Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act. This important piece of legislation will ensure greater protections for service members and their families if they become victims of violence. It also will strengthen programs to prevent violence against fellow soldiers and military families. Unfortunately, sexual assault and domestic violence are pervasive and serious problems throughout all branches of the military. In March 2006, the Department of Defense (DoD) released their second annual sexual assault report, which stated that there were 2,374 allegations of sexual assaults reported in 2005; this is up from 1,700 the previous year. In 2004, the DoD reported 9,000 incidents of spousal abuse. A 2005 Sexual Harassment and Assault Survey of the Service Academies found 6 percent of females and 1 percent of males said they were sexually assaulted in 2004-2005, and less than half the females who experienced sexual assault reported it. In this same survey, 60 percent of female cadets indicated sexual harassment was about the same as when they first enrolled at their academy. While the DoD has been making efforts to improve its prevention and response to domestic and sexual violence, victim services remain incomplete and inconsistent among the various branches. There have been reports that victims advocates, charged with protecting the victim's rights, have been denied resources to do their job, and in some instances been forced off the base all together. Furthermore, DoD policies are not codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and do not offer the same level of rights and protections afforded to civilian victims. Perhaps most importantly, victims are unable to seek confidential counseling and treatment without fear that their records might become public if they press charges against their assailant. My bill, the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act, seeks to bring military law up to par with civilian laws by establishing a comprehensive approach for the military to address domestic violence and sexual assault among our soldiers. Specifically, this bill will: Establish an Office of Victims Advocate (OVA) within DoD, bring the Family Advocacy Program under OVA, and create a Director of OVA to oversee and coordinate efforts to prevent and respond to cases of family violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking with the military and among military families; Codify rights, restitution policies, treatment and other services for victims within the UCMJ, including creating comprehensive confidentiality protocols to protect the rights of victims within military law; Strengthen policies for reporting, prosecuting and treating perpetrators of violence; and Create counseling and treatment programs through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The military should be at the forefront of prosecuting assailants and setting the highest standards for treatment of servicemen and women, or military family members, victimized by sexual assault and domestic violence. Our Armed Forces must be able to guarantee the most basic protedtions to ensure these victims can receive necessary counseling, treatment, and justice. If a victim cannot access essential care for fear of stigma, public embarrassment, threats to their 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 harms way to protect us and our Nation from threats at home and abroad. They should not be given lesser rights and protections than the civilians whose freedoms they protect. My bill ensures they are adequately protected when dealing with the horrible tragedy of sexual assault or domestic violence. Do not allow our brave service members to be victimized twice, once by their perpetrator and then again by the military's lack of appropriate, compassionate, and confidential treatment and response. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to join me in cosponsoring the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 82 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 proposed budget sells women in this country short. Whether we are talking education, housing, financial security or health--this budget fails women. The President's budget will hurt elderly women by slashing Medicare once again. Congress just passed legislation cutting Medicare payments to health care providers to the tune of $22 billion over 10 years. Now, the President's FY07 budget will slash Medicare by yet another $105 billion over 10 years. These drastic cuts will disproportionately impact women throughout this country, as women account for over 56 percent of Medicare beneficiaries. But the President's budget doesn't stop with Medicare. It also cuts Medicaid to the bone. I'm sure it is no surprise to anyone in this body that the majority of Medicaid beneficiaries are women and girls. With over 2 million women and girls having lost health insurance coverage since 2000, many have turned to Medicaid for needed health care. The President's budget cuts Medicaid by more than $42 billion over 10 years. These cuts will shift costs to the states, who are already drastically reducing health benefits due to current budget shortfalls. This budget leaves behind women seeking reproductive health services. Title X clinics provide high-quality, low-cost family planning services. For more than 30 years, these clinics have enabled millions, and millions of women to plan their pregnancies, prevent unintended births, and receive desperately needed reproductive health care. Yet the President has proposed cutting funding for this program by millions and millions of dollars. Women cannot afford for this valuable program to be short changed, especially if this administration is not willing to adequately fund maternal child health programs. Which apparently, it is not. The Healthy Start infant mortality initiative and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant--both are placed on the chopping block in the President's budget. How can we tell women--we won't help you access contraception, and we'll do our best to see that you can't get an abortion, and then you're on your own if you have a child? Whether a senior needing Medicare, a young woman seeking reproductive health care or a mother in need of care for their child, this budget sells all women short. The President's budget puts special interests first--and America's women last. It turns back the clock on programs that we have fought for so many years to adequately fund, and the consequences are disproportionately placed on the backs of those who can least withstand the impact. I urge my colleagues to stand up for women and oppose the President's budget cuts.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, whatever happened to the Republicans who were fiscally responsible? I think they must have left town after President Bush came to Washington in 2001. In January of that year, thanks to the fiscal policies of the Clinton administration, we were expecting a $5.6 trillion budget surplus over 10 years. Instead, thanks to the fiscal policies of President Bush and the Republican ``Rubber Stamp'' Congress, that $5.6 trillion surplus has been turned into a $3.3 trillion deficit. President Bush has yet to propose a balanced budget, and yet the Republicans do not seem to mind. They keep signing off on the budget proposals, ignoring fiscal discipline. Because of their reckless borrow-and-spend policy, Republicans were forced to increase the debt limit earlier this year for the fourth time in 5 years, raising it to nearly $9 trillion. We are currently borrowing more than $600,000 a minute, much of it from foreign countries such as China and Saudi Arabia. Mr. Speaker, if House Republicans are serious about fiscal discipline, they will stop rubber-stamping President Bush's failed fiscal policies.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment by Mr. Sabo will create a new review and approval process to ensure that the secret, backroom deals, like the irresponsible Dubai Ports World, cannot happen again. The Sabo amendment strengthens the process by which our government reviews future foreign takeovers. It will require that all foreign transactions that could result in foreign control of any entity engaged in interstate commerce must undergo a thorough review that mandates the direct involvement of the President and the Congress. The second amendment, by Ms. Kaptur, will create a select congressional committee based on the Truman Committee from the Second World War to investigate and study the awarding and carrying out of government contracts, to conduct military and reconstruction activities in Iraq, and for the rebuilding efforts in the gulf coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. There is ample evidence of the necessity of this modern-day Truman Committee. Every day, more examples of fraud emerge. Billions and billions of dollars have been misused both in this country and overseas, and ensuring vigilant oversight of taxpayer dollars should not be a partisan issue. We owe it to the American taxpayers. We owe it to our brave soldiers in harm's way, and we owe it to the citizens in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who struggle every day to put their lives back together after the ravages of Hurricane Katrina. I want to emphasize that this vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the narrow, inflexible agenda of the majority. A ``no'' vote will allow those of us concerned about the safety and security of America to create a more responsible process for contracting out of our interstate commerce activities to any foreign entities. It would allow us to investigate the spending irregularities that have occurred with respect to the war in Iraq and the reconstruction efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In short, it is a vote to consider the priorities of the American people, the priorities blocked by the majority. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not prevent the consideration of the supplemental bill. The bill will still be considered in its entirety. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from voting on these two important initiatives. I urge all Members to join with me in supporting our soldiers and vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I am going to be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can modify the rule and allow the House to consider two very critical amendments. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that President Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, wrote a book after he left and commented that the first Cabinet meeting he went to, in January, they were discussing going into Iraq, to his great surprise. So that was planned long before September 11. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we are truly at a crossroads in the history of the Nation. Abroad we are engaged in a war that with each passing day becomes more dangerous, just as our path to victory becomes more obscured. At home we are still dealing with the consequence of the colossal failure of the government to meet its most basic responsibility, to protect our citizens in a time of dire crisis. It has been 7 months since Katrina devastated the gulf coast, and thousands upon thousands of our fellow Americans are still depending on handouts to survive. They are without their homes, without their jobs, and without a sense of security. And here in Washington, the principles of integrity, accountability and oversight, the cornerstone values of our democratic government, have been cast aside in favor of political expediency by our elected leadership. The American people are losing faith in this government. They believe we are headed in the wrong direction, and they want change, and it is not hard to see why. How we ultimately address the challenges before us as a government and as a people will define the future of this Nation for better or worse. In times like these, when we are so focused on what separates us from each other, it is critical that we remember what binds us together, a commitment to the same core values and principles. I think we can all agree that supporting our young men and women in uniform is a priority for each and every Member of this House, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, and whether we agreed with the Bush administration's reason for going to war in Iraq or opposed them. And just as we continue the age-old debate on the proper role of government in our society, we should all agree that the kind of collapse that we witnessed when the government failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina must never, ever happen again. We must renew our commitment to take responsibility for the safety and welfare of the American people in a time of crisis. And we must agree that government has a role in protecting not only the rights, but also the dignity and the humanity of every single American. We cannot accept, nor should we be willing to tolerate, squalor, abject poverty, and needless suffering in the heart of the United States. The defense of those who defend us abroad and the protection of the defenseless here at home, these are guiding principles that we all share. Mr. Speaker, how should we go about turning these principles into action in the days and months ahead? We may disagree on how to overcome the challenges that lay before us, just as our Founding Fathers hoped and expected that we would. But all of us here are patriots, and all of us come to the table with our Nation's best interest in mind. And so we must remember to always welcome debate and to keep the floor open to all ideas and proposals, and to subject their merits equally to the rigors of the democratic process. To pit the pursuits of an agenda against the perpetuation of our democratic traditions, that would be a true crime and a true shame. As we stand up for the principles of democracy here, we must also pledge to restore the second great tenet of our system of government, the integrity and accountability of our Congress. We can no longer allow our leaders to be blinded by the politics of the moment and forget their commitments to ethics and to oversight. The short-term gains may be tempting for those who hold strings of power, but the long-term consequences are devastating to the people of the Nation as we have already seen. Ethics, integrity and accountability should not be partisan issues. They should be issues of survival because the survival of the system depends on them. It is on this point that I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me today in taking a stand for our future. During the Second World War, Senator Harry Truman displayed a level of integrity and a strength of character that has been very rare in today's Washington. He dared to investigate his own party. He held his fellow Democrats in Congress accountable for excessive and wasteful war contracts. He provided a mechanism for accountability and oversight during an unprecedented war effort. It was called the Truman Commission. The commission's purpose was to maximize every dollar we had to spend to ferret out corruption and mismanagement and to infuse a sense of accountability into the American war machine. Its success saved many American lives by ensuring that our tax dollars were spent on what was most important, that was winning the war. And yet, we in this Congress have not had the courage to insist on the same level of accountability that President Truman saw fit to employ over 60 years ago. Despite the fact that at least $9 billion of money spent on the Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for, and despite the fact that we hear reports of payroll checks covering employees who do not exist and of firms being compensated for providing security for flights that never took off, and despite the fact that the Pentagon contracts for body armor have gone to companies that never produced it, all the while, 80 percent of the American Marines lost in Iraq to upper body wounds could have been saved if those soldiers had been provided with the right armor. Nor have we demonstrated the real commitment to fully investigate the Nation's response to the second great challenge of our time, Hurricane Katrina, and done so again, despite poor planning, misused resources, and homes and relief that still have to reach those who need it. The question I have for my colleagues today is where is our bravery? Where is our commitment to those we protect and to those who protect us? It is a question that I hope my colleagues who plan to vote for the rule answer definitively here today. When we squander precious resources, when we waste time we do not have, when we fail to hold ourselves accountable, we sacrifice American lives. And when we refuse to insist upon integrity, oversight, and accountability in our own government, we undermine our very democracy at a time when we are trying to spread it abroad. But today we have an opportunity to begin anew and follow the proud tradition of one of America's greatest leaders. We have before us a Democratic proposal to create an oversight commission, one that will ensure that billions of dollars being spent on the war in Iraq, and today's expenditure brings that to $400 billion, and that the rebuilding of New Orleans and the gulf coast are not lost in the black hole of corruption, cronyism, and no big contracts. We have an opportunity to restore checks and balances to the system of government and provide the accountability and oversight, which is our responsibility as Congresspersons to provide. Just like in Harry Truman's day, that responsibility transcends the politics of both Republicans and Democrats. Rather, it speaks to our willingness to preserve the fundamental values of our democratic system and the fundamental values of our Nation. I strongly urge my colleagues, as we prepare to spend $91.7 billion in taxpayer money, to vote against the rule and in favor of the previous question. It is a vote that will allow consideration of an amendment to create a new Truman Commission and to restore a measure of integrity, accountability, and oversight to this government, values which are so greatly missed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so that I can amend the rule to give the House an opportunity to vote today, up or down, to block the President's plan to turn over our Nation's ports to a government run by the country of Dubai. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation that stops the President from moving forward with his deal to transfer operations at a number of our Nation's busiest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, we need to ensure that Congress has a voice in the outcome of this potentially dangerous and secretive deal. On Monday of this week, Great Britain's highest court refused to consider an objection to the purchase of the British shipping company by Dubai, thus clearing the way for the sale and potential takeover of American ports by this company. Additionally, and many people may not know this, news reports this week have revealed that the contract negotiated by the Bush administration would impact more than just the six ports mentioned in the initial reports. It would affect at least 22 ports in the United States. The more we learn about the agreement, the worse it gets, and the clock is ticking on this deal and we must not allow more time to go by without taking any action in this body. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of ports that make up the 22 ports. Dubai Deal Now Includes 22 Ports Washington.--The $6.8 billion deal British courts approved today putting a Dubai-owned company in charge of significant operations at six U.S. ports, also gives the company a lesser role in other dockside activities at 16 other American seaports. By purchasing London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, DP World bought the publicly traded British firm's concessions to manage and operate some cargo or passenger terminal facilities in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The Department of Homeland Security has said DP World would only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports. Homeland Security says DP World would operate one of Philadelphia's five terminals, not including the port's single cruise ship terminal. Last week, DP World formally submitted to an unusual, broader security examination by the Bush administration over the ports deal. Among the new cities included in the deal are Camden, N.J. and Wilmington, Del. Here is a list of all U.S. ports affected by the pending sale of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai-owned DP World: BALTIMORE: Would manage and operate two of the port's 14 terminals. BATON ROUGE, LA: DP Would run some stevedoring operations at port's general cargo dock. BEAMONT, TEXAS: Would run one of about six stevedoring operations. BOSTON: Operate Black Falcon Cruise Terminal with Massachusetts Port Authority; would run stevedoring operations at the Moran Automobile Terminal. CAMDEN, N.J: Run some stevedoring operations, part owners Delaware River Stevedores. CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS: Operate some stevedoring operations, part of joint venture, Dix-Fairway. DAVISVILLE, R.I: Run some stevedoring operations. FREEPORT, TEXAS: Run some stevedoring operations. GALVESTON, TEXAS: Run stevedoring operations at one terminal. GULFPORT, MISS: Would become one of two stevedoring companies. HOUSTON: Work with stevedoring contractors at three of port's 12 terminals. LAKE CHARLES, LA: Operate some stevedoring operations. MIAMI: Operate/manage with Eller & Company Inc., one of three terminals; doesn't include Miami's seven cruise ship terminals and would operate some stevedoring services. NEWARK: Operate and manage one of the port's four terminals. NEW ORLEANS: Manage and operate two of the port's five terminals and doesn't include chemical-plant terminals along the Mississippi River. NEW YORK: Manage and operate the New York Cruise Terminal. NORFOLK, VA: Involved with stevedoring activities at all five port terminals and would not manage any of the terminals. PHILADELPHIA: Operate one of five terminals and doesn't include the port's single cruise ship terminal. PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS: Operate as one of three stevedoring companies. PORTLAND, MAINE: Operate as one of stevedoring companies serving Portland's terminals and take over crane maintenance at one terminal. TAMPA, FLA: Operate/manage terminals under pending contract negotiated Feb. 21; Port authority says will reconsider deal if DP World deal is finalized; also provide some stevedoring services. WILMINGTON, DEL: Run some stevedoring operations as part owners Delaware River Stevedores, one of two stevedoring companies at the port. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question and then we can deal with this matter which has an urgency to everyone in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend that there is a far cry between lemon juice, as Mr. Stupak said, and carbon monoxide. Let me tell you, if you believe the FDA, ask the people who took Vioxx. They do not have a very good record over there. But the idea of putting carbon monoxide on there is to hide the fact that the meat is on the verge of spoilage. I do not want to feed it to my family, nor should you want to feed it to yours. His list of people who support it have the profit motive that the attorneys general and the State consumer representatives all told us was the difference between them and his supporters. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).