Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for that very extraordinary and eloquent speech, bringing to the American people an inconvenient truth that needs to be exposed, and for, again, reminding us all that the major news media--NBC, CBS, ABC-- have all had a blackout, there's been a coverup. If this was any other trial of a horrific bloodletting, a house of horrors, it would be front page, it would be the lead story, maybe second or third on some nights on the major networks. The Philadelphia Inquirer, to its credit, a newspaper that is not pro-life editorially, and I know that because I've talked to them over the many years, they, nevertheless, have deployed reporters who have done a very, very good job in covering this trial. But that's pretty much where it ends. And, again, the major networks ought to be there. I would point out that the reason why this clinic in this house of horrors was allowed to do much of what it has done is because of the chilling effect that the proabortion side has had on inspections of clinics where children are routinely slaughtered. The grand jury itself said: ``The politics in question were not antiabortion, but proabortion. With the change of administrations from Governor Casey,'' a Democrat pro-lifer, ``to Governor Tom Ridge,'' a proabortion Republican, ``officials concluded that inspections would be putting a barrier up to women seeking abortions. Better to leave the clinics to do as they please,'' went on the grand jury report, ``even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay.'' That is found on page 9. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for coming from his markup to be with us here today. There was a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer--again, just tell the truth, just tell the story about what's happening in the trial--and they report that this week an ex-employee of Gosnell talked about how she perceived the brutal snipping of the spines of newborns still alive after abortion. ``Did you know it was murder?'' Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore asked ex-clinic worker Lynda Williams, referring to the clinic's practice of snipping the spines of babies born alive during abortion procedures. ``No, I didn't,'' said Williams, 44. She goes on to say that one of her duties was to retrieve fetuses from women who would sometimes spontaneously abort in the waiting room after getting large doses of drugs. ``One day,'' she testified, ``a women expelled a second trimester fetus and it was moving.'' Williams said she took a pair of scissors and snipped the spine as Gosnell showed her. ``I did it once,'' she said, ``and I didn't do it again because it gave me the creeps.'' Mr. Speaker, let me conclude. Dr. Andy Harris a few moments ago talked about the bioethicists who had made statements that after-birth abortion is justified because the newborn, or children who have been out of the womb for even weeks, have the same moral stature--and that is none--as an unborn child. Those two bioethicists say: ``The devaluation of newborn babies is inextricably linked to the devaluation of the unborn.'' They said: ``We propose that this practice of after- birth abortion be called that, rather than infanticide, in order to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed''--that is to say the baby--``is comparable to that of the fetus.'' Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is all about. So the choice to kill extended to the point of snipping the spines of children who were born and struggling and gasping for breath and for some kind of outreach of hands that would save that child, but it wasn't there. That is now being prosecuted, as it ought to be, as murder. Our hope is that the blackout of this trial of Kermit Gosnell will end. It is ongoing. It's occurring today. It's occurring every day. I don't know how long it will take. But to NBC, CBS, and ABC and to the major news media, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and others, just tell the story. Keep your editorials on the editorial page--you are absolutely entitled to that--but don't let that creep onto and bleed onto the other pages. Just tell the story. And the indifference, again, and the lack of coverage suggests a coverup. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, less than a month ago I chaired a hearing on ``Anti-Semitism: A Growing Threat to All Faiths.'' One of the witnesses was Tamas Fellegi, a former minister in the Orban government, who is himself Jewish. His testimony was impressive, as was the long list of significant actions the Orban government has taken to combat anti-Semitism in Hungarian society. Mr. Fellegi admitted frankly that anti-Semitism is a serious social problem in Hungary. Fortunately, the Orban government is on a clear upward trajectory here, and gives every sign that it will continue to be part of the solution rather than the problem. I'm confident it will particularly take on the persistent attempts to rehabilitate Holocaust perpetrators and vicious anti-Semites, both from the 1930s and 1940s and today. I will certainly continue to urge it to do so. We all know that many NGOs and a few governments, including our own, have been vocal in criticizing the Hungarian government on various grounds touching on democracy and human rights--and that the Hungarian government and its supporters have rejected these criticisms vigorously. Having reviewed material on both sides, I must say that I believe the Orban government is right when it says that many of the criticisms are unfair, involving double standards, misrepresentations, and inaccurate information. The Hungarian government has carefully documented this, for example in its ``Open Letter to Freedom House.'' For another example, the administration, in criticizing the Orban government's adoption of a new constitution, claimed in its written testimony to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe this week that in ``fundamental'' matters, ``the process must lead to a consensus built from a cross-section of society, rather than reflect only the opinions of the ruling coalition . . . the lack of serious consultation with different sectors of society, did not honor the democratic spirit . . .'' Anyone familiar with the passage of the Obamacare legislation might well question whether this is a message our government is ideally situated to deliver. Certainly it should have avoided the rude insinuation about democracy. Yet we need to continue delivering these and similar messages to a number of foreign governments--we must not give in to the cynicism induced by our own or any other government's failings. But we should be a lot more humble--especially when we are dealing with a country like Hungary, where the system of constitutional checks and balances is alive and well, where a democratic party with an unprecedented supermajority and a mandate for dramatic change, gained in a free and fair election, passed a democratic constitution and shows itself open to working with others to amend and improve the flaws in its new laws. This is a conversation between equals, and there is a lot we can learn from Hungary. I'm thinking particularly here of the constitutional cap on public debt and the statement that life will be protected in the womb. I'd like to congratulate the Hungarian government for the many laudable things in the new constitution--many things that advance human rights, including the prohibition of human trafficking, reproductive cloning, and its promotion of the culture of life. And for the rest, I look forward to a continuing conversation with the Hungarian government about their and our constitutional traditions and how they can both be improved.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Violence Against Women Act offered by Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers. It authorizes $2.2 billion for VAWA to help victimized women & children seeking assistance to break the cycle of violence & live free from intimidation, fear, abuse, & exploitation. I just want to point out something that little attention has been paid to. A little over a decade ago, I authored the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act of 2000, the landmark law that created America's comprehensive policy to combat modern-day slavery. The TVPA created the State Department's Trafficking in Persons Office, now led by an ambassador-at-large with a robust complement of over 50 dedicated and highly trained people. The Leahy trafficking amendment to S. 47, title XII, guts the TIP Office and represents a significant retreat in the struggle to end human trafficking. The only way to fix it is to pass the McMorris Rodgers amendment, go to negotiations, and get this legislation fixed. The TIP Office is an extraordinary advocacy mechanism and has had a huge impact worldwide. In addition to best-practices advocacy, the office monitors labor and sex trafficking and makes recommendations for whether or not countries be ranked tier one, tier two, or tier three. For over a decade, the Trafficking in Persons Office has been the flagship in our struggle to combat human trafficking. The Leahy amendment cuts the authorization for the TIP Office from about $7 million down to $2 million. It eviscerates the TIP Office; there is no doubt about that. It also shifts responsibilities to the regional bureaus. We have had problems over the last decade, as my colleagues, I'm sure, know. The regional bureaus have a whole large portfolio of issues that they deal with. When they deal with those issues, trafficking is on page 4 or page 5 of their talking points. The TIP Office walks point; it has now been demoted significantly. I would point out that when I first did the trafficking bill, there was huge pushback from the State Department. They didn't want human rights in general, and absolutely they did not want the trafficking-in- persons issue to be dominant and center stage. That's what the office does. It is a step backwards for combating human trafficking. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, authored by Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers. It authorizes $2.2 billion for VAWA to help victimized women and children seeking assistance to break the cycle of violence and live a life free from intimidation, fear, abuse and exploitation. VAWA is landmark legislation with a proven track record of assisting abused and battered women and must be reauthorized. VAWA includes: $222 million in STOP grants, providing critical funding to improve the criminal justice system's response to crimes against women; $73 million in Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforce Protection Orders, providing resources to bring abusers to justice and providing victims with the legal protections to live free of fear from their abusers; $57 million for Legal Assistance for Victims, providing necessary funding to strengthen state legal systems and ensure that agencies charged with handling domestic abuse and sexual assault cases are able to assist victims through the legal process; and millions more in housing assistance to shelter victims away from their abusers; grants to protect young women on college campuses; training and services for abuse against women in rural areas and those with disabilities; funding to reduce rape kit backlogs so we can identify past abusers and provide justice to their victims; and many more critical programs that strengthen communities to combat abuse against vulnerable populations. I just want to point out something that far too little attention has been paid to: the Leahy Amendment cuts to the State Department Trafficking in Persons, TIP, Office contained in the Senate version. A little over a decade ago, I authored the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, TVPA, of 2000--the landmark law that created America's comprehensive policy to combat modern day slavery. The TVPA created the State Department's Trafficking in Persons Office, now led by an ambassador-at-large with a robust complement of over 50 dedicated and highly trained people.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, Superstorm Sandy inflicted unprecedented damage on communities in the Northeast including my district in New Jersey. Congress and the President have responded by providing $60 billion in emergency and recovery aid. Today's debate and vote however isn't at all about whether or how much funding Congress appropriates to mitigate the impact of Sandy. We've had that vote. Rather, it is about those who are being unfairly left out and left behind. It's about those who helped feed, comfort, clothe and shelter tens of thousands of victims now being told they are ineligible for a FEMA grant. It is unconscionable that foundational pillars of our communities damaged by Sandy--synagogues, churches, mosques, temples and other houses of worship--have been categorically denied access to these otherwise generally-available relief funds. Current FEMA policy is patently unfair, unjustified and discriminatory and may even suggest hostility to religion. FEMA has a policy in place to aid nonprofit facilities damaged in the storm, but the agency has excluded houses of worship from this support. That is wrong. And it's time Congress ensures fundamental fairness for these essential private nonprofits. The bipartisan Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013--H.R. 592--will ensure that churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and other houses of worship are eligible for federal funds to effectuate repairs, restoration and replacement of damaged facilities. Madam Speaker, it's worth noting here that FEMA's discriminatory policy of exclusion isn't prescribed by any law. Nothing in the Stafford Act or any other law including the Hurricane Sandy Disaster Relief Appropriations Act precludes funds to repair, restore or replace houses of worship. Indeed, congressional precedent favors enacting H.R. 592 as there are several pertinent examples of public funds bein allocated to houses of worship. For example: FEMA grants were explicitly authorized by Congress and provided to churches damaged in the Oklahoma City terrorist attack; Homeland Security Department and UASI provides funding to houses of worship for security upgrades; Interior Department provides funding for grants for historically significant properties including churches and synagogues; It is important to note that a controlling Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum explains in detail the legal principles which make H.R. 592 constitutional. In a September 25, 2002, written opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded it was constitutional for Congress to provide disaster relief and reconstruction funds to a religious Jewish school, along with all sorts of other organizations, following a devastating earthquake. The same principles apply to protect religious organizations following a devastating hurricane. As the Office of Legal Counsel memo concluded ``provision of disaster assistance to [religious organizations] cannot be materially distinguished from aid programs that are constitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent establishing that religious institutions are fully entitled to receive generally available government benefits and services, such as fire and police protection.'' The Supreme Court handed down its first modern Establishment Clause decision in Everson v. Board of Education, which involved a program in my own state of New Jersey. In that case the Court held that religious institutions are entitled to receive ``general government services'' made available on the basis of neutral criteria. The Court held that the Establishment Clause does not bar students attending religious schools from receiving generally available school busing services provided by the government. In reaching its decision, the Court explained that even if the evenhanded provision of busing services increased the likelihood that some parents would send their children to religious schools, the same could be said of other ``general state law benefits'' that were even more clearly constitutional because they were equally available to all citizens. As examples, the Court cited ``such general government services as ordinary police and fire protection, connections for sewage disposal, public highways and sidewalks,'' concluding that ``cutting off church schools from these services . . . would make it far more difficult for the schools to operate. But such is obviously not the purpose of the First Amendment. That Amendment requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions, than it is to favor them.'' As Nathan J. Diament, Executive Director of Public Policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America notes in his excellent legal analysis which I will include in the Record ``federal disaster relief is analogous to aid that qualifies as 'general government services' approved by the Court in Everson. That same Supreme Court also held that ``[Government] cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation . . . [W]e must be careful, in protecting the citizens of New Jersey against state-established churches, to be sure that we do not inadvertently prohibit New Jersey from extending its general state law benefits to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief.'' In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a property tax exemption made available not only to churches, but to several other classes of nonprofit institutions, such as ``hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups.'' As the Court stated in reference to Everson, if ``buses can be provided to carry and policemen to protect church school pupils, we fail to see how a broader range of police and fire protection given equally to all churches, along with nonprofit hospitals, art galleries, and libraries receiving the same tax exemption, is different for purposes of the Religion Clauses.'' The bill before us today simply makes clear and clarifies that federal disaster relief includes religious entities along with every other sort of entity. As the Court later stated in Widmar v. Vincent, ``[t]he provision of benefits to so broad a spectrum of groups is an important index of secular [that is, constitutional] effect.'' And as it stated more recently in Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, ``[i]nsofar as [a] subsidy is conferred upon a wide array of nonsectarian groups as well as religious organizations in pursuit of some legitimate secular end, the fact that religious groups benefit incidentally does not deprive the subsidy of the secular purpose and primary effect mandated by the Establishment Clause.'' Significantly, Madam Speaker, when three churches in Detroit received taxpayer funded grants to repair and spruce up their buildings prior to the 2006 Superbowl, American Atheists sued the City of Detroit and lost. In a sweeping decision authored by Judge Sutton, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously held that the direct assistance to the churches did not violate the Establishment Clause. Judge Sutton said: ``Detroit sought to fix up its downtown, not to establish a religion. And as will generally be the case when a governmental program allocates generally available benefits on a neutral basis and without a hidden agenda, this program does not have the impermissible effect of advancing religion in general or any one faith in particular. By endorsing all qualifying applicants, the program has endorsed none of them, and accordingly it has not run afoul of the federal or state religion clauses . . . In the Establishment Clause context, that means evenhanded, neutral laws generally (though not invariably) will be upheld. So long as the government benefit is neutral and generally applicable on its face, it presumptively will satisfy the Establishment Clause.'' In sum, H.R. 592 exhibits no government preference for or against religion, or any particular religion, since it merely permits houses of worship to receive the same type of generally-available assistance in picking up the pieces after stunning devastation that many other similarly situated nonprofits receive. Thus, the bill not only passes the test of constitutionality, it passes the test of basic human decency. Indeed, to do otherwise would be to single out churches for adverse treatment, which is itself constitutionally suspect. The Supreme Court held in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, that ``[a]t a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs.'' And in Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that under the Free Exercise Clause, the state may not ``impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status.'' Similarly, in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the Court held that ``the government offends the First Amendment when it imposes financial burdens on certain speakers based on the content of their expression,'' including religious expression. To continue to single houses of worship out for discrimination does not express government neutrality, it expresses government hostility. And there is no place for government hostility toward religion under our constitution. The constitution clearly allows, and arguably requires, that religious organizations be treated equally when it comes to Congress' providing for the well-being of Americans following the onslaught of Superstorm Sandy and other natural disasters. The damage unleashed by Sandy has taken a huge toll on houses of worship. According to the N.J. Catholic Conference more than 145 churches suffered significant damage in my state alone. Another 125 churches in New York have been damaged and are seeking FEMA help with more to be counted as repairs and ongoing work are addressed and contracted out for completion. Similarly, dozens of synagogues and temples in both states are now looking to see how they repair after spending months of providing goods and services--with no regard to religion--to those who needed it. In testimony just last week before the New York City Council, Joseph Rosenberg of the Catholic Community Relations Council poignantly noted that when Sandy hit, the leaders of the churches, synagogues and other houses of worship did not first ask if their facilities would be eligible for federal assistance before providing food and shelter and relief to thousands of displaced persons. Nor did these providers of assistance ask the religious affiliation of the victims. No, they went to work providing tangible, life-saving aid to all comers. In his letter of support for H.R. 592, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz concludes that ``religious institutions may receive government aid if it is in the context of a broadly available program with criteria that are neutral toward religion and pose no risks of religious favoritism.'' Professor Dershowitz notes further: Once FEMA has the policy in place to aid various nonprofit organizations with their building repairs, houses of worship should not be excluded from receiving this aid on the same terms. This is all the more appropriate given the neutral role we have witnessed houses of worship play, without regard to religion of those affected, in the wake of Sandy and countless previous disasters. Federal disaster relief aid is a form of social insurance and means of helping battered communities get back on their feet. Churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship are an essential part of the recovery process. Religious liberty scholar Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law wrote a letter endorsing H.R. 592 and said in part: ``Charitable contributions to places of worship are tax deductible, without significant controversy, even though the tax benefits to the donor are like a matching grant from the government. These deductions have been uncontroversial because they are included without discrimination in the much broader category of all not-for- profit organizations devoted to charitable, educational, religious, or scientific purposes. The neutral category here is equally broad. To include places of worship in disaster relief is neutral; to exclude them would be affirmatively hostile. There is no constitutional obstacle to including them.'' America's houses of worship are an integral, irreplaceable part of the contour and fabric of our communities. Like any other private non- profit organization, their recovery is essential to the recovery of neighborhoods, towns and states. They should not be excluded from federal programs that ensure community recovery, especially since they selflessly provide assistance to all in need. H.R. 592 has been endorsed by several organizations including the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Council of Churches of the City of New York and the American Jewish Committee. I would like to take this moment to submit one more additional letter of support for H.R. 592 from Carl H. Esbeck, Professor of Law, University of Missouri, and my full statement for the Record. University of Missouri School of Law, February 11, 2013. Re Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013. Hon. Chris Smith, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC. Hon. Grace Meng, 1317 Longworth HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives Smith and Meng: I have been asked to give an opinion concerning the constitutionality of the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on Friday, February 8, 2013. It would amend Sections 102(10)(B) and 406(a)(3) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(10)(B) and 5172(a)(3)), to clarify that houses of worship are eligible for disaster relief and emergency assistance on the same terms as other nonprofit facilities providing certain defined essential services to the public. Stated differently, houses of worship that are otherwise eligible for relief and assistance are not to be discriminated against because of their religious character. FEMA's current policy is set forth in its memorandum captioned ``Houses of Worship--FEMA Public Assistance Eligibility.'' Concerning multiple-use facilities, FEMA denies relief and assistance to otherwise eligible houses of worship unless the primary use of the space in a facility is for essential services of a governmental nature. FEMA converts ``primary use'' into a simple fifty-percent (50%) rule, but it does not state the legal authority for the rule. The matter of interest is compliance with the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has formulated a neutrality principle to assess general programs of aid to the nongovernmental sector. The principle requires: (i) that the program have a secular purpose, and (ii) that the recipients of the aid be eligible without regard to religion. Under the above-referenced bill, Section 102(10)(B) defines an eligible private nonprofit (PNP) as a facility that provides: (a) essential services; (b) while not by government, of that ``nature;'' and (c) available to the public. The three-part definition is secular in purpose. True, the bill expressly mentions houses of worship as eligible. But that makes sense and is secular in purpose, because in the past they were sometimes excluded by FEMA. So Congress, in passing this amendment, is just bringing matters back from a discriminatory situation to one of religious neutrality. A parenthetical in 102(10)(B) gives several examples of such eligible PNP facilities providing essential services. If a private ``museum'' is an essential service in the ``nature'' of ``governmental,'' the eligible recipients are not as narrowly limited as might at first appear. ``Community centers'' are expressly named as eligible, and this bill has ``houses of worship'' as a type of community center. The findings in Section 2(5) of the bill further help to define how houses of worship serve as a type of community center. The findings also help to explain how a community center provides ``essential services,'' namely activities central to community rebuilding and reconstruction after a natural disaster. Several U.S. Supreme Court cases prepared the way for the neutrality principle as we presently recognize it. In Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988), the Court upheld a congressional program funding counseling centers targeting adolescent sexuality that was available to religious as well as secular providers. In Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993), the Court held that a public school district had to provide the same special education services to a student when he switched enrollment from a public to a religious high school. In Witters v. Washington Dep't of Servs. for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986), the Court upheld a state vocational rehabilitation program, available without regard to religion, even when it resulted in aid to a student to attend a seminary. The neutrality principle became fully grounded with the Court's decision in Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997). Agostini involved the implementation of federal funding for K-12 special educational services in schools in the State of New York. The special educational services were rendered by special education teachers employed by the local public school district. For those special education students in religious schools, it was more effective and less costly to have the teachers travel to the religious school campus to deliver the services. But this had been barred by prior case law. In Agostini, the Court overruled its prior precedent and approved the delivery of services to all special needs students on a basis neutral as to religion. The services were secular, and there was no reason because of the Establishment Clause to discriminate against children enrolled in the religious schools. The Agostini secular-purpose/religion-neutral analysis was carried forward by the Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000). The case involved a challenge to a part of the Primary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provide educational materials and services to all K-12 schools without regard to religion. The challengers wanted the aid denied to religious schools. The nature of the educational materials was secular. Accordingly, the Court upheld the practice of treating all schools neutrally. These religious schools were intensely religious, but that was no reason to discriminate against them. Care should be exercised so that no governmental aid is diverted from its intended secular purpose, in particular that the aid not be diverted to an explicitly religious purpose. It is my opinion that the above-referenced proposed amendment to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act is consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thank you for your kind consideration of this letter opinion. Sincerely, Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor of Law and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor of Law, University of Missouri.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the House passage of H.R. 592 by the large margin of 354-72 is a substantial statement of support for the houses of worship that have done so much for those suffering in the wake of natural disasters like Superstorm Sandy. It is also a strong affirmation of the constitutionality of the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding, and I thank the gentlelady from Texas for her very strong and passionate remarks. I especially again want to thank Congresswoman Meng for her excellent statement and her support and cosponsorship of this important bill. Let me just say a couple of points to my colleagues. First of all, I will be submitting for the Record a very fine analysis by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, an outstanding public interest law firm that has done yeoman's work throughout the country on religious liberty. It's a statement to us as Members of Congress by its leaders. It points out first not only does the Establishment Clause provide no support for FEMA's practice of discriminating against houses of worship, that practice itself runs afoul of the First Amendment by discriminating against religious institutions. Second, the bill you have proposed will not lead to Establishment Clause violations because no act of Congress can purport to repeal the First Amendment. Arguments to the contrary are constitutional scaremongering. Eric Rassbach and Daniel Blomberg have authored again a very important contribution to this debate. Madam Speaker--and Ms. Meng mentioned this earlier and it bears repeating--in letters of support for H.R. 592, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz concludes: Religious institutions may receive government aid if it is in the context of a broadly available program with criteria that are neutral toward religion and pose no risk of religious favoritism. He states further: Once FEMA has a policy in place to aid various nonprofit organizations with their building repairs, houses of worship should not be excluded from receiving this aid on the same terms. This is all the more appropriate given the neutral role that we have witnessed houses of worship play without regard to religion to those afflicted in the wake of Sandy and countless previous disasters. Federal disaster relief aid in the form of social insurance and other means of helping battered communities get them back on their feet. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship are an essential part of the recovery process. Madam Speaker, religious liberty scholar Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law wrote a letter endorsing H.R. 592 and said in part: Charitable contributions to places of worship are tax deductible without significant controversy, though the tax benefits to the donor are like a matching grant from the government. These deductions have been uncontroversial because they're included without discrimination in a much broader category of all not-for-profit organizations devoted to charitable, educational, religious, or scientific purposes. The neutral category here is equally broad; to include places of worship in disaster relief is neutral. To exclude them would be affirmatively hostile. There is no constitutional obstacle to including them. That is according to Professor Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law, a preeminent expert on these matters. Madam Speaker, houses of worship are an integral, irreplaceable part of the contour and fabric of our communities. Like any other private nonprofit organization, their recovery is essential to the recovery of neighborhoods, towns, and States. They should not be excluded from Federal programs that ensure community recovery, especially since they so selflessly provide assistance to all in need. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this legislation has been backed by a number of important organizations, including the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, the chair, for yielding. I thank him for his support and for Mr. Rahall. And I want to thank Gracie Meng for her cosponsorship and leadership on this important bill, and all the cosponsors, and to Eric Cantor and the leadership for scheduling it for a vote today. This is extremely important and very timely. Madam Speaker, Superstorm Sandy inflicted unprecedented damage on communities in the Northeast, including my district in New Jersey. Congress and the President have responded by providing $60 billion in emergency and recovery aid. Today's debate and vote, however, isn't at all about whether or how much funding Congress appropriates to mitigate the impact of Sandy. We've had that vote. Rather, it's about those who are being unfairly left out and left behind. It's about those who help feed, comfort, clothe, and shelter tens of thousands of victims now being told they are ineligible for a FEMA grant. It's unconscionable that foundational pillars of our communities damaged by Sandy--synagogues, churches, mosques, temples and other houses of worship--have been categorically denied access to these otherwise generally available relief funds. Current FEMA policy is patently unfair, unjustified, and discriminatory and may even suggest hostility to religion. FEMA has a policy in place to aid nonprofit facilities damaged in the storm, but the agency has excluded houses of worship from their support. That is wrong, and it's time Congress ensures fundamental fairness for these essential private nonprofits. The bipartisan Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act will ensure that houses of worship are eligible for Federal funds administered by FEMA. Madam Speaker, it's worth noting here that FEMA's discriminatory policy of exclusion is not prescribed by any law. Nothing in the Stafford Act or any other law, including the Hurricane Sandy Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, precludes funds to repair and to replace and to restore houses of worship. Indeed, the congressional precedent favors enacting H.R. 592, as there are several pertinent examples of public funding being allocated to houses of worship. For example, FEMA grants were explicitly authorized by Congress back in 1995 and provided to the churches damaged by the Oklahoma City terrorist attack, as my friend from West Virginia pointed out. The Homeland Security Department and UASI provides funding to houses of worship for security upgrades. The Interior Department provides funding to grants for historically significant properties, including active churches and active synagogues. And the SBA provides low interest loans--no hint at all by anyone that there's an Establishment Clause issue. It's important to note that a controlling Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memorandum explains in detail the legal principles that make H.R. 592 constitutional. In a 2002 written opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded it was constitutional for Congress to provide disaster relief and reconstruction funds to a religious Jewish school, along with all sorts of other organizations, following a devastating earthquake. The same principles apply to protect religious organizations following a devastating hurricane. As the Office of Legal Counsel memo concluded: Provisions of disaster assistance to religious organizations cannot be materially distinguished from aid programs that are constitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, establishing that religious institutions are fully entitled to receive generally available government benefits and services, such as fire and police protection. The Supreme Court handed down its first modern Establishment Clause decision in the Everson v. Board of Education decision, which involved a program in my own home State of New Jersey. In that case, the Court held that religious institutions are entitled to receive ``general government services'' made available on the basis of neutral criteria. The Court held that the Establishment Clause does not bar, in that case, students attending religious schools from receiving generally available school busing services provided by the government. As Nathan Diament, Executive Director of Public Policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Organizations of America, notes in his excellent legal analysis, which I will include in the Record: Disaster relief is analogous to aid that qualifies as general government services approved by the Court in Everson. Madam Speaker, the bill before us today simply makes clear and clarifies that Federal disaster relief includes religious entities, along with every other sort of entity. As the Court later stated in Widmar v. Vincent: The provision of benefits to so broad a spectrum of groups is an important index of secular, that is, constitutional effect. As it stated more recently in Texas Monthly v. Bullock: Insofar as that subsidy is conferred upon a wide array of nonsectarian groups as well as religious group organizations in pursuit of some legitimate secular end, the fact that religious groups benefit incidentally does not deprive the subsidy of the secular purpose and primary effect mandated by the Establishment Clause. Significantly, Madam Speaker, when three churches in Detroit received taxpayer-funded grants to repair and spruce up their buildings prior to the 2006 Super Bowl, American Atheists sued the City of Detroit and lost. In a sweeping decision offered by Judge Sutton, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, unanimously held that the direct assistance to the churches did not violate the Establishment Clause. Judge Sutton said, and I quote, in pertinent part: Detroit sought to fix up its downtown, not to establish a religion. And as will generally be the case when a governmental program allocates generally available benefits on a neutral basis and without a hidden agenda, this program does not have the impermissible effect of advancing religion in general or any one faith in particular. By endorsing all qualifying applicants, the program has endorsed none of them, the Court went on to say, and accordingly it has not run afoul of the Federal and State religious clauses . . . In the Establishment Clause context, that means evenhanded neutral laws generally, though not invariably, will be upheld. So long as the government benefit is neutral and generally applicable on its face, it presumptively will satisfy the Establishment Clause. H.R. 592 exhibits no government preference for or against religion, or any particular religion, since it merely permits houses of worship to receive the same type of generally available assistance.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Again, this legislation permits houses of worship to receive the same type of generally available assistance in picking up the pieces after stunning devastation that many other similarly situated nonprofits receive. Thus, the bill not only passes the test of constitutionality, it passes the test of basic decency. Indeed, to do otherwise would be to single out churches for adverse treatment, which is in itself constitutionally suspect. The Supreme Court held, Madam Speaker, in Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, that ``at a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs.'' And in Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that under the Free Exercise Clause, the State may not ``impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status.'' To continue to single houses of worship out for discrimination does not express government neutrality; it expresses government hostility. And there's no place for government hostility toward religion under our Constitution. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Just to underscore for my colleagues the broad support that this has, the American Jewish Committee has also supported it, the Family Research Council. As I said earlier, the Becket Fund and so many others have written very extensive remarks in favor of it. I do hope there will be very strong support for this important legislation. It's a matter of inclusion to stop current-day, present- day exclusion. Memorandum To: Interested Parties From: Nathan J. Diament, Exec. Director of Public Policy Date: February 6, 2013 Re Legal Analysis Supporting Including Houses of Worship, Among Private Nonprofit Facilities, Eligible for Federal Disaster Relief Funds Administered by FEMA Under the Stafford Act. Conclusion: The Establishment Clause does not bar the award of federal grants to houses of worship for the repair of facilities damaged in a natural disaster, in the context of the Stafford Act's ``private nonprofit facility'' aid program.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today marks the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous, reckless, and inhumane abandonment of women and babies to abortionists. Forty years of victims, dead babies, wounded women, shattered families. Forty years of government-sanctioned violence against women and children. Since 1973, more than 55 million children have been killed by abortion, a staggering loss of children's precious lives, a death toll that equates to the entire population of England. The passage of time hasn't changed the fact that abortion is a serious, lethal violation of fundamental human rights; and that women and children deserve better, much better; and that the demands of justice, generosity, and compassion require that the right to life be guaranteed to everyone, regardless of age, sex, race, condition of dependency, disability, or stage of development. Rather than obscure or dull our consciousness to the unmitigated violence of abortion, the passage of time has only enabled us to see and better understand the innate cruelty of abortion and its horrific legacy--victims--while making us more determined than ever to protect the weakest and most vulnerable and end the mass deception by the abortion industry. Earlier today, Linda Shrewsbury, an academic and an African American with a degree from Harvard, who had an abortion, told a 40 Years Of Victims press conference: The lies that brought me to that day and its sorrowful aftermath are crystal clear in my mind: falsehoods and deceptions that concealed the truth about abortion. Lies planted in my thinking by clever marketing, media campaigns, and endless repetition led to a tragic, irreversible decision--the death of my first child. She goes on to say: It's past time to lance the national wound of abortion with truth. The high culture--thought leaders, media, celebrities--that brought us abortion seem vested beyond extraction. She said she ``dreamed of the volcano of abortion truth that could erupt one day from the grass-roots--women and men and their relatives witnessing to their suppressed emotion, unspoken trauma, and lived pain. With abortion denial ended, we as a society could then reconnect with reality and life.'' Clearly, Mr. Speaker, there are seemingly ominous present-day signs that hinder ending abortion denial and a reconnection with reality and life. Certainly the re-election of the abortion President Barack Obama, public funding for abortion in the ObamaCare health exchanges that come online in 2014, a massive increase of public funding for abortion, the use of coercion to compel religious believers and entrepreneurs to violate their consciences, slick advertising, and the export of abortion worldwide. And it is deeply troubling that despite the fact that Planned Parenthood claims direct responsibility for killing over 6 million unborn babies in their clinics, including a record 333,964 abortions in 2011 alone, Planned Parenthood remains President Obama's favorite organization. Despite these and many obstacles, however, we will never quit. In adversity, our faith and trust in God is tested, but it also deepens and overcomes and forges an indomitable, yet humble, spirit. The pro-life movement--and I've been in it for 41 years--is comprised of some of the noblest, caring, smart, and selfless people I have ever met. They make up an extraordinarily powerful, nonviolent, faith-filled human rights struggle that is growing in public support, intensity, commitment, and hope. The compassionate women and men who staff thousands of pregnancy care centers, many of the women being post-abortive themselves who try to save women from that irreversible decision, help women who are experiencing unexpected pregnancies, and they provide tangible assistance and an enormous amount of love and emotional support both before and after the birth of a child. The pro-life movement is not only on the side of compassion, justice, and inclusion. We are on the right side of responsible science and of history. Someday future generations will look back on America and wonder how and why such a seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with education, advanced science, information, wealth, and opportunity, could have failed to protect the innocent and the inconvenient. They will wonder how and why a Nobel Peace Prize-winning President could also simultaneously have been the abortion President. Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin King, who had two abortions but is now solidly pro-life, said in one of her speeches: My Uncle Martin had a dream. He dreamt that we would live out that which is self-evident, that all men are created equal. He called on America to admit our wrongs and turn from them. Today, I call on all of us, regardless of nationality, race, or religion, to admit our wrongs and turn from them. I believe that the denial of the right to life is the greatest injustice we face in the world today. There is no compassion in killing. There is no justice in writing people out of the human race. History, Mr. Speaker, will not look favorably on today's abortion culture. We must, indeed and instead, work tirelessly to replace it with a culture of life. Mr. Speaker, forty years ago today marks the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous, reckless and inhumane abandonment of women and babies to abortionists. Forty years of victims--dead babies, wounded women, shattered families. Forty years of government sanctioned violence against women and children. Since 1973, more than 55 million children have been killed by abortion--a staggering loss of children's precious lives--a death toll that equates to the entire population of England. The passage of time hasn't changed the fact that abortion is a serious, lethal violation of fundamental human rights. And that women and children deserve better--much better. And that the demands of justice, generosity and compassion require that the right to life be guaranteed to everyone, regardless of age, sex, race, condition of dependency, disability, or stage of development. Rather than obscure or dull our consciences to the unmitigated violence of abortion, the passage of time has only enabled us to see and better understand the innate cruelty of abortion--and its horrific legacy victims--while making us more determined than ever to protect the weakest and most vulnerable, and end mass deception by the abortion industry. Earlier today, Linda Shrewsbury, an academic and African American with a degree from Harvard who had an abortion told a ``40 Years of Victims'' press conference that: ``the lies that brought me to that day and its sorrowful aftermath are crystal clear in my mind--falsehoods and deceptions that concealed the truth about abortion. Lies planted in my thinking by clever marketing, media campaigns and endless repetition led to a tragic irreversible decision--the death of my first child. I didn't really understand back then. At age 20, I had no inkling of the mental and emotional darkness I was about to enter. I couldn't have grasped the immense psychological toll abortion would take for years into the future--unrelenting tears, guilt, shame, and depression. After spending many years in denial, I did eventually find healing. When I understood and rejected distortions about fetal development, doublespeak about choice, rights, planned and wanted children; I understood the reality and victimhood of my aborted child. I understood the absence of moral bases for choosing to ``dis-entitle'' an innocent human being of life. When I embraced truth, truth set me free and I finally gained inner peace. It's past time to lance the national wound of abortion with truth. The high culture--thought leaders, media, celebrities--that brought us abortion seem vested beyond extraction. I dreamed of the volcano of abortion truth that could erupt one day from the grassroots--women and men and their relatives witnessing to their suppressed emotion, unspoken trauma, and lived pain. With abortion denial ended, we as a society could then reconnect with reality and life.'' Clearly there are seemingly ominous present-day signs that hinder ending abortion denial and a reconnection with reality and life--the reelection of the abortion President Barack Obama, public funding for abortion in the Obamacare health exchanges that come on-line in 2014, the use of coercion to compel religious believers and entrepreneurs to violate their conscience, and the export of abortion worldwide. And, it is deeply troubling that despite the fact that Planned Parenthood claims direct responsibility for killing over 6 million unborn babies, including a record 333,964 abortions in 2011 alone, Planned Parenthood remains President Obama's favorite organization. Despite these and any obstacles, we will never quit. In adversity our faith and trust in God is tested, but it also deepens and overcomes and forges an indomitable yet humble spirit. The pro-life movement is comprised of some of the noblest, caring, smart and selfless people I have ever met. They make up an extraordinarily powerful, non-violent, faith-filled human rights struggle that is growing in public support, intensity, commitment and hope. The compassionate women and men who staff thousands of pregnancy care centers throughout America provide women who are experiencing unexpected pregnancies tangible assistance, love and emotional support both before and after the birth of her child. With malice towards none, even President Obama for whom we must pray, we believe that the nightmare that is abortion on demand will end. The pro-life movement is not only on the side of compassion, justice, and inclusion; we are on the right side of responsible science and of history. Someday future generations will look back on America and wonder how and why such a seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with education, advanced science, information, wealth and opportunity could have failed to protect the innocent and inconvenient. They will wonder how and why a Nobel Peace Prize winning President could also simultaneously have been the Abortion President. Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, had two abortions but is now pro-life. She said in one speech: ``My Uncle Martin had a dream. He dreamt that we would live out that which is self-evident--that all men are created equal. He called on America to admit our wrongs and turn from them. Today, I call on all of us, regardless of nationality, race or religion, to admit our wrongs and turn from them. I believe that the denial of the right to life is the greatest injustice we face in the world today. There is no compassion in killing. There is no justice in writing people out of the human race.'' History will not look favorably on today's abortion culture. We must instead work tirelessly to replace it with a culture of life. Pro-lifers celebrate the sanctity of life. Unborn babies are not disposable commodities. We recognize that unborn children, like their older brothers and sisters, have inherent worth, value, and dignity. They are children too. If left alone to grow and mature, they too will become older brothers and sisters--and perhaps parents themselves someday. Modern medicine and scientific breakthrough--especially the widespread use of ultrasound--have shattered the pernicious myth that unborn children are mere blobs of tissue. It's time to recognize birth merely as a celebratory event in the life of a person--not the beginning of life. And we've got to step up our efforts to educate and persuade. Far too many politicians, judges, journalists and others choose denial and deceptive speech over truth. Today doctors diagnose illness and disability before birth. New and exciting breakthrough health care interventions for the unborn-- including microsurgeries--are leading to an ever expanding array of successful treatments and cures of sick or disabled unborn babies in need of help. Unborn children are society's littlest patients who like any one of us might need health care. In stark contrast, abortion methods rip, tear and dismember or chemically poison the fragile bodies of babies and abortion pills cause premature expulsion from the womb and death. There is nothing benign, compassionate, or just about an act that utterly destroys the life of a child and often physically, psychologically, and emotionally harms women. And despite the near total absence of any meaningful reporting by the media, women get hurt and some even die from legal abortions. According to the most recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, from 1973 to 2008 at least 403 women tragically died in the United States from legal abortion. And that sad fact is almost certainly a significant undercount because the methodology employed by CDC is passive and voluntary and likely to miss instances of both mortality and morbidity. In the years since CDC's ``most recent report,'' many more women have surely died. Like Tonya Reaves, a 24-year-old woman who died last July from a botched second trimester dismemberment abortion--a D&E--at a Chicago area Planned Parenthood abortion mill. The abortion industry excels at surface appeal argument and propaganda. Indeed the misleading term ``safe abortion'' purposely misses the point that no abortion--legal or illegal--is ever safe for the baby and that all are fraught with negative health consequences for the mother. Today, at least 104 credible studies show significant psychological harm, major depression and/or elevated suicide risk in women who abort. The Times of London reported that, ``[S]enior . . . psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.'' They found ``that women who have had abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who have given birth or who have never been pregnant.'' In 2006, a comprehensive New Zealand study found that 78.6% of the 15-18-year-olds who had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression as compared to 31% of their peers. The study also found that 27% of the 21-25-year-old women who had abortions had suicidal ideations compared to 8% of those who did not have an abortion. At this morning's ``40 Years of Victims'' press conference courageous post-abortive women, as well as the mother of a minor girl who was transported across state lines to New Jersey to evade Pennsylvania's parental involvement laws spoke eloquently of the anguish of abortion. Irene Beltran said: ``My entire being was overcome by terror, and I felt deep anguish in the core of my soul when I ended the life of my own child for the sake of convenience. At the clinic I was treated like livestock being herded from one step to the next . . . When the abortionist administered the poison in my stomach I was mortified and shocked because I felt my child kick and turn very hastily. Years later I found out she was being burned and could feel the pain. Since I was 6 months pregnant this would be a two-day process. The second day consisted of the abortionist tearing my daughter out of me--limb from limb, piece by piece. But I did not go back. After feeling my daughter fight for her life I went straight to my mother's home crying for help. She drove me to the Labor and Delivery Department at a local hospital. I arrived at the hospital grasping on the slim chance they could save my daughter, but there was nothing the doctors could do. The effects of the toxin were irreversible.'' Marcia Carroll said even though ``my daughter chose to have the baby, raise it . . .. The father's family arranged a taxi, a train, and subway rides to sneak her across state lines to New Jersey where his family met them in front of the abortion clinic. . .. They planned, financed, harassed, and ultimately threatened my daughter into having the abortion . . .. As a result of the legal abortion that was completed unbeknownst to me, my daughter suffered years of depression, intense grief, post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares, and thoughts and even attempts of suicide.'' Kellie Stauffer spoke of her abortion at the age of 14: ``We all thought abortion would erase the situation I had gotten myself in and we would go on living life the way it was. That was not the case. . . . life sadly was never the same. I hated myself. I tried to numb my pain in any way I could find, drugs, alcohol, food, meaningless relationships, but nothing took away the deep darkness that overwhelmed my soul. . . . She persuaded me to go to a Rachel's vineyard retreat and that weekend saved my life. I allowed myself to feel the forgiveness God had been showing me all along. . . . I will never forget what I did to my first child. I am still brought to my knees in tears at times when I remember the pain I caused her. In response to God's grace and for my daughter's spirit I will be silent no more.'' Olivia Gans Turner said: ``I was not told vital information about the child I was carrying. Including the medical fact that by the time I had an abortion at 12 weeks, my baby already had a beating heart and brain waves! . . . I have not forgotten one moment of that day, and never will. That single day changed my life forever.'' Abortion not only has deleterious effects on women but on children born subsequently to women who have had a previous abortion. At least 115 studies show a significant association between abortion and subsequent premature births. Researchers Shah and Zao showed a 36% increased risk for preterm birth after one abortion and a staggering 93% increased risk after two. Similarly, the risk of subsequent children being born with low birth weight increases by 35% after one and 72% after two or more abortions. Another study shows the risk increases 9 times after a woman has had three abortions. What does this mean for her children? Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk of suffering from chronic lung disease, sensory deficits, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments and behavior problems. Low birth weight is similarly associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity. The extremism of the pro-abortion industry is shocking. Last spring, the House of Representatives took up a bill to ban sex- selection abortion. The bill garnered a solid majority--246 to 168--in the House. President Obama, however, made it absolutely clear that he would veto the sex-selection abortion prohibition should it be sent to the White House. While sex-selection abortion almost exclusively targets girls for extermination--simply because they are little girls--the egregious practice remains legal in most states. In fact, only four states-- Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Arizona--and several countries including the United Kingdom proscribe it. And if that's not shocking enough, many remain unaware of the fact that sex-selection abortion is part of a deliberate plan of population control--a war on women. In other words, abort the girls so they can't grow up someday and have children of their own. In her book ``Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men,'' Mara Hvistendahl traces the sordid history of sex-selection abortion as a means of population control. ``By August 1969, when the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Population Council convened another workshop on population control, sex selection had become a pet scheme,'' Hvistendahl writes. ``If a reliable sex-determination technology could be made available to a mass market,'' there was ``rough consensus'' that sex-selection abortion ``would be an effective, uncontroversial and ethical way of reducing the global population.'' Many of you might recall the undercover sting operation by Live Action that exposed several Planned Parenthood affiliates who were eager, ready and willing to facilitate secret abortions for underage sex-trafficking victims--some as young or younger than 14. As the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act--the landmark law to combat human trafficking--I found the willingness of Planned Parenthood personnel to exploit young girls and partner with sex traffickers to be absolutely appalling. Now, Live Action has released sting-operation videos--part of a series, ``Gendercide in America''--that show Planned Parenthood personnel advising undercover female investigators how to procure a sex-selection abortion. Caught on tape, one staffer tells an investigator to wait until her baby is 5 months along to get an ultrasound that reveals the sex of the child. Then, if it's a girl, kill it. For most of us, ``it's a girl'' is cause for enormous joy, happiness and celebration. But far too often, this phrase can be a death sentence. These cruel, anti-woman policies have had horrible consequences everywhere, especially in China (and India as well). China's one child per couple policy in effect since 1979 constitutes massive crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg Nazi war crimes tribunal properly construed forced abortion as a crime against humanity--nothing in human history compares to the magnitude of China's 34-year assault on women and children. In China, brothers and sisters are illegal in most instances. The price for failing to conform to the one child per couple policy is unbearably high. A Chinese woman who becomes pregnant without a permit will be put under mind-bending pressure to abort. She knows that ``out-of-plan'' illegal children are denied education, health care, and marriage, and that fines for bearing a child without a birth permit can be 10 times the average annual income of two parents, and those families that can't or won't pay are jailed and their homes smashed in. If the brave woman still refuses to submit, she may be held in a punishment cell, or, if she flees, her relatives may be held and, very often, beaten. Group punishments will be used to socially ostracize her. And her colleagues and neighbors will be denied birth permits. If the woman is by some miracle still able to resist this pressure, she may be physically dragged to the operating table and forced to undergo an abortion. Over the years, I have chaired 43 congressional human rights hearings focused in whole or in part on China's one child policy. At one, the principal witness, Wuijan, a Chinese student attending a U.S. university, testified about how her child was forcibly murdered by the government. She said, ``[T]he room was full of moms who had just gone through a forced abortion. Some moms were crying. Some moms were mourning. Some moms were screaming. And one mom was rolling on the floor with unbearable pain.'' Then Wuijan said it was her turn, and through her tears she described what she called her journey in hell.'' Not only has the Obama Administration turned a blind eye to the atrocities being committed under the one child policy, but continues to provide financial support--contrary to U.S. law--to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization that supports, plans, implements, defends and whitewashes the Chinese government's brutal program. Twenty nine years ago--on May 9, 1984--I authored the first amendment ever to a foreign aid bill to deny funding to organizations such as the UNFPA that are complicit with China's forced abortion and involuntary sterilization policy. It passed. After all these years, it is astonishing that policy makers--including and especially the Obama Administration--remain indifferent or worse, supportive, of these massive crimes against women and children. The Obama Administration has long enabled this cruel policy by its silence and financial support to the tune of $50 million a year to the UNFPA. The result of this policy is a nightmarish ``brave new world'' with no precedent in human history, where women are psychologically wounded, girls fall victim to sex-selective abortion (in some provinces 140 boys are born for every 100 girls), and most children grow up without brothers or sisters, aunts or uncles or cousins. Women bear the major brunt of the one child policy not only as victimized mothers. Due to the male preference in China's society and the limitation of the family size to one child, the policy has directly contributed to what is accurately described as gendercide--the deliberate extermination of a girl--born or unborn--simply because she happens to be a girl. As a result of the Chinese government's barbaric attack on mothers and their children, there are some 100 million missing daughters in China today. Because of the missing girls--China today has become the human sex trafficking magnate of the world. Women and young girls from outside the country are being sold as commodities throughout China--a direct consequence of the one child policy. Several prominent people including Ted Turner have suggested that the United States--indeed the world-- needs to follow China's example and promulgate a one child per couple policy. Mr Speaker, despite the best and slickest market branding money can buy, the stubborn fact remains that Planned Parenthood clinics are among the most dangerous places on Earth for a child. Planned Parenthood's own personnel are now taking a second look and, thanks to ultrasound, are clearly seeing what is being done to millions of children in the womb. One of those abortion providers who took a second look and walked away is Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director. In her book ''Unplanned,'' Abby Johnson exposes the duplicity and cruelty of what really goes on behind closed doors at a Planned Parenthood clinic. In it she writes how she witnessed and assisted in an abortion of a 13-week-old baby by holding the ultrasound probe, and as she pointed out in the book, it was the first ultrasound- guided abortion at that facility. She writes in the book: ``The details startled me. At 13 weeks you could clearly see the profile of the head, both arms, 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 the 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: ``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. It gently probed the baby's side, and for a quick second I felt relief But I couldn't shake an inner disquiet that was quickly mounting to horror as I watched the screen.'' Remember, this is an abortion clinic director saying this. ``The next movement was a sudden jerk of a tiny foot of the baby as he started kicking, as if trying to move away from the probing invader.'' ``As the cannula pressed in, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away. It seemed clear to me that the fetus could feel the cannula, and it did not like the feeling. And then the doctor's voice broke through, startling me: `Beam me up, Scotty,' the abortionist said lightheartedly to the nurse. He was telling her to turn on the suction, in an abortion the suction isn't turned on until the doctor feels he has the cannula in exactly the right place. Abbey Johnson, abortion clinic director, went on to write: ``I had a sudden urge to yell, Stop; to shake the woman and say, Look at what's happening to your baby. Wake up; hurry. Stop them. But even as I was thinking 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. ``My eyes shot back to the screen. 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. 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 was lost in the blink of an eye. ``What I have told people for years''--8 years as a clinic director at a Planned Parenthood clinic-- ``what I have told people for years,'' Abby Johnson continues, ``what I believed and taught and defended is a lie.'' Abby Johnson is now an amazing pro-life leader. Mr. Speaker, as we stand here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives this afternoon marking 40 years since seven members of the U.S. Supreme Court imposed abortion on demand for all nine months on the United States of America, the legacy of Roe v Wade--dead babies and injured women, shattered families--begs reappraisal. And courageous women like Abby Johnson are showing the way. Mr. Speaker, we have a duty to protect. The struggle to re-establish durable protections for the most discriminated minority in America today--unborn babies-- is worth any personal sacrifice, inconvenience or pain. We cannot allow the violence against women and their children to continue. I would like now to yield to my good friend and colleague, Marsha Blackburn.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Marsha Blackburn, for her exemplary leadership and for her very eloquent statement today. I'd like to yield to Congresswoman Ann Wagner, the gentlelady from Missouri.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much for that very powerful statement. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you so much, Mr. Nunnelee. I yield to Mr. Pompeo of the Fourth District of Kansas.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to yield to my good friend, Mr. Schweikert, the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to Vicky Hartzler.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for her very eloquent statement. I yield to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Huelskamp.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is a high honor and privilege to yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank you so very much for sharing not only with the Congress, but with the country, that very moving story. I would like to now yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding, and I applaud his tremendous leadership over the years in defense of the culture of life, for being consistent on all human rights issues--from child soldiers and combating that abuse of children to the abuse of unborn children by way of abortion. So I thank him for that. I would just make a few points, because we are coming to a close, Mr. Speaker. Today, doctors diagnose illness and disability before birth. New and exciting breakthrough health care interventions for the unborn, including microsurgeries, are leading to an ever-expanding array of successful treatments and cures of sick or disabled unborn babies. A few other Members have made this point very clearly, as do I, which is that unborn children are society's littlest patients, and they might need health care just like any one of us. In stark contrast, abortion methods rip, tear, dismember or chemically poison the fragile bodies of unborn babies to death, and abortion pills cause premature expulsion from the womb and death. There is nothing benign, compassionate, or just about an act that utterly destroys the life of a child and often physically, psychologically, and emotionally harms women. And despite the near total absence of any meaningful reporting by the news media, women get hurt and even die from legal abortions. According to the most recent Centers for Disease Control report, from 1973 to 2008, at least 403 women tragically died in the United States from legal abortion. And that sad fact is almost certainly a significant undercount because the methodology employed by CDC is passive and voluntary and likely to miss instances of both mortality and morbidity. In the years since CDC's ``most recent report,'' many more women have surely died, like Tonya Reaves, a 24-year-old woman who died last July from a botched second trimester dismemberment abortion, a D&E, at a Chicago area Planned Parenthood abortion mill. The abortion industry, Mr. Speaker, excels at surface appeal argument and at propaganda. Indeed, the misleading term ``safe abortion'' purposefully misses the point that no abortion, legal or illegal, is ever safe for the baby, and all are fraught with negative health consequences for the mother. Today, at least 104 credible studies show significant psychological harm, major depression, and/or elevated suicide risk to women who abort. The Times of London reported that: Senior psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness in women who have had no previous history of psychological problems. They've found that women who've had abortions have twice the level of psychological problems, three times the level of depression as women who have given birth or who have never been pregnant. One comprehensive study out of New Zealand in 2006 found that 78.6 percent of the 15- to 18-year-olds who had had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression as compared to 31 percent of their peers. Mr. Speaker, there are at least 115 studies that show significant association between abortion and subsequent premature births. You never read about this in the news media. Researchers Shah and Zao show a 36 percent increase for pre-term birth after one abortion and a staggering 93 percent increased risk after two. What does this mean for children? Pre-term birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital anomalies. Pre-term infants have a greater risk of suffering chronic lung disease, sensory deficits, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments, and behavioral problems. Low birth weight is similarly associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity. These are consequences that are visited upon a woman later on. She's never told this at the abortion clinic that subsequent children that she will have later in her life could suffer prematurity and low birth weight. And, finally, the extremism of the pro-abortion industry is shocking. Last spring, the House of Representatives took up Trent Frank's bill to ban sex-selection abortion. The bill garnered a solid majority, 246- 168 in the House. President Obama, however, made it absolutely clear that he would veto the sex-selection abortion prohibition should it be sent to the White House. While sex selection targets almost exclusively girls for extermination, simply because they're girls, the egregious practice remains legal in most of our States. In fact, only four States-- Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Arizona--and several countries, including the United Kingdom, prohibit sex-selection abortion. And yet we have not been able to get that legislation enacted into law, and it's opposed by President Obama. Mr. Speaker, we need to stand up for life. Again, I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Nebraska for having this second Special Order on defending life. And like Jeff, I do look forward to the March for Life on January 25 where we will all rally in defense of the defenseless.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I want to thank the distinguished majority leader for his exemplary leadership for many years, but especially as majority leader, and for reminding all of us that the unborn child, especially over the last 2 decades, has become the littlest patient, where microsurgeries and interventions can save children and enhance their life. I appreciate his extraordinary leadership. I now yield to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I now yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Pearce, for that very moving statement. I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I now yield to the distinguished obstetrician, Dr. Roe, Phil Roe, from Tennessee.