Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, President Trump made it clear in a letter that he will veto any piece of legislation that undermines or nullifies any pro-life policy, regulation, or rule. The bill facilitated by this rule reverses several life-affirming pro-life policies, including conscience protection, Title X reform, the protecting life in global health assistance, and more. No one, Mr. Speaker--including doctors, nurses, and LPNs--and no entity like a hospital or a health insurance plan should ever be compelled against their will into performing, facilitating, or subsidizing abortion. First, the approps bill overturns the conscience protection final rule, leaving many at risk of pressure, harassment and coercion. Second, in late February, HHS promulgated the Protect Life Rule to reassert portions of President Ronald Reagan's Title X rule, including ending co-location of abortion clinics with family planning clinics subsidized by Title X. Third, H.R. 2740, the underlying bill, repeals and bans future promulgation by any President of protecting life in global health assistance, a significant reiteration and expansion of President Reagan's Mexico City policy, a policy designed to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not funding foreign NGOs that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Mr. Speaker, why is this so important? Because women and children, both home and abroad, deserve better than the violence of abortion. The humanity of the unborn child is beyond doubt, yet the pro- abortion movement, like some kind of modern-day flat Earth society, continues to cling to outdated, indefensible arguments cloaked in euphemism. Even the seemingly benign word ``choice'' withers under scrutiny. Choice to do what? Dismember a baby? Take pills to starve a child to death and then forcibly expel her or him from the womb? Inject chemical poisons that kill the baby? At the end of this process, Mr. Speaker, important policies embedded in the approps bill will be signed into law, but reversal of pro-life policies will be vetoed. This legislation will be vetoed and the veto will be sustained by this Congress.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, it's been 30 years since the Chinese government brutally crushed the peaceful demonstrations occurring in Beijing Tiananmen Square. The beating, the bayonetting, the torture, and detentions of the 1989 demonstrators turned the dream of freedom into a bloody nightmare. ``Tiananmen'' will always symbolize the brutal lengths China's Communist Party will go to remain in power. When the tanks rolled down the Square on June 4th, 1989--mothers lost sons, fathers lost daughters, and China lost an idealistic generation of future leaders. The resolution before us, H. Res. 393, honors the extraordinary sacrifice endured by thousands of peaceful Chinese democracy activists who rallied for almost two months in Beijing and in over 400 other cities in China, in a heroic quest for liberty and human rights. The government of China continues to go to astounding lengths to censor and ban open discussion of Tiananmen. This resolution sends the right message: we will never forget Tiananmen as long as the Chinese people cannot discuss its significance openly without harassment or arrest. Some may prefer to forget this incident. To move on and look past the slaughter of peaceful demonstrators. But the memory of the dead and those arrested, tortured, and exiled requires us to honor them, respect their noble aspirations for fundamental freedoms, and recommit ourselves to the struggle for freedom and human rights in China. It is both the right thing to do and critical to the future of U.S.- China relations. One of the most enduring symbols of the Tiananmen demonstrations was the unveiling of the goddess of liberty statue. It was a moment that thrilled freedom-seekers around the globe. Here was this enduring symbol of freedom juxtaposed against portrait of the despot Mao Zedong. This moment was extraordinary because it showed that when the Chinese people are able to speak publicly and freely--they ask for greater freedoms, democracy, and justice. These are universal liberties that can be found in demonstrations for liberty worldwide--we see it in Cairo and Caracas, Burma and Hong Kong, Tbilisi and Kiev. There was a moment when we all believed the Tiananmen Square demonstrations would be a triumph of freedom and democracy. Later in 1989, the Warsaw Pact nations started to crumble and eventually the former Soviet Union fell as well. But the Communist leaders of China hung on to power through force and eventually through the help of Western governments and global corporations. For the past 30 years, the Tiananmen demonstrations have shaped the way the Chinese government deals with dissent. Despite the country's stunning economic growth, Beijing's leaders remain terrified of their own people. China's ruling Communist Party would rather stifle, imprison, or even kill its own people than defer to their demands for freedom and rights. There is a direct connection between the impunity and violence used to silence Tiananmen demonstrations and deny justice to the victims of the Tiananmen massacre and the impunity and violence employed now to support the internment of over a million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in what only can be called concentration camps. The egregious human rights abuses occurring in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region must end--no one can remain silent in the face of such barbarity and crimes against humanity. But China is also the torture capital of the world, the world's largest jailer of journalists, with the globe's worst record on human trafficking and religious freedom. Human rights lawyers, Tibetans, ethnic minority groups, labor organizers, and free speech advocates all face repression and harassment when they peacefully seek universally recognized rights. Xi Jinping talks about the ``China Dream''--but that dream is nightmare for millions upon millions upon millions of the Chinese people. Nevertheless, repression has not dimmed the desires of the Chinese people for freedom and reform. There is an inspiring drive in China to keep fighting for freedom under very difficult and dangerous conditions. This drive is the most important asset in promoting human rights and democratization in China. If democratic change comes to China, it will come from within, not because of outside pressure--though outside pressure continues to be critically needed. U.S. policy, in both the short and long-term, must be, and be seen to be, supportive of advocates for peaceful change; it must support the champions of liberty, and help nurture a vibrant civil society that seeks to promote rights and freedoms for everyone in China. And, we must fight to end China's pervasive internet censorship and mass surveillance--so the Chinese people can finally learn about Tiananmen and the truth about their own government. Our strategic and moral interests coincide when we seek to promote human rights and democratic openness in China. A more democratic China, one that respects human rights, and is governed by the rule of law, is more likely to be a productive and peaceful partner rather than strategic and hostile competitor. I believe that someday China will be free. Someday, the people of China will be able to enjoy all of their God-given rights. And a nation of free Chinese men and women will honor, applaud, and celebrate the heroes of Tiananmen Square and all those who sacrificed so much, and so long, for freedom. I support H. Res. 393 and the message that it sends. I hope it will re-inspire, re-energize, and reprioritize a struggle for human rights and freedom in China.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 puts the Hyde Amendment and other federal and state laws that bar taxpayer funding for abortion at serious risk. H.R. 5 also 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, the bill goes on to state: (b) Rules.--In a covered title referred to in subsection (a)--``(l) (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 ending the life of an unborn baby. In a legal analysis released today, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states: 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. Katelyn Burns, New Congress Opens Door for Renewed Push for LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018), https://rewire.news/ article/2018/12/05/new-congress-opens-door-lgbtq-equality- act/. 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.'' Id. In other words, there is a problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from becoming politically visible. I include in the Record the full analysis by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for the record. I am also submitting an analysis by National Right to Life (NRLC) that lists similar concerns and provides further insight into these issues. [From the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities] The Equality Act: Its Impact on Government Funding of Abortion The Equality Act will likely have an adverse impact on existing provisions that prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion. Below we review relevant provisions of the bill. We then consider the likely consequences for current restrictions on federal funding of abortion. I. Text of the Equality Act The followings bill provisions are relevant. I. Public accommodations. The Equality Act (H.R. 5) forbids discrimination based on ``sex,'' including ``sexual orientation and gender identity,'' in places of ``public accommodation.'' H.R. 5, Sec. 3(a)( 1 ). The bill defines ``public accommodation'' to include ``any establishment that provides . . . health care . . . services.'' Id. Sec. 3(a)(4). The term ``establishment'' is not limited to physical facilities and places. Id. Sec. 3(c). The term ``sex'' includes ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.'' Id. Sec. 9(2). The bill also states that ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions.'' Id. 2. Federally-funded programs and activities. The bill also forbids discrimination based on ``sex,'' including ``sexual orientation and gender identity,'' in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Id. Sec. 6. The term ``sex'' is again defined to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition,'' and the listed items ``shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions.'' Id. Sec. 9(2). II. Consequences for Federal Funding of Abortion These changes in federal law will likely undercut existing prohibitions on the use of government funds for abortion. For years it has been an accepted predicate in federal bill drafting that laws forbidding discrimination based on ``sex'' must have abortion-neutral language to blunt any inference that non-discrimination requires the provision or coverage of abortion. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, are illustrative. Both titles forbid discrimination based on sex, and both titles have abortion neutral amendments to mitigate or foreclose the claim that this prohibition requires a covered entity to provide or cover abortion. The fact that abortion-neutral language appears in Title VII and Title IX shows that Congress knows how to exclude abortion when it wants to. The failure to include an abortion-neutral amendment in the Equality Act therefore suggests a legislative intent to require the provision of abortion; otherwise, the Act, like Titles VII and IX, would have included such language. This conclusion is reinforced by (a) the bill's definition of sex to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition,'' (b) agency and judicial interpretations construing this language, and (c) the added qualification that pregnancy and ``related medical condition[s] shall not receive less favorable treatment than any other physical conditions.'' The same reasoning--and the same conclusion--applies to the bill's non-discrimination provisions as applicable to federally-funded programs and activities. Indeed, abortion advocates themselves are currently reading the federal funding provisions of the bill to permit women to successfully challenge the denial of abortion. 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. Katelyn Burns, New Congress Opens Door for Renewed Push for LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018), https://rewire.news/ article/2018/12/05/new-congress-opens-door-lgbtq-equality- act/. 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.'' Id. In other words, there is a problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from becoming politically visible. If the intent were otherwise, then proponents of the bill would (and should) say so in the actual text of the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, Raymond A. Miller, of Ocean County, N.J. is a dedicated, decorated American hero who has served our country in wartime and peace. Ray donned the uniform first as a member of the U.S. Air Force to serve and protect his country. After success in the military, Ray put on a different uniform that was no less important--serving and protecting the citizens of New Jersey during a long and distinguished career in law enforcement, all-the-while and even to this very day, never forgetting his fellow veterans. Born in Jersey City and raised in Trenton, N.J., Ray went on to join the Air Force in 1963, completing both basic training and Air Police School as part of four years of active duty in Germany, as well as two years in the reserves. He entered the State Police Academy in 1969, and after 30 years as a New Jersey State Trooper, he retired as a lieutenant. Ray continues to work for the NJ State Police as a part- time background investigator of applicants to law enforcement. Ray married his loving wife Laurinda in 1971, and together they raised two wonderful daughters, Kimberley and Natalie in Manchester Township, N.J. in my district. Laurinda has served the Unit 129 Auxiliary for 28 years and is the current president of the Ocean County American Legion Auxiliary. Ray and Laurinda have four grandchildren: Kailee Lynn, Kyle, MacKenzie and Brooke. Today Ray and Laurinda live in Island Heights, Ocean County, N.J. As a trooper Ray was decorated for valor twice: first for helping apprehend a murderer who killed two police officers and permanently maimed another in Mount Holly, N.J., and later for selflessly and courageously saving a Westfield police officer who was being assaulted by two escaped murderers. A dedicated Airman and trooper, Ray's service was complemented by his tireless efforts to aid his fellow veterans--the core of the mission of the American Legion. I have known Ray Miller for a long time. He is a friend. One of our many, many meetings was last year at the New Jersey American Legion's Centennial Gala in Point Pleasant, N.J., where we kicked off the celebration of the successful and awesome history of the Legion. This coming September 16, 2019 will mark the 100th anniversary since Congress passed the Charter for the American Legion. It has been a good 100 years for the Legion, and Ray has the honor of leading legionnaires in the State of New Jersey during this special century anniversary. Since its founding, the American Legion has become the largest wartime veterans' organization, counting nearly two million members across the U.S.A. with more than 12,000 posts. Established by an act of Congress, the Legion--with leaders like Ray and his predecessors at the helm locally, statewide and nationally--was instrumental in getting the original GI Bill through Congress and the creation of the Department of Veterans Affairs, today known as the Veterans Administration. A nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization with legendary leadership and strong organizational structure built on its grass-roots involvement in the legislative process, every member in the House and Senate seeks the advice of the American Legion, which always, always has the interest of veterans and their families at heart. As the former chairman of the House Veterans' Committee, I can attest to the influence, commitment and hard work of the American Legion. Its leaders like Ray Miller were indispensable when I wrote such laws as the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act (P.L. 107-95), and the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act (P.L. 107-103)--i.e. the GI Bill expansion--just to name a few. Before taking the reins of the American Legion Department of New Jersey last year as the State Commander, Ray served various positions at his hometown post, Post 129 in Island Heights, including twice as Post Commander. Last year, the American Legion began celebrating 100 years since it first gathered on the Jersey Shore so many years ago. Representatives from chapters all across the state have held the American Legion Convention at Wildwoods Convention Center since 1918. To honor the upcoming centennial milestone, local and state legionnaires buried a time capsule in Wildwood, NJ in front of American Legion Post 184 last June. Since 1918, the American Legion has held its annual convention in Wildwood. The Cape May County Herald reported the capsule, filled with 100 years of historical items from different posts and counties within the Garden State, will remain buried for 25 years. On June 8, 2043, it will be unearthed by Ray's grandchildren. Across my District, across the great State of New Jersey, and across this great nation, the traditions and legacy of the Legion have become a legacy of wholesome Americana: American Legion baseball, Boys State, Troop and Family Support, educational scholarships, and many other activities sponsored by the Legion. This Saturday, his fellow veterans, friends and family, will honor Ray for a lifetime of service that continues today. And, 25 years from now, Ray's grandchildren will unearth the memories and history of the New Jersey American Legion--a history that is replete with the outstanding contributions and leadership of American Legionnaire Ray Miller. I thank Ray, and may God bless him and his family and all servicemember and veterans.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, today I will vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), historic landmark legislation with a proven track record of assisting abused and battered women. VAWA must be reauthorized. 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). Today, I will vote to ensure that VAWA reauthorization overcomes expected difficulties in the Senate and moves to enactment. I will vote to reauthorize, through 2020, critical VAWA programs: 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. I will also vote to extend: 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; 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. 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 2020. The other--H.R. 1585--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. 1585 removes the hard-fought gains to protect women and girls from abuse and to provide them with physical, emotional and psychological security. Under the current version of H.R. 1585, women will no longer have a secure 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. Mr. Chair, 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 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. Mr. Chair, we must first and foremost protect victims of violence. I oppose this provision of H.R. 1585 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. Mr, Chair, 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. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding and for his leadership on behalf of human rights. We have worked on issues in Sudan and other issues over the years. I want to thank him for being such a compassionate person. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening, I attended a premiere of the new film, ``Unplanned,'' which opens this weekend in over 1,000 theaters. The movie is extraordinarily well written, well directed, and well acted. Ashley Bratcher is spectacular as Abby Johnson, the key character in the film. ``Unplanned'' tells a largely untold story, a very difficult story, and is packed with insight and a profoundly important message that America and the world needs to hear. Based on the life of Abby Johnson and her book, ``Unplanned,'' the film chronicles Ms. Johnson's work at Planned Parenthood as a student activist, followed by almost 8 years at a large Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas, where over 20,000 abortions were performed. Working as a counselor and then as actual director of that clinic, Abby says that 10 minutes of participation in an ultrasound-guided abortion shook the foundation of her values and changed the course of her life. She writes in the book, which is powerfully portrayed in the film: ``The details startled me. At 13 weeks, you could clearly see the profile of the head, both arms and legs, and even tiny fingers and toes. With my eyes glued to the image of this perfectly formed baby, I watched as a new image emerged on the video screen.'' ``The cannula, a straw-shaped instrument attached to the end of a suction tube, had been inserted into the uterus and was nearing the baby's side. It looked like an invader on the screen, out of place. Wrong. It just looked wrong.'' She goes on to write, and you can see this portrayed on the screen: ``My heart sped up. Time slowed. I didn't want to look, but I didn't want to stop looking either.'' ``At first, the baby didn't seem aware of the cannula. The next moment was the sudden jerk of a tiny foot of the baby as it started kicking, as if trying to get away from the probing invader. As the cannula pressed in, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away.'' ``And then the doctor's voice broke through, startling me. ``Beam me up, Scotty,'' telling the assistant to turn on the suction.'' The abortion clinic director went on to write: ``I had a sudden urge to yell, ``Stop,'' to shake the woman and say: ``Look what is happening to your baby. Wake up. Hurry. Stop.'' ``But even as I thought those words, I thought of my own hand and saw my own hand holding the probe. I was one of them, performing this act of abortion.'' Again, her eyes shot back to the screen, and she writes: ``The cannula was already being rotated by the doctor, and now I could see the tiny body violently twisting with it. For the briefest moment, it looked as if the baby was being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. And then the little body crumpled and began disappearing into the cannula before my eyes.'' ``The last thing I saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube, and then everything was gone.'' Abby Johnson writes: ``The image of that tiny, dead baby, mangled and sucked away, kept replaying in my mind.'' ``What was in this woman's womb just a moment ago was alive. It wasn't tissue. It wasn't cells. This was a human baby fighting for life, a battle it lost in the blink of an eye.'' She writes in the book: ``What I have told people for years as a Planned Parenthood leader, what I believed and taught and defended, is a lie.'' Mr. Speaker, someday--someday--future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life--the weakest and the most vulnerable--could have so aggressively promoted death to children by abortion. They will demand to know why dismembering a child like the one that Abby Johnson witnessed--pulverizing an infant with suction or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals failed to elicit empathy, mercy, or compassion for these victims. No one is expendable or a throwaway, Mr. Speaker. Every human life has infinite value. Birth is merely an event; it is not the beginning of life. Abortion is violence against children and it is violence against women. The movie ``Unplanned'' not only moved me, as I believe it will move others, but it also inspired me, as I believe it will inspire others, to care even more for both victims of abortion, the mother, and the child, to love them both, to reach out to post-abortive women. And there are ministries all over this country that say, Yes, an abortion has been procured, but we love you and we want to see you reconcile and find peace and joy again. This movie makes clear that we need to continue to reach out to the people inside the abortion industry, in the sincere hope that they, like Abby Johnson, will recognize that there is nothing compassionate, benign, or nurturing about abortion. Abby Johnson has formed a ministry, a nongovernmental organization. It is called And Then There Was None. It is designed to assist abortion clinic workers out of the industry. To date, approximately, 500 abortion clinic workers have left that field of work including seven abortion doctors who now nurture life, rather than kill it. Abby Johnson is a courageous, selfless woman who spreads truth and compassion. She speaks truth to power. ``Unplanned'' is a truly amazing movie.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do believe that there are deep concerns about the loss of life and what it means demographically, both here and all over the world. I mean, in places like China, sex selection abortion has claimed the lives of so many of the girl children that there are tens of millions of men who will never marry because the women simply have been exterminated through sex selection abortion. I have held a number of congressional hearings--I have chaired them-- where we have talked about the disparity between boys and girls. One estimate posited there are 62 million missing girls in China alone. One of my witnesses said that if you look at all the women that have been killed in Asia through sex selection abortion alone, and it is worldwide, it equals, equates with the number of all the women and girl children living in the United States of America. I mean, that is a horrific crime, in my opinion, against women. And the disparity in male to female that is a consequence leads to other horrific consequences, like human trafficking. As my good friend knows, I am the prime author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and four other laws that combat human trafficking, including the most recently signed, the Frederick Douglass anti-human trafficking law signed by President Trump just a few months ago. I am the author of those bills; and we watch very closely what is happening all over the world. In places like China, trafficking has increased because of the missing daughters who have been killed, simply because they happened to be girls and women, young women, young females. On this floor of the House, as the gentleman knows, because he voted, as did I, we had a bill to ban sex selection abortions. And to this day, I am shocked and dismayed how many of our colleagues--and I respect our colleagues on both sides of this issue--didn't see that discrimination begins in the womb, when a woman is singled out, a girl, girl child, simply because she is a girl and is killed for that reason. Sex selection abortion is almost never--although it is occasionally for the boy child, it is the girl child who suffers. So when we look back, when our future generations look back, they will also note that discrimination. Why did that bill not become law? It seems to me there are at least 20 nations around the world where there are disparities; India and China are among the worst, but it is a huge problem. And we need to look at protecting unborn children as a human rights issue. Killing an unborn child in the womb is the only human rights abuse that dares call itself a human right; and there are people, purveyors of abortion, who do that on a regular basis. They keep saying it is a right; a right to dismember a child; the right to chemically poison a child. As the gentleman knows, because he was, again, one of the sponsors of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which I have re- introduced in this Congress--Trent Franks had introduced it in previous--passed three times here on the House floor. It says that children at least 20 weeks, and maybe earlier, but at least at 20 weeks, need to be protected because they suffer excruciating pain when they are being dismembered, for a couple of minutes. We are not sure exactly how long, but the evidence is very, very clear that they suffer as they are being killed by abortion. And that legislation passed with good numbers, good--a large number of Members of the House, but it is not law yet. So, you know, I think when we look back, we are going to say we had all these opportunities. And now the most recent--and I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding this time--the most recent outrage is what is happening with regards to children who are born alive and then are killed after birth. We just had the mayor--not the mayor--the Governor of New York eviscerating protections for children who survive abortions. Years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer did a piece, a big piece, a big article called ``The Dreaded Complication.'' And the dreaded complication were those children who somehow evaded the dismemberment process or some other part of that process and emerged alive. It was usually a hysterotomy abortion in most cases, but other cases as well, to go on and breathe and gasp and cry. And these very weak and vulnerable children should be protected. We have a bill that has been introduced, the Born-Alive Protection Act. We have asked, as just a few hours ago from this floor many times--I did it as well--asking that our friends in the majority would allow this bill to come up, so at least when these children are born alive, the same regimen of care, the same due diligence would be given to that boy or girl, gasping for breath, to ensure that they are protected and get resuscitation. Why, in these abortion clinics, are they allowed to die due to exposure, or sometimes to additional effort to just kill them? This legislation has had a large number of cosponsors in the House and Senate. The Senate had an opportunity to take it up and it was voted down, sadly, by other friends on the other side of the aisle. And again, we reach out to our friends on the other side of the aisle to say this is a human rights issue. Born alive? I did a speech in 2012 on what is called after-birth abortion. Two ethicists wrote this piece--and I would invite anyone who wants to, read it; it is on my website. Two ethicists wrote this piece about how we ought to kill babies after birth because, really, they are not really different than the child before birth. They can't dream; they can't talk; they don't have cognitive abilities that say, a 4-year-old or a 5-year-old might have. You know, birth is an event that happens to all of us. It is a continuum of life, and abortion is violence against children. But after-birth abortion also is violence against children. Let me just conclude. Many people, like Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther King's niece, she has had two abortions. And she has said, how can the dream survive--that is to say, her great uncle's dream, I have a dream--if we kill the children and hurt and wound the women? The pro-life movement, and I have been in it for 47 years, care for both, mother and child; love them both. And, again, this new movie, ``Unplanned,'' chronicles a woman, Abby Johnson, who was right there with the strongest of the pro-abortion activists in this country, including counseling women to get abortions. And then she was director of a clinic in Texas, as I said earlier, in the gentleman's home State. Then, when she saw that child killed, in real time, on an ultrasound, it shattered the myth that somehow that child is not human and not alive, and she walked out the door and never came back. There were people praying for her from the 40 Days for Life, a very, very humane organization of men and women who pray for the clinic personnel; they pray for the babies; they pray for the moms. That is their agenda, care, love, compassion. She then, later on, and as depicted in the movie, was at--you know, trying to reach out to some women as well, so they wouldn't make this irreversible decision. So I want to thank the gentleman again. But, you know, someday we will recognize that these children--and you know, this millennial generation and others that are coming along, you know, first baby pictures now for parents and grandparents are of ultrasound imaging of their children. That is what goes on the refrigerator. The newborn pictures go on, too, with great smiles and great joy when the child is born. But we now know, before birth when he or she is a girl or a boy. We know just so much, and we have that picture, which is the first baby picture. And to think--and this is what got to Abby Johnson--she watched as that child was dismembered right in front of her. She was holding the probe; and it just dawned on her, the blind spot was lifted, and she realized, I am participating in the killing of a baby. And she left that clinic, and now she is one of the most courageous pro-life leaders in the country and the world.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act--a modest, common-sense solution to the problem of pay inequity. Equal pay for equal work is not only a core value of mine and others--it's the law. Full implementation of that principle, however, remains elusive. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which was first introduced in 1997 and passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support in 2009, is a serious initiative to realize the noble goal of true equality. Among its provisions, this legislation would: Encourage businesses to rely on information about the market value of a position, industry standards, the duties of the job, and their budgets in order to set salaries, by prohibiting reliance on the prior salary history of prospective employees. Allow workers to share their personal salary information free from retaliation, with commonsense exceptions for FIR professionals. Improve research on the gender pay gap by instructing Department of Labor (DOL) to conduct studies and review available research and data to provide information on how to identify, correct, and eliminate illegal wage disparities. Assist the DOL in uncovering wage discrimination by requiring the collection of wage data from federal contractors, and direct the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to conduct a survey of available wage information and create a system of wage data collection. Support small businesses with technical assistance by providing support to all businesses to help them with their equal pay practices. Momentum has continued to build, with more than 260 diverse organizations signing a letter in support of the bill, including the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, which represents business associations and groups across the country, and the Main Street Alliance, a national network of small business owners. Madam Chair, according to the National Partnership for Women and Families, if the disparity in median annual earnings for women and men working full-time, year-round were closed, women would have over $10,000 more in earnings each year. For millennial women, closing this gender wage gap could add up to more than $1,000,000 in lost income over a career. This not only impacts these women immensely, but also directly impacts those with families. Over 62 percent of two-parent, married households with children, have both parents employed, which means these families would add $10,000 more to their family's total earnings per year. Madam Chair, this bill makes good economic sense. Companies are recognizing the benefits and the power of women's increased economic participation, and some have already enacted policies similar to those outlined in the Paycheck Fairness Act. Companies like Staples and Amazon have ended inquiries into job applicants' salary histories to avoid importing prior pay discrimination into their wage setting process. These moves are directly aligned with the Paycheck Fairness Act's provision banning reliance on salary history in determining future pay, so that prior pay discrimination doesn't follow workers from job to job. We have also seen a movement, spearheaded by investors, to motivate companies to disclose their pay data. After a gender pay shareholder proposal from the investment management firm Arjuna Capital, Citigroup publicly released the results of its pay equity review in 2018 covering a third of its global workforce, and another, more comprehensive review, in 2019. This data release went even further than the Paycheck Fairness Act's provisions, which would only require that companies give this summary information to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), not the public. According to a 2017 report from the Institute for Women's Policy Research, the poverty rate for all working women would be cut in half if women were paid the same as men. The same study indicates the U.S. economy would have produced an additional $512.6 billion in income if women had received equal pay for equal work. With 64 percent of mothers being the primary, sole, or co-breadwinners of their families, equal pay for women means America's families are better off. Ensuring women have equal pay would have a significant positive impact on our families and our economy and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the true story of Adam Pietras, a Boy Scout from my home town of Hamilton, N.J. in the Fourth Congressional District. Adam's remarkable courage--without any concern for his own personal safety--and his immediate and decisive response action literally helped save the life of his sister. This Saturday, March 16, 2019, Adam will be honored at a Court of Honor by his fellow scouts of Boy Scout Troop 87, members from the Veterans of Foreign War who host Troop 87, friends, and family. We will be proud and humble to present him with a U.S. flag, flown over the U.S. Capitol in his honor. Madam Speaker, Adam was only 10, when he acted without regard to his own safety as he fought off a loose Bullmastiff dog that was charging to attack his younger sister, Rachel, then age 7, in the family's backyard in 2015. Though Adam sustained severe injuries from the powerful dog, his actions enabled his sister to escape and his brother, Tyler, to run for help. Truly, Adam and Tyler's teamwork to protect their little sister prevented what could have been a tragedy. Adam was rushed to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital--Hamilton. He lost a lot of blood and needed 200 stitches and months to recover. Adam's exceptional actions went largely unreported in the news and were not well known outside his immediate family and community. That changed when he was a guest of the Sunshine Foundation Mercer County Chapter's 2018 Operation Dreamlift that takes children to Disney World. Trentonian reporter L.A. Parker happened to be on that flight, met Adam and heard Adam's story. In a column detailing the dog attack and Adam's actions, L.A. Parker--my fellow Trenton State College alumnus, quoted Adam as saying ``Yes, I was afraid really afraid. But I had to save my sister.'' Adam is a student at Reynolds Middle School in Hamilton, N.J. I've had the pleasure to meet Adam's father, Peter Pietras, who with his wife, Lisa Pitoniak-Pietras, and family and friends, are immensely proud of Adam. Adam, whose outstanding love for his sister shows he puts other people first, has a bright future. Adam was honored by Hamilton Mayor Kelly Yaede with a proclamation as an example of a model citizen, and by the Boy Scouts of America with its highest national award for lifesaving and meritorious action, the Honor Medal With Crossed Palms. Given only for outstanding and unusual acts that demonstrate unusual heroism, skill, or bravery and reflect Scouting ideals, the medal is only presented to Scouts who have ``demonstrated unusual heroism and extraordinary skill or resourcefulness in saving or attempting to save life at extreme risk to self.'' That sounds like Adam to me. Today it is my honor to make Adam's heroism and extraordinary act a permanent part of the Congressional Record. In an age of fictional movie action heroes and comic book superheroes, this Saturday a real-life action hero will be the star. If Adam were in the military our nation would be looking to bestow one of its highest medals for his valor. Well done, Adam, well done.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Zeldin for his leadership, not just tonight, but it has been ongoing and very effective. I thank Carolyn Maloney for her prime sponsorship of this important legislation. I am very proud to be a Never Forget the Heroes cosponsor, along with another very strong group of bipartisan Members who will not let this opportunity to enact this legislation pass. We will get this done. Madam Speaker, everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing. I was actually chairing a Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing when a group of cowards hijacked four airliners in order to perpetrate the worst act of terrorism in American history. Nearly 3,000 innocent people lost their lives that day, including 700 from my State. Who can forget the courageous first responders running up the stairs of the burning buildings with total disregard for their own safety, saving others at the expense of their own lives. No one remembers the shock, horror, and numbing sorrow of this day, however, more than the families and the close friends of the victims. I have worked with and befriended many family members of 9/11 victims, and I can state unequivocally that there would not have been a 9/11 Commission and other historic policy initiatives without their extraordinary tenacity, commitment, and courage. That includes what was known as the four Jersey girls, widows who simply would not take ``no'' for an answer. They were a driving force behind the establishment of that very important historic commission. I got to know a lot of the others. I actually hired a school principal who lost her husband, Alan, in 9/11, and I am reminded every time I am in the district office, and other days as well, what she has lost and how painful and how sorrowful that was on that day. For more than 17 years, the families and the friends of those who died have had to endure their loss and a broken heart. Now we know the carnage, the consequences, the ongoing loss of life, and the health crisis attributable to 9/11 are even worse than anyone could have imagined. New cases of 9/11-caused conditions are being diagnosed by the doctors at the World Trade Center Health Program every day, with close to 12,000 cases of 9/11-caused cancers diagnosed so far, including 600 cases with breast cancer, 2,400 with prostate cancer, 600 with thyroid cancer, 500 with lung cancer, and 500 with kidney cancer. There have also been other kinds of catastrophic consequences, with people who are suffering from PTSD, some 9,000 so far and counting. Congress enacted the World Trade Health Center Program Fund and September 11th Victim Compensation Fund to provide health services for responders at the three crash sites, and others in the vicinity of the World Trade Center site for health conditions related to toxic exposures from the attacks. There are over 6,800 New Jerseyans receiving healthcare services from the World Trade Center Health Program, 1,200 of whom are from my district, constituents of mine. Just last month--and this was shocking, frankly--the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund special master announced that, due to a lack of funding, the Justice Department will have to cut awards on pending cases by 50 percent and any new claims that are filed by 70 percent. These cuts will devastate the first responders, our firemen, police, and emergency personnel. They will also represent a gross injustice for survivors and their families who spent countless hours and days in search of their loved ones. I remember going to the site a couple of days after. I went with Tony Principi, who was then the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Unfortunately, there was a sense, a falsely conveyed sense, that maybe you didn't have to wear the mask, so many of those guys and those ladies on the ground were breathing in a toxic mix of chemicals that now have manifested into very serious disease. This is an important bill. It is bipartisan, and again, I thank the gentleman (Mr. Zeldin) for bringing us all together tonight, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle; Congresswoman Maloney for her leadership; and of course, all the others who are cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I do urge the Speaker, respectfully, and the majority leader to bring the bill up quickly.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, when I voted for the Brady Law in 1993--which took effect on February 28, 1994--it was to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous persons including felons and abusers. Twenty-five years later--and 300 million background checks that have blocked 3 million purchases to dangerous individuals--few if any today seriously suggest that the Brady law should be repealed. I support the Second Amendment. Universal background checks prescribed in H.R. 8 are an attempt to ensure that firearms are procured, owned and used by responsible, law abiding citizens. According to the Brady Campaign, about 1 in 5 guns now sold in America are done so without a background check. That's a significant loophole. According to the CDC, there was a record 39,773 deaths from firearms in 2017--higher than in any other year--23,854 were self-inflicted and 14,542 were homicides. To mitigate gun violence in America, H.R. 8 expands Brady background checks to transactions by private sellers not currently covered by the law. Multiple school shootings have led to robust, comprehensive action at every level to make classrooms safer. I have visited many schools in my district--and I have found that while the threat is being taken seriously, no one policy, program or initiative can ensure the level of protection our students need and deserve. Mr. Chair, no constitutional right is absolute including the Second Amendment. The First Amendment's freedom of speech, for example, has reasonable limits including the promulgation of slander and libel law. To preserve public order, we accept reasonable restrictions on the freedom to assemble. Even freedom of religion isn't without some modest boundaries. In like manner, universal background checks don't erode Second Amendment rights but do help ensure much needed protection from gun violence for everyone.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, what an expression of love, compassion, and faith we just heard, the child who was thought to be impossible; and what a tribute to parents and a mother who just love so unconditionally. Mr. Speaker, in 2012, two bioethicists, Dr. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published an outrageous paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics justifying the deliberate, premeditated murder of newborn babies during the first hours, days, and even weeks after birth. The ethicists said: When circumstances occur after birth that would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. In other words, the same conditions that would justify the killing of a baby in utero justifies the killing of that baby even when she is born. These two individuals made it clear that because the child does not have dreams about the future at birth, that that somehow is a disqualifier to personhood. The infanticide that they proposed, Mr. Speaker, is here. After-birth abortion is here. A couple weeks ago, New York Governor Cuomo signed into law a bill to allow abortion until birth and even removes penalties for infanticide. Other States, including Virginia, Rhode Island, and New Mexico, have similar anti-child statutes under consideration. The violent assault on children, Mr. Speaker, must end. Not only have 61 million unborn babies been killed since 1973 by either dismemberment--when a child is torn apart, arms, legs, and torso, literally dismembered--or by chemical poisoning, a death toll that equates with the entire population of Italy, the pro-choice crowd now is legislating to extend the violence after birth. Mr. Speaker, we cannot look away when a child's fundamental human rights are being violated with such lethal actions. Pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act now. Mr. Speaker, give us that chance to vote on this.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, tomorrow, tens of thousands of Americans will rally in favor of life, because we have a moral duty to defend the weakest and most vulnerable. I will have a little more to say later on in the Special Order. But it is my distinct privilege to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a great leader and a compassionate leader as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her very eloquent remarks. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Marshall very much for his comments and, again, for his leadership. I am so glad to have him here. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of the Appropriations Committee from Nebraska One who has been outspoken for the entirety of his career in defense of human life, as well as religious freedom.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Fortenberry for those very eloquent comments. To our colleagues and to those watching this at home, I think he really has touched a chord. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). Madam Speaker, Mr. Chabot is the prime author of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, a hideous method of abortion where the baby is half born and then is snuffed out when his or her brains are literally drawn from the baby's brain area. I thank the gentleman for authoring that legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Weber very much for his very strong comments. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Bergman for being here on the Special Order. We are so proud to have him on the Pro-Life Caucus. I thank him for his leadership. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), from Ohio's Eighth Congressional District.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I will just say a couple of words, and then I will yield to my good friend, Dr. Harris. Madam Speaker, doctors today routinely diagnose and treat a myriad of conditions, illnesses, and diseases suffered by society's littlest patients--unborn babies--significantly enhancing their health and chances to survive and to thrive. Comprehensive maternal and prenatal care is critical and ensures that both mother and baby are as healthy as possible during pregnancy and childbirth and in the weeks that follow. Yet, tragically, in the United States, we have one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world. While unborn children are killed at an unconscionable rate, nearly 2,500 children's lives are destroyed each and every day, about 906,000 in 2018 and more than 62 million dead babies since 1973. That shocking loss of children's lives equates with the entire population of England, more than 62 million kids who have been lost. This stunning loss of children's lives has occurred during a time when science has made it absolutely clear that birth is an important event in the life of a child. It is an event. It is not the beginning of life; it is an event. And the miracle of life before birth is nothing short of breathtaking. The first baby pictures today, proudly shared and displayed, are, most often, ultrasound photos, showing the baby alive and growing in the womb. They are not of newborns--them, too, later. But the first shot that we get to see of our kids and grandkids are while they are still in utero. The humanity of these children is beyond doubt, yet the pro-abortion movement, like some kind of modern-day flat Earth society, continues to cling to outdated, indefensible arguments cloaked in euphemism. Even the seemingly benign word ``choice'' withers under scrutiny. Choice to do what? Dismember a baby, starve a child to death like RU486 does, and then forcibly expel her or him from the womb? In order to facilitate the baby's extermination, the pro-abortionists aggressively deny, and they profoundly disrespect, the unborn child. They loudly mock and belittle those who defend a child's right to life. Anybody in the pro-life movement knows what that mocking is like. Frankly, that harsh criticism causes us to work even harder and, hopefully, more effectively to try to protect these weakest and most vulnerable among us. Someday, I truly believe Americans will look back at America's abortion culture, which has, again, killed, to date, about 62 million babies, and wonder how such a seemingly compassionate and enlightened society could have had that blind spot that could not see the innate goodness and value, pricelessness, of that unborn child. As Steve Chabot said earlier today, we know that the women are the co-victims. I and my wife and those of us in the pro-life movement do work with postabortive women. We love them. We care for them. Just yesterday, I met with two more women who are postabortive and talked about the agony that they quietly dealt with for so long. There are now many ministries that try to try to reach out to them to say: We want you to have a better life, a life of reconciliation and hope. You do not have to suffer alone. There are people who care for you. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) the cochairman of the Pro-Life Caucus.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Harris for his extraordinarily eloquent remarks. Madam Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.