Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on Friday my colleague Mr. McGovern and I introduced the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. In November of 2012, almost every Member of this House voted for the forerunner of this legislation, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, which was included in Public Law 112-208. The 2012 law focused on perpetrators in a single country, Russia, and authorized and required the President to list and sanction individuals who the President determined was responsible for the detention, abuse, and death of Sergei Magnitsky, as well as other gross violations of human rights. This law sent a strong message of personal responsibility by targeting bad actors, publicly naming and shaming individuals who commit horrific abuses. My new bill builds on these provisions and expands the law globally. It requires the President to determine when foreign persons are complicit in egregious, internationally recognized human rights abuses or major acts of corruption; and then prohibits them from coming to the United States, remaining in the U.S. if they are already here, or owning property in our country. Further, my bill will require the administration to publish their names in an annual ``Global Magnitsky List'' unless there is a compelling, national security reason not to. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that the U.S. should not provide refuge for those who commit human rights abuses. We can and should take away the privilege of U.S. visas that afford a measure of respectability as well as a quick exit for those who worry daily that they may be held accountable for their crimes against their countrymen. This bill will help bring human rights victims some justice, and deny perpetrators the respectability, mobility, and wealth they crave. Specifically, the bill I introduced Friday expands and strengthens the Magnitsky law in several key ways, and keeps some of its key provisions: Like the Magnitsky law, it authorizes and requires the President to sanction perpetrators of human rights violations, rather than simply allowing him to do so. The bill prioritizes violations against people who ``seek to expose illegal activity carried out by government officials; or to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections,'' but it also allows for the sanctioning of individuals for heinous human rights abuses against other victims. It requires the President to issue an annual report--on December 10th, Human Rights Day--with the names of persons who have been sanctioned or were removed from sanctions over the previous year, providing Congress and the public with the opportunity to review the implementation and impact of the Magnitsky List and to discuss who is or should be on the List. If the President decides to include a sanctioned person in the classified section of the annual Global Magnitsky List for national security reasons, he will be required to list their country of citizenship and the number of people sanctioned from each country. This information will give us a better understanding of whether particular countries with many known perpetrators are being overlooked. As introduced, the Global Magnitsky Act will also require an independent audit by the Government Accountability Office to ensure the provisions are being implemented effectively, efficiently, and as Congress intended. I urge my colleagues to help us continue the legacy of Sergei Magnitsky--the brave man for whom this bill is named--and cosponsor this legislation. Murderers and torturers, and their money, are not welcome in this country.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and thank her for her leadership, especially on this extremely important bill, H.R. 398, the Trafficking Awareness Training for Health Care Act of 2015. Mr. Speaker, this bill would direct grant money to the development of best practices for medical professionals so that they will know how to recognize trafficking victims and how to respond if a potential victim comes into their hospital or clinic. Mrs. Ellmers and I, and others, were inspired to do this bill by a Global Centurion report, in collaboration with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, that showed some 88 percent of domestic trafficking victims sought health care at some point during the time that they were being trafficked. That is absolutely amazing. These victimized women have come in contact with health care professionals, and then they leave and go out the door and nothing is done because the health care professional did not recognize the signs of human trafficking. They were in a clinic, hospital, or doctor's office when they were being trafficked, right back out the door to be trafficked again. With 99 percent of trafficking victims reporting serious health consequences of being trafficked and pimps eager to get their victims healthy for continued exploitation for profit, medical professionals are on the front lines of trafficking interventions. We must make sure that the health care professionals are equipped to assist in effectuating freedom for trafficking victims whenever possible. We must think carefully about protocols for how to report suspected victims to authority. We don't want to put her in further danger. We must strategize ways to ensure the victims receive the help that they need. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very important bill, and I do hope my colleagues will support it. Again, I thank Mrs. Ellmers for her leadership on it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 515, the Clerk be directed to make the correction I have placed at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Human Trafficking Prioritization Act will hold countries like China accountable by limiting to 1 year the amount of time a country can stay on the Tier 2 Watch List after the country was previously auto-downgraded to Tier 3. The Human Trafficking Prioritization Act builds on the successes of J/TIP and the tier ranking system for the sake of approximately 21 million people still living in modern-day slavery and, again, does so without increasing the cost of government. The Human Trafficking Prioritization Act will give J/TIP the integration, it will give it the voice it deserves within the State Department, and it will ensure accurate accountability for countries failing to meet minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and, again, I thank my friend.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Royce, for his very kind words and for working to expedite the consideration of these important bills. This is an historic week in the House as we seek to pass 12 bills to fight human trafficking. As the prime author of the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as well as reauthorizations in '03 and '05, I believe the bills under consideration by the House today will further prevent the horrific crimes of human trafficking, protect and assist the victims, and aid the prosecution of those who exploit and abuse. I would also like to offer my profound appreciation to Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy for ensuring that all of the hard work done in a bipartisan way in the House in the 113th session is not lost nor will it be delayed but, rather, immediately sent back to the Senate for action. Leader McCarthy has explored numerous ways, in meeting after meeting with Members, again, on both sides of the aisle, to find ways to prevent, to prosecute traffickers, and to protect victims. His deep personal commitment to ending modern-day slavery has and will continue to make a major difference. Mr. Speaker, I offer this bill on behalf of myself and the gentlewoman from California, Ranking Member Karen Bass, who is the chief cosponsor. I am proud to say the United States continues to lead the world in our trafficking responses at home and abroad, charting the course of best practices for other countries to follow. One of the most successful ways the U.S. transmits our best practices and ensures accountability for the minimum standards to eliminate human trafficking is the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons in the U.S. Department of State. Over the last 15 years, this Office has been led by talented and dedicated Ambassadors--including the most recent one, Luis CdeBaca, with whom we work very closely--who have produced the annual Trafficking in Persons Reports, laying bare the record of almost every country for the world to see and summarizing the country's progress in what we call the annual tier rankings. For the record, the TVPA established Tier 1 countries. They are the ones that fully meet the minimum standards prescribed in the law. Tier 2 countries do not meet the minimum standards but are making a significant effort to do so. Tier 2 Watch List countries are in a grace period and in real danger of becoming Tier 3 without real action, not just promises of action. Tier 3 countries do not meet the standards and are not making significant effort to do so. Along with the embarrassment of being listed on Tier 3, Tier 3 countries are susceptible to sanctions by the U.S. Government. Since the TIP Report's inception, Mr. Speaker, more than 100 countries have enacted anti-trafficking laws, and many countries have taken other steps required to significantly raise their tier rankings-- citing the TIP Report as a key factor in their new anti-trafficking efforts. It is a very robust effort in our Embassies, and every country of the world is a part of it. We have found a system that works; but, tragically, it is sometimes misguided, muffled, and marginalized by unrelated bilateral concerns and by the internal structure of the U.S. Department of State. As my dear friend, the chairman of the committee, said a moment ago, it was Ambassador Mark Lagon who talked about how they produce a great report, but then, typically, due to the urging of regional specialists rather than the TIP Office's dedicated experts, the ranking and the process goes awry. The Human Trafficking Prioritization Act, or H.R. 514, will remedy this problem by keeping the fight against human trafficking from being lost in the politics of other U.S. interests.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 514 will raise the status of the J/TIP Office to that of a bureau, ensuring that the leadership of J/TIP is present and has an equal voice at meetings with the other bureaus and the Secretary of State. Former colleague, John Miller, an Ambassador at Large from 2002 to 2006 said: Upgrading the status of the Office to a bureau will not create additional bureaucracy--it will simply give J/TIP and the Ambassador at Large who heads it equal standing with regional and functional bureaus at the State Department. That standing is absolutely essential for the issue to remain a priority, especially when multiple U.S. interests are engaged. We are not authorizing the J/TIP Office to be larger, but for the excellent work of the Office to be consistently heard at a higher level. In addition, the bill stops countries and other State Department bureaus from gaming the tier ranking system by limiting the time problem countries can use promises of action to avoid a tier downgrade. Currently, a country can sit on the Tier 2 Watch List for up to 4 years with Presidential waivers, effectively stringing the U.S. along with promises to take action, but never actually taking action. After 4 years, by law, the country must be automatically downgraded to Tier 3. The law worked very well in its first implementation in the 2013 reporting cycle, but we discovered a problem in 2013, when China was prematurely upgraded from Tier 3 to the Tier 2 Watch List. As the law is currently written, Mr. Speaker, China can, again, game the system with promises and no action for 4 years.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 357, the Human Trafficking Prevention Act by the gentleman from New York, Sean Patrick Maloney. Mr. Speaker, human trafficking is a global scourge. Time and time again, there are missed opportunities to identify and assist victims of human trafficking. This may be due to a lack of training to recognize signs of trafficking, or perhaps a hesitancy to intrude into the ``privacy'' of others. There are numerous points of contact with the victims of trafficking, however, and at each point there are people who can intervene if they know how to identify victims of trafficking. Traffickers often move their victims to avoid detection. Whether by plane, train or bus, they come into contact with flight attendants and the like, as well as border officials. In July of 2010, I chaired a conference in Washington, D.C., to bring together the relevant U.S. agencies, such as the Customs and Border Patrol, various U.S. airlines, and non-governmental organizations to focus on interdicting traffickers by training commercial transportation employees to recognize the indicators for trafficking. Speakers, including Deborah Sigmund, founder of a non- government organization called Innocents at Risk, explained how flight attendants were the ``first line of defense'' in the fight against human trafficking. Flight attendants are in the unique position to observe a potential trafficking in progress and then call a trafficking hotline or inform the pilot to radio ahead so that the proper authorities can intervene. Former flight attendant Nancy Rivard, President of Airline Ambassadors International, told us how she and other flight attendants compared notes one day and were shocked and dismayed at how often they had noticed what they suspected was a trafficked woman or child on their flight, but had no training or protocol to do something about it. Nancy has been doing a great deal about it ever since, training airline employees around the United States and world. Just last year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a similar training initiative, the Blue Lightning program, to domestic U.S. airlines--including Delta, JetBlue, Allegiant, and North American Airlines. With minimal modifications, the training is also easily adaptable to bus drivers and station operators, train conductors, trucking associations, and other transportation industry professionals. In December 2013, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, which comprises 57 countries from Europe and North America, endorsed my plan to make anti-trafficking training for airline employees, other public and commercial carriers, as well as hotel employees, a primary goal in the international strategy to combat human trafficking. In an earlier session, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCEPA) adopted my resolution to implement such training in each member country. But what about our State Department personnel working overseas? Are they properly trained to be able to recognize the signs of this heinous crime and violation of fundamental human rights? Current law does require that State Department personnel be trained to identify trafficking victims, and there are many fine foreign service officers tasked with addressing trafficking issues. But, it does not prescribe any minimum training requirements. H.R. 357, the Human Trafficking Prevention Act, would mandate several minimum training requirements on this issue within the Department of State. These would include a training course for Department personnel who deal with trafficking issues, in addition to trafficking briefings for all Ambassadors and Deputy Chiefs of Mission before they depart for their posts. The legislation also requires that annual reminders be sent to appropriate personnel on key trafficking issues related to their countries of focus. By specifying the minimum requirements for such training, this bill strengthens the existing law. And notably, it does so at no additional cost to taxpayers. I want to thank Mr. Maloney for authoring this measure, and adding to the body of legislation developed by the House to address this critical issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership and for marking this bill up in the last Congress. We went through it in regular order. Chairman Royce, Eliot Engel, and staff were outstanding. I also want to thank Bob Goodlatte, who has been a very strong proponent of this legislation, as well as Albio Sires, who is the chief Democratic sponsor, and our other cosponsors: Mrs. Hartzler, Carolyn Maloney, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Poe of Texas, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Yoho. Mr. Speaker, there is no higher duty or responsibility of government than to protect children from violence and predatory behavior. We have a duty to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable. The International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking, H.R. 515, will protect children from child sex tourism by notifying destination countries when convicted pedophiles plan to travel. And to protect American children, the bill encourages the President to use bilateral agreements and assistance to establish reciprocal notification so we will know when convicted child sex offenders are coming here. Mr. Speaker, I actually got the idea of International Megan's Law in a conversation with a Trafficking in Persons delegation from Thailand during a meeting in my office in 2007. I asked the Thai officials what would they do if we were to notify them of travel by a convicted pedophile. Each of the dozen officials said they would bar entry into their nation of such a predator. Today will mark the third time in 8 years that this bill has passed the House--and I do hope it will pass--with strong support from both sides of the aisle, the second in its present, more streamlined form. The only change in this version is an additional clause in 8(c) underscoring the fine investigatory work of the Department of Homeland Security in the area of child exploitation and Congress' support for its continuance in Angel Watch, as well as in the investigations of the Cyber Crimes Center. This provision is not intended to supersede notification requirements elsewhere in the bill. I am encouraged that the Senate has signaled its support and willingness to improve commonsense U.S. procedures preventing the sex trafficking of children by high-risk predators. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the other body. Mr. Speaker, child sex predators thrive on secrecy, a secrecy that allows them to commit heinous crimes against children. In 1994, a young girl from my district was lured into the home of a convicted pedophile who lived across the street from her. Megan Kanka, 7, was raped and murdered. No one, including Megan's parents, knew that their neighbor had been convicted of child sexual assault. The outrage over this tragedy led to the enactment of Megan's Laws--public sex offender registries--in every State in the country. It is imperative that we take the lessons we have learned on how to protect our children from known child sex predators within our borders and expand those protections globally. Mr. Speaker, a deeply disturbing 2010 report by the GAO, entitled ``Current Situation Results in Thousands of Passports Issued to Registered Sex Offenders,'' found that at least 4,500 U.S. passports were issued to registered sex offenders in fiscal year 2008 alone. Meanwhile, law enforcement and media reports continue to document Americans on the U.S. sex offender registries who were caught sexually abusing children in East Asia, Central and South America, and elsewhere in the world. It is the same horror movie replayed over and over. Homeland Security's Angel Watch program has been doing an outstanding job in alerting countries about potential danger from American sex offenders. H.R. 515 would codify and streamline this excellent program, ensuring that actionable information about child sex offender travel actually gets to the destination country in time for those countries to assess the potential dangers and respond appropriately, whether that is to allow entry, deny entry or a visa, monitor travel, or limit travel. Once notified, nations are empowered to take protective action. International Megan's Law also directs the President to include guidance in diplomacy, training, and technical assistance abroad on how other countries can create their own public or private sex offender registries similar to what we have in the United States, and how we can use these registries to alert the United States when a child sex offender is intending to travel here to abuse our children. The goal is reciprocity, reciprocal notice to protect children at home and abroad from known sex offenders. I personally have spoken to foreign officials and nongovernment representatives who have asked me when the United States Congress is going to do something about American sex offenders who are traveling to their country to rape their children. I hear this especially in the developing world. H.R. 515, the International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking, is a serious response to that question. I would also point out parenthetically, as the Special Representative for Combating Trafficking at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly last year, we got passed a resolution calling for this kind of noticing country to country so the secrecy is taken out of sex tourism designed to exploit and abuse children. I urge Members to support the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank Mrs. Noem for yielding and for the leadership that she has demonstrated, along with Congresswoman Wagner. As Judge Poe said, women of our caucus have stood up and are leading the fight to combat human trafficking with a zero tolerance policy. This is an historic week in the House as we seek to pass 12 bills to fight human trafficking. As the prime author of the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 as well as reauthorizations of that law in 2003 and 2005, I believe the bills under consideration by the House today and tomorrow will further prevent horrific crimes of human trafficking, protect and assist victims, and aid the prosecution of those who exploit and abuse. A special thanks to our Republican leadership, especially Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who have made this a priority for the House. Hopefully, it will be extended to the Senate, and the President will follow that lead. When I first introduced TVPA, Trafficking Victims Protection Act, in 1998, the legislation was met with a wall of skepticism and opposition. People both inside of government and out thought the bold new legislation that included sheltering, asylum, and other protections for the victims, long jail sentences and asset confiscation for the traffickers, and tough sanctions for governments that failed to meet minimum standards was merely a solution in search of a problem. Mr. Speaker, for most people at the time, the term ``trafficking'' applied almost exclusively to illicit drugs or weapons. Reports of vulnerable persons, especially women and children, being reduced to commodities for sale were often met with surprise and credulity or indifference. It took 2 years and numerous congressional hearings to overcome opponents and muster the votes for passage. Now, according to the ILO, approximately 21 million people are victimized. Some put the number as high as 36 million subjected to modern-day slavery. The ILO also says that traffickers make profits in excess of $150 billion a year. We do have a tier system. We have a trafficking office, an Ambassador at Large; we have a robust effort on the State level. Many States have passed laws that mirror what we have done on the Federal level, so that there are more tools in the tool box to put these traffickers behind bars and to liberate the women and children. For the past 15 years, we have seen progress on a number of anti- trafficking fronts, including laws, over 300 laws around the world to combat trafficking; and an estimated 125,000 victims have been rescued worldwide. We also, over the past decade, have had federally funded some 42 anti-human trafficking task forces and 85,000 law enforcement officers have been trained; still, there are still far too little prosecutions and far too few liberations of those who have been trafficked. The best estimates available now are that there are at least 100,000 American children, mostly runaways. The average age of initial enslavement is 13 years old. Let me say that again: 13-year-old girls are exploited in the commercial sex industry each year. These children, when found, are often unnecessarily charged for prostitution, fined or put in juvenile detention, when there are other options available. They need to be protected, not prosecuted. Again, I want to thank our leadership for making this such a high priority. This is modern-day slavery. I thank my good friend and colleague for her leadership. We have got to end modern-day slavery.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues that H.R. 7 passed last year. It passed with an overwhelming majority. It is the same bill. It went through regular order. Hearings and a markup were held, and the legislation came through regular order in the House of Representatives. The problem has been the Senate, which has refused to take up this bill for well over a year, so we are back to take up a bill that has already been approved by the House in regular order. Let me remind my colleagues as well that, next week, we will be taking up a number of bills that will combat human trafficking. Madam Speaker, I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Americans' landmark law to combat the hideous crime of sex trafficking and labor trafficking. We have a number of important antihuman trafficking bills that passed the House but sat over on the Senate side for a year or more--some of them--including two of mine, and we are talking about bringing those bills up next week. Regular order was followed last year on those bills--just like H.R. 7. Those bills languished on the Senate side. Surely, we can come together to combat human trafficking. The flaw in the process was the Senate and its former leadership unwillingness to vote on House-passed legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and for her leadership, and for reminding us that this bill passed the House last year in identical form. The only thing changed are the dates, because obviously they had to be updated. It is a 12- page bill which can be very quickly read by any Member. And the only reason we have to be here is because the Senate wouldn't provide a vote on it. So the Senate just shelved it, and we are now bringing it back up on the floor. Madam Speaker, because abortion dismembers, decapitates, or chemically poisons unborn children to death--the part of abortion that my friends on the other side of this issue have a keen reluctance to not look at and to avoid, abortion methods--we know we will soon have the pain-capable legislation on the floor, and it will come to the floor. We know that children suffer excruciating pain from dismemberment. Piece by piece, a child is literally pulled apart--arms, legs, torso, and decapitation. That is the reality of abortion, Madam Speaker. Because of all of this, Americans have consistently demanded--and now in ever-growing numbers--that public funds not pay for abortion. I would point out to my colleagues that yesterday the Marist Poll found that 68 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions, and that includes 69 percent of women; 71 percent of the next generation, the millennials, oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 will save lives. We know the Hyde amendment has probably saved at least 1 million lives, children who are on soccer fields today or in school, perhaps even getting married, people who live because the Hyde amendment has been in effect since the 1970s. Over a million children are alive because of that restriction of abortion from Medicaid funding. H.R. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals. It makes the Hyde amendment and other current funding prohibitions permanent, so they don't have to be included in the annual appropriations bills. It ensures that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms with the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President. It provides full disclosure, transparency, and prominent display of the extent to which any health insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion. Now, that is all being done stealthily, hidden from the consumer. They have no idea when they are buying a plan that the plan is paying for abortion on demand. Let me remind my colleagues that in the runup to passage of the Affordable Care Act, Americans were assured by President Obama himself, right there at the podium, and he said in September of 2009 that ``under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.'' That is the President's word. He also said on March 24, 2010, in order to get a number of pro-life Democrats, he gave them his word and wrote that the Affordable Care Act ``maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' Nothing, Madam Speaker, could be further from the truth. We asked the General Accountability Office last year to look into how many of these plans were paying for abortion. They came back and said well over 1,000 insurance plans on the exchange were funding abortion on demand, completely contrary to what our President told us would be the case in a speech to all of us in 2009 and then in an executive order that he issued. Agree or disagree on the abortion issue, but let's always be truthful. President Obama told us funding wouldn't be in there, yet it is. There is also problems with transparency. Senator Ben Nelson, in order to procure his vote, said there has to be two payments for abortion if it is included when the bill is on the Senate side. He said: ``If you are receiving Federal assistance to buy insurance and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately, and you must pay separately from your own personal funds--perhaps a credit card transaction, your separate personal check, or automatic withdrawal from your bank account--for that abortion coverage. Now, let me say that again. You have to write two checks: one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion.'' That is not being implemented either, so the premium is all rolled into one. Again, conscientious pro-life Americans who do not want to be complicit in the wounding of women and the killing of babies are paying for abortion, and many of them don't even know it. I hope that Members will vote for the rule, and to those who think that there will be no debate and vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, that will come to the floor; and, again, you defend dismemberment abortions at 20 weeks, 21 weeks, 23 weeks, where the child suffers excruciating pain. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Pitts so very much. Madam Speaker, on September 9, 2009, President Obama stood 6 feet from where I stand now, right at that podium, and told lawmakers and the American public in a specially called joint session of Congress on health care reform that ``under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.'' In an eleventh hour ploy to garner a remnant of pro-life congressional Democrats--and they were convinced, and they were deceived--needed for passage of ObamaCare legislation, the President issued an executive order on March 24, 2010, and it said, in pertinent part: ``The act maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly-created health insurance exchanges.'' That is absolutely, I say to my friends, untrue. Despite an appalling degree of nontransparency, we finally asked the Government Accountability Office to look into it. Last September, they came back and said 1,036 ObamaCare exchange plans covered abortion on demand. GAO also found that a separate billing of the abortion surcharge required by the act is not being enforced by the administration, and the abortion funding premium, again, in 2015 is being illegally rolled into the total plan costs. Health care consumers are, therefore, unaware when they buy their health insurance whether or not they are paying for abortion on demand. If the Hyde amendment had been applied to ObamaCare, the number of ObamaCare plans covering abortion on demand would be zero. At its core--I believe my colleagues should know this by now, some don't on this side of the aisle and some on that do--the Hyde amendment has two indisputable parts. It prohibits direct funding for abortion and funding for any insurance plan that includes abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. ObamaCare violates the Hyde amendment by funding insurance plans that pay for abortion on demand. H.R. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals: make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions current--and that includes the D.C. rider permanent; ensure that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms with the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President of the United States; and provide full disclosure, transparency, and prominent display of the extent to which any health insurance plan funds abortion on the exchanges. Last January, the House passed H.R. 7 by a vote of 227-188. It languished in the Senate for a year--never took it up. This is the same bill. It has been through regular order. Hearings have been held, as well as markup. The American people, Madam Speaker, strongly oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. The Marist poll that was just released yesterday found that 68 percent of all respondents oppose using taxpayer funding for abortion, and a whopping 69 percent of women are against taxpayer funding for abortion, and 71 percent of the millennials are against taxpayer funding for abortion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend. We live in an age of ultrasound imaging, the ultimate window to the womb and the child, that precious child, who resides there. We are in the midst of a fetal health care revolution, an explosion of benign interventions designed to diagnose, treat, and cure the precious lives of these children. Abortion is antithetical to that. It dismembers, chemically poisons, shots to the heart, to stop the heart from beating. As you know--and I know my friend from New York is next to speak--at testimony before your committee, Dr. Levatino said--and he is an abortionist--he said the baby can be in any position in the uterus. You just reach in with a Sopher clamp and grasp whatever you can. You pull out an arm, he went on to say. You pull out and reach in again and again, and you tear out the spine, intestine, heart, and lungs. These are gruesome procedures. That is what abortion is all about: the dismemberment and chemical poisoning of children. H.R. 7 will save lives. There is no doubt about that. The Hyde amendment--I remember when Henry Hyde was told that 1 million, maybe even more than 1 million children have survived because of the Hyde amendment. Tears came down his face, knowing that those kids are now in the world, going to school, having their own families, playing soccer, and doing other great things.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, one of the things that people seem to forget here is that ObamaCare both authorizes and appropriates the money so that it is outside the purview of the HHS appropriations bill. That is why this legislation is needed. The President promised he would apply the Hyde amendment, but he has not.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank Mr. Rothfus for his statement today. He has been a true rising star and a leader in defending the sanctity of life. I now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a physician who has delivered over 5,000 babies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much for your kind statement, and also for your leadership both as a physician, a obstetrician, and also as a lawmaker. It has made a huge difference. I want to say that publicly. You provide insight and guidance that all of us benefit from. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much for sharing that very personal story, which is very touching. I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Pitts. Again, I want to thank you for your leadership both at the State and, now, Federal level, especially as chairman of the committee that deals with health. Thank you so much. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who has also been an outspoken champion of the right to life.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the distinguished gentlelady from Missouri, Ann Wagner.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I want to thank Ms. Wagner for her very eloquent statement and for her long service on behalf of the unborn and equally for their mothers as well. I yield to Tim Walberg.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend for yielding and thank her for her strong leadership for human rights and for the unborn. Mr. Speaker, pain--we all dread it, we avoid it, we even fear it, and we all go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and its duration; yet an entire age group of human beings are, today, subjected to a deadly, extraordinarily painful procedure, one of which is called the dismemberment method, the D&E. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a modest but necessary attempt to at least protect babies who are 20 weeks old and pain capable from having to suffer and die from abortion. Children, including children with disabilities, Mr. Speaker, deserve better treatment than pain-filled dismemberment. One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Anand, at the University of Tennessee, stated in his expert report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice: The human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children. Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, said: When we speak of infants at 20 weeks postfertilization, we no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound technology, because such premature patients are kicking, moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit. In other words, there are children the same age who, in utero, can be killed by abortion--and painfully--or who have been born and who are now being given lifesaving assistance. She went on to say: In today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth. Dr. Malloy concludes: I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection. Again, that is what the abortionists do. Surgeons today, Mr. Speaker, are entering the womb to perform life- enhancing and lifesaving corrective surgeries on unborn children. They have seen those babies flinch, jerk around, move around, and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. As they seek to heal, surgeons are today routinely administering anesthesia to unborn children in the womb--a best medical practice--to protect them from pain. We now know that the child ought to be treated as a patient and that there are many anomalies, sicknesses, and disabilities that could be treated with a degree of success while the child is still in utero. The child ought to be seen as a patient. When those interventions are performed, again, anesthesia is given. Last June, TIME Magazine's cover story, ``Saving Preemies,'' explored the preemie revolution and how cutting-edge medicine and dedicated caregivers are helping the tiniest babies to survive and thrive. TIME says: Thanks to advances that had not been made even a few years ago, the odds of surviving and thriving are improving all the time. Abortionists, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, are in the business of ensuring that children neither survive nor thrive. Children, including children with disabilities, deserve better treatment than pain-filled dismemberment.