Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), who is also a pharmacist.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a friend and colleague for several decades.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I now yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson). As I said before, there are doctors who are outspoken in their defense of life, Dr. Thompson is one of those.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald), a good friend and colleague.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, after decades of noble struggle and sacrifice, pro-life Americans are hopeful that government- sanctioned violence against children and the exploitation of women by abortion may be nearing an end, although in a very real way the struggle to defend innocent human life now enters a critically important new phase. Because of the Dobbs case, because the Supreme Court has finally seemingly accepted a relook at Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions, the Federal Government and the States-based suit have new authority to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable among us. Protection for unborn children is at a tipping point. In 2022, the Supreme Court can begin dismantling the culture of death that it has imposed on America. Mr. Speaker, for decades and right up to this very moment, abortion supporters have gone through extraordinary lengths to ignore, to trivialize, and to cover up the battered baby victim. With stolid resolve, they defend the indefensible. Why does dismembering a child with sharp knives, pulverizing a child with powerful suction devices, chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals--one method euphemistically called medical abortion--why does all of this fail to elicit so much as a scintilla of empathy, mercy, or compassion from the so-called pro-choice crowd? Have the physical and emotional consequences of women been underreported? You bet they have. I have been in the pro-life movement for almost 50 years. Both my wife, Marie, and I do work with a lot of women who have had abortions. They tell us stories of agony that, just like the fact of the unborn child's worth and dignity, has been trivialized by the other side of this issue. Mr. Speaker, why are children born alive during some late-term abortions not given the same standard of care and respect as premature infants born at that very same age? They are left to die, or they are just killed after they are born. President Biden understands the gruesome reality of abortion and this injustice. At least he once did. As Senator Biden wrote to constituents in explaining his support for the Hyde amendment, for example, prohibiting taxpayer funding for elective abortions, he said it would protect both the woman and her unborn child. He stated at the time he had consistently, on no fewer than 50 occasions, voted against Federal funding of abortions. Further, those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them. Today, the President has weaponized the entire Federal bureaucracy to aggressively promote abortion on demand at home and overseas, including full court press to force taxpayers to fund abortions on demand including the repeal of the Hyde amendment. Last September, the House passed a bill, the abortion on demand until birth act. Of course, it had a different name that just cloaked the misery that it would impose. That bill would not only codify late-term abortions, it would also nullify nearly every modest pro-life restriction ever enacted by the States including a woman's right to know laws in 35 states, parental involvement statutes in 37 states, pain-capable unborn child protection laws in 19 states, sex-election abortion bans in almost a dozen states and waiting periods in 26 states. By his words and his deeds, the President has become the abortion President. I think he wants to own that. Mr. Speaker, this all comes at a time when ultrasound imaging has made unborn babies more visible, with a greater clarity than ever before. Breakthrough research has now found that unborn children can feel pain at a gestational age of 15 weeks and maybe earlier. Today modern medicine treats an ever-increasing number of unborn children with disability and disease as patients in need of diagnosis and life-enhancing treatments before birth. Unborn babies are society's youngest patients and deserve protection, not death by abortion. Science informs us that birth is merely an event--albeit a very important one--in the life of the child. It is not the beginning of his or her life. As most people know, after the ultrasound the grandparents, the parents, and the friends get pictures of the child in utero. The ultrasound pictures are the first baby pictures that are now plastered on all of our refrigerators in great expectation for that event called birth. The right to life is the first human right, and it must be guaranteed to everyone regardless of race, age, sex, disability, stage of development, or condition of dependency. Life is not just for the planned, the privileged, or the perfect. We need to protect these innocent children. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership, and I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their concerted efforts to get this legislation and like-minded legislation moving forward; and, of course, Jim McGovern, he is the prime sponsor, and I am the prime Republican cosponsor, I want to thank him for his leadership on this as well. It is so very, very important. Mr. Speaker, Mihrigul Tursun said she pleaded with God to end her life as her Chinese jailers increased the electrical currents coursing through her body. Mihrigul, a Muslim Uyghur, whose escape from Xi Jinping's genocide led her to the United States, actually broke down weeping at a November 28, 2018, congressional hearing co-chaired by Senator Marco Rubio and I--as co-chairs of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China--as she recounted her experience in one of China's infamous concentration camps. She testified, and I quote her in part, that ``there were around 60 people kept in a 430-square-foot cell, so at night, 10 to 15 women would stand up while the rest of us would sleep on our sides.'' She said, ``There were people there who had not taken a shower in over a year. ``I clearly remember the torture . . .'' she said, ``in the tiger chair the second time I was incarcerated. I was taken to a special room with an electric chair. It was the interrogation room, and it had one light and one chair. There were belts and whips hanging on the wall. I was placed in a high chair that clicked to lock my arms and legs in place and tightened when they pressed the button.'' She goes on, ``My head was shaved beforehand for the maximum impact. The authorities put a helmet-like thing on my head. Each time I was electrocuted,'' she went on, ``my whole body would shake violently, and I could feel the pain in my veins. I thought I would rather die than go through this torture and begged them to kill me. They insulted me with humiliating words and pressured me to admit my guilt. ``The nights were the busiest time in the camps,'' she went on. ``A lot of activities such as transferring people between cells and removing the dead bodies would happen all night long. In the silence of the night, we would hear the men from the other cells groaning in agony. We could hear the beatings, the men screaming. . . .'' ``While burying my 4-month-old baby,'' she had had triplets, ``I was tormented and filled with the guilt of not being able to save my son.'' She admonished us, pleaded with us, ``Please take action against the Chinese officials responsible for my torture and the death of my little boy and the death of so many innocent Uyghurs in the camps.'' Mr. Speaker, there are millions and millions of stories just like this waiting to be told, truly nightmarish accounts of President Xi Jinping's genocide. In response, I, joined by my friend and colleague, Tom Suozzi, introduced the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2018. But this bill, H.R. 1155, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which, again, I cosponsored with Mr. McGovern, is important and necessary to end or at least mitigate our complicity in Xi Jinping's genocide. Let's not forget the documents obtained by The New York Times which made clear that this is Xi Jinping's genocide. He ordered it. And early next year he will be hosting the Winter Olympics. The leaked documents show Xi saying things like show ``absolutely no mercy'' in dealing with the Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities. In one speech he said: ``The weapons of the people's democratic dictatorship must be wielded without any hesitation or wavering.'' Mr. Speaker, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act prohibits imports from Xinjiang to the U.S. by creating a rebuttable presumption. That is the core of this bill, a presumption that all goods produced in the region are made with forced labor unless U.S. Customs and Border Protection certifies by clear and convincing evidence that goods were not produced with forced labor. It is a good bill and deserves the support of every Member of this body.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I thank Mr. McCaul for his extraordinary leadership on China, including his Commission that has made many, many recommendations. I want to thank Chairman Meeks for his leadership as well and, of course, Chairman McGovern, with whom I have worked on this bill, for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I chaired a Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing in May titled ``China, Genocide and the Olympics,'' which helped further underscore why H.R. 1155, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which I have cosponsored with Jim McGovern, is so important and so necessary. At that hearing, we heard testimony from Rayhan Asat, whose brother, Ekpar, a Muslim Uyghur, at last report is still incarcerated in a concentration camp in Xinjiang. Ekpar is a tech entrepreneur, media founder, and philanthropist who won recognition both inside of China and outside. Indeed, our State Department thought so highly of him that he was part of the International Visitors Leadership Program. But upon his return, because he was a Muslim Uyghur, the Chinese authorities arrested him and disappeared him into a concentration camp where he has remained for 5\1/2\ years. What happens, Mr. Speaker, to those swallowed up in these horrific concentration camps? That is something we heard about in another Lantos Commission hearing this past July where Gulzira, a survivor, told us what goes on each and every day. In addition to her horrific, firsthand description of unspeakable physical abuse, organized forced prostitution, rape, and every gross violation of human rights imaginable, she also gave a firsthand account of a forced labor factory in which she made gloves for export for 1\1/2\ years. Gulzira is one of the lucky ones because she was released when Radio Free Asia broadcast her plight to the world. Mr. Speaker, there are millions of stories like hers waiting to be told, truly nightmarish accounts of President Xi Jinping's genocide. And make no mistake about it, this is Xi Jinping's genocide. He is personally responsible for having ordered it. The rape and sexual abuse of women being held in so-called internment camps, forced abortion, and involuntary sterilization to prevent the birth of Uyghur children are in direct violation of Article II(d) of the U.N. Genocide Convention, which states in part that genocide includes imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group. Forced labor on a massive scale that allows Chinese companies to profit--and profit big time--from modern-day slavery is also absolutely pervasive in Xinjiang. Documents obtained by The New York Times and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists exposed just how cruel these plans are, originating, again, with Xi Jinping himself who early next year will be hosting the Olympic Games, which is outrageous. The leaked documents show how Xi directed the crackdowns, saying that the Communist Party must put the ``organs of dictatorship'' to work and show ``absolutely no mercy'' in dealing with Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities. In one speech, President Xi said: ``The weapons of the people's democratic dictatorship must be wielded without any hesitation or wavering.'' Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned by a report from Josh Rogin in The Washington Post just last week stating how the Biden administration and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman sought to undermine the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which passed the Senate last July and the House last Congress 406-3. According to Josh Rogin: ``Biden administration officials have been quietly telling lawmakers to slow down. . . . Sherman made it clear that the administration prefers a more targeted and deliberative approach to determining which goods are the products of forced labor.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record Josh Rogin's column from The Washington Post, ``Opinion: Congress needs to act on Xi Jinping's genocide now.'' [From the Global Opinions, Dec. 2, 2021] Opinion: Congress Needs To Act on XI Jinping's Genocide Now (By Josh Rogin, Columnist) This week, a private U.K.-based investigative panel released what it says are classified Chinese government documents that appear to show how Chinese President Xi Jinping personally laid the groundwork for systematic forced assimilation of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. It's the most damning proof to date of the ongoing Uyghur genocide. So why can't Congress pass a simple bill to stop the products connected to that genocide from ending up in U.S. homes and businesses? Yet the documents, which likely come from the same tranche of leaked Chinese Communist Party communications revealed by the New York Times over two years ago, add to the already abundant evidence that the Chinese government's mass internment, mass forced labor, forced population control, family destruction and cultural erasure of the Uyghurs fit the United Nation's definition of genocide as ``a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.'' Yet, the Democrat-led Congress can't seem to get the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which passed the Senate unanimously in July, to President Biden's desk. Pointing to procedural issues and promises of future action, Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate can't seem to agree on a strategy to pass the bill through both chambers, despite publicly claiming they support it. On Wednesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the co-sponsor of the, Senate's version of the bill, pushed to add it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, a must- pass piece of legislation. Senate Democrats objected under a procedural rule that bars amendments that affect appropriations. Rubio called that a dodge. ``This is about the fact that they don't want this bill to pass over at the House,'' Rubio said on the Senate floor, referring directly to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Rubio also said U.S. corporations that profit from forced labor in China, such as Apple and Nike, have been lobbying against the bill, which is true. On Thursday, Pelosi denied Rubia's accusations of stalling and promised her chamber would pass the House's version of the legislation, introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), which the House passed last year 406 to 3. In an interview, McGovern told me his bill will be voted on and likely passed again in the House next week. But if and when that happens, that won't be the end. The two chambers will still have passed two different versions of the bill, with no firm plan for how to reconcile them. Meanwhile, Biden administration officials have been quietly telling lawmakers to slow down. Administration sources confirmed that in an October call between Deputy Secretary of State Wendy R. Sherman and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the other co-sponsor, Sherman made it clear that the administration prefers a more targeted and deliberative approach to determining which goods are the products of forced labor. She also told Merkley that getting allied buy- in was critical and more effective than unilateral action. ``To be clear, the Department of State is not opposing this amendment,'' a State Department spokesman told me. ``We share the Congress' concerns about forced labor in Xinjiang.'' In other words, while the administration supports the legislation in public, they are asking Democrats to essentially water it down in private. Sherman's specific criticism relates to a part of the bill that would require a presumption that all products coming from Xinjiang are tainted by forced labor unless the importer can prove otherwise. This happens to be the exact provision corporations are also objecting to. Maybe it's a coincidence. ``It isn't partisan or in any way controversial for the U.S. to be unequivocally, resoundingly opposed to genocide and slave labor,'' Merkley told me. ``The Senate passed this legislation in July, and it's time to get it over the finish line.'' There is a legitimate concern that supply chains for everything from solar panels to sneakers could be affected by the bill. But our dependency on products from an area where genocide is occurring is the root of the problem. Passing the bill now would send industry a clear signal to speed up what they are already doing, which is to stop doing business in areas riddled with forced labor. Also, forced labor products from China put U.S. manufacturers at a severe disadvantage. ``We must shine a light on the inhumane practice of forced labor, hold the perpetrators accountable and stop this exploitation,'' Pelosi said while passing the bill last year. ``And we must send a clear message to Beijing: These abuses must end now.'' Another year has gone and the bill still lingers. Pelosi has been a champion for human rights in China for decades, but the fight is not over and the ball is in her court. Overall, it's up to both parties and both chambers to act to stop a genocide now. There's no good reason to delay.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. We have no access, Mr. Speaker, to the concentration camps in Xinjiang. We have no idea the supply chains. It is closed. It is a dictatorship. There are no onsite inspections. Again, we are talking genocide against these Muslims who are being wiped off the face of the Earth. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act prohibits imports from Xinjiang to the United States by creating a rebuttable presumption. That is the core of this bill, that all goods produced in the region are made with forced labor unless U.S. Customs and Border Protection certifies by clear and convincing evidence that goods were not produced with forced labor. So the rebuttable presumption is the key to this legislation. It is very workable. As my good friend and colleague noted, cotton, solar panels, and so many other things are produced there. We need to know. We need to stop them from coming here.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Again, if these companies can prove that it is not made by forced labor, not made as part of this genocide, then it would be welcomed here. But we know that is unlikely to happen. My hope is that we will unite--Republican and Democrat, Democrat and Republican--around this bill and get it to the President as soon as humanly possible. Delay is denial. People are being slaughtered each and every day in Xinjiang, and we can do something, maybe not a whole lot, but something to mitigate and stop this.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, Mr. Jimmy Lai, the renowned founder of Apple Daily and prominent supporter of democracy, turns 74 today. A brave Beijing critic and a devout Catholic, Mr. Lai has been on the forefront of fighting for press freedom. Consequently, he was taken into custody and denied bail by Hong Kong authorities acting at the apparent behest of the Chinese Communist Party more than a year ago. Under the so-called ``national security law,'' Beijing has been punishing anything it considers remotely resembling the vague crimes of ``secession,'' ``subversion,'' ``terrorism'' and ``collusion with foreign forces'' with penalties up to life imprisonment. According to Joanna Chiu, a former Hong Kong-based journalist who testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, international engagement including with the United Nations or foreign governments--can now be criminalized as ``collusion with foreign forces.'' Despite deteriorating health and having to spend a second holiday season in a cold prison cell since his arrest, Mr. Lai remains unbroken. He wrote in a letter from prison in April 2021, ``A journalist's responsibility [is] to uphold justice. The era is falling apart before us, and it is time for us to stand tall.'' Indeed, he stands for something larger than himself. Lai's commitment to press freedom and democratic principles began long before the national security law was passed. He has been an outspoken critic of Beijing's control over Hong Kong and a high-profile supporter of the pro-democracy movement. After the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Lai became an ardent critic of the Beijing government, and left the retail industry where he made his fortune for media and politics. He founded Next Media and in 1995, launched Apple Daily, which became Hong Kong's most prominent pro-democracy newspaper. For his work and unstoppable dedication to democratic values, Mr. Lai was just awarded the World Association of News Publishers' highest honor for his sacrifice in the cause of press freedom. The Golden Pen of Freedom is the Association's annual award recognizing individuals or organizations that have made outstanding contributions in the defense and promotion of press freedom. We also need to remember that there are hundreds of other ``Jimmy Lais'' in Hong Kong and beyond, who are determined to stand for freedom of press. Indeed, at a hearing of the bipartisan Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission that I chaired on October 14 of this year, on the State of Civil and Political Rights in Hong Kong, we learned that Hong Kong reportedly has more journalists in jail per capita than any other place on earth. We cannot forget these imprisoned journalists either, and we should say their names: Edmund Wan You-sing, Ryan Law, Cheung Kim Hung, Chan Pui-man, Lam Man Chung, Fung Wai Kong, Yeung Ching-kee, and Gwyneth Ho. These brave journalists continue to be imprisoned, while others have been released on bail awaiting trial. We will continue to keep Jimmy in our prayers and urge that he be released along with the other Hong Kong journalists and democracy advocates unjustly imprisoned.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the global competition for ideas between the community of democracies and the People's Republic of China (PRC) is nowhere more apparent than in Kazakhstan, where the PRC has steadily increased its influence in the country since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The PRC wants Kazakh oil, cheap Kazakh labor, and most importantly, Kazakh government help silencing predominantly-Muslim Central Asian peoples, whose reports of genocide on their kinsmen in Xinjiang are inconvenient and embarrassing to the PRC. While pursuing their goals in Kazakhstan, the PRC pushes its authoritarian governance model, a growing contempt for human rights, and assistance with mass surveillance tools. And too many Kazakh leaders have proven to be all-too-willing accomplices. Perhaps most troubling is the PRC's pressure on Kazakhstan to keep Kazakhs, Uyghurs, Kyrgyz and other Central Asians silent about the genocide and other gross violations of human rights in Xinjiang. On July 13, 2021, Gulzira Auelkhan, an ethnic Kazakh from the PRC who had emigrated to Kazakhstan but returned to China, gave heartbreaking testimony at the hearing I chaired at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission about her experience as a survivor of China's concentration camps. Ms. Auelkhan testified that while she was in the camp, Chinese authorities subjected her to physical, mental, and spiritual torture. One particularly disturbing story was that Chinese authorities inserted needles under her fingernails for attempting to cheat on a Chinese language exam. She also testified that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) runs a forced prostitution system inside these camps, where Chinese men routinely rape the female prisoners. While Chinese authorities released her due to pressure from a Radio Free Asia story that revealed her plight, Gulzira's troubles only increased upon her return to Kazakhstan. Instead of sympathy, Kazakh officials intimidated her, and pressured her family to stop speaking out about the horrors she experienced in Xinjiang. Her refusal to stay silent resulted in her having to flee to the United States in search of a place where she could speak freely about the Chinese concentration camps, and how Kazakhstan rejected her. The fact that Kazakhstan enables China's genocide in Xinjiang arises from Kazakhstan's dependence upon PRC's massive monetary investments, including in the Belt and Road Initiative, and the malfeasance of kleptocratic Kazakh officials. Some of these corrupt officials reportedly have ties with the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), a Kazakh-based company that three billionaire Kazakh businessmen and the Kazakh government founded. ENRC shares ties with members of the former president's family, particularly Timur Kulibayev, who was part of a questionable pipeline deal brokered with Chinese entities. The company has also been investigated by the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO). Sadly the record of gross human rights violations by government officials acting with impunity is not new in Kazakhstan. In 2012, at a hearing I chaired, entitled: ``Kazakhstan: As Stable As It's Government Claims?'', our witnesses provided expert testimony questioning the stability of the country and exposing statewide corruption and massive human rights abuses sanctioned by the Kazakhstan government--including torture and abuse by government security forces. At the time, the government of Kazakhstan was headed by the former authoritarian ``President for Life'' Nazarbayev, who ruled with an iron fist, snuffing out dissent and fighting hard to obscure the serious human rights and democracy deficiencies that marked his reign. Today, unfortunately, his oldest daughter, Dariga Nazarbayeva reportedly carries on the family legacy of corruption as a member of the Kazakh Congress. According to the Eurasia Democracy Initiative, Dariga Nazarbayeva used an illegal passport to open multiple Austrian bank accounts containing millions of dollars, tapping her position and her father's to launder ill-gotten wealth out of the country. A Times of London article recently revealed that she and her son owned over 140 million of property, including the fictional home of Sherlock Holmes, located on 221b Baker Street. There is little hope that these oligarchs, rich with money stolen from their own people with the assistance the genocidal foreign regime of the PRC, will even-handedly administer justice or respect human rights when they so readily abuse the rule of law, jeopardizing the rights and security of their fellow Kazakh citizens at the apparent behest of the CCP and for their own financial interests. The Biden Administration must engage the government of Kazakhstan more forcefully, including the use of sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in pressing the Biden Administration to elevate and combat the human rights abuses in Kazakhstan, address corruption in this strategic part of the world, and do everything it can to counter the CCP's baneful influence in Kazakhstan.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her extraordinary leadership. Madam Speaker, injustice need not be forever. By affirming the Mississippi pro-life law, the Supreme Court can take a powerful step toward inclusion, justice, and respect for the weakest and most vulnerable. Shockingly, since the infamous 1973 abortion decisions, more than 62.5 million unborn children have been killed--a staggering loss of children's lives that equates with the entire population of Italy. Abrogating both duty and due diligence, the 1973 Court wrote: ``We need not resolve the difficult question of when human life begins.'' Sidestepping that threshold and giving no benefit of the doubt to the child, they went on to legalize abortion on demand as if the baby were a tumor to be excised or a disease to be vanquished. For decades, right up to this very moment, abortion advocates have gone to extraordinary lengths to ignore, trivialize, and cover up the battered baby victim. But today, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are more visible than ever before. This begs the question: Why does dismembering a child with sharp knives, pulverizing a child with powerful suction devices, or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals fail to elicit so much as a scintilla of empathy, mercy, or compassion? Madam Speaker, someday future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, professing to be devoted to human rights and so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect the vulnerable, could have instead so aggressively promoted death to children and the exploitation of women by abortion. Injustice, Madam Speaker, need not be forever.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, President Biden's massive new multitrillion dollar tax and spend bill, the so-called Build back Better Act will cost at least $4 trillion according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Chamber, the Build Back Better Act will significantly increase inflation and lead to up to 3 million people losing their employer sponsored health insurance plans. Astonishingly, as we debate this legislation on the floor of the House today, there is still no detailed cost analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Among the bill's most egregious provisions, it: Effectively bans Catholic and other faith-based schools from participating in the expanded child care program; Dramatically raises taxes on businesses and individuals; Grants more power to the IRS to target taxpayers by removing taxpayer protection requirements and hiring 87,000 additional agents; Permits taxpayer money to go to entities involved China's genocide against the Uyghur Muslims; Institutes price controls on prescription drugs and subjects companies that refuse to comply to a massive excise tax, which would cripple innovation and could cause the removal of life-saving drugs from the U.S. market. And, shockingly, the legislation forces taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand in several new and expanded programs. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize or facilitate the killing of an unborn child. The so-called Build Back Better Act: Gives states $30 billion over three years to create reinsurance programs for health insurance issuers. There are no protections whatsoever to prevent subsidization of plans covering elective abortion, Extends to January 1, 2027 the increases to premium tax credits available for consumers through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Premium tax credits allow taxpayer funding to subsidize ACA plans that provide elective abortion; Provides $10 billion worth of public health funding grants that aren't Hyde Amendment protected, Makes permanent the Health Coverage Tax Credit without Hyde protection to prevent taxpayer funds in this program from paying for health plans that include elective abortion; Mandates abortion coverage in the Affordable Care Act (ACA); And more. The National Right to Life Committee strongly opposes this legislation and pointed out that: ``The 2010 Obamacare law as would the Build Back Better (BBB) created multiple new streams of federal funding that are ``self-appropriated'' flowing outside regular appropriations. ``That said, the Obamacare law contains a provision that specifically permitted states to ban elective abortion coverage in their exchanges, and 25 states passed legislation doing so. The BBB, starting in 2024, would explicitly override the laws of 11 of these states--states that did not expand their Medicaid programs. One additional non-expansion state (Wyoming) will also now be required to cover abortion. ``Further, the provisions mandate that Obamacare silver exchange plans cover abortion and transportation for abortions (without cost sharing) for the Medicaid coverage gap population. The BBB provides unlimited appropriations to finance this abortion expansion. The BBB would mandate coverage in the abovementioned 12 states of ``services described in subsection (a)(4)(C) of section 1905 of such [the Social Security] Act [family planning services] for which Federal payments would have been so available [``under title XIX of the Social Security Act] which are not otherwise provided under such plan as part of the essential health benefits package described in section 1302(a).'' Obamacare specifically excluded abortion as a required essential health benefit under section 1303, and this BBB provision would effectively override the 2010 law.'' The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote to every Member of Congress on Wednesday and said: ``it is completely unacceptable that the current House version of the Build Back Better Act expands taxpayer funding of abortion . . . No proposal to support individuals needing affordable health care coverage should compel Americans to pay for the destruction of human life through their tax dollars . . . In addition, the latest text maintains the proposed health care affordability fund for states without Hyde protections, and provides funding for several public health grants without Hyde protections. This fundamental problem of expanded taxpayer funding of abortion in the Build Back Better Act must be remedied before the bill moves forward.'' The Susan B. Anthony List opposes the bill and said yesterday: ``It is critical to remember that whenever abortion is not explicitly excluded from funding, it is included . . . A careful reading of this bill shows billions of dollars being appropriated outside of Hyde protections, leaving them available for direct and indirect abortion funding, upsetting the status quo and funneling money to the abortion industry . . . The ACA coverage provision mandates abortion coverage for its Medicaid-gap population in the twelve states that opted out of Medicaid expansion for plan years 2024 and 2025. It is notable that none of these states currently fund abortion coverage. This language would coerce them states to cover abortion against the will of their constituents.'' The Hyde Amendment, Madam Speaker, has saved more than 2.4 million lives--about 60,000 per year since it was first enacted. Hyde protections need to be added to this bill. It is time, I believe, for more of us to face the harsh reality of what abortion does to children and look beyond the sound bites and slogans. No-one in the media ever bothers to expose the violent methods of abortion that include dismemberment of a child's fragile body, including decapitation, and that drugs like RU-486 starve the baby to death. Or that unborn babies killed by abortion at 20 weeks or later experience excruciating suffering and physical pain. And until rendered unconscious or dead by these hideous procedures, the baby feels the pain every cut according to medical experts in life-enhancing prenatal surgery. Abortion is not health care unless one construes the precious life of an unborn child to be analogous to a tumor to be excised or a disease to be vanquished pregnancy is not a disease. Mr. Biden once wrote constituents, explaining that his support for laws against funding for abortion, by saying ``it would protect both the woman and her unborn child.'' Mr. Biden went on to say ``that those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.'' I agree. Most Americans agree. Over the years, the polls have consistently shown that Americans do not support taxpayer funded abortion. The January 2021 Marist poll found that by a margin of 58 percent to 38 percent oppose taxpayer funded abortion. The Marist poll found that a supermajority of 65 percent of Independents oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. Unborn babies need the President of the United States and Members of Congress to be their friend and advocate, not powerful adversaries.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it was completely unacceptable that the Build Back Better Act expands taxpayer funding of abortion in many new and expanding programs. The National Right to Life Committee has pointed out that even ObamaCare contained a provision that specifically permitted States to ban elective abortions in their exchanges. The BBB, starting in 2024, would explicitly override the laws of those States. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Biden once said that those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them. This bill coerces us to pay for abortion on demand. Mr. Speaker, unborn babies need the President of the United States and Members of Congress to be their friends and advocates, not powerful adversaries subsidizing their violent destruction.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the RENACER Act, S. 1064, which seeks to hold the regime of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua accountable for its ongoing violations of human rights and subversion of the rule of law and democracy in that country. I am a proud cosponsor of the companion bill in the House, introduced by my good friend and colleague from New Jersey, Albio Sires, and I must say that today's vote could not be more timely. For this Sunday, November 7, the Ortega regime will hold sham elections where those who would have legitimately challenged strongman Daniel Ortega are either in exile or in prison. Among those who have been arrested are Cristina Chamorro Barrios, Juan Sebastian Chamorro, Arturo Cruz Jr., Medardo Mairena, Felix Maradiaga, Miguel Mora and Noel Vidaurre. This past July I convened a hearing as co-chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission entitled ``The Ortega Government and the Human Cost of Repression in Nicaragua.'' Among those who testified at the hearing were the wives of two of the arrested would-be candidates: Felix Maradiaga's wife Berta Valles, and Juan Sebastian Chamorro's wife Victoria Cardenas. These brave women gave voice to their husbands' courage, and spoke on their behalf because they could not. They recounted to us the repression unleashed by Daniel Ortega and his wife Rosario Murillo, who is running for Vice President. Berta Valles recounted to us that ``For years, Felix has been a target of attacks by the Ortega regime because he speaks truth to power. He has been beaten, confined to house arrest, and threatened. For months, he endured 24/7 surveillance by the police. They have tried again and again to silence him, but he never stands down.'' Likewise, Victoria Cardenas also told us that because her husband, Juan Sebastian Chamorro, dared to speak out against Ortega's oppression, ``the regime has also persecuted and harassed me and my family. They have brought a civil case against me, my sister, and my mother, which would take away all my mother's assets. They have brought a criminal case against me, and there is an open warrant for my arrest. It is clear that Ortega is using every part of Nicaragua's institutions, including its judicial system, to not only persecute those who challenge the government, but also their family members.'' Ladies and Gentlemen, we must counter this regime of repression. It should be clear to all that this Sunday's election, with opposition leaders in prison or in exile, is a sham. I urge all of you to support the RENACER Act, which among other things would apply targeted sanctions to advance democracy, coordinate with our diplomatic partners to implement a sanctions strategy and commit the United States further in support of an independent news media in Nicaragua. All who oppose the Ortega regime in Nicaragua--be they from the Democratic Left or the Political Right--stand united against tyranny. Likewise, we too are unified, Republicans and Democrats, in opposing Ortega's tyranny. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan RENACER Act, and stand with the people of Nicaragua.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, a hundred years ago, two independent library associations merged into one amazing library--the Middletown Township Public Library. Congratulations to Library Director Heather Andolsen and Board President Bill Bucco--and library staff and board members past and present--for this remarkable achievement. A hundred years ago: Warren Harding was in the White House; New Jerseyans Joseph Frelinghuysen and Walter Evans Edge were in the U.S. Senate; Theodore Appleby was Monmouth County's Member of Congress; and the Freeholder Director was Bryant Newcomb. America and the world in 1921 were still reeling and recovering from WWI and from the 1918 H1N1 Flu Pandemic that infected a third of the world's population and killed 50 million people. That same year--1921--my favorite baseball team bought land to build Yankee Stadium (I was there in the stands in 1969 for Mickey Mantle Day); the treatment of diabetes was significantly advanced with the isolation of insulin and Albert Einstein got the Nobel Prize for Physics for his many contributions to theoretical physics including his 1905 theory of relativity. And it was Albert Einstein who famously said ``the only thing you absolutely need to know is the location of the library'' which in the early years of MTPL perhaps begged the question, where is Dorothy Norton and her Ford Model T library on wheels? Today, the Library is an important cultural and meeting center and a venue for assistance when disasters hit like Superstorm Sandy. MTPL is an oasis of learning, knowledge, wisdom, and knowhow. As food nurtures the body, the availability and accessibility of books and other literary works feeds the mind and soul. A few weeks ago, I introduced an anti-human trafficking bill named after the great abolitionist, author, orator, and former slave Frederick Douglass. I was joined at the press conference by Frederick Douglass' great, great, great grandson Ken Morris, who quoted his famous ancestor who said, ``knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave'' and ``Once you learn to read you will be forever free.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, earlier this week in my district in Ocean County, New Jersey, family members, friends, and service providers for children with autism marked the official opening of the Joseph H. Vicari Sensory Space inside the Toms River Branch of the Ocean County Library system. Like so many worthwhile endeavors across our country, this project had been slowed--but not stopped--by the impact of COVID-19. Originally due to open earlier this year, this Sensory Space is now fully operational and providing a new hub to boost learning experiences for children with autism. Housed within the heart of the main branch of the county library system, the Joseph H. Vicari Sensory Space has been carefully designed and supplied with special learning tools to help develop the senses, encourage communication and social interactions, relieve stress and anxiety, and promote calmness and well-being in children with autism. The Sensory Space offers a comfortable place and sends a positive message to people with varying degrees of sensory processing abilities who might feel inhibited in social environments. Having toured the new facility this spring with Ocean County Commissioner Joseph Vicari, Ocean County Library Director Susan Quinn and Ocean County Library Commission Chair Ruthanne Scaturro and several dedicated library officials, I am confident that this space will not only serve those who visit exceptionally well, but will also inspire and serve as a model of how a community can expand learning opportunities and accommodate children on the autism spectrum. The Sensory Space includes such innovative features as: A touching wall that uses musical sounds, shapes, numbers and colors for visual and auditory stimulation. A sensory canopy of billowing, magnetic fabrics that create an impression of clouds overhead. LED illuminators for aid in color recognition, sensory stimulation and visual attention. An ocean wave ceiling projector, which combines ambient or customizable audio with colorful light effects to enhance relaxation. A bubble tube calming device that cycles through hundreds of different shades of color. An LED light table and colorful jigsaw play box, which illustrates the effects of colors and light on everyday objects and passively enhances creative ability. A fiber optic color-changing light waterfall, providing tactile stimulation through touch and manipulation, and visual impressions of changing, bending lights. A colorful mat with matching cubes to build color recognition, stimulate imagination, exercise gross motor skills and develop spatial reasoning. In addition to County Commissioner Vicari, Library Director Quinn and Library Commission Chairwoman Scaturro, other key individuals who must be credited in the development and completion of the space include: Library Commissioner Susan Hutler; Assistant Library Director Sara Siegler; Facilities Manager Joe Cahill; Assistant Facilities Managers Michael Erickson and Barry DePaul; Toms River Branch Chief Librarian Rachel Lavoie-Dohn; Jackson Branch Librarian Wendi Smolowitz, Chair of the Library's Autism Resources Committee, and Administrative Clerk Kelly Nichols. Nearly twenty-five years ago, Ocean County residents, Bobbie and Billy Gallagher, parents with two small children with autism, reached out to me looking for help and underscoring the fact that the federal government was doing next to nothing in providing support for research, early education intervention and treatments for children with autism. Armed with data and their own research, the Gallaghers helped me win approval of landmark federal legislation, the ASSURE Act of 2000--to create a comprehensive federal program to combat autism. Since then, Congress has enacted three additional comprehensive laws I have written to provide significant federal resources for research, education, and early intervention for children with autism. My most recent law, known as the Autism CARES Act of 2019, authorized $1.8 billion through 2024 for research grants, awareness programs, surveillance, early detection and intervention, parental support and training for health care professionals. And for the first time, my new law will expand federal support to adults with autism. Over the last two decades, the support systems for children and families with autism has grown nationwide, with many community organizations leading the way. I am deeply grateful for the innovative, local grassroots efforts here in Ocean County--especially and including the Joseph H. Vicari Sensory Space, with its pioneering, state-of-the-art facility that will attract and support individuals with autism and his or her caregivers for many years to come.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, against the backdrop of President Biden's demand that Congress immediately pass an unprecedented $3.5 trillion tax and spend budget package that constitutes the largest tax hike since 1968 and massive new unsustainable debt, the House votes today to extend the debt ceiling until December 3rd. I will vote no. One analysis shows that Biden's budget--championed by Senator Bernie Sanders--could cost up to $5.5 trillion after accounting for several budget gimmicks that artificially lower the price tag. Despite the fact that approximately $1.3 trillion of previously appropriated COVID funds remain either unobligated (about $800 billion) or obligated but unspent (about $500 billion)--sitting idle in the government coffers--the Biden administration is demanding more power to borrow. There has also been a serious lack of transparency as to how COVID funds are spent. In a July report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)--the federal government's ``watchdog agency''--recommended ``that Health and Human Services (HHS) improve transparency over tens of billions of dollars in unspent relief funds.'' The GAO also recommended that ``the Office of Management and Budget and Department of Treasury issue timely guidance for audits of hundreds of billions in state and local COVID relief funds.'' Nothing but political will--and a genuine commitment to responsible governance and spending within our means--precludes redirecting some or all of the $1.3 trillion unobligated and unspent COVID funds to mitigate the debt, instead of new borrowing. There was a time when then-Senator Biden was concerned with the detrimental impact of debt on the economy and on those--our children and grandchildren--who will someday pay a huge price for today's profligate government spending and the borrowing needed to sustain it. In a Senate speech in 2004, then-Senator Biden opposed raising the debt ceiling and condemned the ``threat of massive deficits'' and said, ``the bill for our decisions will be sent to our children and grandchildren, in the form of the additional debt we authorize today.'' In 2006, Biden said: `` . . . I am voting against the debt limit increase . . . the tsunami of debt created by the policies of this administration (George W. Bush) has to go somewhere . . . But as the rest of the world copes with the waves of U.S. debt, we are now all in the same leaky boat. There is just so much of our debt other nations want to hold . . . We need both more awareness, and more understanding, of this fundamental threat to our economic well being and the global economy.'' Today, with our national debt far worse than ever--it was $8.5 trillion in 2006, today it's $28.4 trillion--the President ought to heed his own words.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. For the first time ever by Congressional statute, this legislation would legally enable the violent death of unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, decapitation, forced expulsion from the womb, and deadly poisons for any reason until birth. This bill will nullify every modest pro-life restriction ever enacted by the States, including women's right-to-know laws in 35 States, parental involvement statutes in 37 States, pain capable unborn child protection laws in 19 States, waiting period laws in 26 States, and more. This bill constitutes an existential threat to unborn babies. Madam Speaker, this bill is far outside the American mainstream and goes far beyond Roe v. Wade. This bill constitutes an existential threat to unborn children and to the value of life itself. For the first time ever by congressional statute, H.R. 3755 would legally enable the violent death of unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, decapitation, forced expulsion from the womb, deadly poisons, or other methods at any time until birth. A significant majority of Americans are deeply concerned about protecting the lives of unborn children. A 2021 Marist Poll found that 65 percent of Americans want Roe v. Wade reinterpreted to either send the issue to the states or stop legalized abortion. Of that 65 percent majority of Americans--40 percent of Democrats would ``allow certain restrictions on abortions as determined by each state.'' If enacted, this bill will nullify every modest prolife restriction ever enacted by the states including: women's right to know laws in 35 states; parental involvement statues in 37 states; pain capable unborn child protection laws in 19 states; and waiting period laws in 26 states, and more. Seventy percent of Americans, according to the 2021 Marist poll, oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down syndrome--with over half of those who identify as pro-choice (56 percent), opposed, or strongly opposed to abortion due to the expectation a child will be born with Down syndrome. Americans seek to ``embrace'' and not ``erase'' those babies identified as having an extra chromosome. H.R. 3755 overturns state laws that protect children with Down syndrome as well. The U.S. Supreme Court majority in Roe v. Wade wrote: ``We need not resolve the difficult question of when human life begins.'' Sidestepping that threshold question and giving no benefit of the doubt to the child, they went on to legalize and enable abortion on demand. For decades, abortion advocates have gone to extraordinary lengths to ignore, trivialize, and cover-up the battered baby-victim. But today, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are more visible than ever before. Modern medicine today treats unborn children with disability or disease as a patient in need of diagnosis and treatment. Birth is an event--albeit an important one--but not the beginning of life. Regarding international law, the bill falsely states that ``Core human rights treaties ratified by the United States protect access to abortion.'' In fact, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the U.S. has ratified, is concerned about unborn children being killed. It states in Article 6 that ``Every human being has the inherent right to life'' and that ``No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.'' It goes on to declare that the ``sentence of death . . . shall not be carried out on pregnant women.'' The ICCPR creates an exemption from execution for pregnant women, recognizing that their unborn children have an independent claim to legal protection, as do all unborn children. The legislation under consideration by the House today is deceptively titled the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021. Abortion is not health care unless one construes the precious life of an unborn child to be analogous to a tumor to be excised or a disease to be vanquished.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership. And I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) for her extraordinary efforts on behalf of the unborn. It has been, frankly, a team effort, and what a team. Mr. Speaker, the legislation under consideration by the House today is deceptively titled the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021. Abortion is not healthcare, unless one construes the precious life of an unborn child to be analogous to a tumor to be excised or a disease to be vanquished. This bill is far outside the American mainstream and goes far beyond Roe v. Wade. This bill constitutes an existential threat to unborn children and to the value of life itself. For the first time ever, by Congressional statute, H.R. 3755 would legally authorize and enable the violent death of unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, decapitation, forced expulsion from the womb, deadly poisons, and other methods at any time and for any reason until birth. A significant majority of Americans are deeply concerned about protecting the lives of unborn children. A 2021 Marist poll found that 65 percent of Americans want Roe v. Wade reinterpreted by either sending the issue back to the States, or to stop legalized abortion. Of that 65 percent majority of Americans, 40 percent of Democrats would ``allow certain restrictions on abortions as determined by each State.'' If enacted, this bill will nullify nearly every modest pro-life restriction ever enacted by the States, including Women's Right to Know laws in 35 States, parental involvement statutes in 37 States, the pain-capable unborn child protection laws in 19 States, waiting periods in 26 States, and so much more. Seventy percent of Americans, Mr. Speaker, according to the 2021 Marist poll, oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down syndrome. Of over half of those who identify as pro-choice, 56 percent oppose or are strongly opposed to abortion due to the expectation the child will be born with Down syndrome. Americans seek to embrace and not erase those babies identified as having an extra chromosome. H.R. 3755, however, overturns State laws that protect children with Down syndrome. Regarding international law, the bill falsely states that: ``Core human rights treaties ratified by the United States protect access to abortion.'' That is absolutely untrue. In fact, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has ratified, is concerned about unborn children being killed. It states, in Article 6, that ``every human being has the inherent right to life'' and that ``no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.'' It goes on to declare that the sentence of death--in other words, capital punishment--shall not be carried out on pregnant women. Why? The ICCPR creates an exemption from execution for pregnant women, recognizing that their unborn children have an independent claim to legal protection, as do all unborn children. Many women have been seriously harmed by abortion. The Silent No More Awareness Campaign and many other initiatives throughout this country-- and this never gets reported on by the press, never gets focused upon so people are more aware of this help out there, both within the church as well as in a nonsectarian point of view, to help women who are post- abortive and who are suffering and suffering so immensely. A few years ago, Linda Shrewsbury, an academic African American with a degree from Harvard, who had an abortion, said at an event right here on Capitol Hill: ``The lies that brought me to that day and to 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 and media campaigns and endless repetition led to a tragic, irreversible decision--the death of my first child.'' She goes on to say: ``I really didn't 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 and 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, and planned and wanted children, I understood the reality and victimhood of my aborted child. ``I understood the absence of moral basis for choosing to disentitle an innocent human being of life. When I embraced the truth, the truth set me free, and I, finally, gained inner peace.'' She goes on to say: ``It is 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.'' Mr. Speaker, the United States Supreme Court majority in 1973, in Roe v. Wade, wrote, in pertinent part: ``We need not resolve the difficult question of when human life begins.'' Sidestepping that threshold question and giving no benefit of the doubt to the child, they went on to legalize and enable abortion on demand. For decades, right up to this very moment, abortion advocates have gone to extraordinary lengths to ignore, trivialize, and cover up the battered baby victim. But today, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are more visible than ever before. When a woman is carrying a child, the first baby pictures, those that often end up on the refrigerator in celebration, are of the ultrasound pictures, not of the newborns--they follow later--but the ultrasound pictures of that little boy or that little girl or the twins. Today, science informs us that birth is an event--albeit a very important one--but an event in the life of a child. It is not the beginning of life. Modern medicine today also treats unborn children with disability or disease as a patient in need of diagnosis and treatment. There has been an explosion in interventions that have saved children's lives and mitigated many, many problems that they may face when the disability, for example, was not caught early. Unborn babies are society's youngest patients and deserve benign, life-affirming medical interventions. All unborn babies deserve our respect and our love, not death by abortion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for his leadership. I do believe and see this--I know it is not represented on the floor of this House when it comes to our good friends and colleagues on the Democrat side, but there is a serious movement in the direction of embracing life, including the unborn child. Like I said, some of those polls that have come out in recent days, if you just ask the question pro-choice versus pro-life, you don't get much insight. But when you break it down under what circumstances that child's life could be lost to abortion, huge majorities--not just for late-term abortion opposition--but huge majorities in America are clearly trending in favor of life. That is, like I mentioned, those with Down syndrome, 70 percent want that child to be given life. For those who are without Down syndrome, there are huge majorities as well. On funding, not only the Marist poll but the other polls show as well that 6 out of 10 Americans do not want their taxpayer dollars being used for funding of abortion. Just a few weeks ago, we passed legislation and appropriations bills, during the summer, that are pending over on the Senate side that would eviscerate the Hyde amendment, an amendment I first offered in 1983 called the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Abortion Ban, legislation to say that taxpayers don't want to be complicit in, as I said before, chemical poisoning, dismemberment abortions, the methods that are used routinely by the abortionists to kill that baby. It is an assault on life. It is an assault on the weakest and the most vulnerable. We need to be caring for the weakest and most vulnerable. You hold a child in your hand, and especially if you go to a NICU and look at these preemies--and you know that personally, Mr. Gohmert, through your personal experience. You look at those children, and they are in desperate need of love and concern and good medical interventions that affirm their life and not take it. They are just so helpless. You know, all the glib talk about choice--choice to do what? Kill a baby. I think we have to be so honest. As I said with Linda's story--and there are thousands of stories like that of women who have been harmed. Often, there is relief when the abortion is over--not all the time. But it kicks in over time, either whatever method was used or just how old would that child be today. The beauty of these outreaches to post-abortive women is that they are nonjudgmental. It is all about loving the woman and helping the woman. My wife, Marie, and I know many post-abortive women. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, had two abortions. She is now strongly pro-life, and she made the statement in a speech where she asked how we can honor the legacy and the dream of her uncle, Martin Luther King, if we murder the babies. But she and so many others reach out in love and compassion to those women and say: That is over. Yes, the baby is gone, but we love you, and we care for you. I have been in this movement, the pro-life movement, for 49 years. I got involved in 1972, my first year in college. I have often thought if people just knew the truth, like Linda said in her testimony, they would run out of the abortion clinics. Bernard Nathanson, the founder of NARAL, one of the biggest pro- abortion organizations in the country, he is one of the three who founded it, along with Lawrence Lader and Betty Friedan. Bernard Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he came to the agonizing conclusion that he had presided over 60,000 deaths, and he became a pro-lifer. He said if wombs had windows--and that is what ultrasound is. We can now see that child moving, sucking his or her thumb. It just explodes the myth that somehow these children are not human and alive. They have a wake and sleep cycle. They exchange the breathing that they have been doing with the amniotic fluid and building up of their lungs for air at birth. It is the magnificent continuum of life that starts at conception. Again, as I said a moment ago, birth is an event, just an event that happens in life. We have many events. That is a big one. We all remember our birthday, but it is not the beginning of life. These children deserve respect. Again, I thank Mr. Gohmert for his leadership. I say to anyone who may be listening, there is Project Rachel, within the Catholic Church; the Silence No More Awareness Campaign; and all of these efforts being made across the country and the world to reach out to post-abortive women. Then there are the pregnancy care centers, some 3,000 of them throughout the country, that do nothing but say we love them both. We want mother and baby to be assisted, and that includes after the child is born. I have gotten to know many of those people. They are mostly women who run them. It is all about love in action. They care so completely for those women and their families, and they stay with them. Some of the women who run them are post-abortive themselves, so they know the agony that could occur if the abortion is procured. The pro-life movement is all about affirming life in a nonjudgmental way. Like I said, I have been in it for about half a century. We need to do more, and we need to reclaim the protection of life in our law and policy.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The parental involvement laws which would be overturned by this legislation deal with abortion, not with birth control. Just abortion. There is a bright line of demarcation between the two. I remember meeting with a woman from Virginia who testified here on Capitol Hill, and at the time she called her group Mothers Against Minor Abortion, and the way she discovered that her daughter had an abortion was when she was hemorrhaging in her bed. She went into the young girl's room and was shocked to find that she was, you know, very, very, very at risk, and quickly got her to the hospital. Thankfully, things turned out okay. You know, the modest bills that would be overturned by this legislation--I mean, I am the prime sponsor of the bill here in the House to protect pain-capable children. We have had votes on that in the past. Trent Franks sponsored that in the past. That is at 20 weeks. We know beyond any reasonable doubt that at least at 20 weeks, and maybe before, an unborn child feels pain. Dr. Sunny Anand, who is not even a pro-life pain specialist, has said that sometimes that pain can be far in excess of what a newborn or any less would feel because the pain receptors are so close to the skin, to the exposed area. When the dismemberment process begins, the arm or the leg or some other body part is literally hacked off that child. Nobody wants to talk about that. They talk about choice. That obscures the fact that it is a violent procedure. As that is happening, the child feels pain until that child, either through shock or death, no longer feels it, then a dismemberment abortion goes on, and they don't feel it anymore. I mean, I don't like pain. I don't think anybody in this Chamber does. That is why we take analgesics and all kinds of pain relievers, to mitigate pain when we feel it. That child gets no such intervention, and he or she suffers an excruciatingly painful process as they are being dismembered. We need a national debate on abortion like never before. The news media needs to cease its enabling of a narrative that is truly false that completely trivializes the unborn child, acts as if they don't exist because, obviously, they do. We need to be, I think, trying to protect the weakest and most vulnerable. I hope we have many more debates like today. Not less, but more. We need more light and scrutiny being brought to this issue. Many women have spoken up who have been harmed. At the annual March for Life, several of the Silent No More Awareness women have spoken. And what courage that takes to stand up and tell your story, and often with family present to see this. We are really, hopefully, going to pivot. I respect our friends on the other side of the aisle. I believe that we need to always keep it civil. But, again, those children, they are facing a death sentence. As someone who is against capital punishment, even when there is a commission of a capital crime, capital punishment for the unborn must end. I thank you and I yield back to my friend.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, my amendment directs the Army Corps of Engineers to provide uniform guidance and to strengthen enforcement of laws that are already on the books to ensure that federal construction projects, particularly on our military bases, are completed with the highest quality workmanship. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)--the federal government's ``watchdog'' agency--recently completed an investigative report, mandated by an amendment I authored as part of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), that found inconsistencies with implementation of the Corps mechanisms for compliance with important worker protection laws. Today's amendment addresses those problems and instructs the Corps' to fully comply with relevant federal laws and regulations for: building quality facilities--labs, hangars, housing, and workspaces--for our military men and women; providing an honest wage for construction workers; and providing the best investment for the taxpayer. For years, we have witnessed unscrupulous contractors win construction bids for critical federal work, only to have those important projects mismanaged, understaffed, delayed, left unfinished, and in some cases, rebid--then properly redone by high-skilled tradesmen and women who should have gotten the job in the first place. There is wide-spread concern that irresponsible contractors and subcontractors hire unqualified or underqualified workers and put them in high-skill jobs for which they lack the needed training and expertise--a practice known as misclassification. There are two different types of misclassification: craft misclassification and independent contractor misclassification. Craft misclassification occurs when dishonest contractors misclassify high- skilled workers as general laborers or lower wage classifications in order to avoid paying the higher prevailing wage rate applicable to the high-skilled work actually performed. Independent contractor misclassification occurs when contractors misclassify employees as independent contractors to avoid paying prevailing wages thereby reducing labor costs and avoiding state and federal taxes. These practices deny workers of their rights to critical benefits and protections, including prevailing wages, worker's compensation and unemployment insurance, and communities suffer because misclassification results in lower tax revenues for federal, state, and local governments. Additionally, the end product is often compromised by shoddy workmanship which can lead to do-overs and substantial cost overruns. Congress has passed laws to prevent such problems and punish the offenders. The Davis-Bacon Act is critical in this effort as it requires contractors working on certain federally funded construction projects to pay their workers a prevailing wage to ensure that our federal projects are completed by skilled workers who have been properly trained, classified and paid according to their expertise and locality. The Act stands as a check and balance designed to protect employees from low-wage, low-bidding contractors who look to do the job on the cheap hurting the workers and the client, i.e. the federal taxpayer. When it comes to domestic construction projects, the Army Corps of Engineers, procures more than most divisions of the Department of Defense. According to the GAO, in 2019, the Corps obligated over $11 billion for domestic construction contracts. Each federal agency is primarily responsible for enforcing the Davis- Bacon protections at its construction worksites. The Army Corps has a lot of construction projects and federal construction monies to properly oversee. Unfortunately, federal construction projects in my district, including Army Corps projects at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst--have fallen short in oversight and compliance and have run into trouble with unqualified, subpar bidders who avoid hiring needed skilled workers. We have seen cases of sophisticated work--HVAC, plumbing and sheet metal-- needing to be ripped up and redone after the irresponsible bidders failed to properly do the work. To examine this problem and find lasting solutions, in 2019, Congress enacted my amendment to the 2020 NDAA directing the GAO to study the contracting practices of the Corps with a focus on how the Corps monitors and enforces the Davis-Bacon Act. The GAO conducted its audit from May 2020 to March 2021 examining Corps guidance, relevant documents about the Davis-Bacon Act, Department of Labor guidance and other relevant laws and regulations. They conducted ``semistructured interviews'' in four Army Corps district offices--Louisville, New Orleans, New York and Walla Walla-- based on the district's activities and representing ``various geographical areas in the U.S. and a mixture of volume and type of construction contracts (e.g. military and civil projects)''. They interviewed Corps headquarters officials, DOL officials and four external groups including two labor unions and two trade associations. The GAO said that ``monitoring, including payroll reviews and on-site inspections, are key to ensuring that the Corps enforces contractor's compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act''. But the report also described implementation inconsistencies across the various districts that can easily lead to gaps in compliance with Davis-Bacon. The GAO concluded that aspects of the reviews and on-site inspections ``may not be sufficient.'' They found that ``Corps documents lack information'' and said that ``In the absence of directions to consistently document on-the-ground conditions, like the number of employees on site'' district officials ``may not be fully using on-site inspection to ensure contractors' compliance with the Act.'' GAO's final recommendations to Army Corps were that Corps headquarters provide clarifying information on how to conduct payroll reviews and document on-site inspections to ensure the proper monitoring of the number of workers and work performed. In essence, the GAO found that the Army Corps needs to do a better job in complying with and enforcing Davis-Bacon protections on Corps' projects. My amendment instructs the Army Corps to provide each of its districts with the guidance it needs to enforce Davis-Bacon. It also directs the Corps to investigate worker complaints and third-party complaints within 30 days of filings and reaffirms transparency and disclosure requirements for certified payroll reports. With better compliance and more transparency, we will see better workmanship, and a greater return for the taxpayer.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of transparency and accountability my amendment directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to probe whether the Department of Defense ever weaponized ticks with Lyme disease or any other dangerous pathogen. Two similar amendments I have offered--one for an investigation by the Inspector General and another by the GAO--previously passed the House but did not make it through the Senate. I offer it again as the investigation and research may help uncover decades-old information and possibly provide some answers for those that suffer from Lyme. Americans deserve the truth. For years, books and articles have been written credibly asserting that significant research at Fort Detrick, Plum Island, and elsewhere was conducted to turn ticks into bioweapons. In her book, ``Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons,'' Kris Newby includes interviews with Dr. Willy Burgdorfer, the researcher who is credited with discovering Lyme disease. It turns out that Dr. Burgdorfer was a bioweapons specialist. The interviews, combined with access to Dr. Burgdorfer's files, reveal that he and other bioweapons specialists stuffed ticks with pathogens in a quest to cause severe disability, disease, and death. Mr. Speaker, Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases are exploding in the United States. According to the December 2020 report of the Health & Human Services' Tick-Borne Disease Working Group--a federal advisory committee created by language included in the 21st Century Cures Act, which I fought for--Lyme disease is the most common tick- borne disease with an estimated 300,000 new cases diagnosed each year. A figure that many researchers, and Lyme-literate doctors, believe is underreported and could be upwards of 476,000 cases each year. I also might add that this threat is very real for our servicemembers as they train in the field, especially at Fort Dix in my district where the geographic area has an increased prevalence of Lyme. To stop the spread of these horrific tickborne diseases, we must first understand their origins and how they came to be so pervasive. Mr. Speaker, my amendment tasks the GAO to ask the hard questions about DOD's bioweapons research on ticks from 1950 to 1977. What were the parameters of the program if there was one? Who ordered it? Was there any accidental release anywhere or at any time of any of the diseased ticks? And the most important question, can any of this information that might be derived from that study, that audit, help current day researchers find a way to mitigate these diseases? 10 to 20 percent of Americans with Lyme suffer with chronic Lyme disease. They have a right to know whether any of this is true, and if any old research documents could be applied by current-day scientists to finding a better diagnostic or treatment for Lyme disease--something that's desperately needed. If the investigation concludes our government's bioweapons program did not contribute to the proliferation of Lyme, we tum the page. And if it did, hopefully this investigation and research will contribute to a cure.