Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I have strongly supported the Paycheck Fairness Act and have done so for over two decades. When the legislation finally got a vote in the House in 2008, I voted ``yes'' I voted ``yes'' again in 2009 and 2019. I have cosponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act since 2015. In January, I again enthusiastically cosponsored H.R. 7--the Paycheck Fairness Act. In late March, however, H.R. 7 was radically altered during markup in the Education and Labor Committee with a new definition of ``sex'' that according to serious legal analysis will compel employers to subsidize abortion on demand. Because I respect the inherent dignity and value of unborn baby girls and boys who will be put at grave risk of death by dismemberment abortion and chemical poisoning if H.R 7 is enacted in its current form, I will vote ``no'' today. In a letter dated April 14, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said: ``H.R. 7 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA, among other things, prohibits unequal wages between men and women performing equal work. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d)(l). Wages include all forms of remuneration, including ``frinqe benefits'' such as ``medical, hospital, [and] accident . . . insurance,'' ``life insurance,'' ``retirement benefits,'' and ``leave.'' 29 C.F.R. 1620.10, 1620.11. ``Strengthening federal law to ensure equal compensation for equal work as between men and women is a laudable legislative goal, and we heartily endorse that goal . . . Unfortunately, H.R. 7 has moved in a different direction . . . We believe that if the bill were to pass, the Fair Labor Standards Act could be construed to require employers, including even religious organizations, to cover and pay for abortions . . . we urge members to oppose the redefinition of sex in H.R. 7 and instead revert to the version of the bill that passed the House in the 116th Congress.'' The National Right to Life Committee opposed the redefinition of ``sex'' and opposes the bill. They said in a letter: ``H.R. 7 makes definitional changes to sex to include pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. It is well established that abortion will be regarded as a ``related medical condition.'' See 29C.F.R.pt.1604 App.(1986) and Doe v. CARS Protection Plus, lnc., 527F.3d 358 (3dCir.2008). ``Historically, when Congress has addressed discrimination based on sex, rules of construction have been added to prevent requiring funding of abortion. Since there is no rule of construction that would make this legislation abortion-neutral, it is likely that H.R. 7 could be used to sue employers for a lack of elective abortion coverage.'' In like manner, the Susan B. Anthony List opposes the bill noting that H.R. 7 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by adding ``pregnancy childbirth, or a related medical condition'' to the definition of ``sex,'' which courts have interpreted broadly to include abortion.'' Other pro-life organizations urged a ``no'' vote including March for Life Action. Madam Speaker, underscoring my commitment to the legislation without the redefinition of the term ``sex'', yesterday I introduced H.R 2490-- the Paycheck Fairness Act with the identical H.R. 7 language from January. H.R. 2490 is needed to ensure that the noble goals embedded in the landmark law, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, are achieved. Among its provisions H.R. 2490: Prohibits employers from seeking the salary history of prospective employees. By banning reliance on salary history in determining future pay, the bill ensures that prior pay discrimination doesn't follow workers from job to job. Bans retaliation against workers who discuss their wages. Improves research on the gender pay gap. The bill instructs DOL to conduct studies and review available research and data to provide information on how to identify, correct, and eliminate illegal wage disparities. Requires the collection of wage data from federal contractors and directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to conduct a survey of available wage information and create a system of wage data in order to help the Department of Labor uncover wage discrimination. Provides a small business exception. The Equal Pay Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act have an exemption for small businesses that generate less than $500,000 in annual revenues a year, and the Paycheck Fairness Act would keep that exemption intact. Supports small businesses with technical assistance. Provides assistance to all businesses to help them with their equal pay practices, recognize excellence in pay practices by businesses, and empower workers by creating a negotiation skills training program. I include in the Record the following letters of opposition. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC, April 14, 2021. Dear Representative: We write to raise pro-life and other concerns about the Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7. H.R. 7 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA, among other things, prohibits unequal wages between men and women performing equal work. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d)(l). Wages include all forms of remuneration, including ``fringe benefits'' such as ``medical, hospital, [and] accident . . . insurance,'' ``life insurance,'' ``retirement benefits,'' and ``leave.'' 29 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 1620.10, 1620.11. Strengthening federal law to ensure equal compensation for equal work as between men and women is a laudable legislative goal, and we heartily endorse that goal. See Economic Justice for All, no. 167 (1986), (``Particular attention is needed to achieve pay equity between men and women''); Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 295 (2004) (``An urgent need to recognize effectively the rights of women in the workplace is seen especially under the aspects of pay, insurance and social security.''); Pope Francis, Audience with Delegates from the Confederation of Trade Unions in Italy (June 28, 2017) (``And what I am about to say may seem obvious, but in the world of work women are still in second class. You might say, `No, but there is that businesswoman, that other one . . .'; yes, but if women earn less, are more easily exploited . . . do something.''). Indeed, Congress could do more in this area. Unfortunately, H.R. 7 has moved in a different direction. On March 24, the House Committee on Education and Labor marked up the bill to redefine the term .. ``sex'' to include such items as ``sex stereotypes,'' ``pregnancy, child birth, or a related medical condition,'' ``sexual orientation.'' ``gender identity,'' and ``sex characteristics. including intersex traits.'' H.R. 7's redefinition of sex in the FLSA is seriously problematic. We believe that if the bill were to pass, the FLSA could be construed to require employers, including even religious organizations, to (a) cover and pay for abortions, contraceptives, and gender transition procedures in their health plans (b) treat same-sex civil marriages as equivalent to traditional marriages in the provision of spousal benefits, and (c) facilitate abortions and gender transition procedures by providing paid leave for that purpose as part of existing paid leave programs. In this way, the bill would require many religious organizations to be involved in and to approve things they sincerely believe are wrong. Some may argue that Title VII already imposes all or some of these requirements. That argument--in addition to rendering the redefinition of ``sex'' in this bill seemingly redundant in whole or in part--overlooks the fact that Title VII has religious exemptions and abortion-neutral language that are not found in the FLSA. The Supreme Court has put off to another day the resolution of the question of exactly how the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII intersect with the religious convictions of employers. Bostock v. Clayton County. 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1753-54 (2020). H.R. 7 would raise a similar question but in a different statutory setting, one in which the critical religious exemptions and abortion-neutral language of Title VII are entirely missing. For these reasons, we urge members to oppose the redefinition of sex in H.R. 7 and instead revert to the version of the bill that passed the House in the 116th Congress. Sincerely. His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York, Chairman, Committee for Religious Liberty. Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley, Archbishop of Oklahoma City, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice And Human Development. Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities. Most Rev. David A. Konderla, Bishop of Tulsa, Chairman, Subcommittee for the Promotion, and Defense of Marriage.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will vote to reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, a law that I authored in 2005. This was an original idea of mine 20 years ago. My good friend from Florida just mentioned Dr. Kurtzberg. Dr. Kurtzberg was in the meetings that we held in drafting this legislation, and she provided incredible insights as to what we should do, what path we should follow. So I appreciate him recognizing her. I also thank Artur Davis, who was my Democratic colleague and the principal Democratic cosponsor of the bill during those several years. It took 5 long years of hard work and numerous setbacks, but the bill was finally signed into law on December 20, 2005. The new law created a nationwide umbilical cord blood stem cell program designed to collect, derive, type, and freeze cord blood units for transplantation into patients to mitigate and even cure serious disease. Pursuant to the law, it also provided stem cells for research. The new cord blood program was combined with an expanded bone marrow initiative, which was crafted over several years by our distinguished colleague, Congressman Bill Young. Umbilical cord blood stem cells, Mr. Speaker, obtained after the birth of a child have proved to be highly efficacious in treating some 70 diseases, including sickle cell disease, lymphoma, leukemia, and in treating metabolic and immune deficiencies. Scientists are continuing to study and better understand the regenerative effects of cord blood cell therapies for other diseases and disabilities, including autism. I would say in like manner, bone marrow donations are also providing lifesaving transplants for some of those very same diseases. So we have great regenerative initiatives that will be continued. The National Cord Blood Inventory, NCBI, provides funding to public cord blood banks participating in the program to allow them to expand the national inventory of cord blood units available for transplant. These units are then listed on the registry by the Be the Match program. The funds appropriated thus far have led to an important increase in the overall number of high-quality cord blood units available through the national registry, now totaling 111,000 NCBI units. Within the Be the Match Registry, there are now more than 800,000 worldwide. The program registry, Mr. Speaker, allows patients and physicians to locate matching cord blood units, as well as adult donors for marrow and peripheral blood stem cells. The program is the world's largest, most diverse donor registry, with more than 23 million volunteers. To date, the National Marrow Donor Program/Be the Match, through its operation of the program, has facilitated more than 105,000 transplants. According to Be the Match, more than 40,000 patients have received cord blood transplants. The reauthorization before us authorizes $23 million each year for 5 years for the cord blood side and, again, some $30 million each year for the bone marrow program. Mr. Speaker, each year, nearly 4 million babies are born in America. In the past, virtually every placenta and umbilical cord was tossed as medical waste. Today, doctors have turned this medical waste into medical miracles. Not only has God, in His wisdom and goodness, created a placenta and an umbilical cord to nurture and protect the precious life of an unborn child, but now we know that another gift awaits immediately after birth. Something very special is left behind: Cord blood that is teeming with lifesaving stem cells.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I thank the chairman for his leadership. I would especially like to thank Mr. Levin for his resolution condemning the military coup in Burma, and calling for release of all those who have been detained, as well as restoring those elected to serve in Parliament to a position that allows them to fulfill their important duties. I would also like to thank Mr. Connolly for his Protect Democracy in Burma Act, H.R. 1112, and the important report that it will authorize. Mr. Speaker, 24 years ago, in 1997, I chaired my first hearing on Burmese human rights abuse, and chaired additional hearings after that, including in 1998 and 2006. I also introduced several resolutions addressing the ongoing egregious crisis, including H. Res. 1710, which decried the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, and called on the Burmese military regime to end its campaign of religious and ethnic persecution of the Rohingya people, amounting to crimes against humanity. Thus, after decades of abuse, rape, torture, and murder, it is incredibly tragic as to how little has changed in that country. As H. Res. 134 points out, the Burmese Government's unlawful detention of State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as the crackdown on democracy advocates and the squelching of free expression and other fundamental civil and political rights, is outrageous and begs immediate reform and correction. The United States must, and I believe will, in a bipartisan way, and with the executive branch taking the lead, do its part. Every sanction of leverage must be deployed, and we must call on all of our international partners to join us in those efforts. The most glaring example of basic religious persecution, Mr. Speaker, is the oppression of Burma's Muslim Rohingya population. This persecution has been aided and abetted in part by religious and nationalist extremists such as the Buddhist monk Wirathu and the 969 movement. We also see religious persecution intertwined with ethnic persecution, as in the case of the Karen, Kachin, and Shan people, many of whom are Christians. I have met many of them over the years. Many of you have seen the riveting image of a Catholic nun, Sister Ann Rose Nu Tawang, kneeling before a group of militarized police, pleading that they do not shoot the protesters. Sadly, at least two protesters lost their lives that day. But what gives us at least a glimmer of hope is that opposite Sister Ann Rose, two of the officers, who are presumably Buddhists, also got down on their knees in response that this ought to be peaceful and not violent. It is an image which gives one some hope that the people of Burma can overcome their differences and unite for peace and justice and for the benefit of all Burmese, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or political affiliation. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, some lawmakers continue to ignore, trivialize, or deny the fact that abortion activists plan to aggressively use the Federal ERA--as they have used State ERAs--in a litigation strategy designed to overturn pro-life laws and policies, including restrictions supported by huge majorities of Americans. As the Marist Poll found recently in January: Seven in 10 Americans, including nearly half who identify as pro-choice, want significant restrictions on abortions. While I fundamentally disagree with abortion activists who refuse to recognize an unborn child's inherent dignity, worth and value, many on both sides now agree that how the ERA is written will be used in court to massively promote abortion. NARAL Pro-Choice America said the ERA would ``reinforce the constitutional right to abortion'' and ``require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.'' The National Organization for Women said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion. . . .'' Those laws include the Hyde amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement statutes, women's right-to-know laws, conscience rights, and late term abortion ban, like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. By now, my colleagues know that the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that the State was required--required to fund abortion, based solely on the State ERA. In like manner, the Supreme Court of Connecticut invalidated its State ban on abortion funding based on its ERA. Ensuring equal rights for women and serious protections against violence and exploitation requires laws, policies, and spending priorities to achieve those noble and necessary goals, without--I say again, without putting unborn baby girls and boys at risk of death.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today I will vote to approve the Violence Against Women Extension Act (VAWA) of 2021--historic landmark legislation with a proven track record of assisting abused and battered women--authored by Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York. As a matter of fact, I was the prime author of the law that provided for the first reauthorization of the VAWA in 2000--a five-year $3.3 billion comprehensive program that was part of my anti-trafficking law, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act (PL 106-386/ TVPA). Important VAWA programs include: legal assistance for victims; addressing housing needs for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking; grants to combat violent crimes on campuses; grants to encourage arrest policies and enforcement of protection orders; grants for enhanced training and services to end abuse later in life; the critical STOP grants to educate and train law enforcement personnel to address sexual assault; the CHOOSE grants, i.e. Creating Hope Through Outreach, Options, Service, and Education for Children and Youth; training and services to end violence against people with disabilities; the sexual assault services program; rural domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking and child abuse enforcement assistance; and grants for strengthening the healthcare system's response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; as well as extending other key programs. This is consistent with my long record of support for VAWA. I strongly supported passage of VAWA when it was first introduced in 1993, and again in 1994, when this crucial legislation was signed into law for the first time. I have supported multiple reauthorizations of VAWA, and I continue to strongly support this law as it was originally intended. As I said earlier, I was the prime author of the law that provided for the first reauthorization of the VAWA in 2000 when I included the five-year $3.3 billion comprehensive program in my Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act (PL 106-386/TVPA). I also cosponsored the 2005 reauthorization, fought to ensure these programs are fully funded to assist the maximum number of victims, and voted for seven of the first seven VAWA reauthorization bills offered through 2012. Two versions of VAWA reauthorization are under consideration by the House today. As I noted, the version I will support extends the VAWA until 2022. The other--H.R. 1620--weakens several carefully crafted protections for women and girls. By granting biological men--who self-identify as women--access to women's shelters, H.R. 1620 removes the hard-fought gains to protect women and girls from abuse and to provide them with physical, emotional and psychological security. Under H.R. 1620, women will no longer have a safe place of their own as they flee from male-inflicted physical and emotional abuse and intimidation. Rather, these heroic women will now have to share their place of refuge--a shelter previously reserved for women seeking protection from male abusers--with biological men who self-identify as women. These brave women and children deserve a place where they can feel protected and secure, so they can begin the difficult process of healing as they deal with post-traumatic stress. Forcing them to share a shelter and its facilities, including showers and sleeping areas, with biological men who self-identify as women will cause these women and children to experience insecurity, discomfort, confusion, and fear of additional assault. VAWA has always prioritized the challenges and unique needs of battered women and children but this version, if passed, no longer will. These women's shelters--there are about 1,500 nationwide--offer a safe space where a woman does not have to fear or worry about violence and intimidation and instead allows her to take steps toward rebuilding her life. We must first and foremost protect victims of violence. I oppose this provision of H.R. 1620 out of genuine concern for the women and children who are forced to flee to domestic abuse shelters and base my concern on evidence from California. In late 2018, nine female victims residing in a women's shelter in Fresno, California--Naomi's House, operated by Poverello House--filed a lawsuit against the shelter for admitting a biological man because he had self-identified as a woman. These victims stated that they had been sexually harassed by this biological man. They said that he had made ``sexual advances'' on them and would ``stare and leer'' and make ``sexually harassing comments about their bodies'' while they were forced to undress in the same room with him. After repeatedly confronting the staff of Naomi's House--both verbally and in writing--with their extreme discomfort, these women were told that they would be expelled from the shelter if they refused to comply. If we allow biological men who self-identify as women to receive access to these women-only shelters, abused women and children will lose the `safe space' they so desperately need. These victims deserve better. They deserve our protection and support. We must work to ensure the safety of women, girls, and children. Other shelters designed to help victims of diverse sexual orientations and identities who are victims of domestic abuse ought to be considered by separate legislation. We can, and we must create bipartisan legislation which seeks to protect all women and girls, as this law originally intended. We can, and must, do better.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the most recent Marist poll found that 7 in 10 Americans, including nearly half who identify as pro-choice, want significant restrictions on abortion. Yet, the ERA as written will be used in an aggressive litigation strategy to nullify those restrictions, including the Hyde amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right-to-know laws, conscience rights, and the late-term abortion bans like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. NARAL Pro-Choice America has said: ``The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion'' and ``require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.'' The National Organization for Women said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion.'' Abortion activists, Madam Speaker, successfully litigated using State ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut to compel taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand. Last year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification and said she ``would like it to start over.'' I couldn't agree more. Madam Speaker, two leaders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) wrote: ``During the 1972 ERA ratification campaign, several prominent women's leaders denied that an ERA would apply to abortion . . .''. Ever since, pro-abortion leaders have largely ignored, trivialized, or denied the fact that activists plan to aggressively use the federal ERA as currently written in a litigation strategy to overturn all pro-life laws and policies including restrictions supported by huge majorities of Americans. According to the most recent Marist poll (January 2021): 7 in 10 Americans including nearly half who identify as pro-choice want significant restrictions on abortion, 58 percent of all Americans oppose using tax dollars for abortion, 55 percent want to ban abortion after 20 weeks, 70 percent of Americans oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down Syndrome, 80 percent of Americans believe that laws can protect both a pregnant woman and the life of her unborn child. While I fundamentally disagree with abortion activists who refuse to recognize an unborn child's inherent dignity, worth, and value, at least both sides now agree that the ERA as written will be used in court to promote abortion. NARAL--Pro-Choice America said: ``The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion . . . (and) require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws . . .''. The National Right to Life Committee states that ``the proposed federal ERA would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and a state restrictions on tax-funded abortions.'' As director of reproductive-justice initiatives and National Women's Law Center senior counsel Kelli Garcia said, the ERA would help create a basis to challenge abortion restrictions.'' And NOW said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion . . .''. Those laws restricting abortion include the Hyde Amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right to know laws, conscience rights including the Weldon Amendment and any late term abortion ban like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Should the ERA be ratified without clarifying abortion-neutral language--to wit: ``Nothing in this Article shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof''--it is absolutely clear that abortion activists will use the ERA as they have successfully used state ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut-- to force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand. By now, my colleagues know that: The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled in 1998 that the state was required to fund abortion based solely on the state ERA and said the law ``undoubtedly singles out . . . a gender-linked condition that is unique to women'' and, therefore, ``violates the Equal Rights Amendment.'' In like manner, the Supreme Court of Connecticut invalidated its state ban on abortion funding and wrote in 1986: ``it is therefore clear, under the Connecticut ERA, that the regulation excepting . . . abortions from the Medicaid program discriminates against women.'' Today in Pennsylvania, activists are suing to eviscerate the abortion funding restriction in that state claiming that the Hyde-type restriction violates the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment. I believe that all human beings--especially the weakest and most vulnerable including unborn baby girls and boys--deserve respect, empathy, compassion, and protection from violence. Madam Speaker, last year, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification and that she ``would like it to start over''. According to Vox, Justice Ginsburg said, There's too much controversy about latecomers, plus, a number of states have withdrawn their ratification. So, if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said 'we've changed our minds?' '' Five states--Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota-- voted to ratify the ERA but later rescinded that ratification. I strongly believe in equal rights for women. I've introduced the ERA with the abortion-neutral language I mentioned a moment ago. Over the course of many years, I have consistently sponsored and promoted women's rights legislation to ensure equal pay for equal work including most recently, the Paycheck Fairness Act. In the struggle against wage discrimination, I voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. To help ensure that women are not disadvantaged in their careers because of time taken to attend to their families, I was an early and strong advocate of multiple legislative initiatives to provide family medical leave--including the groundbreaking bill that became law, the Family and Medical Leave Act. I voted to ensure that women's rights are protected in higher education by strongly supporting Title IX. I have supported legislation to amend pension and tax policies that negatively impact women, and I supported numerous bills to establish certain rights for sexual assault survivors including the Survivors' Bill of Rights which is now law. Since the mid-1990s, I have led the effort to end the barbaric practice of human trafficking, a human rights abuse that is an unimaginable exploitation of women and girls that thrives on greed, disrespect, and secrecy. Twenty years ago, the U.S. Congress approved and the President signed legislation that I authored--the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000--a comprehensive whole-of-government initiative to combat sex and labor trafficking in the United States and around the world. The Violence Against Women Act (See Division B) was reauthorized and significantly expanded by my law. Last Congress, I cosponsored the Violence Against Women Extension Act of 2019. In 2019, I authored another bill that was signed into law-my fifth major law on human trafficking--The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Act. After a young college student from my district, Samantha Josephson, was brutally murdered by the driver of what she thought was her Uber ride, I introduced Sami's Law which passed the House--but never got a vote in the Senate--to make the ride share industry safer for all. In recent months, it has been shocking to learn that thousands of women who use Lyft or Uber have been sexually assaulted and some have been murdered. I reintroduced Sami's Law in February. Yesterday, it was reported that another woman was sexually assaulted in Ft. Lauderdale by an ``off-duty'' Uber driver. Ensuring equal rights for women and serious protections against violence requires laws, policies, and spending priorities to achieve those noble and necessary goals--without putting unborn baby girls and boys at risk of death.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the precious right to vote in free and fair elections at all levels in the United States will be seriously jeopardized if H.R. 1 becomes law. Under an egregiously false facade of reform, the legislation consolidates and conveys new sweeping powers to regulate elections to bureaucrats in the federal government and nullifies existing state laws requiring valid identification before either registering to vote or casting a ballot. More than two-thirds of states currently rely on voter ID laws to protect the sanctity of the vote. Weakening--even prohibiting--certain safeguards against fraud will make our elections less secure, more vulnerable to fraudulent activity, and will undermine participation in our democracy. Other safeguards designed to mitigate voter fraud are also abolished, including bans on ballot harvesting. All states will be required to enable the practice of same day registration and voting which precludes any serious process at the local level to verify the eligibility of the applicant to vote. By making it illegal to scrutinize voter rolls with an interstate cross-check and by refusing any cross-check removals from the voter rolls within six months of an election, officials will be stymied in their duty to remove illegal and ineligible voters. H.R. 1 is embedded with free speech infringements that even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has harshly criticized saying it ``contains significant flaws that are detrimental to the health of our democracy.'' H.R. 1 politicizes the FEC by turning the current bipartisan commission into a partisan entity and expands the powers of the FEC chair, effectively destroying the agency's ability to ensure fair elections by leaving important decisions on what is acceptable speech to a single individual. And by allowing the IRS to investigate and consider political views of an organization before granting tax-exempt status, this legislation empowers federal bureaucrats--with agendas--to decide which views should be rewarded or penalized. The bill also mandates states to give the right to vote to all felons who have been released from prison. Yesterday, the Democrats tried--but failed--to go further with an amendment to expand voting rights to criminals currently serving time in jail. H.R. 1 creates a 6 to 1 funding match for contributions of $200 or less to a congressional or presidential campaign--meaning for every $200, the federal government will match $1,200. The Congress can--and must--do better.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, in a radical departure from all previous COVID-19 relief laws, the bill before us today mandates taxpayer funding for abortion on demand. Today, the Rules Committee refused to even allow a pro-life amendment sponsored by Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Virginia Foxx, and Jackie Walorski, cosponsored by 206 Members. Madam Speaker, it is shocking to learn that the methods of abortion include dismemberment of a child's fragile body, including decapitation, and that drugs like RU-486 starve the baby to death. Unborn babies killed by abortion at 20 weeks or later experience excruciating suffering and physical pain. And until rendered unconscious or dead by these hideous procedures, the baby feels every cut. Mr. Biden once wrote constituents, explaining that his support for laws against funding for abortion by saying ``it would protect both the woman and her unborn child.'' Mr. Biden went on to say ``that those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.'' I agree. Most Americans agree; 58 percent, according to the recent Marist poll. Unborn babies, Madam Speaker, need the President of the United States and Members of Congress to be their friend and advocate, not their adversary.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget shows that approximately $1 trillion of previously appropriated COVID-19 relief funds have not been spent. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, about a trillion dollars appropriated by Congress for COVID relief has not been spent. Yet today, the House will vote on spending an additional $1.9 trillion. Without so much as a single congressional hearing held with expert witnesses--including top officials in the Biden Administration--to probe the what, why, and how much, the House will likely approve this massive spending package without serious scrutiny. I'm committed and want to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that the federal government's ongoing response to the pandemic is both robust and responsible. With more people getting vaccinated--meaning fewer infections and many lives saved--it's now possible to hope that we might soon see some improvement in the economy. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for example, projected in its February 1 report that real GDP will return to pre-pandemic levels by the middle of this year, 2021--meaning jobs and renewed economic security. Last year, I strongly supported, and Congress passed five bipartisan COVID funding relief bills that were signed into law--totaling $4.1 trillion. That included $458 billion for stimulus checks to individuals, $586 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $68.9 billion for nutrition programs and a whopping $1.47 trillion for grant programs like the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to help small businesses and others retain and pay their employees during the shutdown. I would note parenthetically, that as a lawmaker who absolutely thrives on constituent casework, my staff and I have helped solve thousands of problems faced by the people in my district including facilitating medicines to patients made severely ill by the coronavirus, PPE for health workers and first responders, PPP for our small businesses and nonprofits and more. My staff and I have left no stone unturned in helping more than 1,500 people in my district who have faced unconscionable delays--even denials--in obtaining the unemployment compensation they are entitled to under congressionally appropriated COVID funding laws. Implementation of unemployment compensation by the State of New Jersey has been profoundly disappointing. Mr. Speaker, the public-private sector effort to swiftly create safe and effective vaccines to protect against COVID has no parallel in history. Just breathtaking. That's what Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, recently said when asked by an Axios reporter what the Trump Administration got right in the effort to fight COVID-19 as he gushed about both the efficacy and unprecedented speed in approving and disseminating lifesaving vaccines. Dr. Collins praised Trump's Operation Warp Speed and said they brought all parts of government together in an ``unprecedented way to test up to six vaccines in rigorous trials''. He said that would not be the way things are traditionally done and added: the fact that we in December had not one but two vaccines that had gone through trials of at least 30,000 participants and had been judged safe and effective by a very rigorous and very public FDA process, is just breathtaking. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, among the more than 200 Republican amendments to the pending legislation that the Democrat leadership rejected, was a proposal to increase funding for CDC COVID vaccine activities by $2 billion and earmarking $1 billion of that for teachers and school personnel. Another amendment would have earmarked $10 billion--out of $46 billion--for testing for teachers and school personnel. That too was rejected. Prioritizing teacher vaccinations will likely help keep teachers COVID-19 free and get the schools open. According to the Congressional Budget Office, only about 5 percent of the school money designated for K-12 in the new bill will actually be distributed in 2021--the rest will be spent in the outyears, between 2022 and 2028. Earlier this month, our bipartisan group, the Problem Solvers Caucus, released the Defeating COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Package with $160 billion for vaccines, testing, PPE, rebuilding our National Strategic Stockpile and other efforts so that we can ensure that more people are protected. We asked the House leadership that these bipartisan priorities be moved quickly and separately. That didn't happen. Finally, in a radical departure from all previous COVID-19 relief laws--the bill before us today mandates taxpayer funding for abortion on demand. Today, the Rules Committee refused to allow a vote on the McMorris Rogers-Foxx-Walorski amendment--cosponsored by 206 members--to ensure that taxpayers aren't forced to subsidize abortion. Mr. Speaker, in his inauguration speech, President Biden said that the dream of justice for all will be deferred no longer. The noble dream of justice for all however will never be achieved if a whole segment of society is legally ignored, trivialized, dehumanized and discriminated against because of where they live--in their mothers' wombs--and how small and defenseless they are. Where is the empathy for the battered baby-victim? The science of human development has not changed--and, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are now more visible than ever before. Growing numbers of Americans are shocked to learn that the methods of abortion include dismemberment of a child's fragile body including decapitation and that drugs like RU 486 starve the baby to death before he or she is forcibly expelled from the womb. We know that by at least twenty weeks unborn babies killed by abortion experience excruciating suffering and physical pain. And that until rendered unconscious or dead by these hideous procedures, the baby feels every cut. All that will be subsidized by taxpayers if this bill remains unchanged. Mr. Biden once wrote to constituents explaining his support for laws against funding for abortion by saying it would protect both the woman and her unborn child . . . I have consistently--on no fewer than 50 occasions--voted against federal funding of abortion he said . . . those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them. I agree. According to public opinion polls most Americans agree as well--58% according to the most recent Marist poll--that taxpayers should not be compelled to fund abortion. Mr. Speaker, lives, as you surely know, have been saved by the Hyde Amendment. More than twenty peer reviewed studies show that more than 2.4 million people are alive today in the United States because of Hyde--with about 60,000 children spared death by abortion every year. Over 2.4 million people who would have been aborted instead survived because public funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise and their mothers instead benefitted from prenatal healthcare and support. Abortion violence must be replaced with compassion and empathy for women and for defenseless unborn babies. We must love them both. These children need the President of the United States and Members of Congress to be their friends and advocates--not powerful adversaries. Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the American Rescue Plan. Earlier this week we reached a grim milestone. More than half a million people have lost their lives to the coronavirus pandemic, which is the greatest public health and economic crisis of our generation. Families are struggling to put food on the table, to stay in their homes, to find good paying jobs and affordable childcare. Facing this continued urgency, we have a duty to pass real relief for the American people. This package makes long overdue investments to expedite vaccine production and distribution, and it meets this moment by delivering substantial financial relief to working families, including an expanded and fully refundable Child Tax Credit. The hour may be dark, but we can be the light forward. We must be. I urge my all my colleagues to pass this rescue plan.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5 because it puts the Hyde Amendment and other federal and state laws that bar taxpayer funding for abortion at serious risk and out of an abundance of concern for the women and children who flee to the protection of domestic abuse shelters,. H.R. 5 weakens conscience protections for health care providers opposed to being coerced into participating in the killing of unborn babies. H.R. 5 defines ``sex'' to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.'' The term ``related medical condition'' means ``abortion.'' In the case Doe v. C.A.R.S., the Third Circuit stated, ``We now hold that the term ``related medical conditions'' includes an abortion.'' Furthermore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces Title VII, interprets abortion to be covered as a ``related medical condition.'' To further clarify, H.R. 5 goes on to state: (b): Rules.--In a covered title referred to in subsection (a)--''(1) (with respect to sex} pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions; . . . In other words, a provider may not withhold a ``treatment option,'' including dismembering, chemically poisoning or otherwise destroying an unborn baby girl or boy. In a legal analysis released this month, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote: Existing prohibitions on the use of government funds for abortion can be undercut in three ways. First, federal and state governments are themselves providers of health care. Therefore, they would themselves be subject to the constraints that the Equality Act places on all health care providers and, as such, would likely be required to provide abortions. This conclusion is reinforced by the bill's expansive definition of ``establishment,'' which is not limited to physical facilities and places. Second, it would seem anomalous to, on the one hand, mandate that recipients of federal funds provide abortions, as the Equality Act can be read to do, but, on the other hand, prohibit use of such funds for abortions. It can (and likely will) be argued that these newly enacted provisions, which would likely require recipients of federal funding to perform abortions, would thereby repeal by implication previously enacted legislation forbidding the use of those very same funds for abortion. Third, even if the bill were not construed to require the federal government to fund abortions, it could still be construed to require states that receive federal funding to do so with their own funds, which would be a departure from the longstanding principle that the federal government not require government funding of abortion even on the part of state governments. The possibility that the Equality Act may be used to undercut the Hyde principle against government funding of abortion has been noted even by those endorsing the bill including Katelyn Burns, New Congress Opens Door for Renewed Push for LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018). But instead of denying that this problem exists, or (even better) urging an amendment to avoid it, one supporter of the bill has suggested that the issue simply ``has to be navigated super carefully.'' In other words, there is a problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from becoming politically visible. In an incisive analysis of H.R. 5, Richard Doerflinger exposes the risk to unborn children, conscience rights and state all laws preventing taxpayer funding for abortion: ``Of especially grave concern is that the Equality Act introduces this same language on sex and ``pregnancy discrimination'' into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, forbidding discrimination in ``federally assisted programs.'' This applies to a wide range of entities that may receive federal funds, including state and local government agencies, educational institutions, organizations providing health care, etc. (42 USC 2000d-4a). All of these would be required to show that they do not exclude the full range of treatments for the ``condition'' of pregnancy. Not only the federal government, but all states that receive federal funds for their health programs, could be required to fund elective abortions, reversing the longstanding policy of two-thirds of the states. The same changes to the definition of ``sex'' are made to Title II, on discrimination in places of ``public accommodation,'' and that title's definition of a ``public accommodation'' is expanded to include ``any establishment that provides a good, service, or program,'' including any provider of ``health care'' (H.R. 5, Sec. 3 (a)(d)).'' I also oppose H.R. 5 out of genuine concern for the women and children who seek refuge in a domestic abuse shelter. By granting biological men--who self-identify as women-access to women's shelters, H.R. 5 removes the hard-fought gains to protect women and girls from abuse and to provide them with physical, emotional and psychological security. In late 2018, nine female victims residing in a women's shelter in Fresno, California-Naomi's House, operated by Poverello House-filed a lawsuit against the shelter for admitting a biological man because he had self-identified as a woman. These victims stated that they had been sexually harassed by this biological man. They said that he had made ``sexual advances'' on them and would ``stare and leer'' and make ``sexually harassing comments about their bodies'' while they were forced to undress in the same room with him. After repeatedly confronting the staff of Naomi's House--both verbally and in writing--with their extreme discomfort, these women were told that they would be expelled from the shelter if they refused to comply. Madam Speaker, if we allow biological men who self-identify as women to receive access to these women-only shelters, abused women and children will lose the 'safe space' they so desperately need. We must first and foremost protect victims of violence. These brave women and children deserve a place where they can feel protected and secure, so they can begin the difficult process to heal as they deal with post-traumatic stress. Forcing them to share a shelter and its facilities--including showers and sleeping areas--with biological men who self-identify as women will likely cause these women and children to experience insecurity, discomfort, confusion, and fear of additional assault. Women's shelters--there are about 1,500 nationwide--offer a safe space where a woman does not have to fear or worry about violence and intimidation and instead allows her to take steps toward rebuilding her life. These victims deserve better. They deserve our protection and support. We must work to ensure the safety of women, girls, and children.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her very powerful statement and her leadership, which I know is going to be greatly appreciated. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), my friend who is a new Member. She is on the Education and Labor Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, and she is a pharmacist.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for her statement, and I look forward to working with her going forward in this Congress. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the lead sponsor of the Protecting Individuals With Down Syndrome Act, which prohibits abortions based on Down Syndrome.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, before yielding to my good friend and colleague, there are a number of Members who will be making their way over here. We do have an important caucus going on, on the Republican side, and that caucus is very intense; but we will have Members coming. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my good friend and colleague, who has been a big leader in the pro-life movement.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for her remarks. Madam Speaker, tonight is really an appeal--an appeal to my colleagues. It is a cry for survival and justice for unborn baby girls and boys. Unborn children need the President of the United States and all of us to be their friend and advocate, not powerful adversaries. In his inaugural speech, President Biden said: ``The dream of justice for all will be deferred no longer.'' He spoke of ``a cry for survival from the planet itself. A cry that can't be any more desperate.'' I--we--believe the dream of justice for all cannot be achieved if an entire segment of society is legally ignored and legally discriminated against because of where they live, in their mother's womb, and how small and unbelievably defenseless they really are. We know the President understands this. He gets it--or at least he once did. Years ago, then-Senator Biden wrote to a constituent explaining his support for a law against funding for abortion, and he said it would ``protect both the woman and her unborn child.'' Senator Biden said, ``I have consistently, on no fewer than 50 occasions, voted against Federal funding for abortions.'' He went on to say, ``Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.'' My colleagues on the floor and Americans all across the country agree with that. Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them. According to public opinion polls, most Americans,--60 percent, according to the most recent Marist Poll--agree that taxpayers should not be compelled to fund abortion. Madam Speaker, lives have been saved by the Hyde Amendment. More than 20 peer-reviewed studies show that more than 20 million people are alive today in the United States because of the Hyde Amendment, with almost 60,000 children spared death by abortion each and every year. Madam Speaker, over 2 million people who would have been aborted, instead, survived because public funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise; and their mothers, instead, benefited from maternal and prenatal healthcare and support. As we all know, the science of human development has not changed and, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are now more visible than ever. As we all know--my wife and I are grandparents--with each new child our children given birth to, our daughters and daughters-in-law, the first pictures we see, the first pictures we put on the refrigerator are ultrasound pictures. The first movies we see, the videos are of that ultrasound of that child sucking his or her thumb, doing somersaults, having great activity that will be great activity when they are born, as well. Madam Speaker, it was Abby Johnson who quit as a Planned Parenthood director in Texas when she was told she had to assist in an ultrasound- guided abortion. And when she saw that child in realtime literally ripped and shredded and then sucked out of the womb by the suction machine, she walked out of that abortion clinic and has never gone back. She is now a very powerful and articulate spokeswoman for the right-to-life cause. Her book ``Unplanned,'' I recommend it. It is a book that changes hearts. She was on the other side for years, so much so that she was the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic. Yet when she saw the deed itself, the dismemberment of that child, she walked out, and walked out forever. The same goes for guys, abortionists like Bernard Nathanson, who said, Once you see that ultrasound--and he was one of the founders of NARAL, a very large abortion rights organization. He said, ``I have come to the agonizing conclusion that I presided over 60,000 deaths.'' And he, too, became a pro-lifer. An ultrasound and prenatal surgery where the babies were treated as patients, not as a being, to be extinguished or exterminated changed his mind. Madam Speaker, growing numbers of Americans are shocked that the methods of abortion include dismemberment. They include the literal decapitation of this helpless child. And, of course, drugs like RU-486 starve the baby to death before he or she is then forcibly expelled from the womb. Madam Speaker, the multibillion-dollar abortion industry is very clever, and they cleverly market to savagery of choice while going to extraordinary lengths to ignore, trivialize, and cover up the battered baby victim. Madam Speaker, abortion violence must be replaced with compassion and empathy for women and for defenseless unborn babies. We must love them both. Birth is an event that happens to all of us. It is not the beginning of life. That child is just as vibrant before birth as after, just too big to continue inside the womb. Sadly, more than 62 million babies have been killed by abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade, a loss of children's lives that equates with the entire population of Italy. I truly believe that someday future generations of Americans will look back on us like we look back on people who did other things in previous centuries, in years back, and wonder how and why a society that prided itself on human rights could have effectuated and enabled the loss of so many defenseless babies--62 million and counting. Madam Speaker, last week, President Biden overturned the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, the Mexico City policy. His executive order forces--forces--U.S. taxpayers to fund organizations that promote, lobby, or perform abortions on demand in foreign countries. Americans overwhelmingly oppose using U.S. foreign aid to subsidize abortion. The Marist poll just last week found that more than three in four Americans, 77 percent, oppose using tax dollars to support abortions in other countries--77 percent. Let's use those tax dollars to combat AIDS, to help people with malaria. I am the author of the reauthorization of the PEPFAR program, the AIDS program that is now in effect. It was originally sponsored by our good friend and colleague Henry Hyde, and George W. Bush, it was one of his greatest achievements. That is where our foreign policy dollars and foreign aid dollars need to be spent, on nurturing. There is nothing benign about dismembering an unborn child or giving poisons that effectuate their death. Among other pro-abortion executive orders, on January 29, the President announced steps to resume funding to the U.N. Population Fund, even though that agency has supported China's forced abortion policy for decades. Madam Speaker, I have chaired hearings, 66 of them, on human rights in China over these many years. I have been here 41 years. I can tell you that China treats its unborn and its women in the most horrific of ways. One child per couple, now two children per couple, where coercion is used to enforce it, has led to massive, massive losses of life and to broken women. The U.N. Population Fund has been right there, cheerleading, supporting, aiding and abetting these crimes against women and children. Finally, Madam Speaker, by reason of their age, dependency, immaturity, inconvenience, or unwantedness, unborn children have been denied justice. When the President calls, we all want justice. And they have been rendered legally persona non grata. Yet, their cries for survival, using the President's words, can't be any more desperate than they are. These children need the President of the United States to be their friend and advocate, not another powerful adversary. They need us to be their friend and advocate and not powerful adversaries. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for his leadership and bill, which will save lives. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), a new Member but a Member who has secured an important post in the Appropriations and the Budget Committees.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for his leadership on that bill and his leadership on the issue of protecting defenseless lives for many years. Madam Speaker, some Members are making their way over from our caucus, but I just want to say a couple of points before closing. Years ago, a friend of mine by the name of Jean Garton, who was the head of Lutherans For Life, was preparing a speech, a lecture. In that lecture, she had a few slides of unborn children, just beautiful slides of that life before birth. But she also had a couple of slides that spoke truth to power. It was of what the abortion actually looks like, mangled bodies, dismembered children. While she was preparing that talk, it was late into the evening. One of the children walked in, and out of the mouth of babes comes truth. That child said: Mommy, who broke the baby? Abortion breaks babies. It hurts women, and we need a reappraisal in this Congress, in legislatures, where they are not supportive of the right to life. As I said earlier, we will look back someday and say: How could we have allowed it, particularly in the age of ultrasound, where we speak so often of the importance of science? Babies need help, growth, nutrition, and they certainly need protection legally from this assault on their lives. Again, I thank my colleagues for participating. I have a number of Members who are submitting statements in the Record. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) for that very passionate defense of life and the passionate and beautiful story of life. Madam Speaker, we know that Dr. John Joyce is on his way. Congressman Joyce should be here momentarily. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out one final thing. I just want to point out to my colleagues that we know that this is a difficult time for the pro-life movement in this Chamber. I have been here when we have had majorities and when we have had minorities. Based on what we think are the votes, we probably are in the minority right now. But I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that any victory that results in more child deaths is a Pyrrhic victory. It is no victory at all. These children deserve our respect and our love, and the mothers as well, not the violence of abortion. I would point out, too, that we do face these enormous challenges. I have been in the movement for 48 years. So I can say this with some sense of knowing the people who make up the pro-life movement. We love those who disagree with us. We respect even those with whom we fundamentally disagree, even when it is not reciprocated. It is all about respect from womb to tomb and for each other. So as the debates heat up and as we go through this session of Congress, we will, with respect, hear you. We disagree fundamentally because we do believe that it is a truth and a fact that these children are deserving of respect. So I want you to know, Madam Speaker, this will be a very rough couple of years for the pro-life movement in this House. It has happened before. I was here when Bill Clinton had majorities in both Houses and when Barack Obama had majorities in both Houses. But we will persevere and we will never quit because these children's lives are worth it. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), who is a member of the Agriculture Committee and the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Small Business Committee.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for his comments and for his leadership. Madam Speaker, one of my friends now for quite a long time has been the niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King. Alveda King is her name. Dr. King used to be pro-choice. Very strongly so. She actually had two abortions. Then she became pro-life. And she has become passionately pro-life not just for the babies, but maybe even more so for the women. She has said: How can the dream of my uncle, Martin Luther King, survive if we murder the children? She speaks and reaches out to women who are post-abortive with such compassion, as do so many organizations and women; to women who have the abortions, to help them, to love them, and to care for them. Alveda King is an example to be followed. Like her uncle and his bold and tremendous civil rights leadership, she argues--again, she is the niece of Dr. King--that this is the new civil rights movement and we need to protect and provide legal protection for these innocent unborn babies. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin). Dr. Brian Babin is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Dr. Babin is the sponsor of H.R. 28, Protecting Life in Crisis Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, with just 7 days remaining in his term, today's highly partisan rush to impeach the President is being done without knowing the whole truth which takes time, effort and serious scrutiny to establish. Today's snap impeachment vote alleging President Trump's ``incitement of insurrection'' lacks an objective and thorough investigation of the facts. Astonishingly, there have been no congressional hearings on H. Res. 24--the impeachment resolution--which was only introduced two days ago on January 11th. The fact that the U.S. Senate won't even consider the impeachment resolution passed by the House until after the January 20th inauguration begs the question as to why the debate and vote isn't postponed until we have all the facts. Our Nation is in desperate need of unity and civility as it prepares for the inauguration of President-elect Biden. Impeachment of President Trump--without a thorough analysis of the facts which takes time, effort and serious scrutiny to establish--will not in any way help to heal a divided America. Let me state again that I unequivocally condemn the assault on the Capitol last week and those who committed murder, violence, vandalism and other crimes should be prosecuted to the greatest extent of the law. We must be committed to zero-tolerance towards violence in any form. I strongly support and have cosponsored H.R. 275 to create a national bipartisan commission to comprehensively investigate the January 6th deadly attack on the Capitol.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, after rigorous analysis and much reflection, I will not oppose the counting of certified electoral votes from any state. I share some of the concerns about election irregularities. Today's proceedings give Congress the opportunity to raise concerns about alleged election wrongdoing in several states which I hope will ultimately lead to bipartisan state investigations and reform to ensure fair and free elections. Today, however, Congress is tasked with counting the electoral votes sent by each state. Nullifying the electors of any state requires proof that electors were not ``lawfully certified'' according to state laws. In early December, Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press that ``U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they've received, but ``to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.'' All elections in the United States must be free and fair--any action to subvert, cheat, suppress or steal any election should be investigated and prosecuted. Even if the nefarious activity was minor--and not likely to alter the outcome of an election--individuals who engage in such acts should be held accountable in a court of law. Noone has a license to cheat. Sixteen years ago, some Democratic members of the Senate and House tried to overturn the results of the Bush-Kerry Presidential election. They failed. When counting the electoral votes on January 6, 2005, I voted ``no'' on the objection to accepting Ohio's electors--enough to reverse the outcome of the election--sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Oh) because the allegations lacked both merit and proof. Only 31 Members of the House voted in favor of the election changing objection. Congress, states and local governments need to undertake a top-to- bottom review of election law and administrative polices to ensure that elections are free and fair. The future of our Nation depends on it. Finally, I unequivocally condemn the assault on the Capitol today. And those who committed violence, vandalism and other crimes should be prosecuted to the greatest extent of the law. Special thanks to the Capitol Police and all law enforcement for their brave and decisive actions to mitigate and then end today's crisis. Despite its many flaws, the U.S. Congress continues to be an extraordinary marketplace of ideas and differing opinions. The enactment of wise public policy to benefit all Americans requires robust dialogue and debate--and genuine respect for one another especially when there is fundamental disagreement. We must be committed to zero-tolerance towards violence in any form.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I thank Mr. Wilson for his great work, and I want to thank my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Eliot Engel and Michael McCaul. Thank you for your support in helping to get this legislation to the floor. I thank Chairman Keating, as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge swift enactment into law of this bipartisan bill called the Belarus Democracy Human Rights and Sovereignty Act of 2020, which I have introduced. And here is why this legislation is absolutely needed right now; not next year, not when we come back, hopefully the Senate will take it up if it passes today, and I think it will, but we need this right now. Many of my colleagues know, and perhaps they know it well, that Belarus was perhaps the nation most mired in the Soviet past, with an inefficient economy and a strongman autocrat, really a dictator, in charge for over two and a half decades, Alexander Lukashenko. Yet the indomitable spirit of freedom stirred among the people of Belarus, and when a patently false election--another one--was announced on August 9 declaring Lukashenko the winner, the people took to the streets. And they are still on the streets today. The OSCE Moscow Mechanism reported November 5 that there is ``'overwhelming' evidence that Belarus' August 9 presidential election results were falsified and as `systematic' human rights violations have been committed by the country's security forces in response to the peaceful demonstrations that the vote sparked.'' Now, reports out of Belarus indicate that police are using increasingly violent tactics against these peaceful protesters. The BBC summed it up yesterday in an article titled, ``Belarus protesters battered, bruised, but defiant after 100 days,'' which said in part, ``opposition protesters remain defiant in Belarus despite police brutality, 100 days after they first took to the streets to denounce the reelection of President Alexander Lukashenko. Police in helmets and body armour throw women holding flowers and balloons into police vans.'' And, of course, then it only gets worse. ``Officers tear-gas elderly people on a pensioners' march. . . . ``Yet every Sunday thousands still pour into the streets of the capital Minsk, condemning what they see as Mr. Lukashenko's fraudulent 9 August victory. . . . `' There is a report that points out, again a BBC report, ``Alesya, a 31-year-old worker in the IT industry, regularly attends the Sunday rallies. On 15 November, however, things turned nasty very quickly. ``When she arrived at the square,'' she said, ``where the march was supposed to start, it was already packed with security forces. As more people gathered, officers fired stun grenades and started hitting people with batons to disperse the crowd. ``They attacked us again and again. It was awful. They ferociously beat people, twisted their arms and took them away. ``She ran away into one of the courtyards following other protesters, but police in their minivans quickly caught up with them even there. She was saved,'' she goes on, ``by a stranger who hid her and several others in his house.'' She goes on to say, ``It was like World War II, when people tried to hide Jews from the Nazis. It was terrifying, we were shocked.'' That particular march was called in memory of Roman Bondarenko, an activist who was so severely beaten while in detention, that he died in the hospital just last week. Mr. Speaker, the Congress can and we must do our part in this crisis. The people of Belarus, especially the pro-democracy leaders, desperately need our help, and they need it right now. As my colleagues know, the leading opposition presidential candidate, Svetlana Tsikhanouskaya, almost certainly won the election in August. She went on to form the Coordination Council. The democratic opposition is united, it is smart, it is principled, tenacious, and it is extraordinarily brave. Ms. Tsikhanouskaya ran a courageous campaign, but today is in exile in Lithuania, in Vilnius, where she continues to rally the Belarusian people and the world and demand that democracy and human rights for all people be given to her nation. A couple weeks ago I read portions of a transcript of a hearing I chaired in 2011 after another fraudulent Belarusian election put Lukashenko back in power. Then as now, and on so many other occasions, Lukashenko's bullies beat, jailed, assaulted, tortured, raped, and killed peaceful protesters, but now it is going on right as we meet here today as never before. The big mistake of the past, fatigue or lack of commitment and perseverance by the international community, can't be repeated this time. We can't be outraged at first and then turn the page and say, ``Now what?'' We need to have a determined effort to help these people who are struggling for democracy and human rights in their nation. On two separate occasions, I would note parenthetically, I met with Lukashenko in Minsk and came away resolved to accelerate the struggle for democracy and freedom. I was with a group of 11 Members, including some of our members on the committee, and he pointed to me, because I am the author of the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004, and said, ``There is public enemy number one.'' That is how he thinks. Anybody who aspires for freedom and democracy, particularly against his brutal regime, is construed to be a public enemy. And for the people of Belarus, they go to jail, where they are beaten senselessly. Our bipartisan bill, H.R. 8438, again, cosponsored by Mr. Engel, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Keating, Mr. Kinzinger, and so many other Members of this House, updates, strengthens, and expands the Belarus Democracy Acts of 2004, 2006, and 2011, laws that I also authored, and renews the personal, economic, and visa sanctions on an expanded list of actors in the Belarusian Government, and now for the first time on Russian individuals complicit in this crackdown. I would note parenthetically, the Magnitsky Act, the idea of personally sanctioning with visa denial as well as economic sanctions on individuals that led to the Global Magnitsky Act came out of the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004. So it is an idea, it is a method of holding those who commit these abuses personally accountable. When you sanction an entire nation, that has an impact, but innocent people do get hurt. This sanctions the individuals who are perpetrators of these heinous crimes. Yesterday, Svetlana again called for the sanctions, just yesterday for the sanctions that are embedded in our bill. So the time to act is now. The bill also has other provisions. It does call for new elections. It recognizes the Coordination Council as a legitimate institution to participate in a dialogue on a peaceful transition of power. They are the ones we need to be talking to. It calls for the release of all political prisoners, and that number rises by the day. It supports the aspirations of the people to exercise their religious freedom. There has been a crackdown there as well. It authorizes assistance to promote democracy in civil society in Belarus. On occasions in Minsk, I have met with those individuals. They are brave beyond words, because they always know somebody is lurking-- the secret police--just waiting to haul them off to prison. It unequivocally states that it is the policy of the U.S. ``not to recognize any incorporation of Belarus into a `Union State' with Russia.'' Russia is using this crisis as a pretext to further manifest their monopoly of power. They would love--like they did in parts of Ukraine, South Ossetia, Abkhazia--to just take the whole of Belarus into their national boundary. The bill requires the U.S. strategy to promote broadcasting, internet freedom, and access to information. In addition, it gives much needed support to the Belarusian media and to the IT sector. By passing this bill today followed by, hopefully, swift approval in the Senate and signature into law by the President, we not only reiterate, but significantly expand our support and solidarity with the great people of Belarus. We need to pass this bill and I respectfully call on our Senate colleagues to pass it as well.