Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental problems with the bill before us today: What it does and what it does not to do. The bill will not address the very real and very immediate problems millions of Americans are facing every day. People are struggling to be able to afford to drive to work in the morning, and families are wondering how they are going to pay to heat their homes this winter. But the GAS Act we are considering today will not help them. This energy bill, written in the midst of what is threatening to become the worst energy crisis the country has ever experienced, does nothing to help reduce the price of gasoline. That is not me talking, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), admitted this very fact in the Committee on Rules yesterday. He told us without taking command and control measures, this Congress cannot do anything in the short term to lower gas prices, even if the bill is passed, and he wrote the bill. I hope every American pays attention to that fact because it is a very important one. With this bill, the Republican leadership is telling you they know there is a problem, they know you are suffering, but there is nothing they can do about it; but it is not true that they cannot, it is just true that they will not. There are things that this Congress can do to help our fellow Americans in this time of crisis. There are measures that can be taken that will help reduce the price of gasoline. I know because we debated many of those measures in the Committee on Rules just last night. Amendments that I and my colleagues have proposed, such as eliminating the zone pricing methods employed by gasoline suppliers, would help to mitigate the high gas prices not years down the road but now. These amendments were rejected by the majority. In fact, of the 18 Democratic amendments offered only one was allowed. We are offering that amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) as a substitute for the bill, but it begs the question, what is the leadership doing with their time and energy if we cannot have a real debate on how to solve these very real problems? If unconcerned with the present, does the bill at least offer a plan for the future? Does it call for our Nation to raise its energy efficiency standards or for us to aggressively explore alternatives fuels? Amendments that were not allowed to be considered called for those things, but the GAS Act is silent on them. Since the GAS Act will not address the needs of the people either now or in the years ahead, what will it do? The answer is as simple as it is predictable: It is a give-away to the oil industry. To justify this action, the Republican leadership first invented a problem. America needs to expand its refinery capacity, they said. This premise is dubious at best. Edward Murphy, a refinery specialist with the American Petroleum Institute, told The Washington Post just yesterday there is not a shortage of capacity in America because capacity is a global issue. His learned opinion was clearly ignored by the authors of the legislation, for having invented their problem, they have already come up with a solution to it: Throw the money at the oil companies, and that will induce them to build more refineries. The simple truth of the matter is that for three decades, oil companies have not been building refineries because it has not been profitable for them to do so. In almost 30 years, no oil company has applied to build one. By intentionally limiting the supply of available gasoline on the market, they keep its price up. Numerous industry memos available to the public have advocated just such an approach to business. Furthermore, it is impossible to seriously argue that throwing even more money at the oil companies would change their minds. The American oil industry is already flush with cash, just as the people of the Nation struggle to foot the bill. In fact, since 2001, 4 years ago, the top five oil companies in the United States have recorded combined profits. This is important, Mr. Speaker, they have reported combined profits of $254 billion. That is more money than we have spent on the war in Iraq, and it is split between just five companies. If we were to open that figure out to the entire industry, it would be even more staggering. This is not the only way in which the Republicans are standing up today for the corporations who need help the least. Under this bill, if an oil company wins a suit against a local government over the right to build a new refinery within that government's jurisdiction, this bill will force the locality to pay for the court costs. But conversely, if the locality wins the suit, the company under this law does not have to pay a dime. So if Exxon wants to build a refinery in your backyard or near your child's school, and you and the local community want to oppose it, it means you very well may have the pleasure of paying Exxon's legal fees for trying to protect your community. It is an official incentive for corporations to take communities for all they are worth and then some. Next, what about price gouging? Rather than punish this outrageous, immoral and deeply damaging practice, the bill will place a limit on the maximum daily fine that can be given to an individual guilty of that practice. Sadly, we are lucky this is all the GAS Act will do because until late last night, it was much worse. The legislation included an unjustified attack on the Clean Air Act and was intent on rolling back 30 years of progress on protecting the quality of air that we and our children breathe. It seems that being good corporate citizens and mandating that companies not pump their waste into the air we breathe and the water we drink was just too much for this leadership to ask of their energy industry. Apparently, they would rather have Americans pay for corporate profits with their health. Thankfully, the majority was shamed into removing such a provision from the bill as its own rank and file objected to this basic assault on the health of our country. But what we are left with is still deeply troubling. It is legislation that is not responsive to the welfare of the people and does not offer real solutions for the future. It is the kind of legislation produced by a Congress that has forgotten who it works for, a Congress more concerned with corporate lobbyists who write bills than concerned with the working people who struggle to deal with their consequences. It is the product of congressional leadership out of touch with the citizens of this country. This bill is a living, breathing example of the culture of corruption which has plagued this body and ails this Nation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, this bill, and to support the Democratic alternative. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, 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 back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for the purpose of asking a question to the previous speaker.

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would implement legislation that expands the current Federal criminal ban on fake police badges to include the uniforms, identification, and all other insignia of public officials while preserving language in the bill that cracks down on the growing problem of counterfeit police badges.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the chairman for this colloquy, and I look forward to working with him in conference. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment and ask to engage the chairman in a colloquy. My amendment would require law enforcement authorities to be able to file reports and collect evidence when a violent crime has been committed during an emergency, even if the crime occurred outside their jurisdiction. It would also require the Office for Victims of Crime working with national, State, and local authorities and in collaboration with other Federal agencies to develop and implement a plan that allows law enforcement officials to gather evidence of a crime during times of emergency and inform victims and law enforcement officials about these available mechanisms. The intent of the amendment is to put systems in place to assist victims and law enforcement officials to better respond to crimes committed against vulnerable people during times of national crisis. The chaos following Hurricane Katrina produced an especially fertile breeding ground for violent crime. At evacuation centers such as the Superdome and convention center, and on the streets of New Orleans, there were unofficial reports of sexual assaults, armed robbery, murder, child molestation, and looting. While the true number of crimes that took place is unclear, we do know that many will not be subject to criminal prosecution because the victims and witnesses had no place to report the crime. The problem was compounded by the fact that once evacuated they were no longer located in the jurisdiction where the crimes occurred. And most local law enforcement officials do not have the authority to take the crime report if it occurred outside their jurisdiction.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce the Military Victims of Violence Confidentiality Act. This important piece of legislation will ensure greater protections for women in the military who are victims of violence by keeping their medical and counseling records confidential and allowing them to obtain valuable treatment services without further victimization. The military should be at the forefront of prosecuting assailants and setting the highest standards for treatment of service women victimized by sexual assault and domestic violence. Yet, our Armed Forces have failed to enforce the most basic protections to ensure these victims can receive necessary counseling and treatment. Counseling and treatment is essential to begin the healing process, and service members should be able to seek access to these services without fear of exposure or public humiliation. Recently, the issue of protecting confidential communications was brought to light in the case of U.S. v Harding. Ms. Jessica Brakey was allegedly sexually assaulted in 2000 while serving as a cadet at the Air Force Academy. Following the assault, Ms. Brakey sought counseling by victim advocate, Ms. Jennifer Bier--a civilian who was contracted by the military. Under Colorado's rape shield law, the disclosure of a victim's counseling records is prohibited. However, the military court issued an extremely broad subpoena for Ms. Brakey's treatment records with Ms. Bier, as well as her complete 10-year medical history. When Ms. Bier refused to turn over these records to the military court, the judge suspended the case against the alleged assailant. Unfortunately, this precedent setting case sent a clear message to the thousands of women in the military who are victims of sexual assault and domestic violence each year that the Armed Forces will not protect you. It is critical that we take appropriate action to ensure that victims of these crimes are able to seek treatment and counseling without repercussion. Although this bill is supported by many organizations that work to prevent and respond to sexual assault and domestic violence, the need for this legislation is also recognized within the military. The Department of Defense's, DoD, own Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies issued a report in June 2005 which recommended that ``Congress should create a statutory privilege protecting communications made by victims of sexual assault to health care providers and victim advocates. This privilege should extend to both medical health care providers and to those victim advocates designated and trained to perform that duty in a manner prescribed by DoD regulation.'' This is exactly what my bill will do. The Military Victims of Violence Confidentiality Act will establish comprehensive confidentiality protocols to protect the rights of victims within military law. Under my bill, communications made to secure advice, counseling, treatment or assistance concerning a victim's mental, physical, or emotional state will remain confidential. Moreover, a victim will be able to refuse to disclose and prevent any other person from disclosing a confidential communication. If a victim's doctor and advocate cannot protect the confidentiality of treatment sessions, sexual assault and domestic violence victims will be unlikely to seek essential care for fear of stigma, public embarrassment, or threats to their career. Consequently, the military will continue to lose valuable women soldiers. These women put themselves in harm's way to protect us and our Nation from threats at home and abroad. The military should work as hard to ensure they are protected when dealing with a horrible tragedy. Do not allow our brave service members to be victimized twice, once by their perpetrator and then again by the lack of appropriate, compassionate, and confidential care. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to join me in cosponsoring the Military Victims of Violence Confidentiality Act.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Homeland Security Committee and ranking member of the First Responder's Committee.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).