Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Christopher Patti, who served as the Chief Counsel for the University of California, Berkeley, and was a well-respected member of the East Bay community. Mr. Patti died as a result of a vehicle accident on August 27th. Mr. Patti graduated from Dartmouth College in 1980, before receiving his law degree from the University of Virginia in 1983, where he also served as the editor of the Virginia Law Review. After graduation, he clerked for Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th District, and later embarked on a career in litigation at Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe in San Francisco. After a few years as a litigation attorney, Mr. Patti changed course and left private practice for public service. In 1990, he joined the University of California (UC) system, working as an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel for the UC Office of the President from 1990 through 2010. In 2010, he moved from the Office of the President to serve as the Chief Campus Counsel at the University's flagship campus in Berkeley. Since his appointment to this position, he distinguished himself by guiding the campus through very challenging times, and developed a reputation among his peers as someone who ``represented the best of Berkeley''. Mr. Patti's commitment to public service and public education, and his career working to support the important mission that the University plays in the East Bay, and worldwide is certainly a testament to that fact. UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ recalled of Patti that he was ``extraordinary . . . and he had a deep core of integrity that motivated everything that he did''. I am grateful for Christopher Patti's service to the UC system, and the Berkeley campus in particular, and to the people of California. As a proud UC Berkeley alumna, I am tremendously saddened by this significant loss to the campus community. Beyond his many professional accomplishments, Mr. Patti was a loving husband, and father who is survived by his wife, Jocelyn Larkin, and two sons, Vincent and Gabriel. Today, on behalf of California's 13th Congressional District, I salute the life and service of Mr. Christopher Patti. I offer my sincere condolences to his family and friends, and the entire UC Berkeley community who are joined in grief at this incredible, and unfortunate loss.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend Dr. Harold R. Mayberry for his 50 years of ministry in the African Methodist Episcopal Church and leadership in the City of Oakland as Senior Pastor of First AME, Oakland. Reverend Dr. Harold R. Mayberry was born in St. Louis, Missouri where he joined St. James African Methodist Church at the age of eleven. At the age of twelve, he confided in the church's Senior Pastor that he believed he was called to the ministry. After being ordained a deacon at Wayman Temple AME Church and graduating from Wilberforce University, Pastor Mayberry studied at the oldest African American Seminary in the United States--Payne Theological Seminary in Wilberforce, Ohio. His first assignment, located in Wentzville, Missouri, was Grant Chapel AME. He later pastored in Richmond, California and Friendship AME in Clarksdale, Mississippi. After being confronted with the gravity of southern racism in Greenville, Mississippi; Pastor Mayberry was assigned to Payne Memorial AME church in New Orleans, Louisiana and arrived with an understanding that he needed to be more than a pastoral leader. He believed he was called to become a guardian of the community. So, he chose to openly and vigorously address the social concerns within the City of New Orleans. Pastor Mayberry developed a friendship with the City of New Orleans' Mayor, Mark Morial, who later appointed Rev. Mayberry to Chairperson of the Police Chief Search Committee; Chairperson of the Human Relations Committee; and Chairperson of All Congregations Together. Pastor Mayberry was later elected to serve as a member of the City of New Orleans School Board. In the fall of 1996, Rev. Dr. Harold R. Mayberry was appointed Senior Pastor of First AME, Oakland. Four years later, Pastor Mayberry was elected as a delegate to the 2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, California; and in 2004, was elected to chair one of the most powerful committees of the African Methodist Episcopal Committee and was re-elected 2008, 2008, 2012 and 2016. Rev. Dr. Mayberry has also served the City of Oakland as Chairperson of the Community Policing Advisory Commission, Member and later Chairperson of the City Service Commission, Member of the Oakland Police Chief's Advisory Committee; and at my sponsorship, United States House of Representatives Guest Chaplain. I was incredibly proud and honored to welcome Rev. Mayberry to the House of Representatives in 2003, where he delivered a very powerful prayer to open our session. Rev. Mayberry was the first pastor from my district to ever offer the opening prayer before a session of the House. Today, on behalf of California's 13th Congressional District, I commend the service and leadership of Reverend Dr. Harold R. Mayberry. I offer my sincere gratitude to the reverend and the African Methodist Episcopal Church for their devoted service and social impact in our American cities.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the vibrant life of Bobbe Norrise, the first African-American yoga instructor in the San Francisco Bay Area, who shared her passion with our community for over four decades and passed away on May 24, 2017. Ms. Norrise was born in Berkeley, California, and graduated from Berkeley High School before she received her Bachelor and Master's Degrees from San Francisco State University. In 1970, while challenged by the hardships of being a new mother going through a divorce, Ms. Norrise took her first yoga class at Oakland's Studio One which she credited with easing her stress and changing her life. Six years later, Ms. Norrise earned certification from America Yoga College to be an Iyengar Yoga Instructor, thus becoming the first African-American yoga teacher in the Bay Area. Initially, Ms. Norrise taught her classes in a church on Oakland, California's Webster Street, pioneering a welcoming space for African- Americans in the yoga community. She later became a professor in the Department of Kinesiology at San Francisco State University and dedicated over 20 years to teaching Hatha Yoga in the Bay Area. In the mid-1970s, Ms. Norrise and her husband began hosting retreats to assist others on their spiritual journeys. In the 1990s, Ms. Norrise began hosting retreats for women with her daughter, Stacey Harmon. In 1990, Ms. Norrise published ``Easy Yoga for Busy People'', thus becoming the first African-American yoga instructor to write and publish a book about yoga. Many Bay Area media outlets have featured Ms. Norrise. Stories about her influence in the Bay Area have been documented by KRON-Channel 4, KQED radio and television, Mercury News, and the Oakland Tribune and features about her impact on the yoga community have been published in the Yoga Journal and Heart & Soul Magazine. In 2011, then-mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, declared May 15th to be ``Bobbe Norrise Day'' to acknowledge Ms. Norrise for all of her accomplishments in the field of Yoga instruction and advocacy. Today, on behalf of California's 13th Congressional District, it is my honor to commend the life and achievements of Ms. Bobbe Norrise. I offer my sincere gratitude to Ms. Norrise for her dedication to spreading self-discovery and tranquility throughout the Bay Area and yoga communities. I also offer my condolences to Ms. Norrise's family and friends as they cope with this immeasurable loss and join together to celebrate her life.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to really challenge my colleagues to restore Congress' constitutional oversight on matters of war and peace. Tomorrow marks the 16th year since Congress has passed an open- ended blank check for endless wars. That is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. First, I just have to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends, and communities who lost loved ones, and our deepest gratitude to the first responders who so bravely saved lives. We will never forget you. Three days after this horrific attack--actually, September 14, 3 days--I couldn't vote for this blank check because it surrendered Congress' constitutional authority and paved the way for perpetual war, the authorization to use military force. It is deeply disturbing to me that 16 years later this Congress has failed to revisit this war authorization and have an informed debate on the cost and consequences of endless war. I opposed the 2001 AUMF because I feared it would become a blank check for any President to wage war anywhere in perpetuity. In those tragic days in the wake of 9/11, I was just as devastated and outraged as everyone. I wanted to protect our country from further attacks against terrorism. I wanted to bring the terrorists to justice. But looking at the authorization to use military force, I knew then that such an open-ended resolution would not make us any safer. The resolution was 60 words, it was overly broad, and it set the framework for perpetual war. It was passed just 3 days after the attacks, with little debate, and has been used to wage endless war around the globe. In the 16 years since its passage, that is the only input, really, that Congress has provided. This is just disgraceful. Three hundred Members of the United States House of Representatives today were not serving when we voted on the 2001 AUMF, two-thirds of this Chamber that has never had an opportunity to cast a vote on going to war. For years, I have been trying to change that. While Congress has been missing in action, these wars have spiralled out of control, just as I feared. A recent report from the Congressional Research Service shows that this authorization has been used more than 37 times in 14 countries to justify military action. These include operations at Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wire tapping, and recent military actions in Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and many more. This report only looked at unclassified military actions. How many more military actions are happening without the knowledge of the American people? In the 16 years since the AUMF was enacted, three Presidents have used this legislation to wage endless war; and as long as this AUMF stays on the books, any President will be able to use this blank check to wage war anywhere, anytime, in perpetuity. I have been trying to end this AUMF for years, and this summer we got closer than ever before when the Appropriations Committee agreed, in a bipartisan vote, to adopt my amendment sunsetting the AUMF--that is after 8 months upon signing of the legislation, not right away. It would take 8 months for it to sunset. The 2001 resolution was passed in 3 days. Certainly, we can debate and vote on a new AUMF in 8 months. Members of both parties agreed at the time that it was time for Congress to debate and vote on a new AUMF, one that reflected the national security needs of 2017, not 2001. But then my bipartisan amendment was stripped out of the bill in the dead of night by Speaker Ryan and the Republican leadership with no debate or vote in the Rules Committee. They just wiped it out, an over 326-page bill. It just vanished. But here is the bottom line: Republicans want a new AUMF. So do Democrats. So my question to the Speaker is: What is the holdup? Why have you not scheduled a debate on this vital national security issue? What, Speaker Ryan, are you afraid of? And also, why won't the President submit a new one? In 2017, American servicemembers have been killed in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. At what point will congressional leadership say enough is enough? How many young lives do we have to lose before Congress steps up to do its job? We owe this to our brave troops. In 2001, when I opposed this authorization, I recalled the words of Reverend Nathan Baxter, dean of the National Cathedral. ``As we act,'' he said, ``let us not become the evil that we deplore.''

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, before I discuss this amendment, I would just like to take a minute to offer my and all of our condolences to honor the memory of Congresswoman DeLauro's dear mother, Luisa DeLauro, who passed away at the age of 103 this weekend. As Congresswoman DeLauro always said, her mother was a fearless champion for women's equality, and I hope that tonight we can really think about Congresswoman DeLauro, her family, and her mother, and offer our sincere condolences to her. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would shift an additional $5 million away from SAMHSA's existing mental health programs. In the bill under consideration today, SAMHSA's mental health programs, they are already cut by $231 million. That is a 20 percent cut Unfortunately, this amendment would further reduce funding for critical SAMHSA programs such as Mental Health First Aid, Suicide Prevention, and the National Child Traumatic Stress Network. We need to be increasing support for mental health services, not robbing Peter to pay Paul by shifting funds from one program to another. Now, by profession, I am a psychiatric social worker, and I founded a community mental health center. Believe me, I personally know the impact and the need, the unmet need, for additional funding for mental health services. As my colleagues and I have noted, the allocations approved by the committee are approximately $5 billion below the nondefense level allowed under the Budget Control Act. That is $5 billion down. We have the resources available, yet the majority refuses to allocate them to support critical programs such as mental health and substance abuse services. This bill is $5 billion below the fiscal 2017 funding level. That is why Members are being forced to rob critical programs to transfer funding to other programs. We need to negotiate a bipartisan budget deal that lifts the sequestration caps and provides significant funding for mental health and substance abuse programs for individuals who need them. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, this amendment cuts $5 million from the account that funds, mind you, Head Start, Runaway and Homeless Youth grants, and the Community Services Block Grant, among other critical programs, and uses it to provide $5 million in new funding for the Infant Adoption Awareness Training program. Now, this program did not receive funding in fiscal year `17. Women should have access to all options when considering the impacts of an unintended pregnancy, of which one is adoption. But we should not ignore the irreplaceable role of preventing unintended pregnancy by providing education and health services. The underlying bill limits women's access to care by prohibiting funding to the Title X Family Planning program, a program specifically created to ensure women have access to high-quality family planning services to prevent unintended pregnancies and access reproductive care services. By denying women access to comprehensive family planning and preventative health services, the bill would have a devastating impact on women and families, especially low-income women and women in rural communities. In 2014, Title X Family Planning centers helped women avert 904,000-- that is 904,000--unintended pregnancies. Without the services provided by these Title X clinics, the rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, unplanned birth and abortion, each would have been 33 percent higher, and the teen pregnancy rate would have been 30 percent higher. In addition, Title X providers are required to offer pregnant women the opportunity to provide information and counseling regarding all of their options--all of their options--in a neutral, nondirective, and factual manner, including adoption. For some women, adoption services and counseling may be the best option. But we must ensure that every woman has access to all options and is allowed to make the choice that is best for her and her family. Unfortunately, this bill represents yet another missed opportunity to get serious about reproductive health and preventing unintended pregnancy in this country. This amendment uses funding from other programs in the Children and Families Services account that are critical to the well-being of children, women, and families as an offset for this new program. Funding for Head Start, the Domestic Violence Hotline, programs that help serve and protect runaway and homeless youth, among others, are at risk. Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, as I close, while this amendment focuses on adoption services, we cannot ignore what is missing from this bill and from this process, and that is an opportunity to vote on the amendment to fund Title X Family Planning. We must restore funding for family planning services; invest in a comprehensive approach that prioritizes health promotion, education, services, and care; and an approach that includes sex education programs, better access to birth control, and reproductive health services. I am extremely concerned about the cut that this amendment imposes on the Children and Families account at HHS. I oppose this amendment. This is cutting funds from Head Start, Runaway and Homeless Youth grants, and the Community Services Block Grant, among other critical programs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for introducing this amendment. I rise in support of it. We have to really let our seniors know that we care about them. My mother passed away a couple of years ago. She was 90 years old. I recognized personally the importance of comprehensive services to ensure that our seniors have a quality of life that they so deserve in their senior years. This also helps taxpayers and families avoid paying for more expensive healthcare and long-term care services. So I thank the gentlewoman again on behalf of our constituents. This will strengthen our communities, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Lujan's amendment, and I want to thank him for this. I shared earlier that I, by profession, am a psychiatric social worker. I actually founded a community mental health center. It was called Change, Incorporated. As part of this community mental health center, we had a program. That program was to train individuals in peer support. This was in the day. I can tell you what Mr. Lujan has said about the goals and the successes of peer support services. It can't be overstated. This amendment would close this shortage in services for individuals who need them. As chair of the Social Work Caucus, again, psychologists, psychiatric social workers, and clinical social workers agree that peer support for individuals who may or may not have earned an advanced degree is extremely important because they can understand and they know what the needs of their clients are. Studies have shown that peer support services help to reduce emergency room visits by individuals suffering from depression. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I know from personal experience that it works. It is a cost-saving measure, and it really helps people suffering from mental illness. We should really recognize the need out there. It is still great, even as I reflect upon my community mental health center, Change, Incorporated.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I rise in strong support of it. It restores funding to the Magnet Schools Assistance Program. Now, 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, the data shows that many schools and communities continue to suffer from the vestiges of segregation and that many of our Nation's largest school districts remain starkly segregated along racial and economic lines. Now, I just have to say, when I started elementary school, schools were segregated in El Paso, Texas. Sixty years later, now, it is really something. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. This amendment, the Magnet Schools Assistance Program--the amendment helps assist school districts in promoting desegregation long overdue. I am glad that we increased this program in fiscal 2017 omnibus by $1 million. That additional funding was intended to allow the program to increase the total number of grantees. I was disappointed to see that the majority took a step back from the progress that we had made and imposed a cut to this program in the underlying bill. Why in the world would the majority not want to see school segregation ended? This amendment certainly leads us in that direction, and I strongly support it, and I hope you would reconsider your opposition because many of us remember those days.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank our ranking member for yielding and, really, for her tireless advocacy on behalf of all Americans. I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill, the so-called Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act. Mr. Speaker, let's make one thing clear: this bill breaks Republicans' promise to get back to regular order, while blocking the majority of amendments to be considered on the floor. Also, as an African-American woman, I can't help but see how these cuts impact communities of color. It may be easy to think of budgets in terms of dollar signs and decimal points, but the disturbing truth is that the decisions we make here affect lives. If we are honest, many of these decisions in this bill disproportionately affect Black and Brown lives. For instance, the bill eliminates the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative, the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Communities Health Program--just eliminates it--and Title X family planning, which many women of color and men rely on. It eliminates the Health and Career Opportunities Program, which provides training and grants for health careers for minority-serving institutions, and it eliminates the Minority AIDS Initiative, just to name a few. These are just under the Health and Human Services provision. This bill cuts $3 billion from the Pell Grant Surplus Program, $190 million in 21st Century Community Schools, and eliminates the comprehensive literacy program. All of these are critical education programs that predominantly help people and students of color. I am also disappointed that this bill divests in our workforce, especially for communities of color, by eliminating the proven apprenticeship programs and cutting millions of our Nation's job training programs, including reintegration of ex-offenders--again, majority African-American and Latino ex-offenders--reentering into society. This budget cuts millions from that. It refuses to make in order Congressman Bobby Scott's amendment to strike the prohibition against using Federal funds for transportation to desegregate public schools. We are talking, still, about desegregating public schools in 2017. What is worse, I offered an amendment in Rules to combat these devastating cuts to communities of color, and Republicans refused to make them in order. I offered an amendment that would have prohibited funds from being used to implement the policy memo that Attorney General Sessions has presented that rolls back the failed War on Drugs and reinstates the harshest sentences for low-level drug offenses, the majority of whom--guess what--are African Americans. I offered another amendment that would have expressed the sense of Congress that race-conscious admissions policies, which are designed to achieve a more diverse student body, which allows for the use of race as one factor, only one factor, in admissions--these policies, we have to remember, are beneficial to all students. So the Department of Justice should not take action to limit these benefits.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding another minute. Mr. Speaker, we should not be trying to limit students of color access to education, which the Justice Department is trying to do. Affirmative action is critical to mitigating discriminatory practices that prevent students of color from being admitted into the schools of their choice. Attorney General Sessions needs to back off of this. I tried to do this through an amendment to send that message. Of course, that amendment was not made in order. Congress can help, though, renew their faith in minority communities, and the minority communities can renew their faith in Congress by not accepting this Trump agenda and support clear policies that demonstrate to people of color that our lives also matter in America. Unfortunately, this spending bill does just the opposite. So I hope the Members will understand the message that we are sending to communities of color. I just mentioned a few of the cuts that have been put into this bill. I hope that we work to rectify the problems with it. It is past time to get back to regular order. It is past time to move each bill individually, also. It is past time to make strong investments in the American people, which include people of color. It is past time to help grow the economy and to create good-paying jobs for everyone. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill. There is simply too much at stake.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 800,000 DREAMers in our Nation, 200,000 in my State of California. Now, these DREAMers are students, entrepreneurs, volunteers, and neighbors. They go to school, they work, and they pay taxes. They are young men and women like my constituent, Karem, a DREAMer who recently graduated from the University of California at Berkeley. Karem now works as a paralegal, helping people like herself navigate our complicated immigration system. Karem came to America when she was only 3 years old. In a message to my office, she wrote: ``The United States is all I've ever known.'' I have to tell you, she is as American as I am. Forcing Karem or any hardworking DREAMer out of this country or back into the shadows is heartless and un-American. This is her home. Deporting DREAMers from the only country they have ever known is an extreme betrayal of our values. We care about family values. Ending DACA breaks families up. Let me be clear: Now President Trump has turned his back on these innocent young people. Now it is up to Congress to have the courage to do the right thing. I call on Speaker Ryan to bring up the bipartisan and bicameral Dream Act now.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our ranking member for yielding, but also I just want to thank her for her tireless leadership on our subcommittee and full committee. You truly are a champion for all Americans, especially women and girls not only in our own country but all around the world. So it is really too bad we have to stand here and even debate this again, but thank you again for your leadership. I am proud to speak in support of our ranking member's amendment to strike two poison pill riders in this bill. Now, my colleagues and I have offered amendments to strike these ideological--that is what they are--provisions both in the full Appropriations Committee and again during the Rules Committee. It is outrageous, quite frankly, that the majority refuse to allow these amendments to even come to the floor for a debate. Now, I have fought long and hard against the global gag rule, which denies family planning funding to organizations who want to help women plan their families. We have been fighting this now for at least, myself, two decades. This cruel policy is really a political football putting lives at risk just to score a few cheap political points. President Trump and this Republican majority have taken this extreme policy to the limits, expanded it to all global health funding. Let me be clear. This policy will cost lives. This administration's actions have consequences, and, sadly, it is the most vulnerable women and girls who will pay the price. The expanded global gag rule also undermines our longstanding bipartisan foreign aid priorities like fighting gender-based violence and ending AIDS. On top of that, this bill includes a prohibition of funding for UNFPA, again, based on pure ideology. UNFPA works in some of the most dangerous places, giving care to those who need it the most. They treat victims of sexual violence and provide menstrual hygiene services and maternity care in humanitarian crisis settings. I visited many times UNFPA projects all around the world, and I have seen firsthand the tremendous impacts these programs have on the lives of those they serve. Defunding these programs truly will kill women. I urge my colleagues to reject these harmful riders, reject this bill, and get back to regular order. It is time to stop trying to push through these really untenable bills that really are very dangerous to women and girls throughout the world and babies.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Laura Flores, who are just as American as you and me.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and for her tremendous leadership as our ranking member on the Rules Committee. It is a true testament to her love for our country and for our troops. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, first, to this terrible rule, but, of course, also in strong support of this amendment to sunset funding for the 2001 AUMF, after 240 days after enactment of this act. This important amendment would provide Congress plenty of time to do our job and finally have a debate and vote on matters of war and peace. Mr. Speaker, last week, Republicans unilaterally decided to kill my bipartisan amendment to sunset the 2001 AUMF, which would allow 8 months to debate and vote on a new one before it would be enacted. This amendment was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the full Appropriations Committee. It was stripped out of the bill in the dead of the night, with no debate or vote from the Rules Committee. This undemocratic and underhanded behavior really makes me wonder: What is Speaker Ryan so afraid of? I came to the Rules Committee this week and asked them to rectify a wrong and allow a debate and a vote on this important measure, and they refused. I even offered a second amendment, which we have before us today, which would sunset the funding for the 2001 AUMF, 240 days after enactment--that is 8 months--which would allow ample time to debate and vote on any replacement. This would be repeal, but remain in place, allowing 8 months to debate this. Even though this amendment was germane to the bill, Republicans refused to even allow a debate on this important measure and a vote. I understand Speaker Ryan has said that it was a mistake to include my original amendment and that it would endanger our national security. Initially, on June 29, according to press accounts, my colleague and friend, who supported this amendment, Chairman Cole responded and said: It is time for leadership to wake up, and the administration to wake up, and send over a recommended AUMF, mark it up, and take it to the floor. I don't know any other way to get their attention because we have been talking about it for years. Now, instead of listening to their own party, what do they do? They stripped our bipartisan amendment. Some Members have said that the funding would be cut immediately with this amendment, but that is furthest from the truth. That is very disingenuous. That would be irresponsible, and I would in no way offer an amendment like that. It would allow 8 months for Congress to debate and vote on any new AUMF. Some have said that this is political, and I say it is just the opposite. Our brave troops deserve us to come together and do this so they know their country has their back. I voted for the 2001 authorization because I believed it opened the door for any President to wage endless war without a congressional debate or vote. Quite frankly, unfortunately, history has borne that out. According to a Congressional Research Service report, the 2001 AUMFs have been used more than 37 times in 14 countries to justify military actions. This report only examines the unclassified incidents. How many other operations have been conducted without the knowledge of Congress or the American people? These authorizations have also been used to justify perpetual wars that are thousands of miles away.

Ms. LEE. Let me conclude by saying, now any President can unilaterally wage war under the outdated authorization forever unless it is repealed. The American people--our constituents--know that Congress is missing in action. They deserve better. Surely, Congress can muster the courage to do our constitutional duty and debate and vote on a new AUMF within 8 months if that is our decision. We passed the 2001 AUMF within 3 days, and it never came to the Foreign Affairs Committee, where I served for 11 years. So let's stand up for the Constitution, our servicemen and -women, and our national security by bringing forward this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can finally have this debate, vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Rules Committee has posted a Rules Committee print of the Defense appropriations bill and that this committee version does not include the language added during the Defense appropriations markup on a bipartisan basis in committee that would repeal the 2001 authorization to use force and give 8 months for Congress to do what our Constitution requires, and that is to debate and to come up with a new vote and to decide what we are going to do on behalf of our country. Further inquiry. Members don't really quite understand this. I can't explain to Members how in the heck this body can prevent this amendment from being undemocratically stripped from this bill. Can the Chair explain that, please.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. What we can accomplish, but also about the brilliance and the importance of the Caribbean-American community. Let me just mention Dr. Claire Nelson, who is the founder and president of the Institute of Caribbean Studies, because, for over a decade, just in terms of history, we worked closely together to recognize the many individual contributions of Caribbean Americans and to make Caribbean American Heritage Month a reality. So I must today salute her for her tremendous leadership. Our Nation has been so fortunate to benefit from countless individuals of Caribbean descent, including my personal mentor and friend, the late Honorable Shirley Chisholm, whose district now is so ably represented by our colleague of Jamaican descent, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke. Now, Shirley Chisholm was a woman of Bajan and Guyanese descent who never forgot her roots in the Caribbean. She was the first African- American woman elected to Congress, the first woman and the first African American to run for President. She was truly a trailblazer, and she convinced me that I needed to actually register to vote. Throughout her career, Shirley was an advocate and a fighter. She fought for working families, the poor, and our most vulnerable: children and seniors. She believed that everyone should have the basics: food, housing, a decent job, good wages, and healthcare--again, regardless of their background. And let me tell you, I know that she would have been appalled by this Senate health bill. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed, and, to be quite honest, I am terrified about the Republican's heartless bill to rip healthcare away from 22 million Americans. Now, next year, 15 million Americans will lose their healthcare, and believe you me, these are not just Democrats, these are not only African Americans, but these are also Republicans and people who voted for Trump. The bill, currently--this bill--was hatched by 13 male Republicans in back rooms and basements. They hid it for as long as they could because they knew if they held an honest debate, they would lose on the merits. According to the Congressional Budget Office today, the Senate's bill would strip healthcare from 22 million Americans, devastate women's health, and weaken protections for those living with preexisting conditions, with disabilities. It will increase premiums and reduce benefits, and it would also make Americans pay more for less. It would end Medicaid as we know it, including long-term care for our seniors. What is more, it will harm American families and really will present an environment now where it is a matter of life and death for so many who don't even need to worry about not having healthcare. They should have healthcare because, otherwise, many people who are going to be denied under this bill can lose their lives. And for what? Why are we doing this, or why are they doing this? It is to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and for millionaires and for CEOs. Mr. Speaker, over the last few months, like all of us, I received thousands of letters from constituents in the East Bay who are terrified of losing their healthcare. I have heard from people like Melissa, a mother in Oakland, whose son Sam was born premature with several preexisting conditions. Her son received healthcare under the Affordable Care Act. Under the Senate healthcare bill, children like Sam will be locked out of the care that they desperately need. They are terrified. The bill would force American families like Melissa's to choose between groceries and healthcare. Mr. Speaker, this bill is cruel and, yes, it is mean. It is a massive tax cut for billionaires at the expense of families and our most vulnerable. Now, during the campaign, President Trump asked the question: What does the Black community have to lose? Well, for starters, Mr. President, I hope you hear us tonight, it is healthcare, given the number of African Americans, which Congressman Veasey laid out, who, for the first time, now have healthcare. In all my years in Congress, I have never seen such a morally bankrupt bill. And make no mistake, it is a matter of life and death, and the American people deserve better. Finally, let me just say this bill is not a healthcare bill. It is a tax cut bill for millionaires and billionaires and is known as TrumpCare. I don't know how it got that title because it is more like-- and what I call it--``Trump Don't Care'' legislation, and it must be rejected.

Ms. LEE. I want to thank Congresswoman Plaskett for hosting this Special Order and for her kind words, but also for her commitment to providing healthcare for all Americans, for her leadership in the Caribbean Caucus, for her dedicated constituent representation of her constituents in her district, and also being the epitome of why Caribbean American Heritage Month is so important. There are so many Caribbean Americans throughout our country who have contributed so much to the fabric of our society, and so I am really proud to be with her tonight. And thank you for signing H. Con. Res. 71 because that was during the days of the bipartisanship spirit. If a Barbara Lee and a George Bush could work together, then that says something.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, last night the world watched my home team, the Golden State Warriors, end a historic season by bringing home their second national championship in 3 years. The Warriors, led by unanimous Finals MVP Kevin Durant and legendary players Steph Curry, Draymond Green, and Klay Thompson, showed the power of teamwork both on and off the court. The team is an example for young people, showing that if you can work together and trust one another, you can accomplish anything. Mr. Speaker, these finals against the talented Cleveland Cavaliers were a thrill to watch. We saw basketball at its best--incredible talent and a real passion from both sides. Thank you to the Warriors team for making our dreams of another championship a reality. This remarkable team has made history as one of the best ever, winning a record 15 straight games in the playoffs and clinching a 16- to-1 postseason record. Thank you to Coaches Steve Kerr and Mike Brown, the entire Warriors staff, and all of the talented players on their well-deserved victory. Throughout this journey, Warriors fans have stayed loyal and faithful, and they deserve this victory as well. My dear late mother, Mildred Massey, was the Warriors' biggest fan, and I know she is smiling from above. I can't wait to celebrate with all the Warriors fans and players back in Oakland. Go Warriors, go Oakland, go Dub Nation.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his most diligent work on behalf of the American people, and also to our ranking member, Congresswoman Maxine Waters. I just want to thank her for really educating this House and the public of the dangers to consumers of this horrible bill, of course, which I stand in opposition to. It really is a wrong choice for American families. Shamefully, this bill gives Wall Street a handout while stealing from the pockets of everyday Americans. It would drag us back to the days where Wall Street and billionaires get richer, while struggling families are left out in the cold. The bill significantly undermines both the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the rules it put in place to prevent predatory lending and subprime loans, particularly in communities of color. Families lost a generation of wealth prior to Dodd-Frank and have yet been able to recover. But this bill also, I must say, puts Wall Street recklessness back in charge, and it will leave consumers out in the cold again. So it will take us back to where we were before, and we cannot go back. That is why we are asking for a ``no'' vote. It destroys protections for seniors and jeopardizes their financial safety. So I hope that Members vote ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary men and women from Oakland who gave their lives serving our country in the Vietnam War. I recognize their invaluable sacrifice and offer my gratitude for their bravery during a contentious time in American history. Unfortunately, Vietnam veterans have not received the proper recognition for their service. Prejudice overshadowed praise, as many of the stigmas associated with the war wrongfully biased the public against the soldiers. Veterans have endured decades of misplaced criticism, blame and ignorance--this must be corrected. It is time that we, as Americans, give these brave veterans the commendation they deserve. We must honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve our freedom and that of our country. It is critical that we acknowledge the important servicemen and women, as they are fundamental to the preservation of our democracy. Since 1979, the Vietnam Veterans of America has served to support and advocate on behalf of this generation of Veterans. The organization has worked tenaciously to promote greater public awareness of the issues surrounding Vietnam-era veterans in attempts to reform the public's general perceptions. The VVA has given veterans a voice in our government, advocating on behalf of the injured, ill, and all others in need. By holding government agencies accountable, the VVA ensures equitable and beneficial policies for this generation and those past. As someone whose father served in the Army, organizations like the VVA are incredibly important to me. I personally understand the sacrifices that these men and women make on a daily basis and believe they deserve my utmost respect. I commend the Vietnam Veterans of America for installing the Vietnam War memorial honoring the 100 men from Oakland who were killed in action. This monument will serve as an important reminder of the sacrifices made to assure our freedom and the freedom of others. The memorial will help properly commemorate not only Vietnam Veterans, but all who dedicate their lives to serve and protect us on a daily basis. On behalf of the 13th District, I thank the Vietnam Veterans of America for its dedication to aiding and bettering the lives of well- deserving Veterans in America.