combating anti-Semitism, which manifests itself on both the right and the left.'' At the same hearing, Paul Goldenberg, Director of the Security Community Network and Senior Advisor to the Rutgers University Faith- Based Communities Security Program, warned that ``Ever-more connected, extremist groups in the United States are borrowing, adapting and enhancing the tactics and strategies adopted in Europe.'' This is an especially sobering warning, given the man recent anti-Semitic incidents here in the United States. Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, emphasized that ``Fighting antisemitism has always been a bipartisan commitment and in today's fractured political world it is more necessary than ever that the U.S. maintain its diplomatic and moral leadership in this issue. . . . we would strongly suggest that the position [of Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti- Semitism] even be upgraded, to that of Ambassador, thus demonstrating the importance attached by our government to this issue.'' H.R. 672 is an example of such bi-partisanship. It would ensure that the Special Envoy, other U.S. officials, the Congress, and civil society--especially European Jewish communities that their security groups--have key information to act fully and effectively. With the right information, and robust action, the United States can help ensure the safety and security of Jewish communities in Europe and elsewhere.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I made the following remarks at the hearing held by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China which I co-chair with Senator Marco Rubio regarding human rights in Hong Kong: Two and half years ago, tens of thousands of Hong Kong's residents peacefully gathered in the streets, yellow umbrellas in hand, seeking electoral reform and greater democracy. Joshua Wong was at the forefront of that movement--along with Nathan Law and Alex Chow and so many young student leaders. The Umbrella Movement was not only composed of students, but included veterans of the democracy movement in Hong Kong, including Martin Lee. It is good to see Joshua and Martin here today, bringing together the generations of advocates committed to Hong Kong's freedom and autonomy. Joshua Wong and all those associated with the Umbrella Movement have become important symbols of Hong Kong's vitality and its freedoms. They are now part of Hong Kong's unique brand and any effort to detain, censor, or intimidate them damages that brand. Over the past two years, Senator Rubio and I, along with other members of the China Commission, have introduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and we have worked in Congress to maintain the State Department's annual report on Hong Kong. We have issued statements of concern about the political prosecutions of Joshua and other Umbrella Movement leaders; the unprecedented interventions by the Chinese government in Hong Kong's courts and political affairs, and the abductions Hong Kong booksellers and other citizens. We have also discussed the erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms with both U.S. and Chinese officials. I want to commend Senator Rubio for his leadership on human rights issues and on Hong Kong. We have worked together closely and I am honored to work with him on the China Commission. Senator Rubio is a true champion of the globe's oppressed and persecuted. As long as I have the privilege of serving as a Chair of the China Commission, I promise to continue shining a light on Hong Kong. Maintaining Hong Kong's autonomy is a critical U.S. interest. The U.S. also has a clear interest in Beijing abiding by its international agreements--in Hong Kong and elsewhere. The democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong cannot be indefinitely suppressed. I promise to stand with Hong Kong and call attention to violations of basic human rights as long as I serve in Congress. Though Beijing's increasingly rough oversight of Hong Kong may not be as brutal as that pursued on the Mainland, it is no less pernicious. The ultimate goal is eroding Hong Kong's guaranteed freedoms and the rule law and intimidating those who try to defend them. This year will be the 20th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong. Unfortunately it seems the territory's autonomy looks increasingly fragile. We are coming up on another anniversary as well, the 25th anniversary of the Hong Kong Policy Act. At this juncture we should be examining both the health of the ``one country, two systems'' model and examining the very assumptions that underlie U.S.-Hong Kong relations. What can be done differently, what new priorities should be set? The Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 was based on the assumption that freedom, the rule of law, and autonomy promised to Hong Kong would be protected and respected. It was also based on the assumption that time was on the side of freedom--that trade and investment would eventually bring political liberalization and human rights to Mainland China. As Chairman Rubio and I have been saying for some time, one can no longer base U.S. policy on the ``fantasy'' that China's future will be more democratic and more open. Mainland China has become more repressive, not less. Prosperity has turned a poor authoritarian country into a rich authoritarian country with predictable results for China's rights defenders, ethnic and religious groups, labor and democracy advocates, foreign businesses and Hong Kong's autonomy. Some will argue that the best course of action would be to retreat into a hard realism, recognize China's interests and spheres of influence and protect U.S. interests. We could ignore what is happening in Hong Kong and shift responsibility to the British or some undefined international body. I disagree. We don't need a new realism to govern our China policy. Instead, we need a new idealism--a renewed commitment to democratic ideals, to human rights, and the rule of law in ways that compete directly with the Chinese model in Asia and Africa and elsewhere. Chinese leaders need to know that the United States stands for freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, Internet freedom, the rule of law, universal suffrage, and an end to torture as critical interests, necessary for bilateral relations, and linked to the expansion of mutual prosperity and integrated security. The U.S. should also push back hard against the erosion of freedom and autonomy in Hong Kong. It is in everyone's interest that Hong Kong remain a free and prosperous bridge between China and the West, but the city's unique vitality and prosperity are rooted in its guaranteed freedoms. If Hong Kong is to become just another Mainland Chinese city, we will have to reassess whether Hong Kong warrants special status under U.S. law. The arc of history does not bend toward justice without concerted action from all freedom-loving peoples. If the U.S. and the international community does not defend the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong's citizens now, there is little hope that freedom can take root in China's future.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the subcommittee I chair held a hearing on accelerating the fight against human trafficking with particular focus on the new Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Act of 2017--the comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that my friend and colleague Karen Bass and I introduced last Thursday joined by Chairman Royce, Representatives Jackson Lee, Brooks, Frankel, Wagner, Cardenas, Poe, and Costello. In the fight to end modern day slavery, and as the author of the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, the new bill honors the extraordinary legacy of one of the greatest Americans who ever lived. Born a slave in 1818--we look forward to celebrating the 200th anniversary of his birth next year--Frederick Douglass escaped slavery when he was 20 and dedicated his entire life to abolishing slavery and, after emancipation, to ending Jim Crow laws while struggling for full equality for African American citizens. A gifted orator, author, editor, statesman (and Republican), he died in 1895. The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act authorizes $130 million over 4 years to prevent human trafficking, protect victims, and beef up prosecution at home and abroad. Among other things, I note that this bill encourages more hotels at home and abroad to put policies and trainings in place so that the hotels are less likely to be used by human traffickers to exploit children. To the extent practicable, the U.S. Government will direct U.S. Government travelers using taxpayer money to use hotels that have taken affirmative steps to end trafficking within their walls. The new bill seeks to restore the credibility of the Trafficking in Persons Report, produced annually by the Department of State, to hold countries accountable for progress, or the lack thereof, in the fight against human trafficking. Talk is cheap--we insist on sustainable action. This report scrutinizes more than 190 countries--with the credible threat of serious sanction for egregious violators branded Tier 3--to improve their trafficking laws and actions. But in several notable cases, particularly in 2015, countries that should have been held accountable by the last administration with Tier 3 designations were given a pass--countries such as Malaysia, Cuba, China, Oman, Uzbekistan, and others. The new bill tries to ensure that countries complicit in trafficking are held accountable. No politics. Ever. And it will remove from current law the presumption that countries failing to quantify convictions and identify victims somehow deserve passing grades. IJM's Policy Director Tim Gehring underscored that concern in his testimony today stating, ``The politicization of the tier rankings, against the advice of the anti-trafficking experts at TIP Office is to the detriment of the annual report, the U.S. Government's leadership on combatting this human rights abuse, and, ultimately, to the people exploited in the countries which receive an undeserved higher ranking.'' Last year alone, I chaired two hearings on this: ``Accountability Over Politics: Scrutinizing the Trafficking in Persons Report'' in July and earlier in March, ``Get it Right This Time: A Victims-Centered Trafficking in Persons Report.'' I was profoundly disappointed that the Obama Administration chose to politicize tier rankings rather than speak the truth to power. If the Trump Administration follows that dangerous precedent I will be no less a critic. The Frederick Douglass Act will limit the amount of time a country can stay on the warning, Tier 2 Watch List, inspiring countries to take action against trafficking today, not in four years when their warnings are up. The Act will also ensure that countries still using child soldiers, such as Afghanistan, where boys are on the front lines fighting the Taliban by day and being used as sex slaves at night, stop this obscene practice before being allowed to partner with the U.S. military-- something Green Beret Sergeant First Class Charles Martland tried to do at great personal cost. The Act will also ensure that waivers for countries using child soldiers are not abused. In 2016, only three of 10 countries designated as using child soldiers were not allowed to access funds, and these were the countries we did not fund anyway. The Act will ensure that the waiver is used only in cases where the President can ensure steps are being taken to address the recruitment and use of child soldiers. In addition, the Act will help keep goods made by child trafficking victims out of the United States by ensuring continued funding for and enhancing the specificity of Department of Labor reports on slave-made goods. Provisions in the Act will prevent the abuse of domestic servants in embassies and diplomatic homes in the United States. Diplomats and their families in the U.S. are getting off scot-free after trafficking domestic servants in their homes--we are going to change that. Trafficking is illegal here, no matter who you are. The Act encourages accountability for U.S. Government funds going abroad to help trafficking victims, and strengthens implementation of U.S. laws and regulations to prevent government purchases from putting money in the hands of traffickers. We welcomed several of the top anti-human trafficking organizations who have endorsed the legislation, including ATEST, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which submitted testimony for the record, and Frederick Douglass Family Initiatives, whose work educating children about the threat of trafficking has inspired this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the era of strategic patience is over. In its place there is a need for more concerted action to counter North Korea's nuclear proliferation, its horrific human rights abuses, and its sponsorship of terrorism globally. This bill strengthens the tools the Administration can use to counter the threat posed by a nuclear armed North Korea. It targets the shipping and financial sectors and also targets those, in China and Russia and elsewhere, who profit from using North Korean slave labor. I strongly support this legislation and commend my colleagues on the House Foreign Affairs Committee--Chairman Ed Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel for their leadership. The Administration must continue to uncover and sanction both Pyongyang's enablers and those it enables. We should further target with sanctions those individuals responsible for gross human rights violations inside the so-called ``hermit kingdom'' and stop money and materials from reaching terrorists and nuclear proliferators globally. Not taking the North Korea threat seriously enough have been a bipartisan problem of the last three Administrations. I commend the Trump Administration for taking more strategic actions. The U.S. cannot sit on the sidelines while Kim Jong Un proliferates nuclear and missile technology that will threaten the United States. We cannot stand idly by while Kim Jong Un sponsors terrorism and traffics his own people for profit. We cannot be silent while an estimated 120,000 people are being held in political-prison labor camps, suffering and dying in barbaric conditions. Torture, rape, and the public executions of religious believers are part of the daily life in these camps. North Korea's political-prisoner camps are inhumane, they are horrific, they are a crime against humanity and they must be dismantled. We know that the threat posed by North Korea was high on the agenda of President Trump and President Xi meeting in Florida several weeks ago. As we all know, the Chinese government's actions have not always been helpful. China usually describes the China-North Korea relationship as being one of ``like lips to teeth.'' It was good to see this formula changed after the Trump-Xi meeting. Foreign Minister Wang Yi know says China's relationship with ``the Peninsula'' both North and South Korea is like lips to teeth. That is big change in rhetoric and hopefully China will no longer prop up Kim Jong Un's deliberate attempts to destabilize the Korean peninsula. In addition to a more robust sanctions regime, the Administration should pay more attention to undermining the faith of the North Korean people in Kim Jong Un's leadership. The cult of personality that surrounds the Kim family remains a strong deterrent to protest and uprisings within North Korea. The Kim family is accorded god-like status--the cult of personality is sometimes called Juche--and it offers Kim Jong Un a `divine mandate' to pursue nuclear weapons, national security, and human rights abuses with impunity. More needs to be done to tarnish Kim Jong Un's image and that of the Kim family. The U.S. should be actively seeking to undermine the cult of personality and drive a wedge between North Korea elites and the Kim family. Sanctions are one way to drive such a wedge, but also needed are more radio broadcasts and USB drives with South Korean pop culture and news and information targeting North Korean military and elites. The more information the North Korean people have, the less isolated they are, the more likely they will see the Kim family as false gods. Some of this work is being done by North Korean defectors living in South Korea. But their efforts are tiny and were not supported by the previous Administration. The current sanctions regime is having some effect. High-level diplomats, military leaders, and the families of high-ranking officials are defecting--they are recognizing that they will be held accountable if they continue to support Kim Jong Un's barbaric regime. Nevertheless, recent evidence shows that North Korea has become very good at evading sanctions. Last month a U.N. report made clear that North Korea is using `increasingly sophisticated' tactics to evade existing sanctions. Money, arms, and people are moved across borders by networks of middlemen and banks to avoid detection. The U.N. report concluded that sanctions enforcement `remains insufficient.' This legislation will expand U.S. sanctions to target those help Kim Jong Un avoid sanctions and fund his nuclear program and human rights abuses. I urge support for the legislation offered today and commend my colleagues for bringing this important legislation before the House.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and for his leadership. I especially thank my good friend and colleague, Ms. Bass, for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, last August, my staff director Greg Simpkins and I visited Juba, South Sudan, to press President Salva Kiir, his Vice President, the minister of defense, and five of his top generals to end the civil war, protect innocent lives, and reverse the conditions causing rampant disease and severe malnutrition that could soon lead to a famine. Mr. Speaker, just 2 months ago, famine was formally declared in South Sudan. I especially asked President Kiir to personally intervene and issue and enforce an executive order of zero tolerance on rape and sexual abuse by his soldiers and security personnel against mostly humanitarian aid workers and civilians. I told the President that it was unconscionable in the extreme that South Sudanese soldiers had raped, beaten, and murdered humanitarian aid workers in July at the Terrain compound. One of those workers that was sexually assaulted, as it turned out, was from my own district. I didn't know until 3 days before leaving on that trip that she was in the compound and came close to being raped and it was the intervention of other forces that precluded her from suffering that horrible trauma, but she was, indeed, severely traumatized. I asked him for a review to hold people to account and put them in prison--yes, there have been arrests, but there have been no prosecutions yet--and, again, to issue a zero tolerance policy. On March 28, I chaired a hearing on the famine and the growing crisis in South Sudan, which is also being chaired by some of the other neighboring countries in the region. Matt Nims, the acting director of the Office of Food for Peace testified that for 3 years the international community has employed massive efforts to stave off famine in South Sudan. Yet, as conflict intensified, the food security situation continued to deteriorate. And he said: This is a man-made crisis and the direct consequence of prolonged conflict. Ken Isaacs, the vice president of Samaritan's Purse--and Samaritan's Purse has an extensive footprint in South Sudan doing unbelievably great humanitarian work--testified: The most significant driver of the current crisis in the worst hit areas of South Sudan, however, is the political insecurity and brutal conflict that continues to engulf the region. In South Sudan alone, 1.85 million people have been internally displaced because. Because of this, many people are calling this a man-made famine, and it is hard to argue with that assessment. Today, the United Nations reports that two-thirds of South Sudan's population requires humanitarian assistance, and almost 5 million people--more than 40 percent of the population--are in urgent need of food, agriculture, and nutritional assistance. Clearly, the Government of South Sudan and the rebels they face are more interested in winning and holding territory than in finding ways to feed and nurture their people and allow humanitarian access. Two months ago, there were 70 humanitarian-access incidents reported, causing suspension of operations in multiple locations. Aid workers are being targeted in South Sudan, where eight Samaritan's Purse workers were kidnapped and later released in February, and six African aid workers in South Sudan were killed in March. Stephen O'Brien, the head of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, accused South Sudan's Government of blocking foods and medicines and restricting U.N. peacekeepers from protecting civilians. He described active hostility, access denials, and bureaucratic impediments to humanitarian organizations serving that beleaguered nation. This is a manmade crisis. This resolution puts us on record and, again, encourages our administration and the world to do more to end it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that I have introduced the bipartisan Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 (H.R. 1911), along with my colleagues and lead original cosponsors, Brad Schneider, Peter Roskam, Eliot Engel, Randy Weber, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Gus Bilirakis, and Marc Veasey are also original cosponsors. I wrote the provisions of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 to create in the State Department the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and the Special Envoy to lead it. President Bush signed the bill into law and since then the Special Envoy and Office have been crucial tools in our global fight against Anti-Semitism. However, as witnesses testified at a recent hearing I chaired on ``Anti-Semitism across Borders,'' the ninth hearing I have chaired on Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitic hatred has metastasized across the ideological spectrum. Secularists, Islamists, extremists on the right, and extremists on the left, propagate Anti-Semitism. Violent Anti- Semitic attacks have become more frequent and perpetrators are learning from and sometimes even cooperating with each other across national boundaries. It's urgent that we enhance the position of Special Envoy to match the threats to Jewish communities and make sure our response is strong and focused. This legislation: Elevates the position of Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti- Semitism to the rank of Ambassador; Directs the Special Envoy to report directly to the Secretary of State; Prohibits the Special Envoy from being double-hatted with another portfolio of issues; Emphasizes that the Special Envoy should be a person of recognized distinction in the field of combating Anti-Semitism or religious freedom; and Clarifies that Special Envoy shall be the primary advisor and coordinator for U.S. government efforts to monitor and combat Anti- Semitism and Anti-Semitic incitement in foreign countries. Mr. Speaker, many leading groups support this bill, including Agudath Israel of America, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, B'nai B'rith International, The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, The Jewish Federations of North America, National Coalition Supporting Eurasian Jewry, Orthodox Union, Secure Community Network, Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the World Jewish Congress of North America. I call on my colleagues to cosponsor this bill so that it moves through the Congress and gets to the President as soon as possible. With these enhancements, and full staffing, the Special Envoy can help ensure that America continues to lead the world toward defeating the ancient, unique evil of Anti-Semitism and keeping Jewish communities throughout the world safe and secure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, North Korea is an existential threat to its neighbors and a global menace that requires constant vigilance and close cooperation between the U.S. and its regional allies. Ignoring North Korea's dangerous actions has been a bipartisan problem of the last three Administrations--and it is one that continues to need bipartisan solutions from the Congress. Secretary Tillerson announced recently that the U.S. will no longer be guided by the policy of ``strategic patience.'' The U.S. cannot sit on the sidelines while Kim Jong-un proliferates nuclear and missile technology, sponsors terrorism and human trafficking efforts, and continues to abuse the North Korean people. We trust that the threat posed by North Korea will be high on the agenda of President Trump and President Xi meeting this week. As we all know, the Chinese government's actions have not always been helpful. Though the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on North Korea recommended the U.N. impose targeted sanctions on the North Korean leaders responsible for massive crimes against humanity, China blocked effective U.N. actions. China's February announcement that it would cut off coal exports to North Korea is a needed and important step. But senior Chinese officials, such as Foreign Minister Wang Yi, continue to describe the China-North Korea relationship as being one of ``like lips to teeth.'' In other words, there is little daylight between Beijing and Pyongyang. Such statements are not helpful when North Korea's nuclear proliferation and its development of multiple intercontinental ballistic missiles threaten to destabilize the world. The U.S. Intelligence Community's 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment concluded that North Korea is ``committed to developing a long-range, nuclear- armed missile that is capable of posing a direct threat to the United States. Despite China's objections, there is need for deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and to conduct joint military exercises to strengthen coordination and cooperation posed by the threat of the North Korean military. The threat to the U.S. and its allies is not only in East Asia, but in the Middle East as well. We are certain that Iran, to whom the past Administration released billions of dollars, is one of North Korean's nuclear partners. As witnesses testified at a joint hearing last July held jointly by three Foreign Affairs subcommittees, there is ample evidence that Iran has a longstanding nuclear collaboration with North Korea. We should be very concerned that the Iranians will at some point acquire fissile material beyond what they are allowed to produce for themselves and threaten U.S. regional allies, including Israel. We must continue to uncover both Pyongyang's enablers and those it enables. We should target with sanctions those individuals responsible for gross human rights violations inside the so-called ``hermit kingdom'' and stop money and materials from reaching terrorists and nuclear proliferators globally. There is growing evidence that sanctions are having some effect. We know that high-level diplomats, military leaders, and the families of high-ranking officials are defecting--they are recognizing that they will be held accountable if they continue to support Kim Jong-Un's barbaric regime. I urge support for the legislation offered today and commend my colleagues for bringing this important legislation before the House.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, while the Affordable Care Act has been in effect since 2010, it has only provided actual access to health insurance benefits through the exchange and Medicaid expansion for a little over 3 years--beginning in 2014. In that short period of time, however, serious problems and flaws have been exposed, yet in recent months the law's systemic problems have been trivialized or ignored by many. Today, buying an insurance policy on the exchanges with high premiums, high copays, and most importantly, exceedingly high deductibles make the actual utilization of health benefits far costlier than originally advertised. Americans were told repeatedly that the ACA would save up to $2,500 in premium payments per family per year. President Obama said: ``I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year.'' That didn't happen--not even close. Nationwide, since 2016, gross premiums before subsidies in the Bronze-priced tier rose a whopping 27 percent, silver 24 percent and gold 32 percent. That should come as no surprise. As early as August 2012, Politifact found President Obama's promise to be untrue and labeled the statement a ``promise broken'' in a Politifact report entitled: NO cut in premiums for typical family. Health insurance consumers were promised they could keep their insurance plan if they liked it and keep their trusted doctors as well. That didn't happen either. As a matter of fact, several million were kicked off insurance plans they were very satisfied with--like my wife and I--only to be forced into an Obamacare plan that we didn't want and was more expensive. Also, in New Jersey--like much of the nation--insurance companies are pulling out of the exchanges. Insurers continue to exit the individual market and the exchange has experienced a net loss of 88 insurers. Today, five states only have one insurer option. At home, last year five insurance carriers offered plans on the New Jersey exchange, today only two remain. The exodus of insurance companies from the individual market is an unsustainable and ominous trend. Mr. Speaker, almost twice as many Americans have paid the financial penalty--pursuant to what is euphemistically called the ``individual mandate''--for not buying a health insurance plan--or have received an exemption from the individual mandate as those who have actually purchased a plan through the exchange. By the numbers that means 19.2 million taxpayers either paid the individual mandate penalty or claimed an exemption, compared to 10.3 million individuals who paid for plans on the Obamacare exchanges. Obamacare also increased taxes by about one trillion dollars. For example, beginning in 2020, a new 40% excise tax on employer provided comprehensive health insurance plans is scheduled to take effect. Any plan provided by an employer exceeding $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families will be taxed at 40 percent for each dollar above those numbers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation this so-called Cadillac tax will hit 26 percent of employers by 2020. According to the IRS, approximately 10 million families took advantage of the chronic care tax deduction which is now been redefined out of reach for many. New taxes combined with skyrocketing premiums, copays and deductibles underscores the need for serious review, reevaluation and reform. That said Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned--and will vote no today--largely because the pending bill cuts Medicaid funding by an estimated $839 billion over ten years according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), rolls back Medicaid expansion, cancels essential health benefits such as maternity and newborn care, hospitalization, pediatric services, and mental health and substance use treatment, and includes ``per capita caps''--all of which will likely hurt disabled persons, the elderly and the working poor. For years, I have supported Medicaid expansion as a meaningful way of providing access to health care for struggling individuals and families living above the poverty line but still poor despite being employed--80 percent of all Medicaid enrollees in New Jersey are families with at least one working adult in 2017. Although more than 800,000 children are served by Medicaid in my state, the bulk of Medicaid funds are spent assisting the disabled and the elderly. In New Jersey approximately 74 percent of all Medicaid spending goes directly to assist persons with disabilities and senior citizens. Two out of every five people in nursing homes are on Medicaid. According to the New Jersey Department of Human Services, in New Jersey total enrollment in Medicaid in February 2017 was 1.77 million people. Of that a significant number are newly enrolled under Medicaid expansion--663,523 ``newly eligible.'' These people are in need and deserve our support. Current law provides states that opted to embrace Medicaid Expansion--like New Jersey--95 percent of the costs for the ``newly enrolled.'' The federal share drops to 90 percent by 2020. The proposed American Health Care Act continues Medicaid expansion however only until 2020. Those enrolled before December 31, 2019 would be grandfathered in at the 90 percent match rate but the federal-state match formula would then be reduced to a range between 75 percent-25 percent to 50 percent-50 percent or any new enrollee. What does that mean? The United State Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote each of us on March 17th: ``. . . it is our assessment that some provisions are commendable (and they reference the pro-life safeguards and other noteworthy provisions in the bill) . . . while others present grave challenges that must be addressed before passage . . . millions of people who would be eligible for Medicaid under current law will be negatively impacted due to reduced funding from the per capita cap system proposed in the legislation, according to the CBO. Those struggling families who currently receive Medicaid coverage from the recent expansion will see dramatic changes through the AHCA as well, without clear indication of affordable, adequate coverage to replace their current options. Many states begin their legislative sessions every cycle by attempting to overcome major deficits. State and local resources are unlikely to be sufficient to cover the gaps that will be created in the health care system as financial responsibility is further shifted to the states. Congress must rework the Medicaid- related provisions of the AHCA to fix these problems and ensure access for all, and especially for those most in need.'' A letter led by the Consortium For Citizens with Disabilities, and signed by over 60 organizations states: ``Dramatic reductions in federal support for Medicaid will force states to cut services and/or eligibility that puts the health and wellbeing of people with disabilities at significant risk. In fact, people with disabilities are particularly at risk because so many waiver and home- and community-based services are optional Medicaid services and will likely be the first services cut when states are addressing budgetary shortfalls. The health, functioning, independence, and wellbeing of 10 million enrollees living with disabilities and, often, their families, depends on funding the services that Medicaid provides. Likewise, Medicaid Expansion provides coverage for millions of people with disabilities and their caregivers who previously fell into healthcare coverage gaps. For many people with disabilities, being able to access timely, needed care is a life or death matter. The drastic cuts to Medicaid that will result from per capita caps and the ultimate elimination of Medicaid Expansion will endanger millions.'' Autism Speaks, a leading autism awareness, science, and advocacy group, further articulated another concern, that ``the choice of 2016 as a baseline year for per capita caps may prevent states from addressing the needs of children with autism. In July 2014 the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services issued an informational bulletin clarifying Medicaid coverage of services to children with autism, including benefit requirements for the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Although EPSDT is a mandatory Medicaid program, few states in 2016 funded autism services at the required standard of care. Locking in 2016 as a baseline year can only perpetuate this historic underfunding of EPSDT benefits.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give additional recognition to the tireless advocacy of the staff and volunteers of the American Heart Association, as well as the organizations in my home state of New Jersey and across the country and to mark the end of American Heart Month. Their ongoing efforts to combat the leading cause of death among men and women are essential, this month, and every month. On February 7, 2017, in an effort to raise particular awareness of the risk this disease poses to women, the Coalition for Heart and Stroke, which I co- chair, held a briefing in coordination with the American Heart Association and WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease. Despite the fact that heart disease is the number one cause of death among women in the U.S. and almost 400,000 women succumb to this disease annually, heart disease is often erroneously thought of as a man's disease. Awareness campaigns like Heart Disease Month aim to correct misinformation and can help save lives. Among the issues discussed at our February 2017 Heart Month kick-off was the importance of having women, in representative numbers, in federally funded studies so that we can understand how heart disease presents differently in women; if current diagnostic methods are effective in detecting cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women; and if women react similarly to men to different therapeutic treatments. On February 14, 2017, the American Heart Association released a new study that included projections for the prevalence of heart disease in 2035. These projections show that in the next two decades, the number of Americans with CDV will rise to 131.2 million people. This represents a dramatic increase from the last report, published in 2011, which estimated that 100 million Americans would suffer from CVD by 2030. However, the previously projected estimate of 100 million was already surpassed in 2015. That same year, the death rate from heart disease rose by 1 percent for the first time since 1969. This report also shows that by age 45, the risk of developing CVD rises to 50 percent, and it increases to 80 percent by age 65. Not only does CVD extract a devastating human toll, it is also the costliest disease in America, inflicting a $555 billion impact in 2016. The report released last week indicates that by 2035, the cost of heart disease will approximately double to $1.1 trillion. That cost is borne in no small part by the American taxpayer, with CVD accounting for significant spending through Medicare Fee-For-Service. While heart disease and stroke account for 27 percent of all deaths combined, the NIH invests only 7 percent of its budget on related research. That is why, as co-chair of the Congressional Coalition on Heart and Stroke, I have worked to increase funding for critical programs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For FY 17, the Heart and Stroke Coalition requested $3.4 billion for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and $1.8 billion for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Despite the $2 billion increase in funding for NIH in FY 2016, NIH's purchasing power was 19 percent less than in FY 2003 last year. This loss has occurred at a time of heightened scientific opportunity and enhanced investment in the scientific field by other countries. We need to restore our purchasing power for NIH and capitalize on investments to improve health, spur economic growth, innovation, and advances in science. The Coalition also requested $160.037 million for CDC's Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program. Funding for this CDC program goes toward State Public Health Actions on Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention as well as for the actions to prevent obesity and diabetes. Funding for this also goes into national surveillance on stroke and heart disease. The Coalition additionally requested a combined $42 million for CDC's Million Hearts and WISEWOMAN (Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women across the Nation) programs. These programs offer preventative health services, referrals to local health care providers, and lifestyle programs and health counseling tailored to identified risk factors for those most vulnerable. American Heart Month has motivated life-saving initiatives across the country. For instance, in my home state of New Jersey, in my district, the Monmouth Medical Center, Southern Campus is on the forefront of the fight against CVD. This year, the Medical Center hosted its fourth annual American Heart Month event on February 11, providing cardiac screenings to nearly 100 people. February 22, 2017 marked the first annual National Heart Valve Awareness Day. This year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has for the first time ever listed this day on the National Health Observances Calendar. More than 5 million people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with this particular disease, which involves damage to one or more of the heart's four valves and can result in reduced blood flow, causing the heart to work harder and the body to get less oxygen. Tragically, more than 22,000 people in the U.S. die from this condition every year. It is my hope that inclusion of this day in Heart Month will raise awareness of the risks of heart valve disease among those at risk, as well as the medical community. I am honored to once again serve as the co-chair of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition, which was founded in 1996 for the purpose of raising awareness of the seriousness of cardiovascular diseases and to act as a resource center for heart and stroke issues, including biomedical research, quality and availability of care, health promotion and disease prevention. Over the past twenty-one years, this bi-partisan, bi-cameral coalition, which now numbers nearly 150 members, has also worked to advance public policy aimed at fighting cardiovascular diseases. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who are fellow members of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition and thank them for their efforts. I encourage those members who have not yet joined the Coalition to do so. I would also like to thank WomenHeart and The American Heart Association for their dedication and impact and look forward to continuing to work in cooperation with them throughout this Congress. Those suffering from cardiovascular disease, as well as their loved ones and caregivers, need vocal advocates on Capitol Hill to ensure access to quality care and treatments. We have a duty to see that programs aimed at combating CVD, as well as medical research for prevention and treatment of stroke and heart attacks are supported appropriately at a federal level. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress and with advocates across the nation as we continue this critical work throughout the year in the fight against America's number one killer.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentlewoman for her extraordinary leadership on the life issue. Madam Speaker, subsidized by over $500 million taxpayer dollars each year, Planned Parenthood dismembers or chemically poisons a baby to death every 2 minutes, killing over 7 million innocent children since 1973. Undercover videos in 2015 exposed, in numbing candor, several high- level Planned Parenthood leaders nonchalantly talking about procuring children's organs for a price. They describe altering gruesome dismemberment procedures to preserve intact livers, hearts, and lungs from freshly killed babies. All of this begs the question, Madam Speaker, why are U.S. taxpayers giving half a billion dollars each year to Planned Parenthood? H.J. Res. 43 simply allows States to redirect funds away from abortion clinics and does not reduce funding for title X by so much as a penny. Those funds are just redirected to other health clinics that provide women's health care and don't engage in abortion. In mid-December, on his way out the door, former President Obama finalized a rule that coerces States to fund Planned Parenthood with their title X money. Prior to the Obama rule, States had chosen, five of them, to award title X funds to non-Planned Parenthood entities. These five States, Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Ohio, account for nearly $16 million in annual title X funding and serve over 279,000 individuals a year. These five States redirected those funds to other health clinics. But under the Obama rule, these State recipients are threatened with losing all--I say again--all of their title X support if they do not comply. This is the definition of coercion. The Obama administration essentially told States: You must use your family planning dollars to support abortionists, or we will take away your family planning dollars. I thank the gentlewoman for her courage, for her insight, and for offering this rule for our consideration today.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to thank her for her leadership, for being one of the prime cosponsors of the bill, H.R. 7, along with Mrs. Black, Ms. Foxx, Mrs. Wagner, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Noem, Mrs. Hartzler, and all the others who have joined in as sponsors of this lifesaving legislation. I would also like to thank Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy, Whip Scalise, and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers for their extraordinary leadership in defending the most innocent and the most vulnerable among us, unborn children, as well as providing protections for their mothers, and for bringing this legislation, H.R. 7, to the floor. Forty years ago, Madam Speaker, Congress enacted the Hyde amendment, a law that continues to this day to proscribe Federal Medicaid funds from being used to subsidize abortion in most circumstances. More than 20 peer-reviewed studies show that more than 2 million people are alive today, 2 million, because of the Hyde amendment. Two million people who would have been aborted, instead, survived because public funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise, while their mothers benefited from prenatal health care and support; 2 million survivors who have had the opportunity to live and to enjoy the most basic and the most elemental of all human rights, the right to life. Madam Speaker, we are experiencing a megatrend in America, consistently reflected in polling data, including the most recent polling data from the Marist Poll yesterday, that showed that 61 percent of Americans are against public funding for abortion, and most want, even those who identify as pro-choice, more restrictions to protect the innocent unborn. People are seeing the truth of who abortion actually destroys, as today's proudly shared, first baby pictures are most often of ultrasound imaging photos depicting the amazing miracle of the developing child in the womb. Growing numbers of Americans are often shocked to learn that the methods of abortion include dismemberment of a child's fragile body, including decapitation, and the severing of arms and legs, or the use of drugs like RU-486 that literally starve the child to death before forcibly expelling her or him from the safety of the womb. Yet, the billion-dollar abortion industry continues to cleverly market the chief sophistry of choice, while going to extraordinary lengths to cover up, ignore, and trivialize the battered victim child in the womb. Madam Speaker, pro-life Americans struggle for the day when abortion violence will be replaced by compassion and empathy for women and respect for the weak and most vulnerable among us, the child in the womb. They believe, as do my pro-life colleagues, that we ought to love them both, mother and child, and not fund the destruction of children through abortion. Lawmakers also need to hear the courageous voices of women who are silent no more, a rapidly expanding number of women who share the agony and heartbreak that they have endured after procuring an abortion. As I mentioned, yesterday there was a poll that came out, and, again, it found that 61 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion, and only 35 percent support it, which is precisely what we seek to accomplish with enactment of H.R. 7. It would make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding restrictions permanent and government-wide. I would note, parenthetically, that soon after the Hyde amendment was enacted in 1976, other abortion funding riders were enacted into law, and Hyde itself was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980. In 1983, I authored the ban on funding abortion in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. Most must be renewed legislatively each and every year. This legislation would make it permanent. The legislation ensures that the Affordable Care Act, until repeal, conforms with the Hyde amendment. I would remind my colleagues that just a few feet from where I stand, on September 9, 2009--and I have his speech right in front of me--the President of the United States said: ``And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up--under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place.'' Well, on the latter, the conscience laws remained in place, but they were just simply not enforced. And of course we know now, as my good friend, Ms. Cheney, mentioned, we know that, according to the GAO--because people kept saying in the early years, oh, there is no funding, public funding for abortion, so we asked GAO to look into it. They came back and said there is much-- over 1,000 plans pay for abortion on demand.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I will just remind Members that, in order to gain votes of several pro-life Democrats needed for passage of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama issued an executive order on March 24, 2010, and it said: The Affordable Care Act maintains current Hyde restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges. The problem is, it never happened. There were people who are saying even today that there is no taxpayer funding for abortion. Yes, there is. We finally went to the GAO. We asked them to do a study, an audit. They spent a full year on it and confirmed that the plans that we were subsidizing with taxpayer dollars covered abortion. I remind my colleagues that, under the Hyde amendment, plans that pay for abortion are precluded from receiving government funding. 1,036 Affordable Care Act exchange plans were found to have abortion on demand being paid for by the taxpayers. So if the Hyde amendment had been applied as former President Obama had said it would, there would have been zero coverage for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I want to first thank the distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend Diane Black, for her extraordinary leadership. I also want to say to my colleagues--and I hope this really is accepted for the profound change that it underscores--the Hyde amendment has saved 2 million lives; 2 million survivors who would have died had Medicaid funding for abortion not been available. This is over the course of 40 years, but 2 million lives, some of whom are 39, 38. It is about 60,000 children every year. And if you look at where this comes from, much of the mega-analysis comes from a peer review done by the Guttmacher Institute in 2009. They have found that there is a 25 percent reduction in Medicaid abortions when Medicaid money is not available to effectuate the dismemberment and the chemical poisoning of an unborn child. Defense of the unborn child is a human rights issue of our time, Madam Speaker. We talk about the unborn child, we degrade them, we treat them as if they are tumors or warts to be excised rather than children growing, developing, and maturing. Ultrasound imaging, as we all know, has shattered the myth that somehow an unborn child is anything but human and alive. And I hope that the science, which is very readily available, catches up with the policy. This makes Hyde and all of the other amendments permanent. We know that every year we have an annual battle over several of those amendments. It also, finally, title II, takes out of ObamaCare the facilitation and the funding of abortion. When President Obama did his executive order in December of 2010, he said that the Hyde amendment would be applied to the ObamaCare exchanges. For months and years after that in-House debate, people have said that has happened. It did not. We know beyond any reasonable doubt--and we enlisted GAO to look at that--well over 1,000 plans pay for abortion on demand in the ObamaCare exchanges. So that got the votes the pro-life Democrats needed to effectuate the passage of the Affordable Care Act. But, frankly, it hasn't happened. Title II of this bill says the Hyde amendment will be applied to the ObamaCare exchanges. Had that been done faithfully by the President, there would be no need for title II of this bill. I remember when the President stood right there in September of 2009 and said: Under our plan, no taxpayer funding will be used to pay for abortion. Absolutely untrue. This language in H.R. 7 makes that true. We don't want to be complicit in the killing and the maiming of unborn children. As we know now, beyond any reasonable doubt, post-abortive women increasingly are coming forward and speaking out, those especially who found peace and reconciliation to say abortion also hurts women. There are two victims in every abortion: mother and baby. Two million lives saved. That is what we should be all about, life affirming and the saving of human rights.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for his remarks. I now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, who has been outspoken for years on behalf of the innocent and inconvenient unborn children.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I want to thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee for her kind remarks and again thank her for her leadership for so many years. I now yield to the gentleman from Arizona, Congressman Andy Biggs. While a new Member of the House, he is a very experienced lawmaker, having served 14 years in the Arizona Legislature.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership in the legislature before. As the gentleman so aptly pointed out, the numbers of abortion come down when even modest restrictions are passed. The law is a great teacher. We are so happy to have the gentleman from Arizona here in the House, and I know I speak for many of us on the Pro-Life Caucus. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa's leadership, which has been over many decades. I want to thank him for his eloquence and his steadfastness. The day will come when the unborn are protected, and he will be a major part of that. I would also concur with the gentleman from Iowa fully in how much we miss the great Henry Hyde. He was extraordinary. He was irreplaceable. And the fact that his amendment has saved 2 million lives, at least-- some estimates put it even higher--is a testimony to his vision, which we now carry on with. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert). I again thank him for his outspokenness on behalf of the weakest and most vulnerable.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman so very much for his kind remarks, but also his very eloquent concern for post-abortive women and those who may be contemplating abortion. You know, the Pregnancy Care Network, 4,000 strong throughout the United States, is there as a front line to say: We love you both, mother and baby. So I thank the gentleman for bringing attention to that as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice), a member of the Oversight and Government Reform, and the Natural Resources Committees.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much for your eloquence and reminding us all that the Supreme Court itself said that we need not resolve the difficult question of when human life begins; then they went on to say that any child, at any point until birth, could be killed by way of an abortion. They resolved it, but they resolved it in the negative without science, without the information. Ultrasound certainly has shattered that myth, and I thank you for reminding all of us about that. I also would remind my colleagues that Jean Garton--a great leader-- ran Lutherans for Life for years. She was preparing a presentation on abortion that included some actual pictures of aborted babies. It was late at night, but her young child walked in while she was doing this and said: Mommy, who broke the baby? So even a small child could recognize--and did recognize--that abortion destroys the life of a baby. Sadly, the Court has not been able to. With all of their much-vaunted intelligence capacity, they missed it by a mile. So thank you for reminding us of that. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains.