Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. This is simply not accurate. The CutGo violation in the manager's amendment--the provision that increases direct spending by $712 million--would simply remove from the bill a provision that was going to ensure the Patent Office was fully funded. If I didn't already have enough complaints against this manager's amendment, I want to call attention to the House that after 13 years of work we finally got genetic nondiscrimination passed in this Congress so that people could feel free to have genetic tests. This manager's amendment for the first time talks about the patenting of human genes. That must never, ever happen.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, and 459. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 437, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 447, 449, 450, 452, 454, 456, and 458. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 438, 444, 445, 446, 448, 451, 453, 455, 457, and 459.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, and 436. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 420, 422, 426, and 428. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 421, 423, 424, 425, 427, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, and 436. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following this vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote Nos. 417, 418 and 419. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 417, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 418 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 419.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote Nos. 413, 414, 415 and 416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 413, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 414, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 415 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 416. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following this vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of The MARCH for Military Women Act (Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health), legislation that will help our servicewomen to gain access to reproductive health services. As our servicewomen risk their lives defending our country, it is deeply unfair that they are denied the rights of the Constitution that they defend. Currently, the health coverage provided to servicewomen fails to cover abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. Moreover, our servicewomen cannot pay for abortions with their own money on overseas military bases, even when local services are unsafe. The epidemic of sexual assault in the military highlights the unfairness of these prohibitions. Department of Defense statistics show that 3,158 sexual assaults were reported in the military in fiscal year 2010. While shocking, that statistic only reflects a fraction of the sexual assaults, due to under-reporting in the military. Indeed, the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services report estimated that as many as 90 percent of sexual assaults go unreported. After a woman is assaulted, she should not have to fight to receive medical services such as an abortion. Access barriers facing rape victims in the military are just one example of the indignities suffered by servicewomen who need to terminate their pregnancies. Currently, servicewomen are not allowed to purchase abortion services with their own funds on overseas military bases. They were afforded this right until 1988, when the Department of Defense rescinded it. Preventing servicewomen from accessing abortions on military bases means that they may be forced to rely on unsafe local facilities. Failing that, a servicewoman would need to request permission from her supervisor to leave her combat mission and return to the United States. The current prohibitions in the military are unfair, unjust, and potentially dangerous. A recent article in Religion Dispatches tells the story of a young Marine, who after being raped, attempted to self-abort. Her only tools were an herbal abortifacient, a rifle cleaning rod, and a laundry pin. Despite dangerous hemorrhaging, she kept working for five weeks until she realized that she needed to return to the United States for medical treatment. Our servicewomen deserve the right to determine their own destiny, without risking their health unnecessarily. That is why I have introduced legislation that will: Lift the statutory ban that denies U.S. servicewomen coverage for abortion care in cases of rape or incest; Lift the statutory ban that prevents women in the military from using private funds to access abortion services at U.S. military facilities. Our servicewomen deserve better. I urge you to help servicewomen access their constitutionally-protected rights.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote Nos. 386, 387 and 388. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 386, 387, 388. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill, Amendment Roll No. Vote ------------------------------------------------------------------------ H.R. 2017, Royce Amendment......................... 386 No H.R. 2017, Poe (TX) Amendment...................... 387 No H.R. 2017, Cuellar Amendment....................... 388 No ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, which would strike language from this legislation that would restrict Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funding to only 10 urban areas across the country. Last year, as a result of Republican-led cuts, the number of urban areas eligible to receive funding in UASI to assist local law enforcement deal with the threat of terrorist attacks was dropped from 64 to 31. Last week those cuts hit home, when two cities in my district were unjustly removed from the list of areas that received federal funding as part of this grant program. While we in Western New York appreciate the many national security needs across the country, it made me question our security priorities when two cities in an international border were denied funding only to have funding allocated to smaller cities in our nation's interior. I think that if you ask law enforcement officials in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany, they'll tell you that denying this small amount of funding to Upstate does not mean we are less at risk. Rather we've shifted the financial burden of security on them. In turn we may all be less safe. Should this amendment fail to pass, it will effectively prevent cities like Rochester and Buffalo from competing for UASI grants in the future thanks to the plans of the majority to reduce funding even more in future years. At a time when the threat of terrorist attacks is high, we cannot lay the entire financial burden of securing our cities on local authorities, first responders, law enforcement and agencies and expect to adequately protect our citizens and make our cities safe.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce a resolution recognizing and thanking Gander International Airport, the citizens of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador and the people and Government of Canada for the immeasurable assistance they provided to the United States on September 11, 2001. Following the terrorist attacks and the closure of U.S. airspace, flights en route to the United States were rerouted to airports across Canada. The Canadian government instituted Operation Yellow Ribbon, closing their own airspace along with the U.S. for the first time in the history of both countries and safely landing 239 aircraft destined for the U.S. and Canada at 17 airports across Canada. Gander International Airport, located in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, was one such airport to welcome flights bound for the U.S. The small community of Gander has a population of less than 10,000, and Gander International Airport was only scheduled to receive a total of eight flights that day. Yet it received the second most number of flights, 38, and the second most number of passengers, 6,600, out of all the Canadian airports during Operation Yellow Ribbon. What transpired over the course of the next three days in that small community will forever stand as an inspirational story of kindness and generosity during a time of enormous adversity. As stranded passengers waited for the U.S. to reopen its airspace, the people of Gander responded by donating food, clothing, shelter and medicine. Citizens of Gander welcomed stranded passengers into their homes, held sightseeing and whale watching trips, and organized impromptu concerts to strengthen morale and provide emotional support. No request was too large and no call for help went unanswered. The outpouring of kindness and support from the people of Gander was so remarkable and memorable for everyone involved that the stranded passengers have since sponsored scholarships for Newfoundlanders, donated computer equipment to area communities, financed a new conference room for the Gander area community of Lewisporte and held annual reunions to show their appreciation for the goodwill of the citizens of Gander. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States are well documented. However we must also officially recognize and acknowledge the tremendous assistance we received that day from the citizens of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, Gander International Airport and the entire nation of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing and thanking the citizens of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador for their kindness and generosity during the most devastating terrorist attack in American history. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the people of Gander as well as the entire nation of Canada.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I see them at the airport every week. I see them, some of them on their fourth deployment, and they beg me, they beg me to come down here and try to get this to stop. They have literally said to me that they will send me back until I am dead, and I come home in a box. How dare we do this? It is time; it is time for us to face up to the fact that what we could do there has been done and that we need a definite timetable as quickly as possible to stop this war in Afghanistan. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to read a sentence from a report that was recently released. It is something for us to think about: ``We are in uncharted territory here,'' says the Army Vice Chief of Staff. ``We have never fought for this long. In the history of the Republic, we have never fought for this long with an all-volunteer force that is only 1 percent of the population.'' Mr. Chairman, we see what is the result of this war. Tens of thousands of our young soldiers are maimed with life-altering conditions, complete loss of limbs, devastating head wounds which will change their lives forever, many younger than 20 years old. Osama bin Laden has been captured and dealt with. That was the reason for us going in the first place. Only Congress, only Congress can stop this. We are so open ended. We have talked here today about how we can't leave until the Afghans say we are ready. That may be 50 years from now, Mr. Chairman, and it is time that we really got serious about what we are doing here, not only to the young men and women who go but for the $10 billion per month it adds to our deficit.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Force Protection and Readiness Act of 2011. This legislation will provide greater protections for our service women and men stationed in the U.S. and abroad. Sexual assault is a pervasive and serious problem throughout all branches of the military. Over 65,000 servicemen and women have experienced some form of sexual assault or rape since 2002. In the Department of Defense (DoD) Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, there was a total of 3,230 reports of sexual assault involving military service members as either victims or subjects. This represents an 11 percent increase over FY 2008. In 2008, in nearly half of all sexual assault cases the commander took no action, and only 13 percent of reported cases were prosecuted and referred to courts martial. These figures are far below civilian prosecution rates, where 40 percent of those arrested for rape are prosecuted. We must ensure that there is zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military services. The Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services report released in December 2009 estimates that as many as 90 percent of sexual assaults go unreported. We hear too often that the reporting process may be as traumatic for the victim as the attack itself. In order to fully support and protect our troops, we must ensure the rights of sexual assault victims are upheld every step of the way. If a victim cannot access essential care for fear of stigma, public embarrassment, threats to her career, or because they just do not know what resources are available, the military will continue to lose valuable female and male soldiers. These service members put themselves in harm's way to protect us and our Nation from threats at home and abroad. This bill ensures they are protected when dealing with the horrible tragedy of sexual assault. The Force Protection and Readiness Act will expand the rights and protections of victims. First, it will create confidentiality protocols to protect victim rights and raise the propensity for a soldier to report their case by ensuring they receive adequate legal assistance and appropriate privileged communications with victim advocates. Second, it will ensure ease of base or organization transfer for victims or the offender, thereby decreasing fear of retaliation and bolstering victim reports. Third, it will require that each service branch employ highly qualified experts to train and advise JAGs to handle and try sexual assault cases effectively. Fourth, it will ensure more complete sexual assault data reporting to better track DoD-wide reports and case disposition. Fifth, it will establish in statute a universal hotline to facilitate victim reporting and provide victims an immediate connection with sexual assault response coordinators. We must put an end to what our former colleague and previous Army Secretary Pete Geren called ``fratricide.'' We must keep the pressure on DoD to eliminate sexual assault in the ranks.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Reciprocal Market Access Act. In the wake of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, our country faces a difficult road towards recovery. As part of this effort, it is critical that we ensure that our trade policy is working as it should: to generate new opportunities for our businesses, strengthen American manufacturing capabilities, and reduce the unemployment rate that has risen to the highest level in decades. American manufacturers of products ranging from optical fiber to autos and agriculture face continual problems with access to overseas markets. Our own trade negotiators do little to prevent this from happening, as it is often standard for trade agreements to open our markets fully to foreign competitors, yet we gain little market access in return. The pending free trade agreement with South Korea is another example of a free trade agreement that opens our markets to foreign competition while failing to address serious market access concerns in Korea. We must provide our negotiators with unequivocal guidelines so that they do not relinquish our domestic trade protections without gaining meaningful market access for American manufacturers in exchange. Unless other governments play by the rules and remove barriers to our exports, the U.S. should not acquiesce to their demands by further opening our market--which is already the most open market in the global economy. Unilateral disarmament in the face of foreign protectionist practices is unacceptable, and we must ensure that our trade negotiators do not undermine our industries and our workers. The Reciprocal Market Access Act would instruct our trade negotiators to eliminate foreign market barriers before reducing U.S. tariffs. This bill would also provide enforcement authority to reinstate the tariff if the foreign government does not honor its commitment to remove its barriers. This legislation also addresses a serious problem in the current trade negotiating process. Tariff and non-tariff sectoral barriers are compartmentalized, meaning that a tariff item can be reduced or eliminated by our negotiators without securing elimination of the non- tariff barriers that deny U.S. industry access to a foreign market. This legislation would give our government the right to revoke concessions to cut tariffs if our trading partners fail to implement negotiated commitments to eliminate barriers that had initially been identified by U.S. domestic producers for our negotiators. The principle of reciprocity--the principle on which this legislation is built--is not new. In fact it is a principle that should be essential to any effective trade relationship. Cordell Hull, Democrat from Tennessee and Roosevelt's Secretary of State in 1933, was responsible for bringing this concept into the U.S. and global trade systems with the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934. It was this act which formed the basis for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Mr. Hull developed the Act to move away from the negative consequences of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised U.S. tariffs on thousands of imports to record levels. Smoot-Hawley established the United States as protectionist, and provoked a rash of retaliatory measures from our trading partners. It is no longer the United States that is shutting its markets to foreign competitors. We have the most open market in the world, and continue to find ways to lower tariffs and eliminate market barriers. Yet this policy is often not reciprocated, as American manufacturers find significant barriers to foreign markets while they watch their own domestic market share dwindle. The result is quality American companies are forced to downsize or close their doors for good, and American workers are left jobless. That is not free trade. Free trade involves a system where American companies are able to compete in markets uninhibited by barriers. It involves a level playing field for American companies and our trading partners. And I have no doubt that if given a level playing field, American companies and American workers can compete in any market. The Reciprocal Market Access Act will mandate that at the very least any trade agreement does not put American companies and workers at a competitive disadvantage. It establishes what should be the standard for all trade agreements: a mutually beneficial trade relationship in which goods can be freely exchanged and that promotes economic growth.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have had many misnamed bills, euphemistically called almost anything to try to make some kind of point, but this one does not have a thing in the world to do with restricting Federal money used in abortions. That has not been done for 30 years. This bill actually says let's try to make sure that no insurance companies in the country will ever cover them again no matter what the circumstances. With no other medical procedure would we be even standing here talking about what's best for American citizens. In all my years in Congress, I have never had to debate a bill about how and when a patient can receive an appendectomy nor a bill about how or when a patient can receive corrective surgery nor is it legal to have a vasectomy. Yet here we are today debating a bill that will reach far beyond the status quo and place restrictions on the constitutionally protected right to access reproductive health care. In the case of abortion, it has been decided with this bill that they can dictate how and when a woman is allowed to receive reproductive health care. In part because women are instinctual nurturers, the decision about whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most personal and important decisions that they will ever make. In making this decision, a woman should be free to consult with whomever she pleases, whether it be her doctor, her spouse, her family, a parent, confidant, or religious adviser. But a woman should never, never be forced to adhere to extreme restrictions placed upon her by Members of Congress. I've served in three legislatures, and in every one of them were always men in blue suits who knew very little about the life-altering experience of pregnancy and birth who demanded this kind of action. I have often spoken in support of a woman's right to access an abortion and have many people, including some of my own constituents, who disagree with me, and that's fine. They have never, however, tried by law to enforce upon me what they themselves believe. Once I was at a meeting in my district and I was asked by a man who was strongly opposed to a woman's right to choose, What should be done about that? And my response to him was simple and personal and still applies today. I asked him that if, God forbid, he ever finds himself in a difficult position of having to decide whether or not his wife needed to have an abortion, either because of the health of the fetus or the mother was in danger or because of another personal or private matter, is he willing to say to people gathered in the hospital and during the discussion, No decision can be made until Louise Slaughter gets here because Congress will make that decision for him? The right to an abortion is already a procedure that is carefully regulated by the decision of Roe v. Wade. Today's legislation would go far beyond this status quo and further restrict access in an attempt to make it practically impossible to receive an abortion under these laws. Today's bill changes the tax system--this is an important point and I want you to understand this--for private health care plans that offer abortion coverage to small businesses and individuals, as most of them do. If passed into law, this bill would pressure private health insurance plans to stop offering that coverage altogether. And that, Madam Speaker, is the purpose of this bill. In addition, and most egregiously, today's legislation opens the door to the IRS audits of rape and incest survivors, to prove that they followed the law when paying for an abortion. Do we do this with anything else--I'm absolutely astonished--to place this kind of burden on a medical procedure? It's been designed specifically to chip away at the rights of women. Most egregiously, this bill has put a dangerous provision into the committee report that accompanies this bill. Please listen up. You need to know what this says in this report language, which is as important as the bill itself. That report language states that the legislation is intended to prohibit the use of Federal money to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the rape of a child too young to give consent. Now, think about that for a moment. This bill forbids any money being used to help that child. It's not bad enough that they have been raped or that they are victims of incest. Now we're telling them that they have to keep records so that they can prove to the IRS that they followed the law? That is what I thought about when I made the statement earlier this spring ``show me your papers.'' And that is precisely what this bill is asking to do. If this bill becomes law, think about the statutory rape. Think about your children. Think about other people's children. If it becomes law, the committee report will become one of the documents relied upon by the courts when deciding the cases about abortion. With the committee report in hand, a future justice would have the document they need to further restrict access to abortion for victims of rape and incest. If this sounds extreme, believe me, it is. We, like our Nation's Founders, know that each individual is entitled to his or her beliefs. But no matter how strongly we believe them, we should not be allowed to force them upon others as we wish. Yet placing an ideology upon others and restricting their choices when it comes to reproductive health is the spirit behind today's legislation and one of the many reasons why it should be stopped. As we all know, at the time of our Nation's founding, the ideal of equal rights and freedoms was far from realized. In fact, it was not even of much concern. African Americans were property; women could not vote or own anything; and indeed, a pregnant woman who was widowed could find that her child had been willed away from her by her husband, who had all the rights. Native Americans were pushed off their land and out of our society. With great struggle and over time--and certainly, I know of the struggle for women's rights because of what happened in my own district, which is where that struggle began--we have righted many of these wrongs, and as a Nation, we have come to believe that men and women of every color and creed are created equal, that we are all entitled to the rights and individual freedoms at the core of our Nation's ideals. Today's proposed legislation up-ends the principle of equal rights and freedoms by placing severe restrictions on the constitutionally protected right to an abortion. Instead of crafting legislation to restrict a woman's right to safe, secure reproductive health, this Congress should respect the rights of women and uphold their constitutionally protected rights. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and on the underlying bill, which may be the most egregious that comes to the floor this year. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself 30 seconds just to speak to something that is very important. H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a nurse, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to put in the real Guttmacher statement, what they have said. ``The claim that restoration of Federal Medicaid coverage would result in a significant increase in the incidence of abortion nationwide is not supported by research, and extrapolating from Guttmacher's Medicaid findings to assert that coverage in the private insurance market is strongly linked to abortion incidence is entirely illegitimate.'' I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).