Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the topic of my Special Order.

Madam Speaker, before yielding to my good friend and colleague, there are a number of Members who will be making their way over here. We do have an important caucus going on, on the Republican side, and that caucus is very intense; but we will have Members coming.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my good friend and colleague, who has been a big leader in the pro-life movement.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for her remarks.

Madam Speaker, tonight is really an appeal--an appeal to my colleagues. It is a cry for survival and justice for unborn baby girls and boys. Unborn children need the President of the United States and all of us to be their friend and advocate, not powerful adversaries.

In his inaugural speech, President Biden said: ``The dream of justice for all will be deferred no longer.'' He spoke of ``a cry for survival from the planet itself. A cry that can't be any more desperate.''

I--we--believe the dream of justice for all cannot be achieved if an entire segment of society is legally ignored and legally discriminated against because of where they live, in their mother's womb, and how small and unbelievably defenseless they really are.

We know the President understands this. He gets it--or at least he once did. Years ago, then-Senator Biden wrote to a constituent explaining his support for a law against funding for abortion, and he said it would ``protect both the woman and her unborn child.''

Senator Biden said, ``I have consistently, on no fewer than 50 occasions, voted against Federal funding for abortions.'' He went on to say, ``Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.''

My colleagues on the floor and Americans all across the country agree with that. Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them. According to public opinion polls, most Americans,--60 percent, according to the most recent Marist Poll--agree that taxpayers should not be compelled to fund abortion.

Madam Speaker, lives have been saved by the Hyde Amendment. More than 20 peer-reviewed studies show that more than 20 million people are alive today in the United States because of the Hyde Amendment, with almost 60,000 children spared death by abortion each and every year.

Madam Speaker, over 2 million people who would have been aborted, instead, survived because public funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise; and their mothers, instead, benefited from maternal and prenatal healthcare and support. As we all know, the science of human development has not changed and, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are now more visible than ever.

As we all know--my wife and I are grandparents--with each new child our children given birth to, our daughters and daughters-in-law, the first pictures we see, the first pictures we put on the refrigerator are ultrasound pictures. The first movies we see, the videos are of that ultrasound of that child sucking his or her thumb, doing somersaults, having great activity that will be great activity when they are born, as well.

Madam Speaker, it was Abby Johnson who quit as a Planned Parenthood director in Texas when she was told she had to assist in an ultrasound- guided abortion. And when she saw that child in realtime literally ripped and shredded and then sucked out of the womb by the suction machine, she walked out of that abortion clinic and has never gone back. She is now a very powerful and articulate spokeswoman for the right-to-life cause. Her book ``Unplanned,'' I recommend it. It is a book that changes hearts. She was on the other side for years, so much so that she was the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic. Yet when she saw the deed itself, the dismemberment of that child, she walked out, and walked out forever.

The same goes for guys, abortionists like Bernard Nathanson, who said, Once you see that ultrasound--and he was one of the founders of NARAL, a very large abortion rights organization. He said, ``I have come to the agonizing conclusion that I presided over 60,000 deaths.'' And he, too, became a pro-lifer. An ultrasound and prenatal surgery where the babies were treated as patients, not as a being, to be extinguished or exterminated changed his mind.

Madam Speaker, growing numbers of Americans are shocked that the methods of abortion include dismemberment. They include the literal decapitation of this helpless child. And, of course, drugs like RU-486 starve the baby to death before he or she is then forcibly expelled from the womb.

Madam Speaker, the multibillion-dollar abortion industry is very clever, and they cleverly market to savagery of choice while going to extraordinary lengths to ignore, trivialize, and cover up the battered baby victim.

Madam Speaker, abortion violence must be replaced with compassion and empathy for women and for defenseless unborn babies. We must love them both. Birth is an event that happens to all of us. It is not the beginning of life. That child is just as vibrant before birth as after, just too big to continue inside the womb.

Sadly, more than 62 million babies have been killed by abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade, a loss of children's lives that equates with the entire population of Italy. I truly believe that someday future generations of Americans will look back on us like we look back on people who did other things in previous centuries, in years back, and wonder how and why a society that prided itself on human rights could have effectuated and enabled the loss of so many defenseless babies--62 million and counting.

Madam Speaker, last week, President Biden overturned the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, the Mexico City policy. His executive order forces--forces--U.S. taxpayers to fund organizations that promote, lobby, or perform abortions on demand in foreign countries.

Americans overwhelmingly oppose using U.S. foreign aid to subsidize abortion. The Marist poll just last week found that more than three in four Americans, 77 percent, oppose using tax dollars to support abortions in other countries--77 percent. Let's use those tax dollars to combat AIDS, to help people with malaria.

I am the author of the reauthorization of the PEPFAR program, the AIDS program that is now in effect. It was originally sponsored by our good friend and colleague Henry Hyde, and George W. Bush, it was one of his greatest achievements. That is where our foreign policy dollars and foreign aid dollars need to be spent, on nurturing. There is nothing benign about dismembering an unborn child or giving poisons that effectuate their death.

Among other pro-abortion executive orders, on January 29, the President announced steps to resume funding to the U.N. Population Fund, even though that agency has supported China's forced abortion policy for decades.

Madam Speaker, I have chaired hearings, 66 of them, on human rights in China over these many years. I have been here 41 years. I can tell you that China treats its unborn and its women in the most horrific of ways. One child per couple, now two children per couple, where coercion is used to enforce it, has led to massive, massive losses of life and to broken women. The U.N. Population Fund has been right there, cheerleading, supporting, aiding and abetting these crimes against women and children.

Finally, Madam Speaker, by reason of their age, dependency, immaturity, inconvenience, or unwantedness, unborn children have been denied justice. When the President calls, we all want justice. And they have been rendered legally persona non grata. Yet, their cries for survival, using the President's words, can't be any more desperate than they are.

These children need the President of the United States to be their friend and advocate, not another powerful adversary. They need us to be their friend and advocate and not powerful adversaries.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), my good friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for his leadership and bill, which will save lives.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), a new Member but a Member who has secured an important post in the Appropriations and the Budget Committees.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her very powerful statement and her leadership, which I know is going to be greatly appreciated.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), my friend who is a new Member. She is on the Education and Labor Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, and she is a pharmacist.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for her statement, and I look forward to working with her going forward in this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the lead sponsor of the Protecting Individuals With Down Syndrome Act, which prohibits abortions based on Down Syndrome.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for his leadership on that bill and his leadership on the issue of protecting defenseless lives for many years.

Madam Speaker, some Members are making their way over from our caucus, but I just want to say a couple of points before closing.

Years ago, a friend of mine by the name of Jean Garton, who was the head of Lutherans For Life, was preparing a speech, a lecture. In that lecture, she had a few slides of unborn children, just beautiful slides of that life before birth. But she also had a couple of slides that spoke truth to power. It was of what the abortion actually looks like, mangled bodies, dismembered children.

While she was preparing that talk, it was late into the evening. One of the children walked in, and out of the mouth of babes comes truth. That child said: Mommy, who broke the baby?

Abortion breaks babies. It hurts women, and we need a reappraisal in this Congress, in legislatures, where they are not supportive of the right to life.

As I said earlier, we will look back someday and say: How could we have allowed it, particularly in the age of ultrasound, where we speak so often of the importance of science?

Babies need help, growth, nutrition, and they certainly need protection legally from this assault on their lives.

Again, I thank my colleagues for participating. I have a number of Members who are submitting statements in the Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) for that very passionate defense of life and the passionate and beautiful story of life.

Madam Speaker, we know that Dr. John Joyce is on his way. Congressman Joyce should be here momentarily.

Madam Speaker, I just want to point out one final thing. I just want to point out to my colleagues that we know that this is a difficult time for the pro-life movement in this Chamber. I have been here when we have had majorities and when we have had minorities. Based on what we think are the votes, we probably are in the minority right now. But I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that any victory that results in more child deaths is a Pyrrhic victory. It is no victory at all. These children deserve our respect and our love, and the mothers as well, not the violence of abortion.

I would point out, too, that we do face these enormous challenges. I have been in the movement for 48 years. So I can say this with some sense of knowing the people who make up the pro-life movement. We love those who disagree with us. We respect even those with whom we fundamentally disagree, even when it is not reciprocated.

It is all about respect from womb to tomb and for each other. So as the debates heat up and as we go through this session of Congress, we will, with respect, hear you. We disagree fundamentally because we do believe that it is a truth and a fact that these children are deserving of respect. So I want you to know, Madam Speaker, this will be a very rough couple of years for the pro-life movement in this House.

It has happened before. I was here when Bill Clinton had majorities in both Houses and when Barack Obama had majorities in both Houses. But we will persevere and we will never quit because these children's lives are worth it.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), who is a member of the Agriculture Committee and the Education and Labor Committee.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Small Business Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for his comments and for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, one of my friends now for quite a long time has been the niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King. Alveda King is her name. Dr. King used to be pro-choice. Very strongly so. She actually had two abortions. Then she became pro-life. And she has become passionately pro-life not just for the babies, but maybe even more so for the women.

She has said:

How can the dream of my uncle, Martin Luther King, survive

if we murder the children?

She speaks and reaches out to women who are post-abortive with such compassion, as do so many organizations and women; to women who have the abortions, to help them, to love them, and to care for them.

Alveda King is an example to be followed. Like her uncle and his bold and tremendous civil rights leadership, she argues--again, she is the niece of Dr. King--that this is the new civil rights movement and we need to protect and provide legal protection for these innocent unborn babies.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin). Dr. Brian Babin is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Dr. Babin is the sponsor of H.R. 28, Protecting Life in Crisis Act.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, with just 7 days remaining in his term, today's highly partisan rush to impeach the President is being done without knowing the whole truth which takes time, effort and serious scrutiny to establish.

Today's snap impeachment vote alleging President Trump's ``incitement of insurrection'' lacks an objective and thorough investigation of the facts.

Astonishingly, there have been no congressional hearings on H. Res. 24--the impeachment resolution--which was only introduced two days ago on January 11th.

The fact that the U.S. Senate won't even consider the impeachment resolution passed by the House until after the January 20th inauguration begs the question as to why the debate and vote isn't postponed until we have all the facts.

Our Nation is in desperate need of unity and civility as it prepares for the inauguration of President-elect Biden.

Impeachment of President Trump--without a thorough analysis of the facts which takes time, effort and serious scrutiny to establish--will not in any way help to heal a divided America.

Let me state again that I unequivocally condemn the assault on the Capitol last week and those who committed murder, violence, vandalism and other crimes should be prosecuted to the greatest extent of the law.

We must be committed to zero-tolerance towards violence in any form.

I strongly support and have cosponsored H.R. 275 to create a national bipartisan commission to comprehensively investigate the January 6th deadly attack on the Capitol.

Madam Speaker, after rigorous analysis and much reflection, I will not oppose the counting of certified electoral votes from any state.

I share some of the concerns about election irregularities. Today's proceedings give Congress the opportunity to raise concerns about alleged election wrongdoing in several states which I hope will ultimately lead to bipartisan state investigations and reform to ensure fair and free elections.

Today, however, Congress is tasked with counting the electoral votes sent by each state. Nullifying the electors of any state requires proof that electors were not ``lawfully certified'' according to state laws.

In early December, Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press that ``U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they've received, but ``to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.''

All elections in the United States must be free and fair--any action to subvert, cheat,

suppress or steal any election should be investigated and prosecuted.

Even if the nefarious activity was minor--and not likely to alter the outcome of an election--individuals who engage in such acts should be held accountable in a court of law.

Noone has a license to cheat.

Sixteen years ago, some Democratic members of the Senate and House tried to overturn the results of the Bush-Kerry Presidential election. They failed. When counting the electoral votes on January 6, 2005, I voted ``no'' on the objection to accepting Ohio's electors--enough to reverse the outcome of the election--sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Oh) because the allegations lacked both merit and proof. Only 31 Members of the House voted in favor of the election changing objection.

Congress, states and local governments need to undertake a top-to- bottom review of election law and administrative polices to ensure that elections are free and fair.

The future of our Nation depends on it.

Finally, I unequivocally condemn the assault on the Capitol today. And those who committed violence, vandalism and other crimes should be prosecuted to the greatest extent of the law.

Special thanks to the Capitol Police and all law enforcement for their brave and decisive actions to mitigate and then end today's crisis.

Despite its many flaws, the U.S. Congress continues to be an extraordinary marketplace of ideas and differing opinions.

The enactment of wise public policy to benefit all Americans requires robust dialogue and debate--and genuine respect for one another especially when there is fundamental disagreement.

We must be committed to zero-tolerance towards violence in any form.

Madam Chair, for over 25 years, I have made multiple oral and written requests to federal contracting authorities including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to explain why our labor unions have been systematically excluded from contract awards-- especially at military installations like the Joint Base in New Jersey.

Over the years, everyone we've met in meeting after meeting on the federal side have always been polite and courteous, but the bottom line--the highly trained unionized women and men don't get the jobs.

Most recently, I brought labor leaders including Mike Maloney-- Business Manager for the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 9, Mike Ricca-- Business Agent of IBEW Local 400, and others to meet with the Corps of Engineers regarding contracting processes that make it near impossible for union members to get work on the base.

I--we--raised deep concerns that nonunion contractors may purposely be misclassifying workers in order to low bid, which if true could be a serious violation of federal law and contrary to Davis Bacon.

We are concerned that irresponsible contractors and subcontractors may be engaging in 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 in order to reduce labor costs and avoid state and federal taxes.

Today, I am offering an amendment, joined by my good friend and colleague Donald Norcross, to task the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the contracting practices of the Corps of Engineers, with a specific focus on how the Corps complies with and enforces the requirement to pay prevailing wages on federally financed construction jobs, and its probe will include:

Any programs or protocols the Corps of Engineers has in place for the purpose of carrying out its Davis-Bacon Act enforcement obligations as set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Any programs or protocols the Corps of Engineers has in place for the purpose of identifying and addressing independent contractor misclassification on projects subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.

The frequency with which the Corps of Engineers conducts site visits on each covered project to monitor Davis-Bacon Act compliance.

The frequency with which the Corps of Engineers monitors certified payroll reports submitted by contractors and subcontractors on each covered project.

Whether the Corps of Engineers accepts and investigates complaints of Davis-Bacon Act violations submitted by third parties, such as contractors and workers' rights organizations.

Whether the Corps of Engineers maintains a database listing all contractors and subcontractors who have, in one way or another, violated the Davis-Bacon Act and whether the Corps consults this database as part of its contract award process.

The frequency, over the last five years, with which the Corps of Engineers penalized, disqualified, terminated, or moved for debarment of a contractor for Davis-Bacon violations.

How the Corps of Engineers verifies that the contractors it hires for its projects are properly licensed.

This amendment will require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to Congress summarizing the results of their findings, in addition to any recommendations for legislative or regulatory action that would improve the efforts of enforcing the requirement to pay prevailing wages on federally financed construction jobs.

Our military installations deserve quality workmanship, not substandard facilities that could create potential hazards and diminish readiness.

The bill, to which I am adding this amendment, authorizes $11.5 billion for military construction projects for fiscal year 2020. Madam Chair, we need to ensure that taxpayer dollars--and critical investment in military infrastructure--are being spent in accordance with the law, including Davis Bacon.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be a Never Forgot the Heroes: James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis Alvarez Permanent Authorization cosponsor, along with another very strong group of bipartisan Members who will not let this opportunity to enact this legislation pass. Tragically, Mr. Alvarez just passed away last month of after providing heroic testifying in support of this bill.

Everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing. I was actually chairing a Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing when a group of cowards hijacked four airliners in order to perpetrate the worst act of terrorism in American history.

Nearly 3,000 innocent people lost their lives that day, including 700 from my State. Who can forget the courageous first responders running up the stairs of the burning buildings with total disregard for their own safety, saving others at the expense of their own lives.

No one remembers the shock, horror, and numbing sorrow of this day, however, more than the families and the close friends of the victims. I have worked with and befriended many family members of 9/11 victims, and I can state unequivocally that there would not have been a 9/11 Commission and other historic policy initiatives without their extraordinary tenacity, commitment, and courage. That includes what was known as the four Jersey girls, widows who simply would not take ``no'' for an answer. They were a driving force behind the establishment of that very important historic commission.

I got to know a lot of the others. I actually hired a school principal who lost her husband, Alan, in 9/11, and I am reminded every time I am in the district office, and other days as well, what she has lost and how painful and how sorrowful that was on that day.

For more than 17 years, the families and the friends of those who died have had to endure their loss and a broken heart. Now we know the carnage, the consequences, the ongoing loss of life, and the health crisis attributable to 9/11 are even worse than anyone could have imagined. New cases of 9/11-caused conditions are being diagnosed by the doctors at the World Trade Center Health Program every day, with close to 12,000 cases of 9/11-caused cancers diagnosed so far, including 700 cases of breast cancer, 2,500 of prostate cancer, 600 of thyroid cancer, 500 of lung cancer, and 500 of kidney cancer.

There have also been other kinds of catastrophic consequences, with people who are suffering from PTSD, some 9,500 so far and counting.

Congress enacted the World Trade Health Center Program Fund and September 11th Victim Compensation Fund to provide health services for responders at the three crash sites, and others in the vicinity of the World Trade Center site for health conditions related to toxic exposures from the attacks.

There are over 6,800 New Jerseyans receiving healthcare services from the World Trade Center Health Program, 1,200 of whom are from my district, constituents of mine.

In February of this year--and this was shocking, frankly--the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund special master announced that, due to a lack of funding, the Justice Department will have to cut awards on pending cases by 50 percent and any new claims that are filed by 70 percent.

These cuts will devastate the first responders, our firemen, police, and emergency personnel. They will also represent a gross injustice for survivors and their families who spent countless hours and days in search of their loved ones.

I remember going to the site a couple of days after. I went with Tony Principi, who was then the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Unfortunately, there was a sense, a falsely conveyed sense, that maybe you didn't have to wear the mask, so many of those guys and those ladies on the ground were breathing in a toxic mix of chemicals that now have manifested into very serious disease.

This is an important bill. It is bipartisan, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle; Congresswoman Maloney for her leadership; and of course, all the others who are cosponsors of this bill. I urge the Senate to move swiftly in passing this bill so that these heroes can secure the health care benefits they deserve.

I thank my good friend, the distinguished ranking member, for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, for years, books and articles have been written suggesting that significant research had been done at U.S. Government facilities, including Fort Detrick and Plum Island, to turn ticks and other insects into bioweapons. Now, a new book, ``Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons,'' by Kris Newby, includes interviews with Dr. Willy Burgdorfer, the researcher who is credited with discovering Lyme disease. It turns out Dr. Burgdorfer was also a bioweapons specialist.

The interviews combined with access to Dr. Burgdorfer's lab files reveal that he and other bioweapons specialists stuffed ticks with pathogens to cause severe disability, disease, even death to potential enemies.

With Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases exploding in the United States, with an estimated 300,000 to 427,000 new cases each year and 10 to 20 percent of all patients suffering from chronic Lyme disease, I believe Americans have a right to know whether any of this is true.

If true, what were the parameters of the program?

Who ordered it?

Was there any accidental release anywhere or at any time of any of the diseased ticks?

Were any ticks released by design?

In the book, there is some talk of that happening at or near Richmond, Virginia. Can any of this information help current-day researchers--and this is most important of all--help current-day researchers find a way to mitigate and maybe even cure these diseases?

It should be noted for the record that it was President Richard Nixon in 1969 who ordered the end to all bioweapons research, but we know that there were tick farms at Plum Island and Fort Detrick, like I said earlier, and other places where this research was done.

We need to know. I encourage Members to read this book if they get the time, ``Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons.'' Again, it may offer some clues as to how we combat this terrible epidemic of Lyme disease in the United States.

My amendment tasks the DoD Inspector General to ask the hard questions and report back. The millions of people suffering from Lyme and other tick-borne diseases deserve to know the truth.

Madam Chair, current law requires servicemembers to participate in Transition Assistance Program (TAP) before their anticipated separation date, and more than 20,000 service members will transition into civilian life per month over the next 5 years.

As the former Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, I have seen how vital TAP is in preparing all eligible members of the armed forces for transition to civilian life. Servicemembers currently undergo 4 hours of pre-separation counseling, 5 days of classroom-based instruction, and an optional 2-day Transition Goals, Plans, Success program. Yet, the abundant information provided in these multiple sessions can become an organizational challenge especially for servicemembers who are relocating and starting new lives.

While access and advancement in mobile technology has grown, TAP has yet to provide servicemembers with a comprehensive online application accessible through mobile application technology to assist with their transition needs after separation including a personalized profile for employment, education, benefits, mentorship, resume building, and career training. Additionally, there is currently no avenue for TAP officials to follow servicemembers' progress in completing their TAP requirements and ensure that immediate and accurate reports are kept.

My amendment calls for a three-year pilot program through the interagency partners of the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Labor to develop an online application that would address the current shortfalls in the TAP program, consolidate online resources given to them upon separation, and provide support for the transitioning needs of servicemembers as they become veterans.

The online application that would be available as an app for smartphones or tablets and accessible through laptops or desktop computers, would create a transition data dashboard personalized to the veteran. This application would provide a resume generator, job search portal, access to career training, and mentorship and do it all based on the individual military experiences and current geographic location of the veteran.

This pilot program will ensure the valuable information provided at TAP is always at veterans' fingertips in order to help our nation's heroes seamlessly transition into civilian life.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, En Bloc amendment No. 14 includes my amendment--cosponsored by Donald Norcross (D-NJ)--to require the GAO to investigate the contracting practices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, specifically on how the agency complies with and enforces the Davis-Bacon Act to pay locally prevailing wages on federally-financed construction jobs.

Under Davis-Bacon, the government may terminate a contract if locally prevailing wages have not been paid to employees working on the project. Contracting agencies, such as the Army Corps, however, have the primary day-to-day responsibility for enforcement of the Davis- Bacon Act and its labor standards requirements. Unfortunately, I have heard persistent and credible reports that the Army Corps' enforcement efforts are lacking, specifically at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, which is located in my district.

Irresponsible contractors and subcontractors often times avoid their prevailing wage obligations by engaging in two different types of misclassification: craft misclassification and independent contractor misclassification.

Craft misclassification occurs when dishonest contractors misclassify highskilled 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 in order to reduce labor costs and avoid state and federal taxes.

These practices deny workers access to critical benefits and protections, including prevailing wages, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance, and communities suffer because misclassification results in lower tax revenues for federal, state, and local governments. To top it off, the work is often substandard as it has been performed by people not properly trained for the job.

Our military installations deserve quality workmanship, not substandard facilities that could create potential hazards and diminish readiness.

In light of the intended federal investment of $11.5 billion for military construction projects included in this underlying bill for fiscal year 2020, we need to be sure that our taxpayer dollars--and critical investment in military infrastructure--are being spent in accordance with the law and on qualified workmanship. The GAO investigation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will help quantify the problem and hopefully usher in reform.

Madam Chair, Lyme disease is the most prevalent vector-borne disease in the United States today, and members of the U.S. Armed Forces are not immune to its debilitating effects, as they train and complete exercises out in grassy and wooded areas.

According to the February 2018 Medical Surveillance Monthly Report, published by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch, tick-borne diseases accounted for more than half of the confirmed cases of vector- borne diseases among service members--active duty and reserve--recorded over seven years, from 2010-2016. Lyme disease alone had the largest number of confirmed cases.

In its inaugural report to Congress, the federal Tick-Borne Disease Working Group stated that ``Tick-Borne Diseases have rapidly become a serious and growing threat to public health in the United States. Despite many scientific unknowns, experts agree that the incidence and distribution of tick-borne diseases are increasing.'' The Working Group also stated that ``Federal funding for tick-borne diseases is less per new surveillance case than that of any other disease.''

While the tick-borne disease research at CDMRP has been continuously funded at $5 million since Fiscal Year 2016, the Working Group's report is a sign that there is still much more to be done.

The amendment I offer today will increase funding by $2 million for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) for the purposes of tick-borne disease research. The added funding will enable the CDMRP to support more innovative research to address gaps in knowledge and information on tick-borne diseases. Military and civilian personnel and their dependents who are at risk will be better informed and prepared with enhanced awareness, education, and research programs.

I urge support for this amendment--we cannot shortchange our federal responsibility. We owe it to the countless patients, including our men and women in uniform suffering from tick-borne diseases and their families.

Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration today reverses several--at least nine--life-affirming, pro-life policies, including conscience protection, Title X reform, the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance, and more.

This is a pro-abortion piece of legislation on steroids. But passage won't be the last word.

Trump will veto it and we will sustain that veto.

No one, including doctors, nurses, and LPNs, Mr. Speaker, and no entity, like hospitals or health insurance plans, should ever be compelled against their will into performing, facilitating, or subsidizing abortion.

This bill eviscerates the administration's conscience protection rule. In late February, HHS promulgated the Protect Life rule to reassert portions of President Reagan's original Title X regulation to end colocation of abortion clinics with family planning clinics under Title X. It also requires financial separation. That, too, is reversed by this piece of legislation.

Among its provisions, the Protect Life rule also seeks to protect against child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, and human trafficking.

H.R. 2740 also guts the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which ensures that our foreign aid holds harmless unborn children. It, again, is a Ronald Reagan policy expanded and reiterated, and it prevents taxpayer funds from going to--and this is grant money-- foreign NGOs that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Mr. Speaker, the shocking number of unborn children killed in America is unconscionable--approximately 61 million dead babies since 1973--a death toll that equates to the entire population of Italy. All of this when our knowledge about unborn children and the breathtaking miracle of life before birth is unparalleled.

Mr. Speaker, anyone here, parent or grandparent, knows that the first baby pictures today are of the child in the womb, the ultrasound pictures that go up on our refrigerators, so proud of the new baby. It is not that you are going to be a parent; you are a parent during those 9 months.

Yet the pro-abortion movement, like a modern day Flat Earth Society, continues to cling to outdated, indefensible arguments cloaked in euphemism.

Even the seemingly benign word ``choice'' withers under scrutiny. Choice to do what? Dismember an unborn child piece by piece. Anyone who watched the movie ``Unplanned'' saw an ultrasound-guided abortion where the child was decimated right on the screen for all to see.

Then there is, of course, RU-486, which first starves the baby to death, and then the baby is expelled from the womb. Then there are injections of chemical poisons--all of it violence against children.

That is what the choice is all about: the choice of killing an innocent, defenseless, unborn child.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much for his amendment and for yielding.

Mr. Chair, in 2009, Nurse Cathy DeCarlo was ordered at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, to assist in the abortion of a 22-week-old unborn child.

Under threat of being fired, she said the hospital ordered her to assist in the ``bloody dismemberment of a baby,'' her words, ``and accounting for the body parts afterward,'' which must be done during these abortions.

She said this coercion caused her intense emotional pain and she has had ``nightmares about babies crying in the dark . . .'' ever since.

She appealed to the HHS Office for Civil Rights, but her pleas to enforce her civil rights fell on deaf ears.

No one, Mr. Chair, should ever be pressured or threatened or coerced to perform or facilitate in the killing of a baby.

Abortion is not healthcare.

HHS recently promulgated an essential new regulation to enforce 25 congressionally-enacted conscience laws and provisions to protect individuals, healthcare entities, and providers from discrimination.

H.R. 2740 stops this regulation by not allowing funds to be used to implement it.

Let me point out that HHS points out that the rule will robustly enforce investigations, supervising compliance, making enforcement referrals when necessary to Justice, and remediate

the effects of discrimination in coordination with other funding components in HHS, which may include withholding Federal funds as appropriate.

We need to be serious about conscience rights.

We cannot coerce and tell someone like Cathy DeCarlo or nurses in my State of New Jersey who are told, under condition of losing their jobs, they had to assist in abortions.

Abortion takes the life of a baby. It includes dismemberment and chemical poisoning.

And just think about this: my friends on the other side of the aisle just simply refuse to acknowledge that there is a baby. And that baby deserves respect and protection.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Cole amendment.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, Lyme disease is the most prevalent vector-borne disease in the United States today.

If not diagnosed and treated properly, Lyme can lead to disseminated infection that can affect every system in the body, including the central nervous system. Later symptoms of Lyme include neurological problems, memory loss, brain fog, and heart systems such as heart block and inflammation of the heart muscle.

Lyme has been reported in every State in the United States. My State, for example, has a particularly high incidence of new cases and old, about 50,000 new infections each year.

While grossly undercounted for decades, new scientific evidence shows that the number of new cases of Lyme is now estimated to be between 291,000 to 437,000. Remember, these are new cases of Lyme disease.

Since 1998, Mr. Chair, I have introduced comprehensive legislation on tick-borne diseases, including Lyme. At the core of it was the creation of a working group or a blue-ribbon commission to try to figure out what is going on and to have Lyme-literate participants because there has been a culture of denial about Lyme disease, particularly chronic Lyme, for decades.

With the support and strategic help of Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, we succeeded in our goal and added the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group to the 21st Century Cures Act. I am thankful to Fred Upton, as well, for his leadership on this important initiative.

I would point out that that Working Group was dead over in the Senate, and again, it was Kevin McCarthy who said the 21st Century Cures Act doesn't come back unless that is in it. That made it happen.

The Working Group is charged with reviewing current research efforts and identifying the gaps in the study, education, prevention, and access to care for patients with Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.

In their inaugural report to Congress, the Working Group said, ``Americans need help, yet progress has been hampered by a lack of attention at the Federal level and by divisions within the field.'' I include the executive summary of the Working Group's report in the Record.

[Tick-Borne Disease Working Group, 2018 Report to Congress]

Executive Summary

Tick-Borne Diseases have rapidly become a serious and

growing threat to public health in the United States. Despite

many scientific unknowns, experts agree that the incidence

and distribution of tick-borne diseases are increasing. Over

the past 25 years, reports of Lyme disease have increased

steadily with estimated annual cases approximating 300,000

(Hinckley et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2015 ). The number of

U.S. counties now considered to be of high incidence for Lyme

disease has increased by more than 300% in the Northeastern

states and by approximately 250% in the North-Central states.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

currently recognizes 18 tick-borne pathogens in the United

States. However, researchers and health care practitioners

continue to discover emerging disease agents and new medical

conditions associated with tick bites.

While most Lyme disease patients who are diagnosed and

treated early can fully recover, 10 to 20% of patients suffer

from persistent symptoms, which for some are chronic and

disabling. Studies indicate that Lyme disease costs

approximately $1.3 billion each year in direct medical costs

alone in the United States. A comprehensive understanding of

the full economic and societal cost remains unknown. It is

likely orders of magnitude higher and potentially a $50- to

$100-billion-dollar problem for the United States, although

more research is needed (Vanderhoof & Vanderhoof-Forschner,

1993; Zhang et al., 2006).

Prompt diagnosis and treatment of tick-borne diseases are

crucial to prevent long-term complications. Today, available

diagnostic tests can be inaccurate and complex to interpret,

especially during the earliest stage of infection when

treatment is most effective. Unlike in other infectious

disease settings, tests to directly measure the presence of

the infecting organism, such as cultures or tissue biopsies,

are not available for some tick-borne diseases such as Lyme

disease. This leaves physicians without the tools needed to

diagnose; and without an accurate diagnosis, it is

challenging for physicians to provide early treatment.

Persistent symptoms after treatment of Lyme disease can be

severe, yet their cause(s) remains unknown and debated. There

are currently no uniformly accepted or validated treatment

options for patients with these chronic symptoms. As a

result, uncertainty surrounding appropriate clinical care has

led to polarization within the medical community, and

patients are often left suffering in limbo without a clear

path to illness resolution or even symptom management (Rebman

et al., 2017). The lack of a clear path for treatment of

persistent symptoms in some patients with Lyme disease

and other tick-borne diseases not only amplifies patient

suffering but also significantly increases health care costs.

This report outlines an integrated, multipronged approach

to the growing public health challenges posed by tick-borne

diseases in the United States. It contains nine main

chapters, including Background; Methods; Epidemiology and

Ecology; Prevention; Diagnosis; Treatment; Access to Care,

Patient Outcomes; Looking Forward; and Conclusion. The

Background and Methods chapters explain how the report was

developed. The other chapters present the main challenges,

key issues, and recommendations specific to the broader

topics.

To understand tick-borne diseases, we need to first

understand tick ecology and how ticks transmit diseases. Due

to the lack of a coordinated national surveillance program,

currently there are significant gaps in information on local

distribution of infection-causing ticks, especially in

regions beyond the Northeast and Upper Midwest. Nationwide,

standardized approaches for tick, animal, and human

surveillance are needed to understand the geographic

distribution of infectious ticks in order to understand the

spread of disease and predict where people are at risk.

Advanced technologies and systematic studies are also needed

to rapidly identify new disease agents that pose emergent

risks to public health, including to the blood supply. Given

that seven new tick-borne pathogens have been shown to infect

people in the United States since 2004,this is a priority.

Effective prevention relies on multi-pronged strategies. To

reduce exposure to ticks, we need a comprehensive

understanding of the biological drivers behind the continued

spread of tick-borne diseases, so that effective tick- and

infection control methods can be identified and validated.

Need also exists for the transparent development of a safe,

effective human vaccine to prevent Lyme disease, the most

common of these illnesses. In the absence of effective

strategies for controlling ticks and blocking the

transmission of tick-borne pathogens, it is crucial to

educate health care leadership are needed to reverse the

alarming professionals and the public about tick-borne

disease prevention, especially best practices for protection

from tick bites. Outreach efforts to promote prevention and

raise awareness among physicians and the public must be

expanded at both the Federal and state level to ensure

accurate, effective, and consistent messaging.

Clinical research priorities must include the development

of new technologies and approaches to improve diagnosis of

tick-borne diseases and monitor response to treatment. There

is a critical need for sensitive and specific direct-pathogen

detection strategies that are broad enough to cover multiple

potential tickborne pathogens. Understanding the etiology and

pathogenesis of ongoing symptoms after initial treatment

should be a clinical research priority. Investigations are

also needed into the potential roles of immunologic

responses, bacterial persistence, and coinfecting pathogens

in order to design and test new therapies and, ultimately,

improve outcomes and care for patients with ongoing symptoms.

Americans need help, yet progress has been hampered by a

lack of attention at the Federal level and by divisions

within the field. The recommendations in this 2018 report of

the TickBorne Disease Working Group represent a longterm

investment in tackling the rise of tick-borne diseases in

this country. However, immediate changes are also required to

help patients already suffering from tick-borne diseases; to

protect them from discrimination; and to address the

inflexible, inconsistent, and often unaffordable care that

patients frequently encounter in the current health care

system.

Increaseed Federal funding, prioritzation, and leadership

are needed to reverse the alarming trends associated with

tick-borne diseases. Despite several decades of research,

prevention, and educational activities, Federal funding for

tick-borne diseases is less per new surveillance case than

that of other diseases. The U.S. National Institutes of

Health (NIH) and CDC spend $77,355 and $20,293, respectively,

per new surveillance case of HIV/AIDS, and $36,063 and

$11,459 per new case of hepatitis C virus, yet only $768 and

$302 for each new case of Lyme disease. Federal funding for

tick-borne diseases today is orders of magnitude lower,

compared to other public health threats, and it has failed to

increase as the problem has grown.

It is also essential that funding and resources be

allocated to support a comprehensive, interagency program to

address the mounting challenges identified in this report.

All research, prevention, and education initiatives should be

inclusive of special populations such as children, who suffer

disproportionately from tick-borne diseases. Patients whose

lives continue to be disrupted by the lasting effects of

these illnesses are counting on emerging scientific research,

evidence-based policy, and the health care establishment--

including the Federal Government with Congressional and

Executive leadership--to provide solutions. We must act now.'

Mr. Chair, much of what we have argued about for a quarter of a century has now been scientifically validated by the Working Group, including the fact that massive numbers of people are getting seriously ill from ticks and that the Federal response has been woefully inadequate.

Let me point out to my colleagues that this amendment very simply boosts the amount of money that CDC will have to spend. Again, it was the Working Group that pointed out that in terms of prevalence, the number of diseases that are charted, no other disease, no other disability gets less funding for CDC or for NIH. I would say that is because there has been such a culture of denial by certain organizations about the prevalence of Lyme over the years, and that has really prevented the necessary work from happening.

We are talking about, in 2017, $11 million for CDC and $28 million for the National Institutes of Health. That is a drop in the bucket for this infectious disease.

CDC has recognized that there are 18 tick-borne pathogens in the U.S., and researchers and healthcare practitioners continue to discover emerging agents.

The Working Group's report was able to underscore a fact many of us have believed to be true, and now it is further validated, that 10 to 20 percent of patients suffer from persistent symptoms, which are chronic and disabling--in other words, chronic Lyme.

The diagnostic tests--and this is, again, where the research dollars can make a difference--are also often inaccurate. The report points out that in about 50 percent or more of the cases, when people do blood tests they are told they don't have it. Those are false negatives. They do have it.

There are other tests that go deeper into the bands to discover this. It is very expensive. We need a world-class diagnostic tool.

Mr. Chair, I would point out to my colleagues that the disproportionate number of people who are infected--mal infected, to be more accurate--are children who are out in the backyard. This report points out that most people get Lyme in their own backyards. Of course, if people play sports, are hikers, or are out in the wilderness, they are also further at risk.

So this amendment increases CDC's funding it by $1 million for Lyme. It is a modest amount but a step in the right direction.

I have also introduced legislation with Collin Peterson, and I would ask my colleagues to take a look at it. It is called the TICK Act, H.R. 3073, and it would create a national strategy like we have done with Alzheimer's and like we have done with other diseases to bring the needed Federal resources to the fight against Lyme.

Mr. Chairman, I do ask Members to support the amendment and take a look at the TICK Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

Earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, President Trump made it clear in a letter that he will veto any piece of legislation that undermines or nullifies any pro-life policy, regulation, or rule.

The bill facilitated by this rule reverses several life-affirming pro-life policies, including conscience protection, Title X reform, the protecting life in global health assistance, and more.

No one, Mr. Speaker--including doctors, nurses, and LPNs--and no entity like a hospital or a health insurance plan should ever be compelled against their will into performing, facilitating, or subsidizing abortion.

First, the approps bill overturns the conscience protection final rule, leaving many at risk of pressure, harassment and coercion.

Second, in late February, HHS promulgated the Protect Life Rule to reassert portions of President Ronald Reagan's Title X rule, including ending co-location of abortion clinics with family planning clinics subsidized by Title X.

Third, H.R. 2740, the underlying bill, repeals and bans future promulgation by any President of protecting life in global health assistance, a significant reiteration and expansion of President Reagan's Mexico City policy, a policy designed to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not funding foreign NGOs that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Mr. Speaker, why is this so important? Because women and children, both home and abroad, deserve better than the violence of abortion.

The humanity of the unborn child is beyond doubt, yet the pro- abortion movement, like some kind of modern-day flat Earth society, continues to cling to outdated, indefensible arguments cloaked in euphemism. Even the seemingly benign word ``choice'' withers under scrutiny.

Choice to do what?

Dismember a baby?

Take pills to starve a child to death and then forcibly expel her or him from the womb?

Inject chemical poisons that kill the baby?

At the end of this process, Mr. Speaker, important policies embedded in the approps bill will be signed into law, but reversal of pro-life policies will be vetoed. This legislation will be vetoed and the veto will be sustained by this Congress.

Madam Speaker, it's been 30 years since the Chinese government brutally crushed the peaceful demonstrations occurring in Beijing Tiananmen Square.

The beating, the bayonetting, the torture, and detentions of the 1989 demonstrators turned the dream of freedom into a bloody nightmare.

``Tiananmen'' will always symbolize the brutal lengths China's Communist Party will go to remain in power. When the tanks rolled down the Square on June 4th, 1989--mothers lost sons, fathers lost daughters, and China lost an idealistic generation of future leaders.

The resolution before us, H. Res. 393, honors the extraordinary sacrifice endured by thousands of peaceful Chinese democracy activists who rallied for almost two months in Beijing and in over 400 other cities in China, in a heroic quest for liberty and human rights.

The government of China continues to go to astounding lengths to censor and ban open discussion of Tiananmen. This resolution sends the right message: we will never forget Tiananmen as long as the Chinese people cannot discuss its significance openly without harassment or arrest.

Some may prefer to forget this incident. To move on and look past the slaughter of peaceful demonstrators. But the memory of the dead and those arrested, tortured, and exiled requires us to honor them, respect their noble aspirations for fundamental freedoms, and recommit ourselves to the struggle for freedom and human rights in China.

It is both the right thing to do and critical to the future of U.S.- China relations.

One of the most enduring symbols of the Tiananmen demonstrations was the unveiling of the goddess of liberty statue. It was a moment that thrilled freedom-seekers around the globe. Here was this enduring symbol of freedom juxtaposed against portrait of the despot Mao Zedong.

This moment was extraordinary because it showed that when the Chinese people are able to speak publicly and freely--they ask for greater freedoms, democracy, and justice. These are universal liberties that can be found in demonstrations for liberty worldwide--we see it in Cairo and Caracas, Burma and Hong Kong, Tbilisi and Kiev.

There was a moment when we all believed the Tiananmen Square demonstrations would be a triumph of freedom and democracy. Later in 1989, the Warsaw Pact nations started to crumble and eventually the former Soviet Union fell as well. But the Communist leaders of China hung on to power through force and eventually through the help of Western governments and global corporations.

For the past 30 years, the Tiananmen demonstrations have shaped the way the Chinese government deals with dissent. Despite the country's stunning economic growth, Beijing's leaders remain terrified of their own people. China's ruling Communist Party would rather stifle, imprison, or even kill its own people than defer to their demands for freedom and rights.

There is a direct connection between the impunity and violence used to silence Tiananmen demonstrations and deny justice to the victims of the Tiananmen massacre and the impunity and violence employed now to support the internment of over a million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in what only can be called concentration camps.

The egregious human rights abuses occurring in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region must end--no one can remain silent in the face of such barbarity and crimes against humanity.

But China is also the torture capital of the world, the world's largest jailer of journalists, with the globe's worst record on human trafficking and religious freedom. Human rights lawyers, Tibetans, ethnic minority groups, labor organizers, and free speech advocates all face repression and harassment when they peacefully seek universally recognized rights.

Xi Jinping talks about the ``China Dream''--but that dream is nightmare for millions upon millions upon millions of the Chinese people.

Nevertheless, repression has not dimmed the desires of the Chinese people for freedom and reform. There is an inspiring drive in China to keep fighting for freedom under very difficult and dangerous conditions.

This drive is the most important asset in promoting human rights and democratization in China. If democratic change comes to China, it will come from within, not because of outside pressure--though outside pressure continues to be critically needed.

U.S. policy, in both the short and long-term, must be, and be seen to be, supportive of advocates for peaceful change; it must support the champions of liberty, and help nurture a vibrant civil society that seeks to promote rights and freedoms for everyone in China. And, we must fight to end China's pervasive internet censorship and mass surveillance--so the Chinese people can finally learn about Tiananmen and the truth about their own government.

Our strategic and moral interests coincide when we seek to promote human rights and democratic openness in China. A more democratic China, one that respects human rights, and is governed by the rule of law, is more likely to be a productive and peaceful partner rather than strategic and hostile competitor.

I believe that someday China will be free. Someday, the people of China will be able to enjoy all of their God-given rights. And a nation of free Chinese men and women will honor, applaud, and celebrate the heroes of Tiananmen Square and all those who sacrificed so much, and so long, for freedom.

I support H. Res. 393 and the message that it sends. I hope it will re-inspire, re-energize, and reprioritize a struggle for human rights and freedom in China.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 puts the Hyde Amendment and other federal and state laws that bar taxpayer funding for abortion at serious risk.

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

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

To further clarify, the bill goes on to state:

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

(a)--``(l) (with respect to sex) pregnancy, childbirth, or a

related medical condition shall not receive less favorable

treatment than other physical conditions; . . .

In other words, a provider may not withhold a ``treatment option,'' including ending the life of an unborn baby.

In a legal analysis released today, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states:

Existing prohibitions on the use of government funds for

abortion can be undercut in three ways.

First, federal and state governments are themselves

providers of health care. Therefore, they would themselves be

subject to the constraints that the Equality Act places on

all health care providers and, as such, would likely be

required to provide abortions. This conclusion is reinforced

by the bill's expansive definition of ``establishment,''

which is not limited to physical facilities and places.

Second, it would seem anomalous to, on the one hand,

mandate that recipients of federal funds provide abortions,

as the Equality Act can be read to do, but, on the other

hand, prohibit use of such funds for abortions. It can (and

likely will) be argued that these newly-enacted provisions,

which would likely require recipients of federal funding to

perform abortions, would thereby repeal by implication

previously-enacted legislation forbidding the use of those

very same funds for abortion.

Third, even if the bill were not construed to require the

federal government to fund abortions, it could still be

construed to require states that receive federal funding to

do so with their own funds, which would be a departure from

the longstanding principle that the federal government not

require government funding of abortion even on the part of

state governments.

The possibility that the Equality Act may be used to

undercut the Hyde principle against government funding of

abortion has been noted even by those endorsing the bill.

Katelyn Burns, New Congress Opens Door for Renewed Push for

LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018), https://rewire.news/ article/2018/12/05/new-congress-opens-door-lgbtq-equality- act/. But instead of denying that this problem exists, or

(even better) urging an amendment to avoid it, one supporter

of the bill has suggested that the issue simply ``has to be

navigated super carefully.'' Id. In other words, there is a

problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from

becoming politically visible.

I include in the Record the full analysis by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for the record. I am also submitting an analysis by National Right to Life (NRLC) that lists similar concerns and provides further insight into these issues.

[From the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities]

The Equality Act: Its Impact on Government Funding of Abortion

The Equality Act will likely have an adverse impact on

existing provisions that prohibit the use of federal funds

for abortion.

Below we review relevant provisions of the bill. We then

consider the likely consequences for current restrictions on

federal funding of abortion.

I. Text of the Equality Act

The followings bill provisions are relevant.

I. Public accommodations. The Equality Act (H.R. 5) forbids

discrimination based on ``sex,'' including ``sexual

orientation and gender identity,'' in places of ``public

accommodation.'' H.R. 5, Sec. 3(a)( 1 ). The bill defines

``public accommodation'' to include ``any establishment that

provides . . . health care . . . services.'' Id.

Sec. 3(a)(4). The term ``establishment'' is not limited to

physical facilities and places. Id. Sec. 3(c). The term

``sex'' includes ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related

medical condition.'' Id. Sec. 9(2). The bill also states that

``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall

not receive less favorable treatment than other physical

conditions.'' Id.

2. Federally-funded programs and activities. The bill also

forbids discrimination based on ``sex,'' including ``sexual

orientation and gender identity,'' in any program or activity

receiving federal financial assistance. Id. Sec. 6. The term

``sex'' is again defined to include ``pregnancy, childbirth,

or a related medical condition,'' and the listed items

``shall not receive less favorable treatment than other

physical conditions.'' Id. Sec. 9(2).

II. Consequences for Federal Funding of Abortion

These changes in federal law will likely undercut existing

prohibitions on the use of government funds for abortion.

For years it has been an accepted predicate in federal bill

drafting that laws forbidding discrimination based on ``sex''

must have abortion-neutral language to blunt any inference

that non-discrimination requires the provision or coverage of

abortion. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, are

illustrative. Both titles forbid discrimination based on sex,

and both titles have abortion

neutral amendments to mitigate or foreclose the claim that

this prohibition requires a covered entity to provide or

cover abortion. The fact that abortion-neutral language

appears in Title VII and Title IX shows that Congress knows

how to exclude abortion when it wants to. The failure to

include an abortion-neutral amendment in the Equality Act

therefore suggests a legislative intent to require the

provision of abortion; otherwise, the Act, like Titles VII

and IX, would have included such language. This conclusion is

reinforced by (a) the bill's definition of sex to include

``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition,''

(b) agency and judicial interpretations construing this

language, and (c) the added qualification that pregnancy and

``related medical condition[s] shall not receive less

favorable treatment than any other physical conditions.''

The same reasoning--and the same conclusion--applies to the

bill's non-discrimination provisions as applicable to

federally-funded programs and activities. Indeed, abortion

advocates themselves are currently reading the federal

funding provisions of the bill to permit women to

successfully challenge the denial of abortion.

Existing prohibitions on the use of government funds for

abortion can be undercut in three ways.

First, federal and state governments are themselves

providers of health care. Therefore, they would themselves be

subject to the constraints that the Equality Act places on

all health care providers and, as such, would likely be

required to provide abortions. This conclusion is reinforced

by the bill's expansive definition of ``establishment,''

which is not limited to physical facilities and places.

Second, it would seem anomalous to, on the one hand,

mandate that recipients of federal funds provide abortions,

as the Equality Act can be read to do, but, on the other

hand, prohibit use of such funds for abortions. It can (and

likely will) be argued that these newly-enacted provisions,

which would likely require recipients of federal funding to

perform abortions, would thereby repeal by implication

previously-enacted legislation forbidding the use of those

very same funds for abortion.

Third, even if the bill were not construed to require the

federal government to fund abortions, it could still be

construed to require states that receive federal funding to

do so with their own funds, which would be a departure from

the longstanding principle that the federal government not

require government funding of abortion even on the part of

state governments.

The possibility that the Equality Act may be used to

undercut the Hyde principle against government funding of

abortion has been noted even by those endorsing the bill.

Katelyn Burns, New Congress Opens Door for Renewed Push for

LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018), https://rewire.news/ article/2018/12/05/new-congress-opens-door-lgbtq-equality- act/. But instead of denying that this problem exists, or

(even better) urging an amendment to avoid it, one supporter

of the bill has suggested that the issue simply ``has to be

navigated super carefully.'' Id. In other words, there is a

problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from

becoming politically visible.

If the intent were otherwise, then proponents of the bill

would (and should) say so in the actual text of the bill.

Madam Speaker, Raymond A. Miller, of Ocean County, N.J. is a dedicated, decorated American hero who has served our country in wartime and peace.

Ray donned the uniform first as a member of the U.S. Air Force to serve and protect his country. After success in the military, Ray put on a different uniform that was no less important--serving and protecting the citizens of New Jersey during a long and distinguished career in law enforcement, all-the-while and even to this very day, never forgetting his fellow veterans.

Born in Jersey City and raised in Trenton, N.J., Ray went on to join the Air Force in 1963, completing both basic training and Air Police School as part of four years of active duty in Germany, as well as two years in the reserves. He entered the State Police Academy in 1969, and after 30 years as a New Jersey State Trooper, he retired as a lieutenant. Ray continues to work for the NJ State Police as a part- time background investigator of applicants to law enforcement.

Ray married his loving wife Laurinda in 1971, and together they raised two wonderful daughters, Kimberley and Natalie in Manchester Township, N.J. in my district. Laurinda has served the Unit 129 Auxiliary for 28 years and is the current president of the Ocean County American Legion Auxiliary. Ray and Laurinda have four grandchildren: Kailee Lynn, Kyle, MacKenzie and Brooke. Today Ray and Laurinda live in Island Heights, Ocean County, N.J.

As a trooper Ray was decorated for valor twice: first for helping apprehend a murderer who killed two police officers and permanently maimed another in Mount Holly, N.J., and later for selflessly and courageously saving a Westfield police officer who was being assaulted by two escaped murderers.

A dedicated Airman and trooper, Ray's service was complemented by his tireless efforts to aid his fellow veterans--the core of the mission of the American Legion.

I have known Ray Miller for a long time. He is a friend. One of our many, many meetings was last year at the New Jersey American Legion's Centennial Gala in Point Pleasant, N.J., where we kicked off the celebration of the successful and awesome history of the Legion.

This coming September 16, 2019 will mark the 100th anniversary since Congress passed the Charter for the American Legion.

It has been a good 100 years for the Legion, and Ray has the honor of leading legionnaires in the State of New Jersey during this special century anniversary.

Since its founding, the American Legion has become the largest wartime veterans' organization, counting nearly two million members across the U.S.A. with more than 12,000 posts. Established by an act of Congress, the Legion--with leaders like Ray and his predecessors at the helm locally, statewide and nationally--was instrumental in getting the original GI Bill through Congress and the creation of the Department of Veterans Affairs, today known as the Veterans Administration.

A nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization with legendary leadership and strong organizational structure built on its grass-roots involvement in the legislative process, every member in the House and Senate seeks the advice of the American Legion, which always, always has the interest of veterans and their families at heart.

As the former chairman of the House Veterans' Committee, I can attest to the influence, commitment and hard work of the American Legion. Its leaders like Ray Miller were indispensable when I wrote such laws as the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act (P.L. 107-95), and the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act (P.L. 107-103)--i.e. the GI Bill expansion--just to name a few.

Before taking the reins of the American Legion Department of New Jersey last year as the State Commander, Ray served various positions at his hometown post, Post 129 in Island Heights, including twice as Post Commander.

Last year, the American Legion began celebrating 100 years since it first gathered on the Jersey Shore so many years ago. Representatives from chapters all across the state have held the American Legion Convention at Wildwoods Convention Center since 1918.

To honor the upcoming centennial milestone, local and state legionnaires buried a time capsule in Wildwood, NJ in front of American Legion Post 184 last June. Since 1918, the American Legion has held its annual convention in Wildwood.

The Cape May County Herald reported the capsule, filled with 100 years of historical items from different posts and counties within the Garden State, will remain buried for 25 years. On June 8, 2043, it will be unearthed by Ray's grandchildren.

Across my District, across the great State of New Jersey, and across this great nation, the traditions and legacy of the Legion have become a legacy of wholesome Americana: American Legion baseball, Boys State, Troop and Family Support, educational scholarships, and many other activities sponsored by the Legion.

This Saturday, his fellow veterans, friends and family, will honor Ray for a lifetime of service that continues today. And, 25 years from now, Ray's grandchildren will unearth the memories and history of the New Jersey American Legion--a history that is replete with the outstanding contributions and leadership of American Legionnaire Ray Miller.

I thank Ray, and may God bless him and his family and all servicemember and veterans.

Mr. Chair, today I will vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), historic landmark legislation with a proven track record of assisting abused and battered women. VAWA must be reauthorized.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and

colleague for yielding and for his leadership on behalf of human rights. We have worked on issues in Sudan and other issues over the years. I want to thank him for being such a compassionate person.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening, I attended a premiere of the new film, ``Unplanned,'' which opens this weekend in over 1,000 theaters. The movie is extraordinarily well written, well directed, and well acted. Ashley Bratcher is spectacular as Abby Johnson, the key character in the film.

``Unplanned'' tells a largely untold story, a very difficult story, and is packed with insight and a profoundly important message that America and the world needs to hear.

Based on the life of Abby Johnson and her book, ``Unplanned,'' the film chronicles Ms. Johnson's work at Planned Parenthood as a student activist, followed by almost 8 years at a large Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas, where over 20,000 abortions were performed.

Working as a counselor and then as actual director of that clinic, Abby says that 10 minutes of participation in an ultrasound-guided abortion shook the foundation of her values and changed the course of her life. She writes in the book, which is powerfully portrayed in the film:

``The details startled me. At 13 weeks, you could clearly see the profile of the head, both arms and legs, and even tiny fingers and toes. With my eyes glued to the image of this perfectly formed baby, I watched as a new image emerged on the video screen.''

``The cannula, a straw-shaped instrument attached to the end of a suction tube, had been inserted into the uterus and was nearing the baby's side. It looked like an invader on the screen, out of place. Wrong. It just looked wrong.''

She goes on to write, and you can see this portrayed on the screen:

``My heart sped up. Time slowed. I didn't want to look, but I didn't want to stop looking either.''

``At first, the baby didn't seem aware of the cannula. The next moment was the sudden jerk of a tiny foot of the baby as it started kicking, as if trying to get away from the probing invader. As the cannula pressed in, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away.''

``And then the doctor's voice broke through, startling me. ``Beam me up, Scotty,'' telling the assistant to turn on the suction.''

The abortion clinic director went on to write:

``I had a sudden urge to yell, ``Stop,'' to shake the woman and say: ``Look what is happening to your baby. Wake up. Hurry. Stop.''

``But even as I thought those words, I thought of my own hand and saw my own hand holding the probe. I was one of them, performing this act of abortion.''

Again, her eyes shot back to the screen, and she writes:

``The cannula was already being rotated by the doctor, and now I could see the tiny body violently twisting with it. For the briefest moment, it looked as if the baby was being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. And then the little body crumpled and began disappearing into the cannula before my eyes.''

``The last thing I saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube, and then everything was gone.''

Abby Johnson writes:

``The image of that tiny, dead baby, mangled and sucked away, kept replaying in my mind.''

``What was in this woman's womb just a moment ago was alive. It wasn't tissue. It wasn't cells. This was a human baby fighting for life, a battle it lost in the blink of an eye.''

She writes in the book:

``What I have told people for years as a Planned Parenthood leader, what I believed and taught and defended, is a lie.''

Mr. Speaker, someday--someday--future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life--the weakest and the most vulnerable--could have so aggressively promoted death to children by abortion.

They will demand to know why dismembering a child like the one that Abby Johnson witnessed--pulverizing an infant with suction or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals failed to elicit empathy, mercy, or compassion for these victims.

No one is expendable or a throwaway, Mr. Speaker. Every human life has infinite value. Birth is merely an event; it is not the beginning of life. Abortion is violence against children and it is violence against women.

The movie ``Unplanned'' not only moved me, as I believe it will move others, but it also inspired me, as I believe it will inspire others, to care even more for both victims of abortion, the mother, and the child, to love them both, to reach out to post-abortive women. And there are ministries all over this country that say, Yes, an abortion has been procured, but we love you and we want to see you reconcile and find peace and joy again.

This movie makes clear that we need to continue to reach out to the people inside the abortion industry, in the sincere hope that they, like Abby Johnson, will recognize that there is nothing compassionate, benign, or nurturing about abortion.

Abby Johnson has formed a ministry, a nongovernmental organization. It is called And Then There Was None. It is designed to assist abortion clinic workers out of the industry. To date, approximately, 500 abortion clinic workers have left that field of work including seven abortion doctors who now nurture life, rather than kill it.

Abby Johnson is a courageous, selfless woman who spreads truth and compassion. She speaks truth to power. ``Unplanned'' is a truly amazing movie.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I do believe that there are deep concerns about the loss of life and what it means demographically, both here and all over the world. I mean, in places like China, sex selection abortion has claimed the lives of so many of the girl children that there are tens of millions of men who will never marry because the women simply have been exterminated through sex selection abortion.

I have held a number of congressional hearings--I have chaired them-- where we have talked about the disparity between boys and girls. One estimate posited there are 62 million missing girls in China alone.

One of my witnesses said that if you look at all the women that have been killed in Asia through sex selection abortion alone, and it is worldwide, it equals, equates with the number of all the women and girl children living in the United States of America. I mean, that is a horrific crime, in my opinion, against women. And the disparity in male to female that is a consequence leads to other horrific consequences, like human trafficking.

As my good friend knows, I am the prime author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and four other laws that combat human trafficking, including the most recently signed, the Frederick Douglass anti-human trafficking law signed by President Trump just a few months ago. I am the author

of those bills; and we watch very closely what is happening all over the world.

In places like China, trafficking has increased because of the missing daughters who have been killed, simply because they happened to be girls and women, young women, young females.

On this floor of the House, as the gentleman knows, because he voted, as did I, we had a bill to ban sex selection abortions. And to this day, I am shocked and dismayed how many of our colleagues--and I respect our colleagues on both sides of this issue--didn't see that discrimination begins in the womb, when a woman is singled out, a girl, girl child, simply because she is a girl and is killed for that reason.

Sex selection abortion is almost never--although it is occasionally for the boy child, it is the girl child who suffers. So when we look back, when our future generations look back, they will also note that discrimination. Why did that bill not become law?

It seems to me there are at least 20 nations around the world where there are disparities; India and China are among the worst, but it is a huge problem. And we need to look at protecting unborn children as a human rights issue.

Killing an unborn child in the womb is the only human rights abuse that dares call itself a human right; and there are people, purveyors of abortion, who do that on a regular basis. They keep saying it is a right; a right to dismember a child; the right to chemically poison a child.

As the gentleman knows, because he was, again, one of the sponsors of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which I have re- introduced in this Congress--Trent Franks had introduced it in previous--passed three times here on the House floor. It says that children at least 20 weeks, and maybe earlier, but at least at 20 weeks, need to be protected because they suffer excruciating pain when they are being dismembered, for a couple of minutes. We are not sure exactly how long, but the evidence is very, very clear that they suffer as they are being killed by abortion.

And that legislation passed with good numbers, good--a large number of Members of the House, but it is not law yet.

So, you know, I think when we look back, we are going to say we had all these opportunities. And now the most recent--and I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding this time--the most recent outrage is what is happening with regards to children who are born alive and then are killed after birth.

We just had the mayor--not the mayor--the Governor of New York eviscerating protections for children who survive abortions.

Years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer did a piece, a big piece, a big article called ``The Dreaded Complication.'' And the dreaded complication were those children who somehow evaded the dismemberment process or some other part of that process and emerged alive. It was usually a hysterotomy abortion in most cases, but other cases as well, to go on and breathe and gasp and cry. And these very weak and vulnerable children should be protected.

We have a bill that has been introduced, the Born-Alive Protection Act. We have asked, as just a few hours ago from this floor many times--I did it as well--asking that our friends in the majority would allow this bill to come up, so at least when these children are born alive, the same regimen of care, the same due diligence would be given to that boy or girl, gasping for breath, to ensure that they are protected and get resuscitation.

Why, in these abortion clinics, are they allowed to die due to exposure, or sometimes to additional effort to just kill them?

This legislation has had a large number of cosponsors in the House and Senate. The Senate had an opportunity to take it up and it was voted down, sadly, by other friends on the other side of the aisle. And again, we reach out to our friends on the other side of the aisle to say this is a human rights issue.

Born alive? I did a speech in 2012 on what is called after-birth abortion. Two ethicists wrote this piece--and I would invite anyone who wants to, read it; it is on my website.

Two ethicists wrote this piece about how we ought to kill babies after birth because, really, they are not really different than the child before birth. They can't dream; they can't talk; they don't have cognitive abilities that say, a 4-year-old or a 5-year-old might have.

You know, birth is an event that happens to all of us. It is a continuum of life, and abortion is violence against children. But after-birth abortion also is violence against children.

Let me just conclude. Many people, like Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther King's niece, she has had two abortions. And she has said, how can the dream survive--that is to say, her great uncle's dream, I have a dream--if we kill the children and hurt and wound the women?

The pro-life movement, and I have been in it for 47 years, care for both, mother and child; love them both. And, again, this new movie, ``Unplanned,'' chronicles a woman, Abby Johnson, who was right there with the strongest of the pro-abortion activists in this country, including counseling women to get abortions.

And then she was director of a clinic in Texas, as I said earlier, in the gentleman's home State. Then, when she saw that child killed, in real time, on an ultrasound, it shattered the myth that somehow that child is not human and not alive, and she walked out the door and never came back.

There were people praying for her from the 40 Days for Life, a very, very humane organization of men and women who pray for the clinic personnel; they pray for the babies; they pray for the moms. That is their agenda, care, love, compassion.

She then, later on, and as depicted in the movie, was at--you know, trying to reach out to some women as well, so they wouldn't make this irreversible decision.

So I want to thank the gentleman again. But, you know, someday we will recognize that these children--and you know, this millennial generation and others that are coming along, you know, first baby pictures now for parents and grandparents are of ultrasound imaging of their children. That is what goes on the refrigerator. The newborn pictures go on, too, with great smiles and great joy when the child is born. But we now know, before birth when he or she is a girl or a boy. We know just so much, and we have that picture, which is the first baby picture.

And to think--and this is what got to Abby Johnson--she watched as that child was dismembered right in front of her. She was holding the probe; and it just dawned on her, the blind spot was lifted, and she realized, I am participating in the killing of a baby. And she left that clinic, and now she is one of the most courageous pro-life leaders in the country and the world.