Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will begin by thanking our distinguished chairman, Eliot Engel, for his extraordinary leadership as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for all these years. He is a good friend. We have worked on so many issues together. I thank him again for his leadership. It has been extraordinary. Your bipartisanship has been an example to us all, so I thank you for that, Eliot, and I really mean that deeply. I also thank my good friend and colleague from Texas, the ranking member, Michael McCaul, for his support of this legislation and other important initiatives. Also, Eliot, thank you again. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7276, the Desert Locust Control Act, which I introduced along with my good friend and colleague, Karen Bass. She is chairwoman, as you know, of the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations Subcommittee. I am the ranking member. In previous times I was the chairman, and she was my ranking member, and we have worked very closely together on all issues dealing with the health and well-being of people around the world through the global health portion of our portfolio, but also, with a very particular emphasis on Africa. This bipartisan bill would create an interagency task force that would address the crisis of increasingly biblical proportions caused by swarms of desert locusts, which have been compounded by the COVID crisis, which our country and so many other nations are dealing with. Indeed, as serious as COVID has been, and it has been serious, as we all know, the unfortunate fact is that there are many other threats to the welfare and well-being of so many people in the developing world, including Sub- Saharan Africa, where the likelihood of food insecurity looms larger thanks to the pandemic. Just how bad is it? Swarms of hundreds of millions of locusts darken the sky, descend upon an area, stripping it entirely of its vegetation. Crops are just decimated in a matter of minutes and hours. Unfortunately, due in part to this bad timing with a pandemic, we are witnessing the real possibility of famine in many countries of east Africa, where over 27 million people are now estimated to be suffering from acute food insecurity, which is defined as the sudden lack of food or the ability to produce or access minimum requirements of food. I should note that in the case of one of the nations most impacted, Ethiopia, the political situation has simultaneously deteriorated, so that the country is now on the brink of civil war with the added crisis of refugees fleeing conflicted areas added to the mix of cascading calamities and compounding crises. Indeed, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the FAO, estimates that this infestation of locusts will persist until at least March 2021 in both Ethiopia and Somalia. Our bill would create an interagency working group comprised of representatives of the USAID, State, the NSC, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Agriculture to formulate a strategic plan to address this and future locust outbreaks, as well as other similarly destructive pests, such as fall armyworm, which wreaks tremendous havoc on crops annually. The working group would also include a representative from our mission to the United Nations food agencies based in Rome, where our current ambassador, Kip Tom, is doing a stellar job interacting with both the World Food Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organization, as well as locust-impacted countries. Ambassador Kip Tom has briefed me and others repeatedly. We have talked about best practices on the phone in Skype phone calls, and again, I want to single him out for the tremendous job that he has done in trying to mitigate this crisis. The World Food Programme has also been a tremendous help, as it has been in so many other places around the world, under the extraordinary leadership of David Beasley. Indeed, the international community has recognized the yeoman's work by awarding the World Food Program the Nobel Peace Prize. Ambassador Tom has been pushing the FAO in particular to proactively address the problem and adopt the better use of technology. For example, use of apps on smartphones in Kenya advocated by the Ambassador has led to roughly 80 percent of the data collected on the location of desert locusts, thereby allowing for the targeted mobilization of aerial assets for locust eradication and control. It is innovation such as this, and the adoption of best practices, which our interagency group will focus on identifying and implementing. Indeed, we also think that the working group will help ensure that our taxpayer dollars are spent in the most effective way possible. The United States Government has committed over $24 million to the USAID, and that has made a difference as well. While the focus of our bill is on East Africa, other countries like Yemen, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are threatened by these spreading swarms as well. Indeed, Yemen has become a breeding ground for locusts crossing over into the Horn of Africa, compounding the problem caused by indigenous swarms in the countries of the Horn. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the bill. And again, I thank our distinguished chairman for his leadership on this bill and so many others. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5586, the Haiti Development, Accountability, and Institutional Transparency Initiative Act, authored by Mr. Jeffries and Ann Wagner. Haiti remains the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and continues to struggle under fragile public institutions. As we speak, Haiti is facing a constitutional crisis without a sitting parliament after failing to organize legislative elections in 2019. We continue to encourage the Government of Haiti to hold these elections as soon as possible. Haiti continues to struggle with disaster recovery from the earthquake in 2010 and Hurricane Matthew in 2016, as well as civil unrest, increasing gang violence, and accusations of government corruption and human rights abuses. Haiti remains the second largest recipient of U.S. assistance in the region, including over $128 million in foreign assistance appropriated by Congress in 2019 for economic development, democracy and rule of law, and critical support for the Haitian National Police. This legislation prioritizes anticorruption efforts, press freedoms, and human rights, and it requires the Department of State to develop a strategy with benchmarks and indicators to measure the progress toward stated objectives for U.S. assistance. This bill also requires an assessment of U.S. support for disaster resilience to ensure that our assistance is effectuating Haiti's recovery efforts and strengthening infrastructure against future disasters. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7703, the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative Authorization Act, authored by Mr. Espaillat and Mr. Rooney, and I want to thank them for their leadership on this. The countries of the Caribbean continue to face serious security challenges from criminal organizations, drug trafficking, corruption, and threats to the rule of law that seriously jeopardize the people of these nations as well as U.S. security interests in the region. Since 2010, the U.S. Congress has provided nearly $677 million to support the region's efforts to address these threats under the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, or CBSI. Funding under CBSI has supported training for law enforcement, counternarcotics efforts, border and port security, and strengthening of the rule of law. The assistance has strengthened U.S. security cooperation with our Caribbean partners and remains critical as transnational criminal and terrorist organizations continue to threaten their security. The legislation before us today authorizes $74.8 million for the CBSI for each year until 2025 and continues to prioritize capacity building for local law enforcement, disruption of criminal organizations, drug and firearm interdiction, rule of law, and anticorruption efforts. The bill also supports disaster resilience and requires the State Department to establish benchmarks and indicators to track progress towards CBSI's stated objectives. I would also point out this legislation also includes important requirements for monitoring and countering the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party in the region. I congratulate the gentleman on his very fine bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 672. I want to thank Marcy Kaptur for offering it. It is a very important bill to express support for the Three Seas Initiative. Launched by 12 of our close friends in central and Eastern Europe, the Three Seas Initiative seeks to expand cross-border energy, transportation, and digital infrastructure, as well as to boost economic development in the region. Though it is a regional initiative, it has global implications that serve not only European but also U.S. security and economic interests. For far too long, Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin has had an energy chokehold on much of Europe. In response, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly oppose Putin's efforts to weaponize Russia's energy resources, including by working to ensure that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is never completed. Moreover, we in Congress have expressed growing concern that the CCP is exporting corruption, debt traps, poor labor and environmental standards to Europe and across the world through its 17+1 and Belt and Road Initiatives. We have also raised the alarm for our EU and NATO allies about the threats that Huawei and the Chinese Communist Party pose as partners. The Three Seas Initiative seeks to address these concerns. It aims to decrease European dependence on Russian energy by financing new routes for non-Russian energy suppliers and to provide positive alternatives to PRC investments in the region. We must support our allies in Central and Eastern Europe as they seek, through the Three Seas Initiative, to reduce their dependence on Moscow's and Beijing's economic overtures. Only together can we face the threats posed by the authoritarian regimes in China and Russia. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to begin by thanking my good friend, Chairman McGovern, for sponsoring this important resolution. I am very proud to be one of its cosponsors. Both Mr. McGovern and I co-chair the Lantos Human Rights Commission, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have been trying for years to hold Russia to account for these kinds of despicable displays where, as was pointed out by my good friend from New York, very visible opposition leaders and others have been targeted by the Russian regime for poisoning and other kinds of deadly deeds. So I want to thank him for, again, bringing our attention and the House's attention to this additional terrible misdeed by Vladimir Putin. Each of us in this House, I believe, were appalled to learn that Mr. Navalny had been poisoned with a Soviet-era chemical nerve agent. Of course, we are relieved that he seems to be doing well, but that doesn't in any way mitigate the terrible act that was committed to try to kill him. We are not surprised though. Just 2 years ago, the same chemical nerve agent was used in an attack on United Kingdom soil against former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal. The attack severely injured him, his daughter, and a police officer, and also cost the life of an innocent British citizen. Moreover, since Putin came to power, as was pointed out a moment ago, numerous Russian journalists, human rights activists, opposition leaders, whistleblowers, and others who opposed his regime have been murdered or died in mysterious circumstances. As noted in the resolution, Ranking Member McCaul and Chairman Engel wrote a letter to the President after the attack to request an investigation into whether Russia had, once again, used a lethal chemical weapon in violation of international law. Pursuant to the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act, this request started the clock on a 60-day evaluation period to make such a determination. Unfortunately, the deadline has passed, so we respectfully--all of us--ask the administration to release the findings of its investigation and to do so without any delay. If it is determined, as we suspect, that the Putin regime is behind the attack, then additional U.S. sanctions must be imposed. His regime must be held accountable for resorting to such cruel and barbaric methods to silence his critics. I was glad to see the E.U. support a Franco-German plan to impose sanctions on Russians suspected to be behind Mr. Navalny's poisoning. I also continue to hope that our German friends will heed the growing calls around Europe and within Germany since the attack to reconsider their support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this resolution. Again, I want to thank Chairman McGovern for authoring it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8259, which prohibits Russian participation in the G7. I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Meeks, for authoring this bill. As I have said time and time again, Vladimir Putin is not a friend of the United States nor of our allies. In the past few years, we have witnessed his regime invade and occupy parts of Ukraine and certainly Georgia in South Ossetia and Abkhazia; unleash devastating cyberattacks against our allies; prop up corrupt regimes in Syria and Venezuela; use a banned nerve agent to try to kill a former Russian spy, as we just saw with the resolution that preceded this, opposition activist Alexey Navalny; meddle in our elections; and much more. The Russian President's actions speak for themselves. At almost every opportunity, Putin pursues policies that undermine American and allied interests around the world. The Group of Seven is a forum that brings together like-minded democracies to tackle important global issues. A dangerous and corrupt dictator that assassinates his own people cannot be trusted to be a reasonable partner on the world stage. We must not turn a blind eye to this reality. This bill would prohibit Russia from being readmitted to the Group of Seven until Putin fully restores the territorial integrity of Ukraine, parts of Georgia, and Moldova, and stops interfering in the democratic processes of the United States and our allies. The bill also demonstrates that Congress takes very seriously the safety of American troops serving overseas--it is our utmost priority-- and that we remain concerned about the challenges Russia poses to U.S. and NATO efforts to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. Maintaining the integrity of the Group of Seven is vital to its success. Russia cannot be invited back in while Vladimir Putin continues to undermine the efforts of democratic states to build a freer and more prosperous world. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution marking the 50th anniversary of entry into force of the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I want to thank our distinguished colleagues, Mr. Sherman and Mr. Banks, and some of the other cosponsors. Mr. Sherman took the lead on it, and I thank him for that, in marking this important anniversary. For the last 50 years, the NPT Treaty, Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been the bedrock upon which nonproliferation policy has been built. More than 185 countries around the world have ratified the treaty, adding their support to the responsible use of nuclear technology, while reducing the likelihood of nuclear conflict. Every country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; however, we must ensure that the number of states armed with nuclear weapons does not grow. The proliferation of these weapons in unstable, dangerous regimes like North Korea and Iran only makes the world more dangerous and the use of those weapons of mass destruction more likely. Under the treaty, nuclear weapons states agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or technology to nonnuclear weapons states. States without nuclear weapons are bound to accept IAEA safeguards in order to verify any and all nuclear activities are peaceful. The treaty also requires all countries to pursue good faith negotiations related to nuclear disarmament. There may be disagreement on how to achieve such disarmament, but in the meantime, the U.S. remains committed to continuing to reduce risk and enhance global stability through maintaining a modern, safe, and secure nuclear deterrent and reaffirming our defense commitment to our allies. We seek to engage countries like China, which is growing its nuclear arsenal, and Russia, which is developing new nuclear armed weapons systems, on enhanced arms control regimes. Finally, the United States continues to seek to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states. Again, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), for sponsoring this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, each year in September, designated as Hydrocephalus Awareness Month, hydrocephalus patients, caregivers, and other supporters across the country work together to raise awareness of the impact and prevalence of hydrocephalus and urge public and medical officials to garner more resources to improve treatment protocols and one day find a cure. As we all know, COVID-19 and its inherent social distancing requirements have limited many public awareness activities, but this past month members of the Hydrocephalus Association and the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation, and other active supporters, adjusted and relied on social media and other venues to share statistics, brochures and personal stories to enhance awareness of this condition. As the co-chair of the Congressional Pediatric and Adult Hydrocephalus Caucus, I call on all my colleagues in the House to take the time and learn more about hydrocephalus so we can better assist our constituents and their family members who live with challenges of hydrocephalus every day. Hydrocephalus is colloquially known as ``water on the brain.'' In truth, the condition is caused by an abnormal build-up of cerebrospinal fluid and can be treated only by surgically implanting a drainage shunt in the brain. Everyone, from babies to the elderly, can develop hydrocephalus. While some cases are congenital, many cases are caused by a traumatic brain injury, an infection, or even just develop as part of the aging process. Hospitals across the country work to serve the over one-million adults with hydrocephalus, including the New Neurons Neurosurgery Institute (NNNI), located in my district in Spring Lake, New Jersey. NNNI's pediatrics division plays a critical role in addressing the needs of thousands of children with hydrocephalus in New Jersey and across the country. Nationwide, over 400,000 babies a year are born with hydrocephalus. Through their compassion, skills, and critical expertise dedicated medical professionals such as those at NNNI save lives every day. United States citizens are not alone in their struggles with this condition. Unfortunately, the global situation is even worse, which is why I've introduced the Global Brain Health Act, which adds hydrocephalus to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This approach would ensure more robust foreign assistance for treating those infants and children in developing countries with hydrocephalus and other brain health-related conditions. It also fosters study in treatment protocols that can be shared here at home. It's essential for Members of Congress to better understand this condition and its profound impact on the people we represent. I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan Congressional Adult and Pediatric Hydrocephalus Caucus. As a member you will not only help raise awareness but may also play a role in creating public policies that lead to better treatments and hopefully a cure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, Margaret Hahn--my mother-in- law--passed away on Friday and a Mass of Christian burial will be held today at St. Mary Church in South Amboy, New Jersey. She was 96 and was deeply loved and will be deeply missed. Margaret--Peg--was a great woman--wife, mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother. She selflessly devoted her life to public service including her amazing work as Sayreville Borough Clerk for twenty years. She had an incredible reputation for getting things done for the people. No matter who served as mayor or on Council, everyone knew she was the power. My wife Marie and I will join family and friends today at her funeral and internment making it impossible for me to speak today during the debate on the reauthorization of a law I originally authored fifteen years ago--the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005--and the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2015. So, I submit these comments for the Record: Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives will vote to reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act. This was an original idea of mine 20 years ago. Joined by 70 cosponsors, I introduced it in 2001 and again in 2003. After five long years of hard work and numerous setbacks, my bill was finally enacted into law in 2005. Beginning in 2001, Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, who is President of the Cord Blood Association, helped draft my original law. Dr. Kurtzberg has said, ``Cord blood transplantation is now an established field with enormous potential. In the future, it may emerge as a source of cells for cellular therapies focused on tissue repair and regeneration.'' 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 to even cure serious disease. Pursuant to the law, it also provided stem cells for research. The new cord blood program was combined in our 2005 law with an expanded bone marrow initiative, which was crafted over several years by our distinguished colleague, Congressman Bill Young. I was the prime sponsor again when it was reauthorized in 2015. Umbilical cord blood stem cells, obtained after the birth of a child, have proved highly efficacious in treating 70 diseases, including sickle-cell disease, lymphoma, and leukemia. And scientists are continuing to study and better understand the regenerative effects of cord blood cell therapies for other diseases and conditions. Bone marrow donations provide lifesaving transplants to treat diseases like blood cancer, sickle cell anemia, or inherited metabolic or immune system disorders. 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, including 150,000 NCBI units. Within the Be the Match registry, there are more than 783,000 NCBI units worldwide. The Program registry allows patients and physicians to locate matching cord blood units, as well as adult donors for marrow and peripheral blood stem cells, when a family donor is not available. The Program is the world's largest, most diverse donor registry, with more than 22 million volunteers and more than 300,000 public cord blood units. To date, the National Marrow Donor Program/Be The Match (NMDP), through its operation of the Program, has facilitated more than 100,000 transplants. More than 45,000 patients have received cord blood transplants, according to Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg. The reauthorization before us authorizes $23 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2021 through fiscal year 2025. It also authorizes $30 million to be appropriated for fiscal years 2021 through 2025 for the bone marrow transplant program. This continues funding at the same levels authorized in the 2015 authorization bill. Madam 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 umbilical cord to nurture and protect the precious life of an unborn child, but now we know that another gift awaits us immediately after birth. Something very special is left behind--cord blood that is teeming with lifesaving stem cells. Indeed, it remains one of the best kept secrets in America that umbilical cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells in general are curing people of a myriad of terrible conditions and diseases--over 70 diseases in adults as well as in children. The legislation that is before us will enable even more patients to receive the treatments that they so desperately need.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. First of all, Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Takano. I give a special thanks to him and the ranking member, Dr. Roe, for including my bipartisan bill, H.R. 2435, the Accelerating Veterans Recovery Outdoors Act, into the COMPACT Act that is before the House today. Madam Speaker, introduced 17 months ago, I am especially grateful for the work of my good friend and colleague, Adam Smith from Washington, the lead Democrat cosponsor, and all 135 cosponsors of this legislation. I give special thanks to the veterans service organizations, outdoor groups, and a big, big shout-out to the Sierra Club for the groundbreaking work that they have done to advance outdoor recreation as an extraordinarily effective form of healing for veterans suffering from PTSD and other psychological consequences from their service. The legislation requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish an interagency task force on the use of public lands to provide medical treatment and therapy to veterans through outdoor recreation. Specifically, the task force duties include, first, to identify opportunities to formalize coordination between the Department of Veterans Affairs, public lands agencies, and partner organizations regarding the use of public lands or other outdoor spaces for health and wellness for veterans; second, to identify barriers that exist to providing veterans with opportunities for health and wellness through the use of outdoor recreation on public lands or other outdoor spaces; and, third, to develop recommendations to better facilitate the use of public lands or other outdoor spaces for promoting wellness and facilitating the delivery of health care and therapy for veterans. After an exhaustive--hopefully, an exhaustive--analysis, it will provide recommendations to Congress within a year. Madam Speaker, research has increasingly shown that outdoor recreation can be an effective form of treatment and healing for veterans. While many nonprofit organizations, VSOs, and other private companies have used the outdoors to help heroes to heal, providing greater coordination among key Federal agencies will open up new opportunities for veterans on public lands and other outdoor spaces. Blake, Madam Speaker, is a combat-wounded veteran who served in Iraq. By the time he was 20, Blake was suffering severe depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He made three visits to the VA psychiatric wards and a substance abuse rehab. But it was a backpacking trip led by the Sierra Club Military Outdoors that changed his entire perspective. With growing hope, Blake began participating in backpacking trips to Yosemite, Ansel Adams, and Big Bend. He says the shared experiences in the outdoors taught him purpose, self-reliance, and the healing powers of nature. Blake reports that ``in every Texas sunrise in the desert or a sunset next to an alpine lake, I found more beauty and serenity than I thought existed. I found camaraderie with other veterans in sharing our stories on the trail. The darkness of what I had experienced couldn't compare to the light I saw in watching a trout swim in the Merced River with Half Dome looming nearby. And when the depression, anxiety, and everything else that comes with PTSD creeps back into my life, I know just what to do: Strap on a pack and get outside.'' Madam Speaker, I urge support for the legislation, and I thank my friends for including it in this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. McCaul, the ranking member, for his leadership, for his very, very strong and passionate statement today. I thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. McGovern, the chairman of both the China Commission, as well as the Lantos Commission--and I serve as cochair with him on the Lantos Commission and as ranking member on the China Commission. And I am very pleased to be the principal Republican cosponsor of this bill. I see Mr. Suozzi over there, who has been a great leader as well. We have been teaming up for years on this issue, and I thank him for his leadership as well. And Eliot Engel, our chairman, for his work on this as well. Madam Speaker, at a 2018 Congressional hearing I cochaired, Mihrigul Tursun recounted her ordeal of torture, sexual abuse, and detention in one of China's mass internment camps in Xinjiang. She broke down weeping, telling us that she pleaded with God to end her life. Her Chinese jailers restrained her to a table, actually increased the electrical currents coursing through her body, and mocked her belief in God. She was tortured simply for being an ethnic Uyghur and a Muslim in China. Madam Speaker, there are millions of stories like this waiting to be told. Nightmarish accounts of President Xi Jinping's genocide. And make no mistake about it, this is Xi Jinping's genocide. I point out to my colleagues that this includes the mass internment of millions. An estimated 1.8 million victims in concentration camps, children ripped from the warm embrace of their families, to be indoctrinated in Communist ideology and forced to renounce their religion, their culture, and their language. Rape and sexual abuse of women being held in internment camps, forced abortion and involuntary sterilization to prevent the birth of Uyghur children, a direct violation of Article II(d) of the U.N. Genocide Convention, which states, in part, that genocide includes imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group. Forced labor on a massive scale that allows Chinese companies to profit, and profit big time, from modern-day slavery. Chinese authorities initially denied the existence of mass internment camps and tried to portray them as vocational training. The Chinese Communist Party employed the big lie, censorship and economic coercion to stifle any discussion of their crimes. However, documents obtained by the New York Times and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists have exposed beyond any reasonable doubt the brutality behind Beijing's plans to radically and coercively transform the culture and religion of ethnic Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslims in China. The leaked papers showed detailed plans--this is back years ago now-- of looking to intern between 1 and 3 million Uyghurs in these concentration camps and imposing Orwellian indoctrination efforts for those ``whose thinking has been infected.'' In other words, if you are a Muslim, your thinking is infected. At the same time, Beijing instituted plans to erase the influence of Islam in all of western China--bulldozing mosques and shrines, severely restricting religious practice, and forcing detainees in the camps to renounce their faith. The leaked documents also show that Xi Jinping himself directed the crackdown, saying the Communist Party must put the ``organs of dictatorship'' to work and show ``absolutely no mercy'' in dealing with the Uyghurs and other Muslims. In one speech, President Xi said: ``The weapons of the people's democratic dictatorship, must be wielded without any hesitation or wavering.'' In 2017, February, the documents show he told thousands of police officers and troops standing at attention in the vast square in Urumqi to prepare for a ``smashing, obliterating offensive.'' Secret teams even went out--because some of the cops didn't want to do this--and they expunged them from their ranks. Madam Speaker, we know that goods produced with forced labor find their way into U.S. markets. An estimated 22 percent of U.S. cotton goods come from the region, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency has prohibited companies from importing some textiles, electronics, and hair products. As my good friend from Texas pointed out about the hair, the last time we talked about the buying and selling of hair was with the Nazi concentration camps. It is happening today in Xinjiang. Over the past year, the Trump administration has matched strong rhetoric condemning abuses and actions to protect U.S. national security and punish Chinese authorities and corporations complicit in these human rights abuses. Since last October, the Commerce Department has placed over 40 Chinese companies and government entities on its Entity List, restricting exports because of their complicity in human rights abuses and enabling high-tech surveillance. In July, the Treasury Department issued Global Magnitsky sanctions against six senior Chinese officials; however, we want more. There are other people that are complicit. They need to be on the list. Treasury has also sanctioned the Xinjiang Production Construction Corps, a paramilitary that reports directly to the CCP. This summer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection banned eight other Chinese companies from importing textiles, hair, and electronic parts from Xinjiang. We welcome these steps, but more needs to be done. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act prohibits imports from Xinjiang to the U.S. by creating a ``rebuttable presumption.'' And that is the core of this bill, that all goods produced in the region are made with forced labor unless U.S. Customs and Border Protection certifies by clear and convincing evidence that goods were not produced with forced labor. So the rebuttable presumption is the key to this legislation. It also carries other provisions, important ones, but, again, that is the most important one.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the legislation also authorizes targeted sanctions on any person responsible for labor tracking; protects U.S. investors and consumers by requiring financial disclosure from U.S. traded businesses about their engagement with Chinese companies and other entities engaged in serious human rights abuses; directs the Secretary of State to determine whether forced labor or other crimes against Uyghurs constitute crimes against humanity or genocide. I think it couldn't be clear. Read the Genocide Convention. One item after the other articulated in that convention is being met, sadly, by Xi Jinping's horrible genocide against his own people. Madam Speaker, I urge support for the bill. It is a bipartisan bill-- 67 cosponsors in all. Republicans and Democrats joined saying, ``we want this stopped.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding. I thank him for his leadership. I thank Chairman DeFazio so very, very much for his championing this legislation. I thank my good friend, Tom Suozzi. We have partnered before on human rights legislation, particularly as it relates to China. It is great to be working with him so closely again today. I thank Ranking Member Graves. I will get to some further thank yous in a few moments. Madam Speaker, in late March of 2019, University of South Carolina senior Samantha, or Sami, Josephson left a late night outing with her friends alone because she had to work in the morning. The extraordinarily talented student, who had recently earned a full scholarship to Drexel University Law, ordered an Uber. In a congested part of Columbia known as Five Points, a predator pretending to be her Uber driver took her in his car and brutally murdered her. Less than 24 hours later, Sami was found in a field. The alleged murderer, Nathaniel Rowland, was caught, jailed, and awaits trial. Last month, a judge rightly denied bond. Almost immediately after her death and notwithstanding their excruciating agony over the loss of their precious daughter Sami, her parents, Seymour and Marci, began pushing for comprehensive new protection policies at Uber and Lyft and legislation to ensure that no one else ever loses his or her life or gets assaulted by a rideshare driver or a predator who pretends to be one. They created the #WHATSMYNAME Foundation in ``honor of their daughter to educate the world on rideshare safety. . . . Samantha may be gone,'' they write, ``but our goal for the rest of our time on Earth is to share her story and make a lasting change.'' For over a year, especially given the pain due to the unimaginable loss of their daughter, Seymour and Marci have been heroic, tenacious, and extraordinarily persuasive. They have been a critically important part of the often intense negotiations with multiple stakeholders, including Uber and Lyft, on both the substance and the text of Sami's Law. Marci and Seymour made frequent trips to the Capitol to meet lawmakers and staff on both sides of the aisle, including Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy, as well as Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Mr. Davis and Chairwoman Norton, all of whom welcomed them with such compassion and empathy. Mr. Speaker, I am especially grateful to the Speaker for her strong personal commitment to this cause and for bringing Sami's Law to the floor today and who, like Kevin McCarthy and others, also welcomed them with such deep respect, with kindness, and empathy. ``How can we help?,'' was the question I heard over and over again, and Sami's Law is what has been produced as a result of that. Mr. Speaker, underscoring the need for Sami's Law, in addition to the fake Uber driver that murdered her, last year declaring that, ``We don't believe corporate secrecy will make anyone safer,'' Uber released its first safety report. Uber found that over a 2-year period, 2017 to 2018, the company received 5,981 allegations of serious sexual assault in the United States, and 19 people were killed in physical assaults during or soon after an Uber ride. They also found that data shows that drivers report assaults at roughly the same rate as riders. Sami's Law is designed to protect both, passengers and drivers. Uber supports Sami's Law. Danielle Burr, head of Uber Federal Affairs, said, ``The tragic death of Samantha Josephson left the rideshare community heartbroken and devastated. Passage of `Sami's Law' is another step in the ongoing work to help improve safety on rideshare by leveraging education and technology. We are grateful for . . . the support and the collaboration of the Josephson Family.'' They have talked to the Uber folks, especially Danielle, over and over and over again and really have made a really, really lasting impression and difference. Again underscoring the need, CNN reported last December that Lyft has been hit with more driver rape, sexual assault allegations: ``Twenty more people are suing Lyft over alleged sexual assault, sexual misconduct or rape by drivers while using its service. . . . The lawsuit comes on the heels of a similar lawsuit filed . . . on behalf of 14 anonymous women, in addition to numerous other individual suits that have been filed in recent months.'' Dan Katz, Senior Director, Public Policy, Lyft, said: ``The Josephson family and Congressman Smith have worked tirelessly to champion Sami's Law. Their determination has led to today's passage in the U.S. House of Representatives. We have and will continue to prioritize safety within the Lyft community.'' Mr. Speaker, Sami's Law requires each transportation network company like Uber and Lyft to establish and implement a system that makes available to each passenger a digital method to verify that the driver with whom the passenger has been matched has been authorized by the TNC prior, I say again, prior to beginning the trip. The bill stipulates in pertinent part that ``Such a system shall include an initial notification sent to the passenger's mobile, or otherwise communicated to the passenger, containing verifiable information specific to the TNC driver or TNC vehicle with which the passenger has been matched.'' That also puts into this whole system much more accountability. Everybody knows who is driving that car or that vehicle. All TNC companies that wish to continue operating in the U.S. must establish such a system within 90 days of enactment. I note in the early days of this legislation, we discovered that we needed to make some changes. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the National Federation of the Blind, who helped craft provisions to the bill to ensure that there was a way for a passenger to use a nonvisual arrangement to verify the authenticity of the TNC driver. Sami's Law not only sets minimum safety requirements for today's technology. It also puts into effect a process for successor technology performance standards. It also establishes a 15-member advisory council that reports to the Secretary of Transportation, known as SAMI's Council, comprised of Federal agency and public stakeholders to advance safety standards in the rideshare industry. I was so glad when Chairman DeFazio at the hearing when we were talking about how you could just simply go on Amazon or Wal-Mart, anywhere, type in ``Uber signage'' or ``signage,'' and you can buy a sign. It is an engraved invitation to a predator to act like, particularly at or near our college campuses, in proximity to, and then to impersonate an Uber driver. I will never forget at the hearing after I mentioned the ease of buying an Uber sign in my testimony, the chairman pulled out his smartphone and then made a very, very, very good point about how easy it is to access that signage. Sami's Law would make that unlawful. It also requires, a GAO report on the incidents of assault and abuse on both passengers and drivers, and requires that the GAO also examine the nature and specifics on background checks conducted by companies and the various standards set by States regarding background checks. We have got to know who is behind the wheel, and this certainly will help to do that. Mr. Speaker, again, I have appreciated the chairman's focus on background checks for such a long time. This hopefully advances that concern. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me offer my profound gratitude to the professional staff. We all know how important they are. They really make a huge difference. They sweat the details, work on text. Mr. Speaker, let me begin. And this is not totally inclusive. I may have left somebody out, and I apologize. I thank Robert Edmonson, chief of staff to the Speaker; Emily Domenech and Will Durham, Republican Leader McCarthy's office; Helen Zyblikewycz, who is staff director, T&I Subcommittee on Transit and Highways; Michael Falencki, staff director of the minority side. I thank Brady Young, Office of Legislative Counsel, for his expert drafting and frequent redrafting of the text and insights he provided; Kelsey Griswold from my office; and my very, distinguished chief of staff, Mary McDermott Noonan. Let's hope, God willing, this is on the President's desk ASAP.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, someday, future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why a society that prided itself on the commitment to human rights precluded virtually all protections to the weakest and most vulnerable--unborn children. I believe they will demand to know why dismembering a child with razor-sharp knives, pulverizing an infant with powerful suction devices, or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals failed to elicit empathy for victim babies. The bill before us today reverses several modest but important pro- life policies, including the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which is a reiteration and expansion of President Ronald Reagan's Mexico City policy. Announced by Ronald Reagan at the UN conference on population growth in Mexico City in 1984, hence, its name, the policy was and is designed to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is not funneled to foreign NGOs that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. After Reagan announced that policy, Mr. Speaker, I offered the first amendment in 1985 to protect that policy, and we won. We lost in the Senate, but since it was an executive order, the policy did survive. And I have done it many, many times since. The policy established pro-life safeguards, benign, humane conditions, on the $8.8 billion in annual global health assistance. For years, Mr. Speaker, foreign NGOs have been empowered by taxpayer funds, grant money, to weaken, undermine, or reverse pro-life laws in other nations, especially in Africa, and to destroy the precious lives of unborn children. The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which was put into effect by President Trump, mitigates U.S. taxpayer complicity in global abortion. U.S. foreign assistance, Mr. Speaker, and the foreign entities that we fund with billions of dollars of grant money should consistently affirm, care for, and tangibly assist women and all children--all children regardless of age or condition of dependency. I have authored many laws in this body, including the PEPFAR reauthorization, the 5-year reauthorization of the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief. When Henry Hyde, taking his cue from George W. Bush, authored that important legislation, I, and many others, joined in. We were strong supporters, but Henry Hyde was the leader. That legislation has saved the lives of some 17 million people with ARVs, as well as with prevention strategies. And it has made all the difference in the world in the area of malaria as well as tuberculosis. Mr. Speaker, I believe we must increase access to maternal and prenatal care and ensure access to safe blood and better nutrition. We must also expand essential obstetrical services, including skilled birth attendants, while improving transportation to emergency care facilities to significantly reduce maternal mortality and morbidity, including obstetric fistula. The law or the policy on the books with regard to obstetric fistula, I offered the bill on that. It passed the House. It did not pass the Senate. But then I got USAID to adopt it administratively. I have been to the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital in Ethiopia, where many women have gotten their lives back because of reparative surgery. No one is expendable or a throwaway, Mr. Speaker. Birth is merely an event, albeit an important one, but only an event.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, birth is really just an event. Ultrasound has shattered the myth that an unborn child is anything but human and alive and growing. It really is up to us to do all we can to make that life as healthy as humanly possible. Victim babies, like their mothers, absolutely deserve respect, protection, and an abundance of compassion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank Mac Thornberry for his tremendous and exemplary work in Congress, especially for all things related to the military. What a tremendous chairman, now serving as ranking member. I thank him for that service. Mr. Speaker, last year, I was joined by my friend and colleague, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, to offer an amendment to the NDAA to task the Pentagon IG to probe whether ticks were ever weaponized with Lyme disease or any other dangerous pathogen. Our legislation passed the House but died in the Senate. I was told that the IG did not have sufficient capacity or bandwidth to investigate. So, tonight, the new Smith-Peterson amendment instead tasks the GAO with that job. Mr. Speaker, for years, books and articles have been written credibly asserting that significant research at Fort Detrick, Plum Island, and elsewhere was conducted to turn ticks into bioweapons. In her book, ``Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons,'' Kris Newby includes interviews with Dr. Willy Burgdorfer, the researcher who is credited with discovering Lyme disease. It turns out that Dr. Burgdorfer was a bioweapons specialist. The interviews, combined with access to Dr. Burgdorfer's files, reveal that he and other bioweapons specialists stuffed ticks with pathogens in a quest to cause severe disability, disease, and death. Mr. Speaker, with Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases exploding in the United States, an estimated 300,000 to 427,000 new cases each year, and 10 to 20 percent of those people with chronic Lyme disease, Americans have a right to know whether or not any of this is true. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions that we ask in the amendment, but the most important question of all: Can any of the information that might be gleaned from a GAO study help current-day researchers find a way to mitigate and, hopefully, cure Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases? Mr. Speaker, the amendment tasks GAO to ask the hard questions. I, again, thank my good friend for his leadership.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as the proud representative of two Navy bases in NJ, I come to the floor today to offer an amendment that addresses one of the most serious threats to our Navy and sailors: North Korean & Iranian mini-submarines. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have no realistic training to defend U.S. carriers & other ships from this threat. A Los Angeles-class submarine captain told me how he lost sleep over the two-man, diesel-electric mini-submarines that can lie on the bottom of waterways undetected. Decades ago, North Korea secretly purchased a mini-sub from a German company, and reproduced copies for itself and Iran, which also began reproducing copies. That the same German-designed mini-sub has a twin--today owned by a small American company in my district, and is available to help train U.S. sailors to detect such weapons. My amendment proposes a $15 million investment to use this American- owned mini-submarine for detection training, a project that has the support of numerous current and former Navy personnel.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the JUSTICE Act is designed to ensure greater transparency and accountability in policing in order to build safer communities. I cosponsored the JUSTICE Act because it is a serious, comprehensive and balanced reform initiative--an important step forward. I am deeply grateful to Senator Tim Scott and Congressman Pete Stauber for authoring this bicameral legislation. The killing of George Floyd while in custody by a Minneapolis police officer demands justice and has resulted in a fresh and necessary look at crime and policing. I watched the video of Derek Chauvin kneeling on the neck of Mr. Floyd who pleaded ``I can't breathe'' with horror and disbelief. Chauvin not only betrayed his solemn duty to serve and protect but he betrayed, as well, police officers throughout the nation who serve with great honor and valor, and make enormous sacrifices to protect the innocent and enforce the law. Today I--like many Americans--believe that nonviolent dialogue and persuasion are not only the best way, but it is the only way to achieve meaningful change. Those who commit violent acts against police and others, as well as those who destroy property and steal, should be prosecuted to the greatest extent of the law. The JUSTICE Act that we will vote on today includes new funding of $225 million for improved police training--including best practices for violence deescalation and alternatives to the use of force--which will likely reduce injury or death to both police officers and criminal suspects. The training also includes the most effective approaches to suspects with mental health conditions and developmental disability including individuals with autism. The JUSTICE Act also authorizes a $500 million matching grant program to help police departments purchase body-worn cameras and receive the necessary training to ensure optimal use. It conditions eligibility for this funding on certain criteria, including usage at all times when an officer arrests or detains anyone. The evidence for bodycam use is compelling. Studies have shown that the use of body-worn cameras can reduce complaints against officers by up to 90 percent and decrease officers' use of force by 60 percent. The JUSTICE ACT also provides $500 million for duty-to-intervene training and directs the Attorney General in consultation with state and local governments, and organizations representing rank and file law enforcement officers to develop training curricula on the duty of a law enforcement officer to intervene when another officer engages in excessive use of force. Had any one of the three officers on the scene in Minneapolis intervened when George Floyd pleaded that he couldn't breathe, his life could have been saved. Other reforms embedded in the legislation include maintaining and appropriately sharing disciplinary records for officer hiring, use of force reporting to the FBI, no-knock warrant reporting, incentivizing chokehold bans and increased penalties for false police reports. The JUSTICE Act empowers the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant program to hire recruiters and enroll candidates in law enforcement academies to ensure racial and demographic representation similar to the communities served, and funds an education program for law enforcement on racism produced by the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History. The bill makes lynching a federal crime. The legislation also creates the Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys which will study and issue a wide-ranging report on conditions affecting Black men and boys, including homicide rates, arrest and incarceration rates, poverty, violence, fatherhood, mentorship, drug abuse, death rates, disparate income and wealth levels, school performance in all grade levels and health issues and will make recommendations to address these issues. That said, why not vote for the Democrat bill that is before the House today as well? I have serious concerns that the language in H.R. 7120--the Democrat proposal--eviscerates qualified immunity in civil lawsuits for our women and men in law enforcement. Let's be clear, current policy provides no immunity whatsoever--nor should it ever--from criminal prosecution as in the case of the officer responsible for the death of George Floyd. But qualified immunity--a judicially created legal doctrine--shields government officials, including law enforcement, from personal liability lawsuits so long as their actions do not violate ``clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'' According to the Congressional Research Service, ``The Supreme Court has observed that qualified immunity balances two important interests-- the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.'' Section 102 of the Democrat bill ends qualified immunity and states in pertinent part that ``It shall not be a defense or immunity in any action brought under this section against a local law enforcement officer . . . `` even if ``. . . the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when the conduct was committed. . . .;' If Section 102 became law, it would likely result in a flood of legal actions--an engraved invitation to sue law enforcement officers. Moreover, it will deter police from using force where the use of force is necessary to save life or protect property--diminishing the ability of police to provide public safety in dangerous situations. Finally, a June 15 letter from the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS--which represents one thousand professional police associations and units and 241,000 officers throughout the United States--wrote: ``Our most significant concerns include amending Section 242 of Title 18 United States Code to lower the standard for mens rea (Title I Subtitle A, Section 101) and the practical elimination of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers (Section 102). Combined, these two provisions take away any legal protections for officers while making it easier to prosecute them for mistakes on the job, not just criminal acts. With the change to qualified immunity, an officer can go to prison for an unintentional act that unknowingly broke an unknown law. We believe in holding officers accountable for their actions, but the consequence of this would be making criminals out of decent cops enforcing the laws in good faith.'' I include the entire letter in the Record: National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. Alexandria, VA, June 15, 2020. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chair, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Jordan: I am writing to you today on behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), representing over 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers from across the country, to advise you of our opposition to the Justice in Policing Act, H.R. 7120, as currently written. NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations from across the nation, which was organized for the purpose of advancing the interests of America's law enforcement officers through legislative advocacy, political action and education. Unequivocally, what happened to George Floyd was egregious. There is no legal justification, self-defense justification, or moral justification for the actions of the officer. We, as rank-and-file officers, support improving policing practices. While we do have significant concerns with several provisions of the Justice in Policing Act, we believe there are areas that we can come together on to address the need for greater transparency, accountability, and training in law enforcement. However, until our concerns are addressed, we cannot support this legislation. Our most significant concerns include amending Section 242 of Title 18 United States Code to lower the standard for mens rea (Title I Subtitle A, Section 101) and the practical elimination of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers (Section 102). Combined, these two provisions take away any legal protections for officers while making it easier to prosecute them for mistakes on the job, not just criminal acts. With the change to qualified immunity, an officer can go to prison for an unintentional act that unknowingly broke an unknown law. We believe in holding officers accountable for their actions, but the consequence of this would be making criminals out of decent cops enforcing the laws in good faith. Another provision of serious concern is the change proposed to the current legal standard of ``objective reasonableness'' for the use of force outlined in the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision Graham v. Connor (Sec. 364). The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the most important factor to consider in applying force is the threat faced by the officer or others at the scene. The use of force has to be reasonable given what the officer perceived to be the threat at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Law enforcement officers across the nation take an oath that they will run towards danger when everyone else is running away--and they do so to protect our families and communities. Subjectively changing the legal standard for holding officers accountable for their actions will have a chilling effect on the men and women in uniform. It undermines their ability to respond in an immediate and decisive manner, and thus creates a hesitation that would threaten the safety of our families, communities and officers. No cop wants to work with a bad cop--it makes the job more dangerous and difficult. We support ensuring officers who have substantiated serious allegations of misconduct that have been officially and fairly adjudicated can no longer practice law enforcement, but we must ensure officers have due process before they are decertified. Unfortunately, one of the underlying assumptions of the Justice in Policing Act is that law enforcement officers should not get the right to due process, a right we give all citizens, a right all unions work to protect for their members in disciplinary actions. We support creating national standards for training on de- escalation and communication techniques to help officers to stabilize situations and reduce the immediate threat so that more time, options, and resources can be used to resolve the situation without the use of force. Such training will go much further in achieving the goals of this legislation to reduce the use of lethal force than the lessening of legal protections for officers. We also believe that rank-and-file officers, as practitioners, or their representatives, must play a role in developing national training standards. Training standards on the use of force and de-escalation would also reduce the use of ``chokeholds'' or carotid artery restraints, which are already banned by law enforcement agencies across the country as a means of less-than lethal force for their officers. However, ``chokeholds'' are a vital tool for officers to have when use of deadly force is justified. If the subject poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others and a ``chokehold'' is the officer's best or only option, it is vital that she is able to use it. We strongly recommend against criminalizing these maneuvers outright and we oppose making them a civil rights violation (Sec. 362(c)). We advise prohibiting ``chokeholds'' unless deadly force is authorized. Data collection on the use of force is key to improving integrity and transparency in policing. It is important that the data collected on the use of force reflects the entirety of the situation: use of force by officers and use of force against officers, and not just force using firearms. The Federal Bureau of Investigation began collecting such data in their Use of Force Database in 2019, which they established in collaboration with state and local law enforcement. Data collection, training, and certification all cost a significant amount of money, yet the Justice in Policing Act does not provide additional funding to help states and localities comply with the many mandates of the bill. In fact, in order to ensure compliance, it penalizes states and law enforcement agencies by taking away all or part of the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant funding. The consequence of this on all sectors of the criminal justice system will be long lasting. At a time when it is well known that state and local governments are facing serious budget and revenue holes due to the coronavirus pandemic and officers are facing furloughs and layoffs, this legislation assumes that somehow governments will have the funding to comply with the requirements of the bill. To incentivize compliance with any police reform policies, funding must be provided, and it is imperative that all sides have had their voices heard. This is where the Justice in Policing Act falls the shortest. I have highlighted a few of the areas where we have strong opposition and others where we agree on the intention and goal. There are additional areas of the Justice in Policing Act not covered in this letter with which we have concerns and those whose objectives we support. We urge you to consider our concerns and the perspective of the officers on the street and give us a seat at the table as this legislation moves forward. Until that consideration is granted, we oppose the Justice in Policing Act. Thank you for your attention to our concerns and we hope to work collaboratively with you to improve policing practices in America. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss our concerns further. Sincerely, William J. Johnson, Esq., Executive Director.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend for his very strong remarks today and his leadership, Brad Sherman as well, and, of course, Jim McGovern, as chairman, and I, as the ranking member of the China Commission, for the work that we have been doing to try to bring light to this terrible human rights tragedy, this genocide that is being committed against the Uyghur people. Madam Speaker, Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping's ongoing genocide against the approximately 10 million Uyghurs living in Xinjiang in northwestern China demands action. Today, more than a million Uyghurs are in concentration camps. Millions more are harassed, beaten, raped, and tortured. S. 3744, which is nearly identical to legislation H.R. 649 that I and my good friend Mr. Suozzi and 136 bipartisan cosponsors introduced 17 months ago, requires the administration to categorize and report on the human rights abuses being committed by the Chinese Government and take specific steps to sanction China's officials for these abuses, including visa denial and asset blocking, the essence of the Magnitsky Act, which is the prohibition of all financial transactions by an abuser. Madam Speaker, at a 2018 congressional hearing, Mihrigul Tursun recounted her ordeal with torture, sexual abuse, and detention in one of Xi Jinping's concentration camps. She broke down weeping, telling us that she pleaded with God to end her life. Her Chinese jailers restrained her to a table, increased the electrical current coursing through her body, and mocked her belief in God. She was tortured simply because she was an ethnic Uyghur and a Muslim living in China. Madam Speaker, there are millions of stories like this waiting to be told about the crimes against humanity being committed by the Chinese Government against Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other Turkic Muslims. There are many people--we all know them; I have had them at my hearings in the past--women and men who have had their entire families back in this region, Xinjiang, arrested and put into concentration camps and harassed in other ways. Chinese authorities initially denied the existence of the concentration camps and even tried to portray them as vocational training centers. What a euphemism. They employed lies, censorship, and economic coercion to stifle discussion of their crimes. Where have we heard that before? Look at what is going on with COVID- 19 and the deceit and the lies that have come from Xi Jinping himself. But documents obtained by The New York Times and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists have, indeed, exposed the brutality behind Beijing's plans to radically and coercively transform the culture and religion of ethnic Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslims. The leaked documents showed detailed plans to intern between 1 and 3 million Uyghurs into concentration camps, where they are subjected to severe human rights abuse and Orwellian indoctrination efforts for those whose thinking ``has been infected''--that is to say, they are Muslims. To Xi Jinping, that is something that needs to be obliterated. At the same time, Beijing instituted plans to erase the influence of Islam in western China, bulldozing mosques and shrines, severely throttling all religious practice, and forcing camp detainees to renounce their faith. The leaked documents also show that Xi Jinping, himself, the so- called President--not elected by the people, of course--Xi Jinping, himself, directed the crackdown, saying that the Communist Party must put the ``organs of dictatorship'' to work and show ``absolutely no mercy'' in dealing with the Uyghurs and other Muslims. In one speech, President Xi said: ``The weapons of the people's democratic dictatorship must be wielded without any hesitation or wavering.'' Continuing the quote, in February 2017, he told thousands of police officers and troops standing at attention in a vast square in Urumqi to prepare for a ``smashing, obliterating offensive,'' which is exactly what they have done. According to documents obtained again by The New York Times, Communist Party officials who were reluctant to carry out Xi Jinping's draconian and horrific policies were themselves investigated and expunged. ``Secret teams of investigators have traveled across the region identifying those who were not doing enough. In 2017, the party opened more than 12,000 investigations into party members in Xinjiang.'' Madam Speaker, we cannot be silent. Xi Jinping is smashing and obliterating an entire people. He is presiding over a genocide.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, over the last two months, I have pushed for and strongly supported four comprehensive, bipartisan COVID-19 relief laws. By enacting those laws, Congress and the President have provided over $3 trillion to meet the challenges posed by the virus and loan guarantees backed by the Federal Reserve have added trillions more to the rescue. Despite some stark differences of opinion on what constitutes the best federal, state and local response to the pandemic, we have managed to put partisanship aside and seek solutions. We have rallied for the people we serve--to make our communities safer and to ensure that the tens of millions made unemployed by COVID- 19 have a bridge to prosperity again. Because so many Americans--especially those on the front lines-have sacrificed so much including their own lives to prevent the spread and heal the sick, many are alive today. Still, the loss of life--and disability suffered by those who have survived-is staggering. In my state of New Jersey, more than ten thousand people have tragically died so far with more than half of the fatalities suffered by women and men who resided in long term health facilities. During this unprecedented crisis, there have been serious negotiations with all parties and stakeholders to craft legislation to mitigate the pandemic through an integrated plan to prevent, test and treat. Much has been done--but much work remains. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a strong believer in principled bipartisanship--especially when faced with a globe-altering pandemic. At its core, bipartisanship is about respect for others even when there are fundamental disagreements. Bipartisanship is not an end unto itself, but can be a practical, good faith path to understanding different views in order to achieve fair, equitable and sustainable solutions to problems. More often than not, bipartisanship helps build support and consensus for effective policies. Despite some harsh rhetoric by some, we have nevertheless managed to put partisanship aside and seek solutions. Until today. The bill before us today was crafted in secret with no input from Republicans in either the House or Senate or the White House--it is the quintessential example of a partisan bill. There were no congressional hearings on new policy initiatives or changes to existing programs or changes to funding levels or what the costs might be for newly created entitlements. Is there a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the cost of H.R. 6800? Nope--it doesn't exist. We had three days to read H.R. 6800's over 1,800 pages. I read the bill. I have more questions now than answers. And I am shocked by an unfair process that disallows revisions to the text or amendments to a $3 trillion bill--the costliest piece of legislation in American history. I would note parenthetically, that I've sponsored and managed many major bills on this floor. My American Embassy Security Act of 1999 for example was debated on the floor of the House for the better part of a week and we debated over 50 amendments to the bill before it passed the House. The rule today allows only one amendment to recommit. H.R. 6800 is unfair, deeply offensive and discriminates against students attending Catholic, other faith-based or private schools. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and a large number of faith- based school associations wrote each of us last night to convey their ``extreme disappointment'' that H.R. 6800 ``eliminates from eligibility for aid almost all students enrolled by their parents in private schools. This would represent a stark departure from 55 years of precedent under federal education programs such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and rejects the approach taken by Congress during all emergency relief efforts in memory . . . this is shocking and unprecedented.'' H.R. 6800 also reopens the previously enacted CARES Act to restrict emergency services to Catholic, faith-based and other private school students. That too is unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, where are the calculations to responsibly justify the need for taxpayer's money, especially since funds provided in previously enacted COVID-19 appropriations laws are not even close to being exhausted? I am disappointed because I support some key policy initiatives in the legislation including federal assistance at some significant level of funding to state and municipalities--especially those hardest hit like my state and district. Today I introduced legislation--the New Jersey, New York, and Highly Impacted States COVID-19 Relief Fund Act. Joined by my good friend and colleague Peter King of New York, the bill appropriates $500 billion in aid to the states, with significant amounts targeted to those with the highest infection rates--like New Jersey and New York. Specifically, it appropriates: $280 billion to the states: $40 billion divided equally among 50 states; $100 billion awarded based on the state's share of COVID cases provided by CDC data; $140 billion awarded based on the state's share of population. $200 billion awarded within 30 days of enactment to all municipalities and counties: $100 billion to municipalities using a modified CDBG formula: $750 million to entitlement municipalities (generally defined as those with populations of at least 50,000) $250 million to non-entitlement municipalities (generally defined as those with populations of less than 50,000). These funds will be awarded to states, which must make awards to non-entitlement cities based solely on population within 30 days of receipt. $100 billion to counties based on population. Territories--$10 billion for the five territories and the District of Columbia. Tribes--$10 billion for tribal governments. $15 million for the Treasury Office of the Inspector General. Given the death, morbidity and business lockdowns, many states will likely be unable to sustain their operations. Comprehensive COVID-19 legislation should come to the floor of the House of Representatives for debate and votes after rigorous due diligence to the need and proposed remedies. H.R. 6800 has received no such scrutiny. It's nearly certain that another COVID-19 bill will be considered by the House and Senate. We've got to get it right next time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, in New Jersey, 100,000 people have tested positive for COVID-19, with more than 5,000 suffering death. Forty percent of those who have died are women and men in nursing homes and veterans in long-term care homes. We grieve their loss. My constituents have shown remarkable strength, resolve, and resiliency, especially those in healthcare, first responders, postal workers, truckers, supermarket employees, and more. Without their courage and sacrifice, things would be far worse. Signs outside of CentraState Medical Center in Freehold say it all: Heroes Work Here. For our hospitals, the $70 billion in this legislation, on top of the $100 billion for the CARES Act, is critically needed to sustain our overworked, cash-starved hospitals that risk insolvency, in large part, because they have been compelled by law to postpone elective surgeries. A few days ago, Secretary Mnuchin said 30 million jobs have been saved by the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP. Today's $310 billion replenishment continues and expands this historic bridge to assist businesses with forgivable loans to prevent layoffs and bankruptcy.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as of today, in my State alone, 6,800 people have been tested positive, with 81 deaths; and, in one family alone, four members of the family have died. Containing the pandemic and developing and deploying reliable therapeutics and a safe and effective vaccine must be our highest priority no matter the cost. People, especially those on the front lines in healthcare, first responders, are heroically meeting the challenge offered, at great personal cost. The $2.2 trillion CARES Act is comprehensive and absolutely needed. It provides unprecedented support for taxpayers, small businesses, and grants to hospitals; it helps State and local governments; and it boosts unemployment and food security. Special thanks to all of those on the House and Senate side for their leadership, for their cooperation on this bill, and to President Trump, the Vice President, Dr. Birx, Dr. Fauci, and many others who have brought their expertise to confronting this huge challenge.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, 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 2009 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. And this year, I have cosponsored the FAMILY 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 a perverted and 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 year, I cosponsored the Violence Against Women Extension Act of 2019. This past January, 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 to make the ride share 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 arrive at the debate on the elimination of the deadline for the ERA from the perspective of my work to ensure equality and protection for women and every woman's right to be treated fairly and without exploitation. The words of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification have sealed the fate of the proposed amendment. Justice Ginsburg's judgment is that the deadline has expired and that she ``would like it to start over'' presents a definitive view that the process has come to an end. According to Vox, Justice Ginsburg also 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. Today, however, one thing is absolutely clear from both sides of the abortion divide: ratification of the ERA with its current wording will likely overturn laws prohibiting public funding of abortion--like the Hyde Amendment--and undo modest restrictions on abortion including waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right to know laws, conscience rights including the Weldon Amendment and any ban on late term abortion including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. 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''-- 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. Consider this: 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. While I take issue with abortion activists who refuse to recognize an unborn child's inherent dignity, worth and value, at least activists on both sides agree that the ERA as written will be used in court as a means to compel public funding of abortion and to strike down the Hyde Amendment and other modest abortion restrictions at both the state and federal level. NARAL Pro-Choice America plainly states: ``With its ratification, the ERA . . . would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws . . .'' A senior lawyer of the National Women's Law Centers said: ``The ERA would help create a basis to challenge abortion restrictions.'' The National Right to Life Committee states that ``the proposed federal ERA would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and all state restrictions on tax-funded abortions.'' And the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops agree and wrote ``One consequence of the ERA would be the likely requirement of federal funding for abortions . . . (and) arguments have been proffered that the federal ERA would . . . restrain the ability of the federal and state governments to enact other measures regulating abortion, such as third-trimester or partial birth abortion bans, parental consent, informed consent, conscience-related exemptions, and other provisions.'' According to the most recent Marist Poll (January 2020), 60 percent of all Americans oppose using tax dollars for abortion, seven in ten Americans including nearly half who identify as pro-choice want significant restrictions on abortion, a majority of Americans--55 percent--want to ban abortion after 20 weeks, and nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down Syndrome. 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.