Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to offer this amendment with Representatives Khanna, DeFazio, Omar, and Pressley. What this amendment would do is freeze fiscal year 2020 defense spending in the NDAA to 2019 levels by reducing the overseas contingency operations account by $16.8 billion. Now, by restoring defense spending to the levels authorized in last year's NDAA, this increase would be even more modest than the $700 billion top-line figure publicly embraced by the President just 9 months ago before he reversed course and requested an outrageous $750 billion. Mr. Chair, just last year, the Department of Defense failed its first ever agencywide audit, something that I have long called for, along with my colleague Representative Burgess. I want to thank Chairman Smith for including our bipartisan language on audit readiness to ensure that the DOD is acting to address waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon and ensure that it has a plan in place so it can pass an unqualified audit. If the Department of Defense cannot even keep track of its current funding, it is truly outrageous that Congress would reward the Pentagon with a massive spending increase. This amendment is simply about reining in the bloated Pentagon budget. At the minute-by-minute level, American taxpayers are already spending nearly $2 billion a day at the fiscal 2019 NDAA enacted levels this amendment seeks to cut funding to. The $16.8 billion to the top-line funding level, what this amendment would do would require the fund to fund 6.8 million Head Start slots for 1 year, 1.63 million veterans receiving VA medical care for 1 year, and providing 7 million low-income children healthcare for 1 year. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney called OCO a slush fund and a sham when he served in Congress, and there is growing bipartisan support urging Congress to significantly cut OCO. That is why I urge ``yes'' on this critical amendment to rein in our out-of- control defense spending. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest approach that would ensure that Congress doesn't reward the Pentagon with even more money after it failed its first agency-wide audit last year. Recent polling shows that a majority of the public does not want defense spending increased. Nearly three-quarters of Americans would not support more of their tax dollars going to the Pentagon. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this critical amendment, and we must move forward and at least begin to control this out-of-control defense spending and support this amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Amash for yielding me time and for his leadership on this issue. Let me also thank Chairman Smith for his tremendous leadership of the committee and for working with us on this critical amendment, as well as so many other amendments in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Amash-Lee amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment guarantees that persons arrested on U.S. soil under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force or provisions under the 2012 NDAA will receive the due process that they deserve, as required by the Constitution. The 2012 NDAA codified worldwide detention authority that, as the ACLU said at the time, ``violates the Constitution and international law because it is not limited to people captured in an actual armed conflict, as required by the laws of war.'' The Amash-Lee amendment would remedy that by repealing that provision and ensuring that we remain consistent with our fundamental values. Mr. Chairman, we should have no doubts that our Federal criminal courts can handle international terrorism cases, and indeed they have. The Department of Justice has charged, tried, and convicted more than 200 defendants for international terrorism crimes in these very Federal courts. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this critical amendment. I, again, want to thank Representative Amash and Chairman Smith for their leadership on this issue.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, it is up to Congress to prevent another costly war in the Middle East. For too long, Congress has ceded its responsibilities as a coequal branch of government when it comes to matters of war and peace. As The New York Times recently put it: ``It is long past time that the legislative branch reclaimed its central role in overseeing war waged in the name of the American people.'' Madam Chair, I thank Congressman Khanna for this amendment. He has been persistent and very clear about our role in the areas of war and peace, and it builds upon the amendment I got into the Defense appropriations bill that indicated and said that nothing in the Defense appropriations bill could be construed as authorization for the use of force in Iran.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I thank our chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, and I thank the chair of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Smith, for working with me and all of our members on this amendment and for making this amendment in order. Madam Chair, I am pleased to offer this amendment along with Representatives Adam Schiff, Eliot Engel, Jason Crow, John Lewis, Seth Moulton, Max Rose, and many, many others. Madam Chair, this amendment is straightforward; it is timely; and it should be noncontroversial. It would immediately repeal the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq. Repeal of the 2002 AUMF would not impact any existing military operations because it no longer serves an operational purpose. Leaving the 2002 AUMF on the books runs the risk that it could be utilized by the executive branch for military operations that Congress never intended to authorize. When Congress passed the 2002 AUMF prior to the invasion of Iraq, it was intended to address the perceived threat posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein as it related to the presence of weapons of mass destruction. United States military deployments and operations carried out pursuant to the 2002 AUMF, Operation Iraqi Freedom, officially concluded in 2011. Seventeen years after the resolution's passage, the United States recognizes the sovereignty of Iraq and considers the Iraqi Government a key ally. Both the Obama and Trump administrations have maintained that the 2002 AUMF only serves to reinforce currently existing legal authority. None of the counterterrorism operations being carried out in Iraq independently depend on the 2002 AUMF for authorization. For these reasons, the 2002 AUMF is outdated and should no longer be on the books. Leaving it in effect risks abuse by this and any future administration. For example, the Trump administration has claimed that the 2002 AUMF authorizes the use of force to address both ``threats to'' and ``stemming from Iraq,'' and it authorizes force in ``Syria or elsewhere.'' Expansive interpretations such as this demonstrate why we strongly believe that the 2002 AUMF should be immediately repealed. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), a veteran who served his country well and now is serving this body well.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), an expert on national security.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, first, I thank our Rules Committee chair, Mr. McGovern, as well as all the members of the committee for making this amendment in order. And I also thank our chairman, Mr. Smith, for working with us to bring this amendment forward. I am proud to offer this amendment with Representative Max Rose. It is a very straightforward amendment. It simply expresses the sense of Congress that the 2001 AUMF has been utilized well beyond the scope than Congress intended, and that it is far past time for Congress to reassert our constitutional mandated role in war making. Our amendment also states that any new authorization should include more specific provisions, including a sunset clause, clear and specific expression of objectives, targets, and geographic scope. Madam Chair, my amendment is not only necessary, but it is timely. Right now, the Trump administration is threatening to use the 2001 AUMF as a legal basis to go to war with Iran. This demonstrates the dangers of leaving this authorization for the use of military force on the books indefinitely. The 2001 AUMF is only 60 words, and one of the only modern authorizations for the use of force that includes no limitations in time, geography, operations, or a named enemy. On September 14, 2001, 3 days after the horrific attacks, I was the only ``no'' vote in Congress for the 2001 AUMF. It was an authorization that I knew would provide a blank check for the President, any President, to wage a war anywhere, any time, and for any length. In the last 18 years, it has been used by three consecutive administrations to wage war at any time, at any place, without congressional oversight or authorization. According to a 2018 Congressional Research Service report, which I encourage all of my colleagues to read, the 2001 AUMF has, in fact, become that blank check for war. In the almost 18 years since its passage, it has been cited 41 times in 19 countries to wage war with little or no congressional oversight. And this report only looks at unclassified incidents. How many other times has it been used without the knowledge of Congress or the American people? The AUMF has reportedly been invoked to deploy troops in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger. We know that this is far beyond what Congress intended when it was passed in 2001 in the days after the terrible attacks of 9/11. That is why our amendment is so important. It is a sense of Congress simply recognizing that this has been used well beyond what Congress originally intended when it first passed in 2001; that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides Congress with the sole authority to declare war; and that any new AUMF to replace the 2001 should include a timeframe within which Congress should revisit the authority provided in any AUMF, which many experts agree needs to be included in any replacement AUMF. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose), my colleague, who serves on the Homeland Security Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank Chairman Quigley for his leadership and for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2020 Financial Services and General Governmen Appropriations bill. This includes $1.4 billion in funding over fiscal year 2019 enacted levels to support critical functions and services in the executive and judicial branches, it ensures the integrity of our Federal elections, as well as supporting critical programs that protect consumers. I am pleased that the bill includes my language that would nullify President Trump's proposed changes to the calculation of how we measure poverty, which would have a devastating impact on families all across the country. This bill also includes $23 million for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, which provides critical financing to attract grocery stores, food banks, and other fresh food businesses to underserved areas. Thanks to HFFI, healthy food initiatives are available in all of our congressional districts in urban and in rural communities, and also in my congressional district at the Mandela MarketPlace in Oakland, California. As co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, I thank Chairman Quigley for lifting the ban on the use of local D.C. funds for abortion services. This ban has unjustly prevented 55,000 D.C. women of reproductive age from accessing the full range of reproductive healthcare, including abortion. This has been targeted to low-income women, primarily women of color, so I thank Chairman Quigley for this. The bill also includes language prohibiting funds appropriated in this bill from being used to penalize financial institutions from providing financial services to an entity that participates in a business or organized activity involving cannabis that is legal on the State level. With 33 States and the District of Columbia legalizing some form of cannabis use, it is past time for Congress to ensure that the Federal Government can't infringe on what State and local jurisdictions are doing on cannabis reform. Whether you agree or not, States and local jurisdictions have passed some form of legalization or medical marijuana, so let's leave the States to their own business on this issue. I thank Chairman Quigley, also, for including $30 million for community financial development institutions, which is an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2019 enacted levels. CDFIs are really a lifeline across the country, especially underbanked communities, which many of us represent. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), and I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the Jackson Lee amendment to Rules Committee Print 116-20 which makes appropriations for fiscal year 2020, H.R. 3351, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2020. I wish to commend Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry for their work in shepherding this legislation to the floor. Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee amendment is simple but provides an important and necessary protection for grieving parents. The Jackson Lee amendment ensures that the IRS Tax Advocate Service has adequate resources to assist parents of a deceased child whose Social Security number was stolen by tax cheats and used on a Federal tax return to receive an Earned Income Tax Credit. The Jackson Lee amendment is intended to be a compassionate use of IRS funds to help grieving parents navigate the process of reclaiming their child's identity from tax cheats. This amendment is necessary when we consider the story of little Alexis Agin who was just 4 years old when she died of a brain tumor in 2011. Her parents grieved. Someone stole Alexis' identity to commit tax fraud. Alexis' parents did not discover the crime until they filed their taxes. The sad fact is, Alexis' parents are not alone. They were one of at least 14 other parents whose children died of cancer and learned that their child's Social Security number had been stolen by tax thieves. Nearly all of us understand the importance of safeguarding our Social Security numbers, but, after someone dies, Social Security numbers are published on a national online registry called the Master Death List. The Master Death List registry exists to alert businesses and financial institutions to not renew credit cards or create new credit in the deceased person's name, but it also alerts thieves of opportunities to steal identities and commit tax fraud. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, identity thieves have stolen the tax refunds of more than 490,000 dead persons since 2008. The thieves typically claim that a dead person is their dependent when they file their tax returns. In fiscal year 2012, the IRS initiated approximately 900 identity theft-related criminal investigations, triple the number of investigations initiated in 2011. Direct investigative time applied to identity theft-related investigations increased by 129 percent over the same period. On July 30, 2013, in St. Louis, Missouri, Tania Henderson was convicted of theft of government funds and aggravated identity theft, sentenced to 144 months in prison, and ordered to pay $835,883 in restitution to the U.S. Treasury. According to her plea agreement and other court documents, Henderson stole the identities of more than 400 individuals, many of whom were deceased, and filed fraudulent tax returns using their names and Social Security account numbers. The theft of identities of deceased children for the purpose of committing tax fraud is a sad fact that too many parents have to face when they are attempting to cope with the tragedy of losing their child. The Jackson Lee amendment will help ensure that the IRS Tax Advocate Service has the resources needed to assist these grieving parents with the filing of the last return where their child's name will be listed as being a member of their household. I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which would be a compassionate, mind you, use of IRS funds. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, this week, the U.S. inched closer to a dangerous military confrontation with Iran. From President Trump's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Iran deal to alienating our key allies and imposing crushing sanctions on Iran, it's clear that Trump Administration has no interest in pursuing principled, diplomatic engagement to resolve our differences. In addition, Secretary of State Pompeo once again floated the idea of using the 2001 AUMF as the legal basis for the use of force against Iran--allowing the Administration to circumvent Congress. This is a stark reminder of the dangers of leaving the overly-broad 2001 AUMF on the books. That's why I was proud that the House passed a federal spending package this week that included my language to sunset the 2001 AUMF after 8 months. This sent a clear message to the Administration that the 2001 AUMF cannot be used as the legal authority to go to war and that it MUST come to Congress to seek authority for the use of force against Iran-- as required by the Constitution. Congress must work to repeal the 2001 AUMF and ensure that the U.S. doesn't barrel into another disastrous war in the Middle East.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to demand that the Trump administration stop its assault on immigrant communities and abandon its plan on public charge. Now let me be clear: No one should be denied a visa due to their possible, potential need for public assistance, also known as public charge. It is beyond appalling that the Department of Homeland Security is using this criterion to prevent deserving families from coming to the United States. This heartless and un-American proposed rule also makes it extremely difficult for individuals who are seeking a new life in the United States to receive a green card if they are considered likely to use public benefits in the future. If this rule is implemented, the Trump administration would expand the list of programs to include SNAP, Medicaid, and housing assistance to determine permanent residency. Madam Speaker, basic programs are there to help struggling families put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads when they need it. Denying immigrant families green card status with this criterion is just plain wrong. This anti-immigrant rhetoric is not new, Madam Speaker. For over 100 years, the Federal Government has used the argument of public charge in immigration law for inadmissibility or deportation. Public charge was first created when the 47th Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1882. This restricted certain individuals from migrating to the United States. This legislation specifically targeted unmarried women who were presumed to be a so-called public charge because employers would not employ them, leading the government to take care of them, which is ridiculous. But it wasn't just women that this law targeted. It was also immigrants from Asia. As many of us are aware, fear of Chinese laborers was part of the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the time. There was widespread fear of the Chinese influence on the economy and the racist perception that these immigrants would not contribute to American society. This fear was compounded when Chinese immigrants started to bring their families to America and use public infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals. One of my constituents, Dr. Elaine Kim, who lives in Berkeley, California, experienced this discrimination firsthand. In her own words, she said: ``I am 76, and I am a child of immigrants who arrived in this country in 1903 and 1926, respectively. My parents were not allowed by law to become naturalized citizens and faced very serious racial discrimination in their lifetimes. But they both worked hard, harder than most native-born Americans, all their lives. They contributed importantly to the United States and never, ever caused any legal, social, or economic problems to anyone in this country. ``At 76, I have also worked hard and consider myself a model U.S. citizen. Putting myself through school at a time when most women, and certainly most women of color, faced many obstacles, I finally finished a Ph.D. degree. I served the public for 44 years until I recently retired. ``When I was an impoverished single mother, I received help from both the Maternity and Infant Care Project and unemployment insurance. Now, after working hard and raising a family of hardworking, well-educated children, I receive a modest Social Security check each month as well as Medicare, though I have kept myself in good enough health as to not need much from this entitlement program.'' Dr. Kim and her family came to the United States and contributed greatly to our Nation. They used public benefits when hardships occurred, but they paid it back in many ways when they no longer needed the benefits to help their family get by. The Trump administration is trying to create discriminatory policies that would restrict families such as Dr. Kim's from even entering the country. This harmful, xenophobic argument evokes fear and scapegoats immigrant communities. Let's get straight to the facts. This country was built and continues to stand on the strength of immigrants. We know that a little help for our hardworking immigrant families reaps exponential returns to our economy and society. Immigrants contribute in taxes, and they should be able to use social services when they need it, just like every other person in our Nation who pays taxes. Our immigrant community should not be seen as a drain on America but as an investment in our future. We are one Nation. In closing, I want to reiterate that it is the constitutional duty of Congress to write our immigration laws and ensure that they are equitable to all individuals, regardless of race, age, or socioeconomic status. That is why, last week, during the Homeland Security appropriations markup, I offered an amendment along with Congressmen Price, Pocan, and Aguilar that would make it clear that no Federal funds can be used to expand public charge. We must defeat this anti-immigrant and un-American public charge rule. I hope that all of my colleagues will stand up and demand that the administration abandon this plan once and for all.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I thank Madam Chair for her leadership and for yielding time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would strike the provision in the bill that increases funding for international family planning and reproductive health programs. Women around the world deserve access to the full range of reproductive healthcare, and the Fiscal Year 2020 State and Foreign Operations bill will help to ensure that. USAID provides vitally needed family planning funds to overseas health centers. Evidence has shown that USAID family planning programs have had important, real-world effects on the health of women and families worldwide, resulting in fewer unintended births, abortions, and miscarriages. Funding for our international family planning programs has also helped reduce maternal and infant deaths, a goal that has strong bipartisan support. Mr. Chair, I have been around the world, to Africa and to other countries and continents, and have talked with families in villages, women and their spouses with maybe five, six, seven children. I have visited these villages with Republicans. And their first request to us is to help them with family planning. They know that it is so important in terms of planning the births of their children and in terms of just the stability of the family and the empowerment of women that family planning services be available. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Lowey for her leadership, for yielding, and for her tireless work day and night on behalf of the American people. As a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am really pleased to see such a comprehensive bill that strongly invests in our communities. For example, there is a $150 million increase for HIV research at NIH and an $8 million increase to the Office of Minority Health to ensure decreases in health disparities for our communities of color. We have a $92 million increase to Historically Black Colleges and Universities' and Hispanic-Serving Institutions' undergraduate programs to help improve higher education access for our students of color. Also, it is important to recognize the $65 million increase to the Education Innovation Research grants for computer science for young girls and students of color, and the $9 million increase for teen pregnancy prevention and the $114 million increase to Title X Family Planning, both programs providing evidence-based, comprehensive sex education. Also, as the proud vice chair of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee, we increased the Global Fund. It remains, of course, at 33 percent, sending an important signal, in terms of our leadership to international partners, that we intend for the United States to stay in the leadership to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Let me just say, with regard to defense, yes, we did, and I want to thank those who have supported this effort to repeal the 2001 AUMF, Authorization to Use Military Force. It was passed 3 days after the horrific tragedy of 9/11. It was 60 words. It has now allowed for the use of force over 41 times in 17 countries, unrelated to the terrible events of 9/11. So, we need to do our job. We need to allow Congress to debate and make some decisions on a new AUMF.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, the point is we will have 8 months to debate a new authorization, depending on what this Congress determines should move forward as the Authorization to Use Military Force. The 2001 was passed in 3 days. Certainly, 8 months gives us enough time to do our job. The Constitution requires us not to be missing in action. We have the power of the purse, and we should use that because we have sent our young men and women into harm's way. They have done their job. They need to know now that, in the wars in which they are engaged, Congress has their back. We should make some decisions on this, and it doesn't make any sense to continue using this authorization on wars 18 years later. Twenty percent of Members of Congress serving today were here in 2001. Members deserve to represent their constituents and to debate and to make sure their voices are heard also.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First of all, this dangerous and discriminatory rule attempts to enshrine discrimination in virtually all facets of healthcare by granting new rights to those who believe that their personal and religious beliefs should determine the care that a patient receives. Under this rule, nearly anyone or any entity involved in a patient's care, from a pharmacist, to a receptionist who schedules procedures, to hospital room schedulers, can put their personal and religious beliefs ahead of a patient's health. This rule could mean that rape survivors, same-sex couples, women with unintended pregnancies, those seeking life-saving abortions, and transgender patients could all be refused medical care. Mr. Chair, I have to tell a story. This reminds me of my late mother. When my mother was pregnant and about to deliver me, she needed a cesarean section. She was refused admittance into the hospital because she was Black. She nearly died. I almost didn't make it here into this world because of religious beliefs that it was okay to deny healthcare to African Americans. Mr. Chair, let's not go back there. One's personal religious beliefs should never determine the care a patient receives. Instead, hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other individuals should be making decisions based on what is best for the patient. Mr. Chair, yes, we know that it is those who need care the most that will be disproportionally impacted, like patients of color, low-income patients, and the LGBTQ community. Mr. Chair, I urge defeat of this amendment. It is discriminatory, it is dangerous. Let's not go back to the days of discrimination. It is un-American.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my friend from Florida's amendment to increase funding for legal services, child advocates, and post-release services in the Office of Refugee Resettlement Unaccompanied Alien Children's Program, and I thank the Congresswoman so much for introducing this amendment. That is why the underlying bill under consideration today set aside a minimum of $190 million for these activities. Legal services need to be a priority for these children. Studies have demonstrated that when a child has access to legal representation, the in absentia rate drops to 5 percent. Released children with attorneys show up to court and continue to show up to court until case completion in 95 percent of the cases. Child advocates support the most vulnerable of children who are in ORR's care. There were 15,000 tender-age children, children under the age of 12, in ORR's care last year. This year, more than 11,000 children have been transferred to HHS care, through April, and again, that is only for children ages zero to 12. Legal services, child advocates, and post-release services cannot be considered optional, and we should not fund them as if they are. So I thank the gentlewoman, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.