Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, 166 Members of Congress have cosponsored H.R. 18, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, to make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent and to ensure that the Affordable Care Act conforms with the Hyde amendment.

According to public opinion polls, most Americans, almost 60 percent, according to the Marist poll, agree that taxpayers should not be forced against their conscience to fund abortion.

Years ago, then-Senator Biden wrote to constituents, explaining his support for the Hyde amendment, and said it would ``protect both the woman and her unborn child. . . .'' He said: ``I have consistently--on no fewer than 50 occasions--voted against Federal funding for abortions. . . . Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.'' So said Senator Biden. I totally agree.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 18 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee have negotiated in good faith over several weeks a bipartisan bill--H.R. 3233--to establish a ten- member national commission to investigate the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

I'm voting yes.

If enacted into law both the Republican and Democrat leaders would each select five commissioners who would be tasked with investigating the ``facts and causes'' of the attack.

The Commission may issue subpoenas, but subpoenas may only be issued by agreement between the Chair and Vice Chairperson of the Commission-- one Democrat and one Republican--or by the vote of a majority of the members of the Commission.

Any interim report, or the final report--which must be submitted to the President and Congress no later than December 31, 2021--must be agreed to by a majority of Commission members.

According to the text of H.R. 3233, the final report should include ``findings, conclusions, and recommendations, which may include changes in law, policy, procedures, rules, or regulations, to improve the detection, prevention, preparedness for, and response to targeted violence and domestic terrorism and improve the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex and ensure the security of Members of Congress and staff.''

The attack on January 6 resulted in a tragic loss of life and physical injury. 140 Capitol and D.C. police officers were injured on January 6th, including 15 who were hospitalized. Three police officers later died--including a brave Capitol police officer from New Jersey, Brian Sicknick, who died of a stroke on January 7th and two other officers died by suicide. Four rioters died--one was shot by police.

It is my hope that the Commission will establish the truth and provide a way forward to ensure that such an attack never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the ranking member, for his kind remarks. I thank him for his leadership on this resolution, as well. I thank Chairman Meeks for his leadership on this. It is a bipartisan resolution, and it is very much needed right now. H. Res. 130 condemns the ongoing violation of human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping and the Government of Hong Kong itself.

As the author of the House-passed, bipartisan Hong Kong Human Rights Act signed into law last Congress, which I first introduced in 2014 and again in 2015, 2017, and then for a final time in 2019, I want to just thank Speaker Pelosi for putting that legislation before this body and for her strong support.

The Speaker mentioned a moment ago how we have worked for well over 30 years on combating human rights abuses in China whether it be Tibet, the ongoing repression and now genocide against the Uighurs, and the crackdown on religious freedom which has now become nothing but pervasive persecution against people of all faiths as well as the Falun Gong. We have worked very, very closely together, and I believe going back to right after Tiananmen Square, that linkage of human rights with trade was the only way to effectuate systemic change. Regrettably, we have lost so far that linkage. But, again, now we are seeing manifestations, particularly in Hong Kong.

Could Taiwan be next? Consider all of the promises that were made-- and there were solemn promises made by the dictatorship in Beijing--to respect human rights in Hong Kong. The basic law is now being violated with impunity.

Of course, there is the Sino-U.K. agreement that is being violated. This is an international treaty, and there is the Chinese dictatorship one by one arresting the best, the bravest, and the brightest of Hong Kong and putting them into prison for long prison sentences.

As the Speaker noted a moment ago, we just saw that Joshua Wong got an additional jail sentence on his already 13\1/2\-month jail sentence. We know that he is a great young man, and he represents the future of Hong Kong. He now is languishing in prison.

I met Martin Lee in Hong Kong in the early 1990s, and he suggested to me that someday he may find himself in prison. He said that it is worth it for human rights and for democracy. He is an absolutely brave and an absolutely principled lawyer, a former member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. He too has been convicted under this crackdown on democracy promotion in Hong Kong.

So there are also many, many others. Jimmy Lai was one of five who were just sentenced last Friday. So this is happening in real time every single day. Once you are arrested and put into prison, the bully boys of the Hong Kong police make sure that you suffer, and you suffer intensely.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, again, Chairman Meeks for bringing this forward and, of course, my good friend, Mr. McCaul.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and for his leadership, as well as Chairman Meeks. I especially want to thank Chairman Keating for authoring this very, very important resolution and for his hearing that he held in March on the situation in Belarus.

Madam Speaker, the resolution condemns Alyaksandr Lukashenka's ongoing and ever-worsening brutality and crackdown on peaceful protestors.

As my colleagues know, the leading opposition presidential candidate, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who almost certainly won the election in August and helped form the Coordination Council as a means to seek a peaceful transition of power, needs our consistent and robust support and encouragement.

Today, Ms. Tsikhanouskaya is in exile in Lithuania, where she continues to rally the Belarusian people and the world and to demand democracy and human rights for her nation, no matter how long it takes.

More than 8 months have passed since the stolen August presidential election, and about 5 months since President Trump signed the Belarus Democracy, Human Rights, and Sovereignty Act of 2020, which I authored.

Let me point out to my colleagues that I first authored the Belarus Democracy Act in the year 2004. It was enacted into law and reauthorized in 2006 and 2011. What it did was focus on denying visas to human rights abusers and made people who are singled out ineligible for participating in our economy.

In retaliation, I was told I could not visit Belarus. I was denied a visa repeatedly. I finally got there twice and raised human rights issues with Lukashenka himself.

Let me just say that a resolution like this has real impact. Just last week, as a result of an outcry from human rights organizations, the government released Tatsiana Hatsura-Yavorska, the director of the Watch Docs Film Festival in Belarus, and they dropped the charges because of the outcry.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Keating, the chairman, for doing this.

Let me remind my colleagues, too, that the Russians continue to play a very, very destructive role in the country. This past week alone, Russian authorities detained Yuras Zyankovich, a Belarusian lawyer and U.S. citizen.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage.

I rise in support H.R. 965, of which I am a cosponsor, introduced by my friend and colleague, chairwoman of the Africa Subcommittee, Karen Bass, to strengthen and formalize our Young African Leaders Initiative program.

The YALI program identifies and invites young leaders from across the African continent to participate in training programs that enhance their leadership skills. Among these individuals, some are selected to participate in the Mandela Washington Fellowship here in the United States.

I have met and spoken with YALI leaders who have participated in the Mandela Fellowship program through Rutgers University in my home state of New Jersey. They are the leaders of tomorrow.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and again, thank you to Chairwoman Bass for her leadership.

Madam Speaker, I have strongly supported the Paycheck Fairness Act and have done so for over two decades.

When the legislation finally got a vote in the House in 2008, I voted ``yes'' I voted ``yes'' again in 2009 and 2019. I have cosponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act since 2015.

In January, I again enthusiastically cosponsored H.R. 7--the Paycheck Fairness Act.

In late March, however, H.R. 7 was radically altered during markup in the Education and Labor Committee with a new definition of ``sex'' that according to serious legal analysis will compel employers to subsidize abortion on demand.

Because I respect the inherent dignity and value of unborn baby girls and boys who will be put at grave risk of death by dismemberment abortion and chemical poisoning if H.R 7 is enacted in its current form, I will vote ``no'' today.

In a letter dated April 14, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said: ``H.R. 7 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA, among other things, prohibits unequal wages between men and women performing equal work. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d)(l). Wages include all forms of remuneration, including ``frinqe benefits'' such as ``medical, hospital, [and] accident . . . insurance,'' ``life insurance,'' ``retirement benefits,'' and ``leave.'' 29 C.F.R. 1620.10, 1620.11.

``Strengthening federal law to ensure equal compensation for equal work as between men and women is a laudable legislative goal, and we heartily endorse that goal . . . Unfortunately, H.R. 7 has moved in a different direction . . . We believe that if the bill were to pass, the Fair Labor Standards Act could be construed to require employers, including even religious organizations, to cover and pay for abortions . . . we urge members to oppose the redefinition of sex in H.R. 7 and instead revert to the version of the bill that passed the House in the 116th Congress.''

The National Right to Life Committee opposed the redefinition of ``sex'' and opposes the bill. They said in a letter: ``H.R. 7 makes definitional changes to sex to include pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. It is well established that abortion will be regarded as a ``related medical condition.'' See 29C.F.R.pt.1604 App.(1986) and Doe v. CARS Protection Plus, lnc., 527F.3d 358 (3dCir.2008).

``Historically, when Congress has addressed discrimination based on sex, rules of construction have been added to prevent requiring funding of abortion. Since there is no rule of construction that would make this legislation abortion-neutral, it is likely that H.R. 7 could be used to sue employers for a lack of elective abortion coverage.''

In like manner, the Susan B. Anthony List opposes the bill noting that H.R. 7 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by adding ``pregnancy childbirth, or a related medical condition'' to the definition of ``sex,'' which courts have interpreted broadly to include abortion.''

Other pro-life organizations urged a ``no'' vote including March for Life Action.

Madam Speaker, underscoring my commitment to the legislation without the redefinition of the term ``sex'', yesterday I introduced H.R 2490-- the Paycheck Fairness Act with the identical H.R. 7 language from January.

H.R. 2490 is needed to ensure that the noble goals embedded in the landmark law, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, are achieved.

Among its provisions H.R. 2490:

Prohibits employers from seeking the salary history of prospective employees. By banning reliance on salary history in determining future pay, the bill ensures that prior pay discrimination doesn't follow workers from job to job.

Bans retaliation against workers who discuss their wages.

Improves research on the gender pay gap. The bill instructs DOL to conduct studies and review available research and data to provide information on how to identify, correct, and eliminate illegal wage disparities.

Requires the collection of wage data from federal contractors and directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to

conduct a survey of available wage information and create a system of wage data in order to help the Department of Labor uncover wage discrimination.

Provides a small business exception. The Equal Pay Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act have an exemption for small businesses that generate less than $500,000 in annual revenues a year, and the Paycheck Fairness Act would keep that exemption intact.

Supports small businesses with technical assistance.

Provides assistance to all businesses to help them with their equal pay practices, recognize excellence in pay practices by businesses, and empower workers by creating a negotiation skills training program.

I include in the Record the following letters of opposition.

United States Conference

of Catholic Bishops,

Washington, DC, April 14, 2021.

Dear Representative: We write to raise pro-life and other

concerns about the Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7.

H.R. 7 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA,

among other things, prohibits unequal wages between men and

women performing equal work. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d)(l). Wages

include all forms of remuneration, including ``fringe

benefits'' such as ``medical, hospital, [and] accident . . .

insurance,'' ``life insurance,'' ``retirement benefits,'' and

``leave.'' 29 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 1620.10, 1620.11.

Strengthening federal law to ensure equal compensation for

equal work as between men and women is a laudable legislative

goal, and we heartily endorse that goal. See Economic Justice

for All, no. 167 (1986), (``Particular attention is needed to

achieve pay equity between men and women''); Compendium of

the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 295 (2004) (``An

urgent need to recognize effectively the rights of women in

the workplace is seen especially under the aspects of pay,

insurance and social security.''); Pope Francis, Audience

with Delegates from the Confederation of Trade Unions in

Italy (June 28, 2017) (``And what I am about to say may seem

obvious, but in the world of work women are still in second

class. You might say, `No, but there is that businesswoman,

that other one . . .'; yes, but if women earn less, are more

easily exploited . . . do something.''). Indeed, Congress

could do more in this area.

Unfortunately, H.R. 7 has moved in a different direction.

On March 24, the House Committee on Education and Labor

marked up the bill to redefine the term .. ``sex'' to include

such items as ``sex stereotypes,'' ``pregnancy, child birth,

or a related medical condition,'' ``sexual orientation.''

``gender identity,'' and ``sex characteristics. including

intersex traits.''

H.R. 7's redefinition of sex in the FLSA is seriously

problematic. We believe that if the bill were to pass, the

FLSA could be construed to require employers, including even

religious organizations, to (a) cover and pay for abortions,

contraceptives, and gender transition procedures in their

health plans (b) treat same-sex civil marriages as equivalent

to traditional marriages in the provision of spousal

benefits, and (c) facilitate abortions and gender transition

procedures by providing paid leave for that purpose as part

of existing paid leave programs. In this way, the bill would

require many religious organizations to be involved in and to

approve things they sincerely believe are wrong.

Some may argue that Title VII already imposes all or some

of these requirements. That argument--in addition to

rendering the redefinition of ``sex'' in this bill seemingly

redundant in whole or in part--overlooks the fact that Title

VII has religious exemptions and abortion-neutral language

that are not found in the FLSA. The Supreme Court has put off

to another day the resolution of the question of exactly how

the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII intersect with

the religious convictions of employers. Bostock v. Clayton

County. 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1753-54 (2020). H.R. 7 would raise a

similar question but in a different statutory setting, one in

which the critical religious exemptions and abortion-neutral

language of Title VII are entirely missing.

For these reasons, we urge members to oppose the

redefinition of sex in H.R. 7 and instead revert to the

version of the bill that passed the House in the 116th

Congress.

Sincerely.

His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan,

Archbishop of New York, Chairman, Committee for Religious

Liberty.

Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley,

Archbishop of Oklahoma City, Chairman, Committee on

Domestic Justice And Human Development.

Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann,

Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas, Chairman, Committee on

Pro-Life Activities.

Most Rev. David A. Konderla,

Bishop of Tulsa, Chairman, Subcommittee for the Promotion,

and Defense of Marriage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will vote to reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, a law that I authored in 2005. This was an original idea of mine 20 years ago.

My good friend from Florida just mentioned Dr. Kurtzberg. Dr. Kurtzberg was in the meetings that we held in drafting this legislation, and she provided incredible insights as to what we should do, what path we should follow. So I appreciate him recognizing her.

I also thank Artur Davis, who was my Democratic colleague and the principal Democratic cosponsor of the bill during those several years. It took 5 long years of hard work and numerous setbacks, but the bill was finally signed into law on December 20, 2005.

The new law created a nationwide umbilical cord blood stem cell program designed to collect, derive, type, and freeze cord blood units for transplantation into patients to mitigate and even cure serious disease. Pursuant to the law, it also provided stem cells for research. The new cord blood program was combined with an expanded bone marrow initiative, which was crafted over several years by our distinguished colleague, Congressman Bill Young.

Umbilical cord blood stem cells, Mr. Speaker, obtained after the birth of a child have proved to be highly efficacious in treating some 70 diseases, including sickle cell disease, lymphoma, leukemia, and in treating metabolic and immune deficiencies. Scientists are continuing to study and better understand the regenerative effects of cord blood cell therapies for other diseases and disabilities, including autism. I would say in like manner, bone marrow donations are also providing lifesaving transplants for some of those very same diseases. So we have great regenerative initiatives that will be continued.

The National Cord Blood Inventory, NCBI, provides funding to public cord blood banks participating in the program to allow them to expand the national inventory of cord blood units available for transplant. These units are then listed on the registry by the Be the Match program. The funds appropriated thus far have led to an important increase in the overall number of high-quality cord blood units available through the national registry, now totaling 111,000 NCBI units. Within the Be the Match Registry, there are now more than 800,000 worldwide.

The program registry, Mr. Speaker, allows patients and physicians to locate matching cord blood units, as well as adult donors for marrow and peripheral blood stem cells. The program is the world's largest, most diverse donor registry, with more than 23 million volunteers. To date, the National Marrow Donor Program/Be the Match, through its operation of the program, has facilitated more than 105,000 transplants.

According to Be the Match, more than 40,000 patients have received cord blood transplants.

The reauthorization before us authorizes $23 million each year for 5 years for the cord blood side and, again, some $30 million each year for the bone marrow program.

Mr. Speaker, each year, nearly 4 million babies are born in America. In the past, virtually every placenta and umbilical cord was tossed as medical waste. Today, doctors have turned this medical waste into medical miracles.

Not only has God, in His wisdom and goodness, created a placenta and an umbilical cord to nurture and protect the precious life of an unborn child, but now we know that another gift awaits immediately after birth. Something very special is left behind: Cord blood that is teeming with lifesaving stem cells.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I thank the chairman for his leadership.

I would especially like to thank Mr. Levin for his resolution condemning the military coup in Burma, and calling for release of all those who have been detained, as well as restoring those elected to serve in Parliament to a position that allows them to fulfill their important duties.

I would also like to thank Mr. Connolly for his Protect Democracy in Burma Act, H.R. 1112, and the important report that it will authorize.

Mr. Speaker, 24 years ago, in 1997, I chaired my first hearing on Burmese human rights abuse, and chaired additional hearings after that, including in 1998 and 2006. I also introduced several resolutions addressing the ongoing egregious crisis, including H. Res. 1710, which decried the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, and called on the Burmese military regime to end its campaign of religious and ethnic persecution of the Rohingya people, amounting to crimes against humanity.

Thus, after decades of abuse, rape, torture, and murder, it is incredibly tragic as to how little has changed in that country.

As H. Res. 134 points out, the Burmese Government's unlawful detention of State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as the crackdown on democracy advocates and the squelching of free expression and other fundamental civil and political rights, is outrageous and begs immediate reform and correction.

The United States must, and I believe will, in a bipartisan way, and with the executive branch taking the lead, do its part. Every sanction of leverage must be deployed, and we must call on all of our international partners to join us in those efforts.

The most glaring example of basic religious persecution, Mr. Speaker, is the oppression of Burma's Muslim Rohingya population. This persecution has been aided and abetted in part by religious and nationalist extremists such as the Buddhist monk Wirathu and the 969 movement.

We also see religious persecution intertwined with ethnic persecution, as in the case of the Karen, Kachin, and Shan people, many of whom are Christians. I have met many of them over the years.

Many of you have seen the riveting image of a Catholic nun, Sister Ann Rose Nu Tawang, kneeling before a group of militarized police, pleading that they do not shoot the protesters. Sadly, at least two protesters lost their lives that day. But what gives us at least a glimmer of hope is that opposite Sister Ann Rose, two of the officers, who are presumably Buddhists, also got down on their knees in response that this ought to be peaceful and not violent.

It is an image which gives one some hope that the people of Burma can overcome their differences and unite for peace and justice and for the benefit of all Burmese, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or political affiliation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this.

Madam Speaker, some lawmakers continue to ignore, trivialize, or deny the fact that abortion activists plan to aggressively use the Federal ERA--as they have used State ERAs--in a litigation strategy designed to overturn pro-life laws and policies, including restrictions supported by huge majorities of Americans.

As the Marist Poll found recently in January: Seven in 10 Americans, including nearly half who identify as pro-choice, want significant restrictions on abortions. While I fundamentally disagree with abortion activists who refuse to recognize an unborn child's inherent dignity, worth and value, many on both sides now agree that how the ERA is written will be used in court to massively promote abortion.

NARAL Pro-Choice America said the ERA would ``reinforce the constitutional right to abortion'' and ``require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.''

The National Organization for Women said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion. . . .''

Those laws include the Hyde amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement statutes, women's right-to-know laws, conscience rights, and late term abortion ban, like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

By now, my colleagues know that the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that the State was required--required to fund abortion, based solely on the State ERA.

In like manner, the Supreme Court of Connecticut invalidated its State ban on abortion funding based on its ERA.

Ensuring equal rights for women and serious protections against violence and exploitation requires laws, policies, and spending priorities to achieve those noble and necessary goals, without--I say again, without putting unborn baby girls and boys at risk of death.

Madam Speaker, today I will vote to approve the Violence Against Women Extension Act (VAWA) of 2021--historic landmark legislation with a proven track record of assisting abused and battered women--authored by Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York.

As a matter of fact, I was the prime author of the law that provided for the first reauthorization of the VAWA in 2000--a five-year $3.3 billion comprehensive program that was part of my anti-trafficking law, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act (PL 106-386/

Madam Speaker, the most recent Marist poll found that 7 in 10 Americans, including nearly half who identify as pro-choice, want significant restrictions on abortion. Yet, the ERA as written will be used in an aggressive litigation strategy to nullify those restrictions, including the Hyde amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right-to-know laws, conscience rights, and the late-term abortion bans like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has said: ``The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion'' and ``require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.''

The National Organization for Women said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion.''

Abortion activists, Madam Speaker, successfully litigated using State ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut to compel taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand.

Last year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification and said she ``would like it to start over.'' I couldn't agree more.

Madam Speaker, two leaders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) wrote: ``During the 1972 ERA ratification campaign, several prominent women's leaders denied that an ERA would apply to abortion . . .''.

Ever since, pro-abortion leaders have largely ignored, trivialized, or denied the fact that

activists plan to aggressively use the federal ERA as currently written in a litigation strategy to overturn all pro-life laws and policies including restrictions supported by huge majorities of Americans. According to the most recent Marist poll (January 2021):

7 in 10 Americans including nearly half who identify as pro-choice want significant restrictions on abortion,

58 percent of all Americans oppose using tax dollars for abortion,

55 percent want to ban abortion after 20 weeks,

70 percent of Americans oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down Syndrome,

80 percent of Americans believe that laws can protect both a pregnant woman and the life of her unborn child.

While I fundamentally disagree with abortion activists who refuse to recognize an unborn child's inherent dignity, worth, and value, at least both sides now agree that the ERA as written will be used in court to promote abortion.

NARAL--Pro-Choice America said: ``The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion . . . (and) require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws . . .''.

The National Right to Life Committee states that ``the proposed federal ERA would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and a state restrictions on tax-funded abortions.''

As director of reproductive-justice initiatives and National Women's Law Center senior counsel Kelli Garcia said, the ERA would help create a basis to challenge abortion restrictions.''

And NOW said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion . . .''.

Those laws restricting abortion include the Hyde Amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right to know laws, conscience rights including the Weldon Amendment and any late term abortion ban like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Should the ERA be ratified without clarifying abortion-neutral language--to wit: ``Nothing in this Article shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof''--it is absolutely clear that abortion activists will use the ERA as they have successfully used state ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut-- to force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand.

By now, my colleagues know that:

The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled in 1998 that the state was required to fund abortion based solely on the state ERA and said the law ``undoubtedly singles out . . . a gender-linked condition that is unique to women'' and, therefore, ``violates the Equal Rights Amendment.''

In like manner, the Supreme Court of Connecticut invalidated its state ban on abortion funding and wrote in 1986: ``it is therefore clear, under the Connecticut ERA, that the regulation excepting . . . abortions from the Medicaid program discriminates against women.''

Today in Pennsylvania, activists are suing to eviscerate the abortion funding restriction in that state claiming that the Hyde-type restriction violates the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment.

I believe that all human beings--especially the weakest and most vulnerable including unborn baby girls and boys--deserve respect, empathy, compassion, and protection from violence.

Madam Speaker, last year, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification and that she ``would like it to start over''.

According to Vox, Justice Ginsburg said, There's too much controversy about latecomers, plus, a number of states have withdrawn their ratification. So, if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said 'we've changed our minds?' ''

Five states--Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota-- voted to ratify the ERA but later rescinded that ratification.

I strongly believe in equal rights for women. I've introduced the ERA with the abortion-neutral language I mentioned a moment ago.

Over the course of many years, I have consistently sponsored and promoted women's rights legislation to ensure equal pay for equal work including most recently, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

In the struggle against wage discrimination, I voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

To help ensure that women are not disadvantaged in their careers because of time taken to attend to their families, I was an early and strong advocate of multiple legislative initiatives to provide family medical leave--including the groundbreaking bill that became law, the Family and Medical Leave Act.

I voted to ensure that women's rights are protected in higher education by strongly supporting Title IX.

I have supported legislation to amend pension and tax policies that negatively impact women, and I supported numerous bills to establish certain rights for sexual assault survivors including the Survivors' Bill of Rights which is now law.

Since the mid-1990s, I have led the effort to end the barbaric practice of human trafficking, a human rights abuse that is an unimaginable exploitation of women and girls that thrives on greed, disrespect, and secrecy.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. Congress approved and the President signed legislation that I authored--the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000--a comprehensive whole-of-government initiative to combat sex and labor trafficking in the United States and around the world.

The Violence Against Women Act (See Division B) was reauthorized and significantly expanded by my law. Last Congress, I cosponsored the Violence Against Women Extension Act of 2019.

In 2019, I authored another bill that was signed into law-my fifth major law on human trafficking--The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Act.

After a young college student from my district, Samantha Josephson, was brutally murdered by the driver of what she thought was her Uber ride, I introduced Sami's Law which passed the House--but never got a vote in the Senate--to make the ride share industry safer for all. In recent months, it has been shocking to learn that thousands of women who use Lyft or Uber have been sexually assaulted and some have been murdered. I reintroduced Sami's Law in February.

Yesterday, it was reported that another woman was sexually assaulted in Ft. Lauderdale by an ``off-duty'' Uber driver.

Ensuring equal rights for women and serious protections against violence requires laws, policies, and spending priorities to achieve those noble and necessary goals--without putting unborn baby girls and boys at risk of death.

Madam Speaker, the precious right to vote in free and fair elections at all levels in the United States will be seriously jeopardized if H.R. 1 becomes law.

Under an egregiously false facade of reform, the legislation consolidates and conveys new sweeping powers to regulate elections to bureaucrats in the federal government and nullifies existing state laws requiring valid identification before either registering to vote or casting a ballot.

More than two-thirds of states currently rely on voter ID laws to protect the sanctity of the vote. Weakening--even prohibiting--certain safeguards against fraud will make our elections less secure, more vulnerable to fraudulent activity, and will undermine participation in our democracy.

Other safeguards designed to mitigate voter fraud are also abolished, including bans on ballot harvesting.

All states will be required to enable the practice of same day registration and voting

which precludes any serious process at the local level to verify the eligibility of the applicant to vote.

By making it illegal to scrutinize voter rolls with an interstate cross-check and by refusing any cross-check removals from the voter rolls within six months of an election, officials will be stymied in their duty to remove illegal and ineligible voters.

H.R. 1 is embedded with free speech infringements that even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has harshly criticized saying it ``contains significant flaws that are detrimental to the health of our democracy.''

H.R. 1 politicizes the FEC by turning the current bipartisan commission into a partisan entity and expands the powers of the FEC chair, effectively destroying the agency's ability to ensure fair elections by leaving important decisions on what is acceptable speech to a single individual.

And by allowing the IRS to investigate and consider political views of an organization before granting tax-exempt status, this legislation empowers federal bureaucrats--with agendas--to decide which views should be rewarded or penalized.

The bill also mandates states to give the right to vote to all felons who have been released from prison. Yesterday, the Democrats tried--but failed--to go further with an amendment to expand voting rights to criminals currently serving time in jail.

H.R. 1 creates a 6 to 1 funding match for contributions of $200 or less to a congressional or presidential campaign--meaning for every $200, the federal government will match $1,200.

The Congress can--and must--do better.

Madam Speaker, in a radical departure from all previous COVID-19 relief laws, the bill before us today mandates taxpayer funding for abortion on demand. Today, the Rules Committee refused to even allow a pro-life amendment sponsored by Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Virginia Foxx, and Jackie Walorski, cosponsored by 206 Members.

Madam Speaker, it is shocking to learn that the methods of abortion include dismemberment of a child's fragile body, including decapitation, and that drugs like RU-486 starve the baby to death.

Unborn babies killed by abortion at 20 weeks or later experience excruciating suffering and physical pain. And until rendered unconscious or dead by these hideous procedures, the baby feels every cut.

Mr. Biden once wrote constituents, explaining that his support for laws against funding for abortion by saying ``it would protect both the woman and her unborn child.''

Mr. Biden went on to say ``that those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.'' I agree. Most Americans agree; 58 percent, according to the recent Marist poll. Unborn babies, Madam Speaker, need the President of the United States and Members of Congress to be their friend and advocate, not their adversary.

Mr. Speaker, an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget shows that approximately $1 trillion of previously appropriated COVID-19 relief funds have not been spent.

Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, about a trillion dollars appropriated by Congress for COVID relief has not been spent.

Yet today, the House will vote on spending an additional $1.9 trillion.

Without so much as a single congressional hearing held with expert witnesses--including top officials in the Biden Administration--to probe the what, why, and how much, the House will likely approve this massive spending package without serious scrutiny.

I'm committed and want to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that the federal government's ongoing response to the pandemic is both robust and responsible.

With more people getting vaccinated--meaning fewer infections and many lives saved--it's now possible to hope that we might soon see some improvement in the economy. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for example, projected in its February 1 report that real GDP will return to pre-pandemic levels by the middle of this year, 2021--meaning jobs and renewed economic security.

Last year, I strongly supported, and Congress passed five bipartisan COVID funding relief bills that were signed into law--totaling $4.1 trillion.

That included $458 billion for stimulus checks to individuals, $586 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $68.9 billion

for nutrition programs and a whopping $1.47 trillion for grant programs like the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to help small businesses and others retain and pay their employees during the shutdown.

I would note parenthetically, that as a lawmaker who absolutely thrives on constituent casework, my staff and I have helped solve thousands of problems faced by the people in my district including facilitating medicines to patients made severely ill by the coronavirus, PPE for health workers and first responders, PPP for our small businesses and nonprofits and more. My staff and I have left no stone unturned in helping more than 1,500 people in my district who have faced unconscionable delays--even denials--in obtaining the unemployment compensation they are entitled to under congressionally appropriated COVID funding laws. Implementation of unemployment compensation by the State of New Jersey has been profoundly disappointing.

Mr. Speaker, the public-private sector effort to swiftly create safe and effective vaccines to protect against COVID has no parallel in history.

Just breathtaking.

That's what Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, recently said when asked by an Axios reporter what the Trump Administration got right in the effort to fight COVID-19 as he gushed about both the efficacy and unprecedented speed in approving and disseminating lifesaving vaccines.

Dr. Collins praised Trump's Operation Warp Speed and said they brought all parts of government together in an ``unprecedented way to test up to six vaccines in rigorous trials''.

He said that would not be the way things are traditionally done and added: the fact that we in December had not one but two vaccines that had gone through trials of at least 30,000 participants and had been judged safe and effective by a very rigorous and very public FDA process, is just breathtaking.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, among the more than 200 Republican amendments to the pending legislation that the Democrat leadership rejected, was a proposal to increase funding for CDC COVID vaccine activities by $2 billion and earmarking $1 billion of that for teachers and school personnel. Another amendment would have earmarked $10 billion--out of $46 billion--for testing for teachers and school personnel. That too was rejected.

Prioritizing teacher vaccinations will likely help keep teachers COVID-19 free and get the schools open.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, only about 5 percent of the school money designated for K-12 in the new bill will actually be distributed in 2021--the rest will be spent in the outyears, between 2022 and 2028.

Earlier this month, our bipartisan group, the Problem Solvers Caucus, released the Defeating COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Package with $160 billion for vaccines, testing, PPE, rebuilding our National Strategic Stockpile and other efforts so that we can ensure that more people are protected.

We asked the House leadership that these bipartisan priorities be moved quickly and separately. That didn't happen.

Finally, in a radical departure from all previous COVID-19 relief laws--the bill before us today mandates taxpayer funding for abortion on demand.

Today, the Rules Committee refused to allow a vote on the McMorris Rogers-Foxx-Walorski amendment--cosponsored by 206 members--to ensure that taxpayers aren't forced to subsidize abortion.

Mr. Speaker, in his inauguration speech, President Biden said that the dream of justice for all will be deferred no longer.

The noble dream of justice for all however will never be achieved if a whole segment of society is legally ignored, trivialized, dehumanized and discriminated against because of where they live--in their mothers' wombs--and how small and defenseless they are.

Where is the empathy for the battered baby-victim?

The science of human development has not changed--and, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are now more visible than ever before.

Growing numbers of Americans are shocked to learn that the methods of abortion include dismemberment of a child's fragile body including decapitation and that drugs like RU 486 starve the baby to death before he or she is forcibly expelled from the womb.

We know that by at least twenty weeks unborn babies killed by abortion experience excruciating suffering and physical pain. And that until rendered unconscious or dead by these hideous procedures, the baby feels every cut.

All that will be subsidized by taxpayers if this bill remains unchanged.

Mr. Biden once wrote to constituents explaining his support for laws against funding for abortion by saying it would protect both the woman and her unborn child . . . I have consistently--on no fewer than 50 occasions--voted against federal funding of abortion he said . . . those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.

I agree.

According to public opinion polls most Americans agree as well--58% according to the most recent Marist poll--that taxpayers should not be compelled to fund abortion.

Mr. Speaker, lives, as you surely know, have been saved by the Hyde Amendment. More than twenty peer reviewed studies show that more than 2.4 million people are alive today in the United States because of Hyde--with about 60,000 children spared death by abortion every year.

Over 2.4 million people who would have been aborted instead survived because public funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise and their mothers instead benefitted from prenatal healthcare and support.

Abortion violence must be replaced with compassion and empathy for women and for defenseless unborn babies. We must love them both.

These children need the President of the United States and Members of Congress to be their friends and advocates--not powerful adversaries.

Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the American Rescue Plan.

Earlier this week we reached a grim milestone. More than half a million people have lost their lives to the coronavirus pandemic, which is the greatest public health and economic crisis of our generation. Families are struggling to put food on the table, to stay in their homes, to find good paying jobs and affordable childcare.

Facing this continued urgency, we have a duty to pass real relief for the American people. This package makes long overdue investments to expedite vaccine production and distribution, and it meets this moment by delivering substantial financial relief to working families, including an expanded and fully refundable Child Tax Credit.

The hour may be dark, but we can be the light forward. We must be. I urge my all my colleagues to pass this rescue plan.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5 because it puts the Hyde Amendment and other federal and state laws that bar taxpayer funding for abortion at serious risk and out of an abundance of concern for the women and children who flee to the protection of domestic abuse shelters,.

H.R. 5 weakens conscience protections for health care providers opposed to being coerced into participating in the killing of unborn babies.

H.R. 5 defines ``sex'' to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.'' The term ``related medical condition'' means ``abortion.'' In the case Doe v. C.A.R.S., the Third Circuit stated, ``We now hold that the term ``related medical conditions'' includes an abortion.'' Furthermore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces Title VII, interprets abortion to be covered as a ``related medical condition.''

To further clarify, H.R. 5 goes on to state:

(b): Rules.--In a covered title referred to in subsection

(a)--''(1) (with respect to sex} pregnancy, childbirth, or a

related medical condition shall not receive less favorable

treatment than other physical conditions; . . .

In other words, a provider may not withhold a ``treatment option,'' including dismembering, chemically poisoning or otherwise destroying an unborn baby girl or boy.

In a legal analysis released this month, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote:

Existing prohibitions on the use of government funds for abortion can be undercut in three ways.

First, federal and state governments are themselves providers of health care. Therefore, they would themselves be subject to the constraints that the Equality Act places on all health care providers and, as such, would likely be required to provide abortions. This conclusion is reinforced by the bill's expansive definition of ``establishment,'' which is not limited to physical facilities and places.

Second, it would seem anomalous to, on the one hand, mandate that recipients of federal funds provide abortions, as the Equality Act can be read to do, but, on the other hand, prohibit use of such funds for abortions. It can (and likely will) be argued that these newly enacted provisions, which would likely require recipients of federal funding to perform abortions, would thereby repeal by implication previously enacted legislation forbidding the use of those very same funds for abortion.

Third, even if the bill were not construed to require the federal government to fund abortions, it could still be construed to require states that receive federal funding to do so with their own funds, which would be a departure from the longstanding principle that the federal government not require government funding of abortion even on the part of state governments.

The possibility that the Equality Act may be used to undercut the Hyde principle against government funding of abortion has been noted even by those endorsing the bill including Katelyn Burns, New Congress Opens Door for Renewed Push for LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018). But instead of denying that this problem exists, or (even better) urging an amendment to avoid it, one supporter of the bill has suggested that the issue simply ``has to be navigated super carefully.'' In other words, there is a problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from becoming politically visible.

In an incisive analysis of H.R. 5, Richard Doerflinger exposes the risk to unborn children, conscience rights and state all laws preventing taxpayer funding for abortion:

``Of especially grave concern is that the Equality Act introduces this same language on sex and ``pregnancy discrimination'' into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, forbidding discrimination in ``federally assisted programs.'' This applies to a wide range of entities that may receive federal funds, including state and local government agencies, educational institutions, organizations providing health care, etc. (42 USC 2000d-4a). All of these would be required to show that they do not exclude the full range of treatments for the ``condition'' of pregnancy. Not only the federal government, but all states that receive federal funds for their health programs, could be required to fund elective abortions, reversing the longstanding policy of two-thirds of the states. The same changes to the definition of ``sex'' are made to Title II, on discrimination in places of ``public accommodation,'' and that title's definition of a ``public accommodation'' is expanded to include ``any establishment that provides a good, service, or program,'' including any provider of ``health care'' (H.R. 5, Sec. 3 (a)(d)).''

I also oppose H.R. 5 out of genuine concern for the women and children who seek refuge in a domestic abuse shelter.

By granting biological men--who self-identify as women-access to women's shelters, H.R. 5 removes the hard-fought gains to protect women and girls from abuse and to provide them with physical, emotional and psychological security.

In late 2018, nine female victims residing in a women's shelter in Fresno, California-Naomi's House, operated by Poverello House-filed a lawsuit against the shelter for admitting a biological man because he had self-identified as a woman. These victims stated that they had been sexually harassed by this biological man. They said that he had made ``sexual advances'' on them and would ``stare and leer'' and make ``sexually harassing comments about their bodies'' while they were forced to undress in the same room with him.

After repeatedly confronting the staff of Naomi's House--both verbally and in writing--with their extreme discomfort, these women were told that they would be expelled from the shelter if they refused to comply.

Madam Speaker, if we allow biological men who self-identify as women to receive access to these women-only shelters, abused women and children will lose the 'safe space' they so desperately need.

We must first and foremost protect victims of violence.

These brave women and children deserve a place where they can feel protected and secure, so they can begin the difficult process to heal as they deal with post-traumatic stress. Forcing them to share a shelter and its facilities--including showers and sleeping areas--with biological men who self-identify as women will likely cause these women and children to experience insecurity, discomfort, confusion, and fear of additional assault.

Women's shelters--there are about 1,500 nationwide--offer a safe space where a woman does not have to fear or worry about violence and intimidation and instead allows her to take steps toward rebuilding her life.

These victims deserve better. They deserve our protection and support. We must work to ensure the safety of women, girls, and children.