Bonnie Watson Coleman

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), who is a member of the select panel that will undoubtedly be examining some of these issues.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the Congresswoman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday the Supreme Court will take up Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which is a case that challenges Texas' outright offensive effort to strip women of their right to choose. Last night the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a similar law to move forward in Louisiana, all but guaranteeing the closure of three of four abortion clinics in that State unless the Supreme Court intervenes there as well. The men who have passed these laws--to be very clear, the Texas State Legislature is 80 percent male, and Louisiana has just made it up from dead last this year at 85 percent--claimed that it would increase the medical accountability and safety of facilities that provide abortion. That is the new message, the new veil, that covers these laws with the air of legitimacy: We want to make your abortion safer. So every doctor needs to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and every clinic needs to function like an emergency center. It sounds logical until you hear what the folks behind these laws have to say after the laws have passed. In Texas, then-Governor Rick Perry said: ``The ideal world is one without abortion. Until then, we will continue to pass laws to ensure that they are as rare as possible.'' One of the authors of the bill said that she was especially proud that ``Texas always takes the lead in trying to turn back what started with Roe v. Wade.'' The first problem here is the same one we have dealt with over and over and over and over again, because Roe v. Wade isn't something you turn back. It wasn't an executive order. It wasn't even a law passed by Congress. It was a legal challenge 40 years ago that required the Supreme Court to consider whether or not women had the right to make decisions about their bodies. They decided and set a precedent that every woman in this Nation had the constitutional right to an abortion. What is more, the Court made it clear that States cannot use laws to create an undue burden for women who are seeking to exercise that right. The Court affirmed that decision once more in 1992. Women in Texas now have firsthand experience of what happens when States ignore the Supreme Court. From what I can see, there is no way that the Texas law can be considered anything other than an undue burden, which brings us to the second problem: There is absolutely no logical, medical reason to suddenly require these clinics to meet the standards of a hospital. These laws are opposed by a host of leading medical groups, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, professionals who know better than anyone what kinds of skills and resources should be necessary for an abortion, which is one of the safest medical procedures out there. I find it incredibly hard to believe that whole organizations of physicians would oppose any of these laws if they really did make clinics safer, Mr. Speaker, but I digress. In Texas, the full implementation of the bill that is being challenged next week would force more than 75 percent of abortion clinics in that State to close. In fact, with the limited implementation they have had to date, the number of clinics has been cut in half. If it is allowed to go into effect, only 10 clinics will remain to serve the 5.4 million Texas women of reproductive age. What is even worse is that, while these laws are being masqueraded as efforts to make abortions safer, they are forcing more women down the dangerous path of attempting to end their pregnancies on their own. A study by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project found that women who report barriers to abortion are more likely to self-induce an abortion, putting their lives at risk in the process. This sounds like 1955, not 2016. Mr. Speaker, these laws are an absolute farce, and it is time to stop the sham. Women deserve to make the choices that work for them. If that means having an abortion, they should be able to do it safely, without traveling hundreds of miles or without waiting weeks to be seen. My colleagues and I are here on the floor tonight because we stand with the women in Texas, with the women in Louisiana, and with the women across this country, women who want to make their own decisions about when, where, and how to make decisions that will change their lives, women whose voices are seldom represented in the legislative bodies, which are filled with men who are ready to take away their rights. It is now my pleasure to yield to the illustrious Member from the State of Texas, someone who has been a constant fighter for everyone's rights, including women's rights, Congresswoman Jackson Lee.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, we thank you for this opportunity to raise what is a very important issue in 2016. Women are being attacked on several fronts, whether it is on cases that are being brought before courts or whether it is in this House. We have got to recognize that this decision, the decision for a woman to make with regard to her reproductive rights, have already been established. And we as Congress and we as a society of lawmakers and policymakers need to do all that we can to facilitate those rights to ensure that we do not discriminate against people. To discriminate against women in this regard is illegal, and it is unacceptable. It is time for us to recognize our responsibility to be stewards of the laws which have been put before us and to uphold the Constitution that we have pledged to support and to uphold and to recognize that the abridgement of a woman's right is the abridgement of a civil right, and that is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. My amendment would simply ensure that those who have filed a suit in connection with sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor are exempt from the changes that this law makes. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an assault on the ability of everyday hardworking Americans to seek justice, and despite its misleading title, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with fraud and will do nothing to prevent it. This is just one more step by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to offer corporations every opportunity imaginable to take advantage of workers, consumers, and patients. By making it easier to move cases to Federal court, we make it easier for big corporations to play the long game, waiting out plaintiffs with limited financial resources, with limited capacity to travel far from home for hearings, and with limited ability to sit through the significantly longer Federal process. The current law has been around for centuries, based on the obvious logic that a State case belongs in a State court. The new burden that this bill would place on the average American is simply outrageous. The least that we can do is protect children who have already been victimized by sexual assault. My amendment is simple. It would ensure that we allow those who have filed lawsuits in connection with the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor to continue to operate under the completely operational and already efficient system currently in place. Most importantly, it will protect victims who have already experienced incredible emotional and physical trauma from being dragged through a long and costly court process far from home just to benefit some multinational corporation out to maximize its profits. This isn't a hypothetical situation. In one case heard in Washington State, plaintiffs were minors who were sexually exploited by instate defendants and by an out-of-State defendant who advertised the sexual services of the minors on the defendant's Web site. When those plaintiffs brought claims against the defendants for sexual exploitation, assault, battery, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, the out-of-State defendant attempted to move the case to Federal court. Federal courts rejected that defendant's arguments, and the case remained at the State level. But if this bill is allowed to pass, that would no longer be the case. Mr. Speaker, this bill is reprehensible. Unfortunately, it is only the latest in a long line of efforts to put corporations beyond reproach and outside of any accountability. Let's at least ensure that young people, who have already been victimized, don't experience any further mistreatment for the sake of shareholders' profits. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 3584, the Transportation Security Administration Reform and Improvement Act of 2015. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 3584 includes language authored by Ranking Member Bennie Thompson to direct TSA to move away from how it identifies low-risk passengers for expedited airport screening. In recent years, both the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general and the comptroller general have been very critical about the security risks of the so-called managed inclusion process. In response, Ranking Member Thompson introduced the Securing Expedited Screening Act, which was included in this measure. We all have an interest in TSA effectively managing airport screening. Ensuring that a robust known-traveler program for low-risk travelers is built into TSA's concept of screening operations just makes sense. That is why I support the expansion of the PreCheck program, under which expedited screening is provided to travelers who have been fully vetted prior to arriving at the airport. I am pleased that H.R. 3584 includes provisions to expand the public's enrollment in the PreCheck program by, among other things, coordinating with the private sector to deploy TSA-approved online and mobile enrollment centers. Another key to the effective management of airport screening is the maintenance of the security equipment. I am pleased that H.R. 3584 includes language authored by Representative Rice, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security, to ensure that TSA puts in place systems to ensure that when it comes to security-related technologies at our Nation's airports, timely maintenance is done and documented. According to the DHS inspector general, without proper maintenance and documentation thereof, the TSA could possibly have to resort to using alternate screening methods, which could lead to the traveling public being less safe. H.R. 3584 also includes language adopted in the full committee to help businesses, particularly small businesses, to be able to create innovative security technologies through public-private partnerships. Over the years, we have seen the limitations of various security technologies in use at our airports. It is crucial that innovators continue to push the envelope in terms of detection and mitigation capabilities. Finally, as the Representative of a jurisdiction that relies heavily on mass transit, I am pleased that the bill seeks to ensure that frontline workers in our transportation sectors have the training needed to react in worst-case scenarios. The thwarted terrorist attack on a train traveling from Amsterdam to Paris last year underscores that mass transit continues to be a terrorist target. Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the examples of provisions within this bill that will help to improve TSA operations and bolster the security of the American people. I urge support for this measure. I want to close by noting the bipartisan work that went into this legislation. There is still much to be done in the transportation security space, but the legislation before us represents a step in the right direction to address issues within the surface and aviation transportation sectors. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4408, the National Strategy to Combat Terrorist Travel Act of 2016. H.R. 4408 requires the development of a national strategy to combat terrorist travel by bolstering efforts to intercept terrorists and foreign fighters, while also constraining their domestic and international travel. I applaud the work of the Committee on Homeland Security's Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel. One of the many findings of the task force's final report was that it has been a decade since the executive branch produced a government-wide plan to constrain terrorist travel. In the years since the issuance of the last government-wide plan in 2006, many programs aimed at restricting or preventing terrorist travel have changed or ended and new programs have been created. The task force found that hundreds of programs, projects, and initiatives have sprouted up to combat terrorist travel since 9/11, but there is no overarching strategy to coordinate them. Importantly, H.R. 4408 requires that the strategy include an updated, full accounting and description of America's terror travel preventative and protective measures. This accounting should provide a valuable baseline for future efforts to prevent terrorist travel. H.R. 4408 requires the President to submit to Congress a national strategy focused on disrupting and intercepting terrorists and foreign fighters. The strategy is to include an accounting of all U.S. Government programs to constrain terrorist travel, identify gaps and how they will be closed, and describe actions to eliminate waste, overlap, and duplication of efforts. The evolving nature of the terrorist threat demands a whole-of- government approach. A national strategy with implementation plans for each Federal agency involved, as H.R. 4408 requires, has the potential to deliver real security advances. As such, I support H.R. 4408, and I urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4398, the DHS Acquisition Documentation Integrity Act of 2016. I introduced this legislation to ensure that, when it comes to managing acquisitions, the Department of Homeland Security gets the fundamentals right. H.R. 4398 would require ``complete, accurate, timely, and valid'' documentation to be maintained for each of the Department's major acquisition programs. A major acquisition program is defined as one with a life-cycle cost estimated at $300 million or more. Later this week, the subcommittee on which I serve as ranking member will be conducting an oversight hearing about an acquisition that is, to my mind, a textbook case of why my legislation is so critical. After more than 12 years of effort at delivering a Department-wide human resource IT system and the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, DHS has virtually nothing to show for it. That acquisition, the Human Resource Information Technology program, or HRIT, lacked basic acquisition documentation, including a valid cost estimate and schedule. Under H.R. 4398, DHS would have to maintain current cost estimates and schedules for major acquisition programs. These sources of critical information for acquisition decisionmakers would have to conform to best practices, as identified by the Government Accountability Office. Additionally, each component head within DHS would be obligated to submit acquisition documentation to the Secretary for the production of an annual comprehensive report to Congress on the status of the acquisition. Under H.R. 4398, the Secretary could only waive these requirements in very limited circumstances. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have outlined here, I urge support for H.R. 4398. Mr. Speaker, anything less than an up-to-date acquisition documentation increases the odds of cost and schedule overruns. It also risks delayed delivery of critical capabilities and wastefully depletes resources that could be put to better use to protect the homeland. The Homeland Security Committee favorably reported H.R. 4398 on February 2 by a unanimous vote, and I thank my colleague for being a part of that. The fact that this legislation is cosponsored by Representatives McCaul and Thompson, the chairman and ranking member of our committee, reflects a strong commitment to bolstering the effectiveness of DHS acquisition programs. I urge passage of H.R. 4398, a bill that will help ensure that DHS is a good steward of taxpayer dollars and can provide DHS operators in the field with the tools they need to protect the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4402, the Foreign Fighter Review Act of 2016. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4402 requires the President, through the Department of Homeland Security, to review information regarding persons who have traveled or attempted to travel from the United States to Syria and Iraq since 2011 to support terrorist organizations. This legislation reflects a recommendation issued by the Committee on Homeland Security's Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel in its final report. The report found that a large number of U.S. persons have been able to travel to dangerous terrorist safe havens in Iraq and Syria and return to the United States without interdiction. I believe there is a lot to be learned from the instances where we failed to interdict persons who traveled to terrorist safe havens. These ``lessons learned'' could reveal systematic weaknesses in our security programs and highlight areas for enhancements. While many Federal agencies have completed individual reviews of cases within their purview, a coordinated and comprehensive interagency after-action review has never been undertaken. H.R. 4402 would require just such a review. H.R. 4402 has the potential to strengthen coordination across the Federal Government to help prevent U.S. persons from exploiting vulnerabilities in our security apparatus to travel under the radar to terrorist camps and safe havens in the future. As such, Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 4402. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I again urge passage of H.R. 4402, a bill that seeks to improve the Federal Government's understanding of the circumstances surrounding travel or attempted travel from the U.S. to terrorist safe havens in Syria and Iraq. Under this measure, the review is to be submitted to Congress within 120 days of enactment. The findings of that review have the potential to inform policymakers as we work to strengthen our ability to prevent travel to terrorist sanctuaries and terrorism at large. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, before I start, let me extend my condolences to those who are mourning the death of our former Congressman. That was 60 minutes' worth of very, very nice tribute. As I am sure all of my colleagues are aware, we are now in primary election season. This year the American people will elect a new President of the United States. Unfortunately, there is a great possibility that hundreds of thousands of Americans will be barred from casting their vote because of this body's failure to act. In 2012, I watched, horrified, as voters were forced to stand in outrageous lines at their polling places. Meanwhile, States across the country have set up new barriers to voting, cutting back on early voting hours, and adding difficult new identification hurdles that limit young people and communities of color more than anyone else--and this as we call ourselves the model of democracy for the whole world to follow. Instead of embracing every possible opportunity to improve and facilitate one of the cornerstones of our democracy, we are allowing it to crumble. There is quite a bit to fix, yet Congress isn't willing to do anything about it. Mr. Speaker, our States have wildly different voting systems. Early voting is allowed some places but not others, same-day registration is offered in one State but not in the next. I can think of few better tasks for Congress to take on than to set standards for Federal elections, at a minimum, and to provide the biggest possible opportunity for our constituents to pick the people that represent them. We have Americans that have made mistakes in their pasts but have completed their sentences for nonviolent convictions. They have put in their effort to change and have come back to society as tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, we ban millions of these Americans from the ballot box despite their rehabilitation. It seems to me that Congress should get involved in offering individuals like those one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans--but we are not. Mr. Speaker, there is also a conversation for this body to have about technology. Smartphones and other mobile devices have fingerprint sensors. I can wave a key fob over a terminal and pay for lunch without swiping a credit card or even signing my name. I acknowledge that there are very real challenges we face in bringing technology to the ballot box, but we should be talking about how we can use digital advances to expand access instead of trying to manufacture excuses to limit access. Right there alone, there are three steps we could take on voting rights in our Nation. Unfortunately, we can't even begin these discussions because we seem to have traveled back to a dark place in our Nation's history when it was both legal and common to limit access to polling places. Despite so many opportunities to move forward, we are rolling backward. Since 2010, 22 States have passed laws that make it more difficult for Americans to vote, most commonly in the form of voter ID laws that disproportionately impact communities of color, women, seniors, students, and low-income individuals. Unfortunately, the Voting Rights Act, which had previously curtailed these dangerous restrictions, was gutted in 2013 by the Supreme Court. In the so-called first-in-the-nation primary held this week in New Hampshire, voters encountered new ID laws for the first time, a law that allowed poll workers to vouch for voters without approved IDs and gives them the leeway to discriminate against some voters while validating others. Laws like the one in New Hampshire were passed to protect elections from voting fraud--a specter that Republicans have used time and again to scare Americans into thinking that some dark figure is hijacking their election, a notion that has been discredited and disproved time and again. Between 2002 and 2005, the Department of Justice made prosecuting voter fraud a top priority. In that timeframe, hundreds of millions of votes were cast; yet only 38 cases were brought to trial, and then only one involved impersonation fraud, which is what photo ID laws protect against. More recently, a professor at the Loyola University Law School has tracked every allegation of voter fraud since 2000 and has found just 31 cases--just 31 cases--of impersonation. That is 31 ballots out of more than 1 billion that have been cast. The fact of the matter is the kind of intentional shady voter fraud these laws were based on simply did not exist. Mr. Speaker, of the many tasks this body has, protecting the right to vote, the foundation that built our democracy, the right for which countless Americans have fought over the course of a more than 200-year history, protecting, expanding, and strengthening that right seems like it should be one of our greatest priorities. I hope that my colleagues can begin to see that also and to join me and many of my colleagues on the Democratic Caucus in taking action that will facilitate, expand, and provide opportunities for every eligible person who can vote to be able to vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, the city of Flint, Michigan, has been hit by a crisis of massive proportion. Its impact on the long-term health and future success of its residents remains unclear. The fact I find most disturbing is that it is a completely manmade crisis. It grew out of the same kind of stubborn faith in austerity measures that has handicapped our ability to govern for years. It grew out of a failure to protect the Flint River from environmental damage. It grew out of both a failure to invest in Flint's crumbling infrastructure and in the willful disregard for the people of that city, a city in which more than 40 percent of the residents live below the poverty line and in which the majority of families are African American. My colleagues and I are here on the floor this evening to urge every Member of this body to understand one thing: If we fail to acknowledge the issues that led to the Flint water crisis, we will see similar and equally devastating events in more and more cities across the country. We need to recognize that tunnel vision for deficit reduction creates more problems than it solves. The emergency manager appointed by Governor Snyder instituted a plan to run Flint like a business in order to bring it back from the brink of death. In the process, he sought out the least expensive options for basic needs, like water. In doing so, he decided to pull from the corrosive and contaminated Flint River without ensuring the treatment protocol necessary to ensure the water was clean. We now know that, although the Flint River is in poor shape, a little additional spending could have prevented this crisis. Instead, Flint went the bare bones route, leaving a generation of residents to suffer the permanent consequences. Madam Speaker, Congress has, once more, been so focused on reducing the deficit that we have lost sight of our responsibility to govern. Only a few months ago did we finally abandon the absurd policy of sequestration, which has hampered the functioning of countless programs over the past several years. The benefits of austerity and small government are questionable at best. Flint has proven that, and we would all be wise to remember it. Unfortunately, that is not the only lesson that we can take away from this crisis. This Congress has made undermining environmental and energy regulations one of its core missions. In the first 100 days of the 114th Congress, it voted on more environmental and energy issues than on any other topic, and not a single one was aimed at protecting resources, like the Flint River, from the kind of contamination that allowed its water to corrode lead pipes. If reducing the deficit has been the first priority for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, allowing corporations and big businesses to take whatever liberties with our environment they choose has to be a close second. Under the majority of this House, our babies would choke on smog before we limit the amount of pollution a single smokestack can spew out. Our streams and rivers would poison even the fish swimming in them before we would set restrictions on where these companies can dump their chemical byproducts. Our forests and farmlands would turn barren before we would question the long-term impact of fracking. It took years to turn the Flint River into the downright dangerous water source that has caused so many problems. But for other rivers, lakes, or streams, there may still be time to repair or prevent the damage that we have done. Flint should move us to strengthen, not weaken, our environmental protections. Madam Speaker, there is one more lesson to learn here, and it is perhaps the most important. The infrastructure in Flint, like in so many other cities, is outdated, and no one at the local, State or Federal level seems willing or capable of making the necessary investments. Today in our Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, one of the topics of concern was that, even if individual homes had replaced their old lead pipes, the city's pipes would still have caused a major problem. Madam Speaker, that is a matter of infrastructure at the most basic level. In my home State of New Jersey, we spent more than a decade leading the way in the battle against lead poisoning. But with the onset of Governor Christie's administration, all these advances have also come to an abrupt halt there. There are now 11 cities with levels of lead higher than what has been reported in Flint right in my State of New Jersey. This contamination from lead comes from paint instead of water. Nonetheless, it is a reflection of the reduction and diminution of services and resources to make our environment safe for our communities. Two of these cities are right in my district. Still, Governor Christie's administration has ignored the problem and thoroughly failed our children by choosing not to fund our State's lead abatement fund. Here at the Federal level we can take this even further. Our failure to invest in transportation and energy infrastructure is building up to a crisis of a different kind, a time when our roads, our bridges, and our power grids begin to fail. Madam Speaker, there are so many lessons we need to learn from Flint. I have a number of colleagues who are here with me this evening who have raised their voices in support of the people of Flint and who I know agree with me that this must be a watershed moment. We need to change course to prevent this from happening again and ensure the future of our Nation. Before I turn this over, I want to take a moment to add that there are a number of organizations, coalitions, and other associations that consistently are dedicated to protecting our natural resources. They defend the Clean Water Act, and they fight for the Clean Air Act. I hope to see more of them fighting for Flint in the near future. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who not only represents the district in which there is Flint, but he is a resident born and raised in the city of Flint, Michigan.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, we are particularly grateful for both Representative Kildee and Representative Lawrence for having elevated this discussion to the point that we are giving it serious consideration. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a cosponsor of this Special Order hour.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I would like to thank the Congresswoman. Another very strong and strident voice on behalf of all the citizens in the State of Michigan, and particularly with regard to the issue confronting our victims, the citizens as well as the city officials in Flint, Michigan, is our Congresswoman Dingell from Michigan.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I now yield to the distinguished lady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentlewoman very much for not only her eloquent words but the fact that she can speak from her scientific background, being a microbiologist. Absolutely there is science in this issue. Now I yield to the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank Mr. Ellison, and I appreciate him taking the time to be here. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you very much to the Congresswoman. Madam Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left.