Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the land of cars, Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me take 30 seconds and say, that is really great, go ahead and read the TPA, but it is the bill we are worried about, the TPP. We have to have an armed guard, practically, to go look at that. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's bad trade bills have gutted our manufacturing economy, transformed our stature on the global stage, and taken millions of jobs from American workers. Heavens to Betsy, let's not do it again. We need to demand a trade deal that will let us sell American-made goods to every customer in the world, and we need a trade bill that is negotiated through a transparent and open process that doesn't mortgage our patents, our innovation, and our future. Let me echo what Congressman Ellison just said. This rule, this vote right now that we are about to take, codifies, it ensures, that this money for the trade adjustment assistance will come from Medicare. That is what will go to the President. If you vote for this, you are voting for Medicare to be used in that way. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bills. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise against yet another closed rule on an issue that deserves weeks of open, transparent debate: trade. This House is debating whether or not to repeal a consumer protection measure that 9 in 10 Americans support--country of origin labeling on meat in our grocery stores. This essential provision could be reversed in one fell swoop all because the World Trade Organization has decided that those labels hurt Mexico and Canada, our so-called ``Trading Partners,'' who have threatened the United States with billions of dollars in sanctions if we don't capitulate. The WTO's ruling highlights yet another example of a trading system that benefits foreign competitors and global corporations at the expense of the American consumer. I hope my colleagues will remember this vote when the House turns its attention to fast track and the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement. Advocates of fast track are selling the American people a flawed trade deal which has been negotiated in secret by multi-national corporations. This trade deal, which proponents will tell you will reinvigorate the middle class, create jobs, and strengthen the American economy, will do just the opposite. What's more, the president wants to circumvent congressional authority by stopping debate and using fast track to ram a bad deal through this chamber. Not only will fast track and the Trans-Pacific Partnership cause serious harm to the American worker, they threaten American sovereignty, and this repeal bill is a prime example of that. Not only does this silence the voice of the American people, it cuts out the People's House and would topple even more consumer protections. From changing fuel efficiency standards, limiting access to prescription drugs, weakening the Clean Air Act, and more, the TPP is not simply about trade, it puts every facet of our daily lives at risk. I urge my colleagues to reconsider their path forward and work for the American people, not against them.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill for many reasons, but one short-sited cut stands out. This bill cuts HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes by $35 million. Let me explain in the simplest terms I can what a $35 million cut would mean: thousands of children in the United States will be poisoned. Thousands of housing units identified as containing lead paint hazards will not be made safe for the children who live there. Thousands of children will be needlessly subjected to decreased IQ and cognitive function across their entire lifespan, developmental delays, behavior problems, learning disabilities, seizures, coma, and even death. Lead poisoning impacts the decision making center of the brain. Children with lead poisoning are 7 times more likely to drop out of school, more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors, and more likely to engage in criminal activity. Lead poisoning is entirely preventable--but to save a few dollars, this Majority will let them suffer. And it doesn't even save a few dollars. The total annual costs of lead poisoning to society are over $50 billion. Every dollar spent on lead hazard control activities has a benefit of $17 to $220 in medical, educational, and criminal justice costs. A $35 million cut will create a minimum of $600 million, and possibly nearly $8 billion in additional costs to society. In my district in Rochester, NY, 200 children were confirmed with lead poisoning in 2014. Two hundred children. That's ten kindergarten classrooms full of kids. That is simply not acceptable. This $35 million cut would let another 119 children be poisoned in my district alone. When lead poisoning is entirely preventable, I do not know how we can stand to have the lifelong negative impacts on those children's lives on our conscience.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of a veteran and member of the Rochester community, Steven Lucyshyn. Rochester is a vibrant city with a rich history including the members of its community who ranged from activists to philanthropists to technological pioneers, and the businesses that were the front-runners of their time in their respective fields. The contributions made by Rochesterians inspire their fellow community members on a daily basis. Steven is no exception. Born in 1919, Steven was a hardworking man who carried on the spirit of Rochester in his day-to-day life as a husband, father, and friend. But he went well beyond that. In the midst of World War II, Steven answered the call to serve his country and joined the Armed Forces. On June 12, 1941, Steven enlisted as a Private and proudly served in the Warrant Officers branch of the U.S. Army. Steven displayed this immense bravery while fighting in the Battle of the Bulge. Serving one's country requires an immense amount of courage and valor that few of us are capable of displaying. It is without hesitation that we honor the life of Steven, his love for his family and the contributions that he made to this country and the Rochester community. Steven was predeceased by his beloved wife of 66 years, Amelia, who together, raised two children, Michael Lucyshyn and Janice Schillaci; had two grandsons, Samuel J. (Becky) Lucyshyn and Michael J. Schillaci; and four great-grandchildren, Zoe, Dominic, Mia, and Jessica. As his family and friends mourn his passing, let this record celebrate his life and service to our country.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, let me continue with Amy from South Carolina. This is somewhat different but certainly poignant. Amy and her husband, Chris, were very excited about their pregnancy. Amy's previous pregnancies had been uncomplicated, so they decided to forego genetic testing. However, during the scheduled 20-week ultrasound, the couple received the devastating news that their fetus had a structural and lethal abnormality known as trisomy 18. They were advised to go in for further genetic testing, which was very expensive. The results to confirm this diagnosis took an additional 10 to 14 days, so Amy was past 20 weeks' gestation when she made the decision to obtain an abortion. With a nationwide 20-week ban, couples like Chris and Amy would not have been able to make decisions that were right for themselves and their families. Karina from Arizona. The night before Karina called the NAF Hotline, she literally slept against a lamppost. She is homeless and makes and sells jewelry in order to buy food. She can't afford housing. She called the hotline because she realized she was pregnant after being raped by the father of her five children. Even though she was raped, Arizona Medicaid would not cover her abortion care. She could barely afford food most days and could not afford the cost of the abortion, so she had to delay her care. Thanks to multiple abortion funds, including the hotline fund and a discount from her care provider, she was able to obtain the abortion she needed. This bill would stop that. Catherine from Georgia. Catherine was planning on carrying her pregnancy to term, even though she had a number of pregnancy complications, including having to receive blood transfusions throughout the pregnancy. When she was post 20 weeks pregnant, Catherine found out her fetus had an anomaly. She had placed a child up for adoption in the past, so she knew that adoption was not an option for her again, nor was parenting this pregnancy. She started to save money and tried pawning the title to her car but was told it was too old and worth nothing. Catherine was able to borrow money from friends, and called the hotline to find an abortion provider. The night before her appointment, she said even though she knew she was making the right decision, she was nervous about the protesters who would be outside the clinic. The next day, she did not let the protesters yelling at her scare her away. She was able to obtain the care that she needed. Madam Speaker, I have just received news that the death toll has risen to seven in the Amtrak tragedy. It is past time to focus on the real priorities that face our country, and I will insert into the Record articles from The Baltimore Sun and Politico that I referred to previously. [From the Baltimore Sun, May 13, 2015] (By Kevin Rector and Jessica Anderson) The derailment in Philadelphia of an Amtrak passenger train headed north from Washington and through multiple stops in Maryland left dozens of people injured and killed six-- including a midshipman from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. The academy notified its brigade of the death early Wednesday morning. ``I speak for the brigade of midshipmen, the faculty and staff when I say we are all completely heartbroken by this,'' said Cmdr. John Schofield, an academy spokesman. The midshipman, who was not identified, was headed home on leave, the academy said. It did not say where the midshipman boarded the train. An online timetable for Train 188, which was carrying a total of 238 passengers and five crew members, shows it had been scheduled to pass through Baltimore's Penn Station and several other stops in Maryland prior to reaching Philadelphia on Tuesday night, though it remained unclear Wednesday morning how many passengers boarded the train at those stations. Officials said the train derailed at Frankford Junction in North Philadelphia shortly after 9 p.m. The online schedule had it departing Penn Station at 7:54 p.m. The timetable also includes an original scheduled departure from Washington's Union Station at 7:10 p.m., and subsequent departures from New Carrollton at 7:22 p.m. and BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport at 7:37 p.m. prior to the train's reaching Penn Station. After Penn Station, the train was scheduled to depart Aberdeen at 8:16 p.m., Wilmington, Del., at 8:43 p.m. and Philadelphia at 9:10 p.m., according to the online schedule. Amtrak did not immediately respond to questions early Wednesday as to whether Train 188 made all of its locally scheduled stops and how many people boarded at each, or if it was on schedule. On Wednesday morning, Lisa Bonanno stood in Penn Station looking at an electronic train schedule above, trying to figure out how to get to work in Washington. Bonanno said she was aboard Train 188 Tuesday night, but got off in Baltimore before its derailment in Philadelphia. ``I was on that train last night,'' she said. Bonanno said she would probably end up taking a MARC train to work, given some delays, but that the derailment in Philadelphia would not deter her from riding Amtrak in the future. ``This is very unusual,'' she said. ``Driving is so much worse.'' The derailment happened in Port Richmond, one of five neighborhoods in what's known as Philadelphia's River Wards, dense rowhouse neighborhoods located off the Delaware River. Area resident David Hernandez, whose home is close to the tracks, heard the derailment. ``It sounded like a bunch of shopping carts crashing into each other,'' he said. The crashing sound lasted a few seconds, he said, and then there was chaos and screaming. The derailment was the deadliest incident involving an Amtrak train on the Northeast Corridor since the Maryland collision between an Amtrak train and a Conrail freight engine near Chase, in which 16 people were killed and another 175 were injured. Officials expect the death toll of Tuesday's derailment could increase as investigators continue to move through the wreckage. The Naval Academy said grief counselors were on hand at its Annapolis campus for grieving midshipmen, faculty and staff. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus expressed his condolences to the brigade during previously scheduled morning remarks at the academy, which wrapped up its academic year on Tuesday. The Northeast Corridor, which runs from Washington to Boston, is the busiest stretch of passenger rail line in the country, serving 750,000 passengers and 2,000 commuter, intercity and freight trains per day, according to the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. The commission has estimated that a loss of service on the corridor for a single day would cost $100 million in travel delays and lost productivity. Workers who ride trains on the corridor contribute $50 billion to the U.S. economy annually, the commission has found. Locally, the corridor is used for Amtrak and freight trains as well as the Maryland Transit Administration's passenger MARC train service. Baltimore, a traditional railroad town, has some of the system's oldest infrastructure. The Baltimore & Potomac Tunnel under West Baltimore, for instance, is 140 years old and a key choke point for Amtrak and other rail traffic, forcing trains to slow their speeds substantially. It has been slated to be replaced, though Amtrak officials have questioned whether funding will be provided to cover the estimated $1.5 billion price tag. In a statement on the derailment Tuesday, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said her ``heart aches'' for the passengers who were on the train. ``Amtrak service is a way of life for so many of our city residents, as well as visitors from all across the Northeast who commute to, from and through our city every day,'' Rawlings-Blake said. ``My prayers are with the families of those who lost their lives in this tragedy. We will support the recovery efforts in every way possible as authorities work to identity the cause of the crash.'' Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who called the scene of the derailment ``an absolute disastrous mess'' on Tuesday night, said Wednesday that the train's black box had been recovered and was being analyzed. Amtrak said rail service on the busy Northeast Corridor between New York and Philadelphia had been stopped. Nutter, citing the mangled train tracks and downed wires, said there was ``no circumstance under which there would be any Amtrak service this week through Philadelphia.'' A rapid-response team from the National Transportation Safety Board was on the scene Wednesday, but the cause of the derailment remained unknown. The Federal Railroad Administration also said it was dispatching at least eight investigators to the scene. Amtrak canceled two local trains in Baltimore Wednesday, and trains on the Northeast Corridor between Philadelphia and New York were canceled. Those looking for information about family or friends on the train can call Amtrak's incident hotline at 800-523-9101, Amtrak said. President Barack Obama expressed shock and sadness at the derailment in a statement in which he noted that Amtrak is ``a way of life for many'' who live and work along the Northeast Corridor. He also thanked police, fire fighters and medical personnel responding to the derailment. ``Philadelphia is known as the city of brotherly love--a city of neighborhoods and neighbors--and that spirit of loving-kindness was reaffirmed last night, as hundreds of first responders and passengers lent a hand to their fellow human beings in need,'' Obama said. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, who was in touch with Philadelphia's mayor and other state and local officials about the derailment, thanked the first responders for ``their brave and quick action.'' ``My thoughts and prayers are with all of those impacted by tonight's train derailment,'' he said in a statement. ``For those who lost their lives, those who were injured, and the families of all involved, this situation is devastating.'' The impact on the East Coast's broader rail network was unclear. Rob Doolittle, a spokesman for railroad CSX Transportation, said the company had offered assistance to Amtrak but that its own mainline was unaffected and it was not experiencing any significant delays through Philadelphia. Richard Scher, a spokesman for the Maryland Port Administration, said the derailment had occurred north of the port's main freight routings but that he was unsure if delays in Philadelphia were affected port cargo transports. A spokesman for railroad Norfolk Southern, which utilizes part of the Northeast Corridor for trains moving out of Maryland into Delaware, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Roel Bouduin, 35, arrived at Penn Station on time Wednesday morning for the beginning of a long day of travel. The resident of Belgium was scheduled to fly from New York to Toronto at 2:30 p.m. ``My plan was to take Amtrak. That's not going to work,'' he said as he waited at a ticket counter to get a refund. Instead, his friend would take the day off from Johns Hopkins and drive to New York. ``We take trains daily at home. Taking a train is safer then taking a car,'' he said. That said, as he rolled his suitcase from the ticket counter, Bouduin said he would enjoy ``a nice drive'' up to New York. Many commuters prefer traveling from Baltimore to Washington or New York by train versus by car. Reginald Exum is one of those travelers. He said he regularly travels to Washington and New York for his banking job. On Wednesday, though, he was riding to Washington from Penn Station, so the derailment didn't affect his commute. ``It's very unfortunate,'' he said. ``I feel bad for their families.'' In 1996, 11 people were killed when a MARC commuter train rammed into an Amtrak train in Silver Spring. That crash was blamed on the MARC engineer forgetting about a signal warning him to slow down. In 1991, another incident occurred in nearly the same spot as the Chase accident in 1987, when an Amtrak train collided with a Conrail coal train--though no one was killed. The site of Tuesday night's crash, near curving tracks at Frankford Junction, was also the scene of a previous crash. In 1943, 79 people were killed and at least 120 injured when a Pennsylvania Railroad train carrying 541 people-- including military servicemen returning from weekend furloughs--derailed in the same location, also on its way from Washington to New York.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time. I rise today frustrated and angry by the state of affairs in the United States. Last night, an Amtrak train derailed which was traveling over the busiest track in the Nation. That tragedy killed at least six and injured more than 200 who were hospitalized, just days before the highway trust fund is about to expire. Republicans will spend billions of dollars in this bill on war, but let the roads and rails and bridges rot. Thirty-eight billion dollars was concealed in a very clever way in the Defense bill under the OCO account because it does not affect the budget cap; but what are we going to do about the busiest corridor in the United States? Nothing--as a matter of fact, according to Politico, on this very day, the Republicans in the Appropriations Committee, on a 21-29 vote, defeated an amendment offered by the ranking member, David Price, that would have significantly boosted funding for several transportation programs, including Amtrak, the very day after this. The Baltimore Sun tells us that the operations advisory commission for the Northeast corridor says that the estimation for loss of service on the corridor for a single day would cost $100 million in travel delays and lost productivity. Six people have died; 200 were hospitalized. Add the medical cost on all of that. It will only take a week or a little bit more to use up the entire account for the amount of money the Appropriations Committee is willing to put into Amtrak. As we look at that, what we do here--saving money and cutting out and dropping everything--has to be the costs that are borne outside by people with their medical costs by the delay by being unable to get the goods and things to market. If I have ever seen a case of pennywise and dollar foolish, this one is it. Moreover than that, that isn't even our discussion today. What I really want to talk about here is that the majority's priorities are so misplaced that they cannot even govern this body in an organized way. Today, under this single rule--one rule--we will consider a 20-week abortion ban, which is unconstitutional, and we know it, but they are going to do it anyway; we will consider bulk data collection under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; and then we will also do the general debate for the National Defense Authorization Act. We have an hour to do this rule to talk about those. These bills have no commonality at all, and there is no need at all to entwine them in a single rule. The rule is called a grab bag rule that governs the floor debate for two or more unrelated pieces of legislation. Debate in this Chamber suffers when many unrelated bills are crammed into a single rule. It is legislative malpractice, Madam Speaker, practiced here all the time and getting worse term after term. Under this procedure, arguments for and against multiple measures are interspersed, which leads to disjointed, fragmented, and confusing debates. Furthermore, each bill does not get its due consideration, which harms not only the Rules Committee, but the House of Representatives, and, above all, the American people; but the most egregious use of our time is prioritizing attacking women's health over everything else that is going on in the country. This majority has introduced yet another 20-week abortion ban that prohibits abortions after 20 weeks based on a widely disputed scientific claim that a fetus can feel pain at that point in time in a pregnancy, but this is not the first time we have seen this bill. It is not even the first time we have seen it in this Congress, which is only 5 months old. Just weeks ago, on the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on Roe v. Wade, the majority prepared to bring this bill to the floor, but it was so odious, the provision in it so offensive, that even women in the majority's own party balked and rebelled against their leadership. The uproar was so loud that, in the middle of the night, the majority pulled the bill from the floor. The first version was bad enough. It included abortion exceptions for rape and incest only to reported cases of rape. Within 48 hours, a woman had to go to report that to law enforcement, or she could not be eligible for an abortion. The new bill is worse because it says that she has to have 48 hours of counseling, but she can't get it at the hospital where the abortion would be done, so she has to go from pillar to post. The most odious thing that they have done is the unmitigated cruelty to the victims of incest. They put an age limit on it. Can you imagine that? It is unbelievable. I know that this bill will not go anywhere. I doubt the Senate will even take it up. It is simply something to appease people who believe anything that they hear about this, such as there is abortion on demand. There is not. Third trimester abortions are all medically necessary, as one of my colleagues mentioned this morning. If you haven't talked to any of those women, you don't know what they have been through. In almost every one of those cases, they desperately want that baby, but sometimes, they have no brains. Sometimes, they are born with no organs. They are unable to survive. Many times, there is a case of a woman who can preserve her reproductive system so that she can have more children. How incredibly cruel it is that we want to take that decision away from the woman and her doctor--whomever she wants to consult, but certainly scientific laws ought to apply--and put it in the hands of legislators. Maybe we should decide who should have gall bladder operations, or maybe we should decide whether broken legs should be treated; we are all-seeing here. What happened here today is disgustingly cruel, as I said before. The Supreme Court has long held that a woman has the unequivocal right to choose abortion care until the point of fetal viability, which is largely accepted by the scientific community to be 24 weeks. A 20-week abortion ban brazenly challenges the Supreme Court's standards and deliberately attempts to push the law earlier and earlier into a woman's pregnancy because that is the number one issue, and we have been told that. When I started working on this issue four decades ago, I surely thought, by now, we would not decide whether or not a woman can make a decision about her own health. How awful it is that, just less than a week after Mother's Day, when we all are reminded how brilliant and how wonderful they were, how farseeing, how great in their judgment, but we decide that every other woman in the country has not the ability to make decisions for herself. Enough of these insults, enough of practicing medicine without a license, let's get to the business at hand and fix the rotting infrastructure in the United States of America and make it safe for our fellow citizens to get to work. The idea that all those people are wounded and hurt today and died because we failed to keep up the tracks in the United States of America, which was known worldwide for its infrastructure and now spends barely a pittance on trying to maintain those old tracks--and the mayor of New York had just said he has bridges in New York that are over 100 years old. I have the same thing in my district. I have bridges over the Erie Canal. Fire trucks can't even go over them and haven't been able to for the last decade. But, no, we are not going to talk about that. We are going to talk about making women do what we want them to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I want to just correct my friend from North Carolina, who said that nothing has to be reported to law enforcement. It reads: if pregnancy is the result of rape against a minor or incest against a minor and if the rape or incest has been reported to either, one, a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse or, two, law enforcement. I hope my colleague stands corrected. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of our former colleagues, Barney Frank from Massachusetts, made one of the most telling statements, I think, that many of the people who are speaking today obviously, by their actions, believe that life begins at conception but ends at birth, because these are often the very same people who refuse to fund schools, who cut back on food stamps, who pay no attention to children who grow up under unseemly, unsanitary, and dreadful conditions, who take away from their parents the unemployment insurance on which they might be able to live and keep the children together. That callous disregard of the living makes the piety of the statement of how they love life a little bit odd. You have to practice that for the living as well. The children and the neglected in this country, the rates are becoming appalling. The number of children who live under the poverty line in America, who suffer every day, frankly, who get the only food they get often at school, if they are able to get there, should really somehow soften the hearts of all the people who want to make sure that every fetus is born. Nobody has to have an abortion, but for women who need it for medical reasons and are protected by the Constitution and make that decision-- and how awful it is--and I have to echo what Ms. Speier said and what I said earlier, the idea that Members of the House of Representatives or any other legal body--I have been in three. Many have usually carried this debate and decided what women should do, but in the three legislatures I have been in, I have seen people with no medical experience of any sort, never talk to anybody who was in the position, but I also do know people who change their minds when their daughters perhaps got into a position where they had to make that decision or not. So, for heaven's sakes, let's examine really what we do here in this House of Representatives. As you say what you are going to do, tell me that you are going to make sure that children are fed, that you are going to make sure that children are housed decently, that you are going to make sure that they are able to afford their education, and that the health care they are going to need is going to be there for them so they have the opportunity to grow up into a healthy, strong American that you are talking about, because the actions belie it. I will never forget the pain that we suffered in here while doing away with the unemployment insurance. People lost their homes, gave up almost everything. In some cases they sent their children to live with relatives. We can't divorce this debate today from that reality in America. Go visit in your districts some of the children who live that way. Go into some of the poor areas and see what their housing is like. See what kind of nutrition that they have, and then it makes it much more palatable, I think, to understand that real point of view. But isn't a piece a whole piece, and what it really comes down to is that once people are born in this country that we are our brother's keeper, and Hillary Clinton was absolutely right: it does take a village to raise a child. Do your part on that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to read from patients' stories that I have here today, starting with the fact that women need access to abortion care later in pregnancy for a variety of reasons and must have the ability to make decisions that are right for them, in consultation with their healthcare providers and those they trust. A woman's health, not politics, should be the basis of important medical decisions. Kris from Indiana. When Kris went on her 20-week ultrasound, she thought she would learn the sex of her pregnancy but, instead, found out that her fetus had cystic hygroma and fetal hydrops. The doctor advised her there was no chance of survival. The only two options were to wait until she miscarried, which would risk her health and her future fertility, or to safely terminate the pregnancy. Kris said it was a hard decision, but she was happy she was able to make it with her family and those she trusted. Because of a 20-week ban in Indiana, she had to travel to Ohio to obtain her abortion care. If H.R. 36 were passed, she would have no place to go. Lorna from Florida. Lorna is a mother of three, with a number of health issues, including lupus, a tumor on her upper intestines, and two uterine abrasions. When Lorna found out she was pregnant, she knew immediately that the carrying of the pregnancy to term was not an option for her. She had hemorrhaged while giving birth to her last child, and her sister, who also had lupus, had died after giving birth. Lorna didn't want to risk another potentially dangerous delivery and potentially leave her three children without a mother, and she went to the closest abortion care facility, got a free ultrasound, but was unable to obtain an abortion because of her health issues. The clinic recommended that Lorna obtain abortion care in a hospital setting, but due to her complex condition, the closest hospital that could handle her healthcare needs was in California. With help from the clinic and the NAF Hotline, Lorna was able to fly more than 2,000 miles to California to obtain the abortion care she needed at almost 22 weeks pregnant. She would not be able to do that under this bill. Josephine from Florida. Josephine recently moved from Texas to Florida with two children to escape her abusive partner after he threatened to kill her. While trying to create a new stable home for her children, Josephine was raped and became pregnant. She couldn't afford to pay for her abortion, nor could she arrange for transportation to get to the closest provider, who was more than 80 miles away, so Josephine attempted to terminate the pregnancy on her own by ingesting poison. She ended up being hospitalized, needing several blood transfusions, and was still pregnant. By the time she was able to gather enough resources to cover her abortion procedure and transportation, she was 23 weeks pregnant and would not have been able to do that under this law. Mya lives in Georgia. She and her mom tried borrowing money from friends and family to pay for her abortion but couldn't gather enough resources in time for her appointment, so they had to delay the care and reschedule. By the time Mya was able to raise enough money to make her appointment, she found out she was further along in the pregnancy than she expected and was now 21 weeks pregnant. She was able to access care, but if H.R. 36 were the law, she would have been prohibited. Niecy from Florida was raped by a man she thought was her friend. When she realized she was pregnant due to the rape, she knew immediately she wanted to terminate the pregnancy. As a full-time student, she had no income and couldn't tell her mom because she knew her mom would try to keep the pregnancy due to her mom's anti-choice religious beliefs. Niecy spent 2 months trying to raise enough money to pay for her procedure. She had nothing to pawn or sell and was so desperate that she even asked the rapist for money, but he refused to help her. When Niecy was past 20 weeks, she was finally put in touch with the NAF Hotline and other funds available to provide the financial money that she needed. Serafina from South Carolina started a new job and was working to build a stable life for her and her two kids in a homeless shelter when she found out she was pregnant. She decided terminating her pregnancy was the best decision for herself and her family. They had no home. Unfortunately, Serafina found out that she was already more than 20 weeks pregnant. She had no items to pawn or sell, living in a shelter. Thanks to a friend willing to help her with money and a ride--and support--Serafina was able to get the care she needed, which she could not do if H.R. 36 were passed. Gloria from Washington moved in with her parents in order to financially support them when she was faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Do you notice in all of this, the men involved don't have to pay anything or do anything at all? Isn't that a strange circumstance? When Gloria was faced with the unwanted pregnancy, she was fortunate to be working, but was only making minimum wage and had no paid sick leave and was still in her 90-day new job probationary period. Even after receiving her paycheck, she didn't have enough funds to continue supporting her family to travel to the nearest abortion care provider 3 hours away and pay for the procedure itself. Eventually, she decided not to pay her other bills in order to have enough funds to cover her travel and care, but then she ran into another barrier: her boss. Because the provider was more than 150 miles away, she needed to take time off work, but her employer wouldn't allow her to do so. The situation placed the job she desperately needed in jeopardy and, fortunately, her boss eventually relented and she was able to obtain the abortion care she needed. I will rest my case, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.