Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague and friend from northern California, next door to my district, for offering this amendment and for his tremendous leadership on so many issues relating to our working men and women. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that a decade of flat funding has left BLS in critical condition, which is why the underlying bill increases funding for BLS by $61 million over the 2019 enacted level. This investment will make up for the loss of purchasing power and help BLS take full advantage of advances in statistical methods to promote the high-quality statistics required for a thriving 21st century economy. Expanded capacity will allow BLS to better examine critical issues such as job loss due to automation, job loss due to contracting, and mass layoffs. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this amendment. It has drawn more attention to the importance of BLS, and I am happy to support it.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Lack of communication can lead to barriers, it can prevent survivors from restoring their quality of life, and really prevents patients, survivors, from understanding all of their options and their course of treatment so that they, too, can stand here with us. I thank my colleague for sharing his personal story to make sure that others understand what is necessary and using his experiences to help others. The committee recognizes the leadership of the National Cancer Institute's Office of Cancer Survivorship. The report encourages the office to expand its focus, in particular, on the needs of childhood cancer survivors. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' This is so important to reduce the barriers to care.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and Statewide Family Engagement Centers. I thank the gentleman for offering it. This vital program helps States and school districts implement evidence-based family engagement strategies that promote student success, including programs that engage diverse families and interventions that address specific parent needs. To expand these proven practices, the underlying bill increases the program by $5 million over the 2019 enacted level. However, I am aware of and concerned by reports that a processing error by the Department of Education will cause reduced awards for existing grantees, and I hope to work with my colleagues in the Senate to address this problem. So I appreciate that the amendment is drawing attention to the importance of this program and this issue, and I am very happy to support it.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and say, once again, that I rise in strong support of this amendment. In any given year, the percentage of young people with mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders is estimated to be between 14 and 20 percent. These disorders among young people interfere with their ability to accomplish developmental tasks, such as healthy interpersonal relationships, succeeding in school, and, ultimately, transitioning into the workforce. Also, early signs of difficulties can help prevent violent outbreaks at school. Now, as a clinical social worker by profession and chair of the Social Work Caucus here in the House of Representatives, I know the importance of addressing the mental health needs of our children where they are, and that is at school. I am proud that the underlying bill that we are considering includes an increase of $13 million for Project AWARE, which supports mental health strategies in schools. School-based mental health needs, including training for school personnel to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental health issues, are critically important to identifying and referring children to services. Mr. Chair, I again thank Congressman DeSaulnier and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment. Recent research has found that food allergies are far more common in the United States than previously thought, and the prevalence has been increasing in the last two decades. Food allergies can cause severe reactions and can even be deadly. Allergic reactions to food lead to more than 200,000 emergency room visits each year. The Consortium of Food Allergy Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is supporting research to identify the causes of and treatments for food allergies. The proposed funding increase will allow this critical research to continue and to accelerate. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California again for offering it.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, first, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for this amendment. I rise in strong support of this amendment. More women die from pregnancy-related complications in the United States than any other developed country. There are major disparities. For example, Black women are 3 to 4 times more likely than White women to die during pregnancy or childbirth. I was proud to support a new initiative to address maternal mortality in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations act. This amendment will enable the bureau to expand support for State Maternal Health Innovation Grants, which fund evidence-based, State-led demonstrations to improve maternal care service delivery and, ultimately, reduce maternal mortality. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering this tonight.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, this amendment would cut funding for important programs and services that provide opportunities for working families. Many of these programs are already underfunded and fail to meet the existing need. For instance, the amendment would cut Head Start by more than $1.6 billion, denying slots to 80,000 children we are trying to provide with access to high quality, early learning programs, as well as rejecting our proposal to increase funding for trauma-informed care, which is critical for children affected by the opioid crisis. This amendment would cut after-school programs by $185 million, taking away enrichment opportunities for roughly 222,000 students. It would cut Title I funding by $2.4 billion, reducing resources for an estimated 25 million students in high-poverty schools. It would cut the number of new and competing research grants at NIH by approximately 87 percent, which is over 10,000 fewer new research grants. It cuts tens of millions of nutritious meals for more than 2 million low-income seniors. Also, this amendment would close Social Security field offices in every district, while worsening wait times for in-person services, phone services, and exacerbating the disability hearings backlog. It would also cut Federal Work Study programs by $200 million, resulting in 114,000 fewer awards to students. The sponsor of the amendment cites the national debt as a reason to cut funding to programs that benefit working families, but I note that he did vote for the Republican tax scam, which added more than $2 trillion to the national debt by cutting taxes for big corporations and the wealthiest families. My Republican colleagues don't object to adding to the debt when it benefits corporations and the wealthy. They only object to it if it means providing opportunities for hardworking families. Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, this amendment would cut $25.6 billion from programs that fund schools, Pell Grants, community health centers, substance abuse prevention and treatment, biomedical research, the CDC, childcare, and early childhood learning programs, also job training, as well as agencies that protect workers and workplaces, among so many other programs that provide opportunities to low and middle-income families. The amendment is totally misguided, and it will harm tens of millions of Americans. Madam Chair, I strongly oppose it. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, first let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for offering this extremely important amendment, and I fully support it. Social factors such as poverty, substandard housing, and unsafe neighborhoods are critical drivers of health outcomes. I share the gentleman's concern and agree that we need to better understand how environmental conditions such as these play a role in human health. Let me just say to the gentleman, we work very closely with the Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American Caucus in terms of our health strategies with regard to communities of color to close health disparities. This amendment is so important in those efforts. I would note, also, that the committee report accompanying the Labor- HHS appropriations bill encourages the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to clarify and disseminate strategies to States to address social determinants of health in the Medicaid and CHIP programs. I thank the gentleman once again for offering this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my colleague for raising the importance of the American history and civics national activities program, and I support this amendment. These competitive grants reflect one of two dedicated funding streams for civic and American history in the Labor-HHS bill helping to spur innovation and assist underserved students. The underlying bill rejects the Trump administration's harmful budget request to eliminate these programs. I appreciate that the amendment draws attention to the importance of the American History and Civics National Activities program, and I am happy to support it, and I urge an ``aye'' vote. I thank the gentleman, again, for the amendment.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the gentleman for this very important amendment, and I rise in strong support of it. Civilian first responders in the disciplines of law enforcement, fire services, and emergency medical services routinely face highly stressful situations. They are the ones we call upon when we are in need. This amendment raises attention to the importance of the mental health needs of our first responders. Peer-to-peer mental health programs for our first responders acknowledge that those who are committed to the same type of work may be the ones best suited to support their own colleagues' mental health. For so long mental health issues were relegated to the shadows, approached with the shame and misunderstanding that only exacerbates pain for people and their families. Now, as a clinical social worker myself by profession and the chair of the Social Work Caucus here in the House, we know how widespread these issues are. It is up to all of us to work to erase the stigma around mental health. I thank my colleague for offering this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of D-Day and to lift up the 92nd Infantry, as well as the Tuskegee Airmen, for their service on that fateful day that was instrumental in the success at Normandy for the Allied advance. Known as the Buffalo Soldiers, the 92nd Infantry was a segregated, all-black military unit; among them was my father, Lt. Col. Garvin A. Tutt. Madam Speaker, we must never forget that African Americans have fought in every major military conflict of the United States, from the Revolutionary War to our current military conflicts. I rise to thank the men and women who fought in World War II, including 900,000 African Americans, 800 of whom were African-American women from the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion. America owes a debt of gratitude for the service and sacrifice of these African Americans who, even while fighting the oppression of segregation, defended our nation and contributed to victory for the U.S. and the Allied forces.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, but I also want to thank her for her tireless and longstanding steadiness and leadership in support of our Dreamers. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, which ensures the Dreamers, temporary protected status recipients, and individuals with deferred enforcement departure status are protected from deportation. This bill will also establish a path for 2.5 million people to become lawful permanent residents. These young people have lived in the United States for decades and have made a life for themselves and for their families. Now, let me be clear. Dreamers, TPS, and DED recipients make our Nation better. They are active members of our community and contribute to our economy and make America a stronger nation. I am so proud to represent so many Dreamers in my district. They are American in every way except on paper, and it is beyond cruel to deport them to countries many of them barely know. By passing this bill today, House Democrats are maintaining the promise of the American Dream to immigrants around the country. It is time to protect our young people, recognize their love for America, and finally help their dreams come true. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 6.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment passing in the House giving women the right to vote. Today, along with my yellow rose, I stand here wearing a purple and a black ribbon honoring the history of African American women who are unsung heroes, like Sojourner Truth, and Ida B. Wells, and Mary Church Terrell. These women fought tirelessly so all women would have the right to vote. Although, even after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, many Black women and Native American women were still denied their voting rights. Madam Speaker, let us not forget the sacrifices and the achievements of Black women and all women of color who continue to fight for women's right to vote, many of whose names we may never know, but without whom many of us would not be here today. As we celebrate this important milestone with this historic number of women and women of color in Congress, let us remember the words of suffragette Mary Church Terrell. She said: ``And so, lifting as we climb, onward and upward we go.'' [From ACLU, May 18, 2019] Celebrate Women's Suffrage, but Don't Whitewash the Movement's Racism My 94-year-old great-aunt, Paralee Wilmer--we call her Aunty Lee--voted for the first time after moving to Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1944. Born to no-nonsense, small farmers in Millers Ferry, Alabama, and the youngest daughter of 12 children, Aunty Lee was one among many African Americans who moved from the South to the North in search of better job opportunities and greater freedoms during the The Great Migration. These freedoms included the right to vote without intimidation or any other hindrance. Aunty Lee's memory is a bit cloudy regarding whether the first time she cast her ballot was in an election for local politicians or a presidential race, but one thing she knows for sure is her pastor at the time inspired her to exercise her constitutional rights and fulfill her civic duties. He said, ``When it's time to vote, make sure you vote. When it's time to do grand jury, make sure you go.'' At age 20, Aunty Lee understood the magnitude of her pastor's advice, given the disenfranchisement of Black folks that she witnessed growing up in Millers Ferry--including poll taxes, literacy tests, and outright violence and intimidation that prevented Black people from voting. To be a Black citizen in America but denied full citizenship rights epitomizes the hypocrisy of American democracy. This is a sad truth that I repeat like a blues refrain to my students. This summer--as the nation celebrates the 170th anniversary of the first major convention for women's rights at Seneca Falls and the 98th anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which granted women the right to vote--how do we reconcile widespread narratives of a triumphant, steady march towards women's enfranchisement with the more complicated and painful reality of my great-aunt's lived experience as a young, Black woman in Jim Crow America? One word: intersectionality. Legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw argues that racism and sexism intersect in a manner that compounds Black women's oppression. Although the above historical events occurred long before Crenshaw articulated intersectionality, this insightful theory should be applied to all historical narratives that do not fully engage with the lived experiences of African-American women. What do we notice when we take an intersectional view of the events that transpired at Seneca Falls? How does our understanding of the history of all women's political empowerment in the United States change? When suffragists gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, in July 1848, they advocated for the right of white women to vote. The participants were middle and upper-class white women, a cadre of white men supporters and one African- American male--Frederick Douglass. The esteemed abolitionist had forged a strong working relationship with fellow abolitionists and white women suffragists, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. No Black women attended the convention. None were invited. Although women of color were profoundly absent at Seneca Falls, a greater degree of cultural inclusion was on the horizon. In May 1851, African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth spoke at a women's rights convention in Akron, Ohio. During her famous speech on the abolition of slavery and the promotion of women's rights, Truth allegedly bared her breast and proclaimed, ``Ain't I a woman?'' It was a melodramatic act and statement, but as historian Nell Painter argues, it never happened Instead, it was a quaint fiction crafted by convention organizer Frances Dana Gage and other white feminists who depicted Truth to white audiences as a genuine albeit primitive ally in the fight for women's rights. Thus, the 1851 convention marked a modicum of progress, but this progress is tainted by white suffragists' attempts to control Truth's voice. By the turn of the 20th century, Black suffragists such as Mary Church Terrell represented intersectional feminism at its best. Born to former slaves in Memphis, Tennessee, Terrell earned her bachelor's and master's degrees from Oberlin College and served as president of the National Association of Colored Women. In February 1898, Terrell spoke at the National American Woman Suffrage Association convention in Washington, D.C. Her speech forced powerful white women attendees to reflect on the compounding oppressions and systemic violence that Black women endured during slavery. She ended on a more optimistic note--praising the sheer grit and intellect of freed women. Terrell's rhetorical style echoed the American ethos of self-made men and women, but she oversimplified the historical reality that the paths to racial and gender equality are long, jagged, and still unwinding. The history of women's suffrage in America is not nice or neat, because the impact of white supremacy is broad and human nature is messy. Furthermore, a nation built on stolen land from Native Americans and stolen labor from African slaves is flawed from the start. We must constantly acknowledge this truth and engage in an intersectional celebration of women's rights activists and landmark events. In addition to celebrating the passage of the 19th Amendment, let's celebrate the upcoming birthday of African- American suffragist Mary Church Terrell, who would be 155 on September 23. Let's celebrate the lives and legacies of the true Sojourner Truth, abolitionist and suffragist Harriet Tubman, and Shirley Chisholm--the first Black woman elected to Congress and to seriously run for president. Let us celebrate and support current-day Black Lives Matter founders and organizers Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, three queer Black women committed to ``placing those at the margins closer to the center'' of political leadership. Last but not least, let's celebrate the lives of everyday people like my Aunty Lee--a Black woman born and raised in Jim Crow Alabama who sought out a better life in Ohio and has religiously exercised her right to vote for the past 74 years. Let us celebrate these Black women while recognizing that the struggle to vote without obstacles continues.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Nadler for yielding and for his tremendous leadership on this issue. Also, I have just got to acknowledge and thank Congressman David Cicilline for his steady and strategic leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I, too, was at the first press conference with our great warrior, John Lewis, and it has been so exciting and uplifting to see the progress and the process in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, as a cofounder of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus, along with our dear former colleague Congressman Barney Frank, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Equality Act. This critical bill, of course, would end discrimination against LGBTQ Americans once and for all. Now, as an African American woman, it is my moral responsibility to fight discrimination wherever and against whomever it raises its ugly head. The Equality Act will ensure that there is clear, lawful protection for LGBTQ Americans under the Civil Rights Act. What is more, this bill will ensure that no one lives in fear because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. Let me be clear. It is un-American that in 30 States it is still legal--mind you, legal--to discriminate against LGBTQ Americans in employment, in housing, in education--in every aspect of their lives.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, this discrimination disproportionately affects LGBTQ people of color. This is a shame. Discrimination must end against everyone. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, as a person of faith, my religion teaches me to love thy neighbor as thyself and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So let's pass the Equality Act today so there will be, truly, liberty and justice for all. Again, I thank Congressman David Cicilline for this today.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. ``Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President's decision to fire Comey was Comey's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President's repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement. Other evidence, however, indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign.'' Volume II, pages 75 and 76.

Ms. LEE of California. ``In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed.'' Volume II, pages 5 and 6.

Ms. LEE of California. ``The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the Federal false statements statute.'' Volume I, page 9.

Ms. LEE of California. ``Two days after the President directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one with Corey Lewandowski in the Oval Office and dictated a message to be delivered to Attorney General Sessions that would have had the effect of limiting the Russia investigation to future election interference only.'' Volume II, page 90.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Jayapal for yielding, and I thank her for her tremendous leadership and for staying steady and focused. And, also, I just have to recognize her for the input which she has provided to the conference committee to keep the government open, but, also, it was a conference committee to fund Homeland Security. Her input and what she gave us really was extremely important to get that done. We have a lot of work to do. So I thank her very much for that, also. Yes, our Nation has yet to recover from the Trump administration's cruel zero-tolerance, zero-humanity prosecution policy that tore and is tearing thousands of children from their parents and guardians, which was announced 1 year ago this week. Since Donald Trump started his zero-humanity policy--and that is exactly what it is--we have learned more and more disturbing evidence. We know that the Trump administration piloted family separation on a limited basis and planned to impose a policy of mass separating of children from their moms and dads--a policy. We have seen the administration's memos contemplating how this could be done and the resources needed to separate and detain thousands of children and parents. The Government Accountability Office has investigated, finding that, despite the administration's contemplation, this is a very serious, serious problem, that they were unaware the then-Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, intended to launch this zero-humanity policy. They didn't even know this, they said. At least as of February this year, we know that the Justice Department and their attorneys are still not tracking when they prosecute parents and legal guardians separated from their children. And that brings me to what may be the most disturbing part of it all: The Department of Health and Human Services' inspector general found that the total number of children separated from a parent or guardian by immigration authorities is unknown and that thousands of children may have been separated. So the bottom line is that Donald Trump and his administration, showing horrific cruelty and disregard for the well-being of children, planned for months--this was a plan--to tear children from their parents' arms. Key officials were warned about the potentially lifelong harm to children, and Donald Trump and his administration still did absolutely nothing to ensure children could be reunited with their parents. Yes, Congresswoman Jayapal, this is not a stain, but this is yet another stain on the United States. I am reminded that 400 years ago, when the first Africans were brought to this country to begin the horrific, inhumane institution and government-sanctioned slavery, children were separated from their parents. And that was a plan, just as it is a plan now. African families were split and destroyed. We still experience, in the Black community, generational trauma from these crimes against humanity. I couldn't help but be reminded of what my ancestors experienced as I visited McAllen, Texas, and Brownsville, Texas, last year. I saw children sleeping on concrete floors, behind barbed wire, crying for their parents. I spoke with mothers and fathers who did not know where their children were after several months. And we were told that they could make these phone calls, but also that these calls cost money. Where do they have money? How could they get any money? These children and their parents had no access to mental health professionals. Now, my background is psychiatric social work, and I know the trauma of separation of children from their parents, just within 24 hours that trauma settles in. They had no access to legal services. And, yes, I couldn't believe it when I saw that these detention centers were prisons. They reminded me of San Quentin. I saw mothers in prison uniforms. These were asylum seekers. They were put behind barbed wire in prison uniforms. This was like something I had never seen in my life. And yet it took me back to what our government sanctioned and promoted and had as its policy 400 years ago. Yes, I was born in a border city, El Paso, Texas. I was just there with Congresswoman Escobar on Monday. And El Paso, the people of El Paso are doing everything they can to help with the children and with the families that are being so ruthlessly treated by our immigration officials. Now, I just have to tell you, these children will grow up with a disdain for America; okay? Their trauma will turn into anger. And I know that, professionally. I know what is going to happen to these kids. The long-term impact will not be good for our country, so this administration better figure this out pretty quickly. There are so many dimensions to what they are doing. I don't think they even get it. The humane and the humanitarian crisis that we are experiencing is first and foremost, but we also have to remind the Trump administration they are creating children now who will be adults soon, and this trauma is going to stay with them all of their lives. So we better get it right, and get it right quickly. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) for her leadership. We have done much work in the Appropriations Committee. Thank God we were able to pass some of the amendments last year that would not allow the immigration officials to chain pregnant women--get it?--chain pregnant women. We got rid of that. Hopefully, they are implementing that properly. So there is a lot to do, but this is something that cannot last. This is America, and we should not--the world should not see us leading an immigration policy or promoting an immigration policy that, central to it, destroys families and children and lives. These are human beings. They don't deserve this, and we have to do more to stop it. Madam Speaker, I again thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Ms. LEE of California. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, Congresswoman Jayapal's bill is extremely important, and I hope that Republicans also join us in this effort because this is a concern that should be bipartisan or nonpartisan. But let me just mention a couple of things. Everyone who is a parent, a grandparent, or has ever babysat children, or who has been around children, if a child walks off, or you can't locate the child that you are caring for, I know you have felt the panic. I know when my children were small, and I would turn around and they were gone it was like: Oh, my God, what has happened? And the anxiety and the fear, and just getting very emotionally distraught behind not knowing where my children were, will always be with me. So I think everyone in our country should understand what these parents are going through and what a lost child is feeling if they have had that experience before. We had a hearing on this family separation policy in the Appropriations Committee, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Services Subcommittee, and we had a panel of individuals. Some were mental health professionals. And we were told in no uncertain terms that a day or two of counseling is not going to get it. These parents and these children need a specific form of psychotherapy, and it has got to be sustained. It has got to be professional, and it has got to be the type of therapy that addresses specifically trauma. So I am not sure that DHS even understands this. So it is on the record, and we have been trying now to make sure that we can provide the funding for the proper type of mental health services so that we can begin to deal with this trauma that has to be addressed early on. Because otherwise, this, again, is not going to be only these kids. This will be generational because there are DNA changes through the generations as a result of family separation and children being separated from their parents at an early age.

Ms. LEE of California. Peeping out at you, begging for help.