Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Asian Pacific Islander Heritage Month, but also to highlight the harmful impact of poverty on the AAPI community all across our Nation. In my home district--the beautiful East Bay--and across the Nation, the achievements of Asian Pacific Americans are front and center. By serving in elected office, advocating for equality and justice, and creating new businesses, they are an integral part of our vibrant community. But far too many Asian Pacific Americans are just making ends meet. It is a struggle, and the American Dream seems far out of reach. The sad reality is that in 2016, poverty rates for Asian Americans is over 12 percent. And this problem is getting worse. Since the Great Recession, the AAPI community has had one of the fastest growing poverty rates in the Nation. There are also enormous disparities in healthcare access, treatment, and outcomes for the AAPI community. Too many Asian Pacific Americans still lack the fundamental human right that is health care. As chair of the Democratic Whip Task Force on Poverty, Income Inequality, and Opportunity, I will continue to fight to help all hardworking Americans--all hardworking Americans--including the Asian Pacific American community, achieve the American Dream.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, first, I want to thank Chairman Dent and Ranking Member Bishop for their unwavering leadership of our subcommittee. As the daughter of a veteran, it is truly an honor to be serving in my second year as a member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. The bill before us provides a total of $81.6 billion in spending-- which, thankfully, is $1.8 billion more than current-year spending levels. Yet, this allocation falls $1.2 billion short of the President's requested funding level. This gap undermines the promise that we've made to veterans that we would provide them with the best and most innovative care. This, Mr. Chair, is unnecessary, shameful--and frankly-- unacceptable. While there are many provisions which create spending gaps for vital services that our veterans need, I am also pleased to support other provisions. I support the investments in military infrastructure, housing, and other services to ensure that we give our brave men and women in uniform and their families the proper respect and care they deserve. Additionally, I am pleased that these investments will also help make our military facilities greener and more energy efficient, which is vital to our planet, our national security and the department's bottom line. I also want to thank the Chair and Ranking Member for the inclusion of report language requiring the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to provide an updated report on claims processing at the Oakland VA Regional Office (VARO). While the Oakland VA has made significant improvements in Oakland, more work remains to ensure that veterans in my District and throughout the Bay Area are provided with quality care and timely care. Mr. Chair, I understand the enormous sacrifices made by our service members and their families. And that's why I support language encouraging more coordination between federal agencies to help our veterans' transitioning back to civilian life find jobs. I'm also pleased this bill provides veterans greater access to education, housing and more comprehensive health and mental health services. While these are small steps, they are important ones when approximately one million veterans will be settling into American communities in the next three to five years. Finally, Mr. Chair, I want to mention that I will join my colleagues in offering an amendment to allow VA doctors to prescribe medical cannabis to their patients in states with state-legal medical cannabis laws. Mr. Chair, the federal government shouldn't be erecting barriers between patients and their medicine. So I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting that effort. I look forward to continue working with the subcommittee to improve quality of life for our brave service members, veterans and their families. And to work towards addressing funding deficiencies as the process moves forward--our veterans deserve nothing less

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, first let me just thank the Committee on Rules Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter and all of the members of the committee for making this amendment in order. My amendment is very straightforward. It would, after 90 days of enactment of this act, repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force which Congress passed into law September 14, 2001. When we repeal this 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, Congress would finally be forced to debate and vote on a specific AUMF to address the ISIL threat. Now, I voted against the 2001 authorization because I believed it opened the door for any President to wage endless war without a congressional debate or a vote, and I believe, quite frankly, that history has borne that out. I include in the Record a new report from the Congressional Research Service. Congressional Research Service, May 11, 2016. Memorandum Subject: Presidential References to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Publicly Available Executive Actions and Reports to Congress. From: Matthew Weed, Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation. This memorandum was prepared to enable distribution to more than one congressional office. This memorandum sets out information and analysis concerning presidential references in official notifications and records to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 AUMF; Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1541 note), enacted in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, to justify and undertake military and other action. It contains very brief discussions of the relevant provisions of the 2001 AUMF, and the uses of U.S. armed forces connected with 2001 AUMF authority, as well as excerpted language and other information from the notifications. Use of Military Force Authorization Language in the 2001 AUMF Section 2(a) of the 2001 AUMF authorizes the use of force in response to the September 11 attacks: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, * * *

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage all my colleagues to read this report. It shows that this authorization has, in fact, become that blank check for war. In the more than 14 years since its passage, it has been used 37 times in 14 countries to wage war with little or no congressional oversight. It has been used 18 times by President Bush and 19 times by President Obama. This report only looks at unclassified incidents. How many other times has it been used without the knowledge of Congress or the American people? Not only has this authorization been used to justify military action thousands of miles away, it has also been used much closer to home to allow warrantless surveillance and wiretaps, indefinite detention practices at GTMO, and targeted killing by drones, including of American citizens. It has also been cited as the authority for the nearly 2-year-long war against ISIL, a war that Congress has never debated, voted on, or specifically authorized. Mr. Chairman, our brave servicemen and -women continue to be deployed around the world. Whether they are combat troops or not, they are in combat zones. They are risking their lives. Don't we at least owe them our representation in terms of our job to debate and vote on the cost and consequences of the war? I think we owe them that. If we all agree that ISIL must be degraded and dismantled, then why is Congress missing in action? Every day more bombs fall. We have already lost three brave servicemen. We have already spent more than $9.6 billion, and we spend an additional $615,000 per hour. I know that while we may not share a common position on what the shape of any new AUMF to address ISIL might look like, I know that many of us do agree that the overly broad and almost 15-year-old AUMF represents a major and very concerning deterioration of congressional oversight. That means a lack of involvement and input and voice of the American people. Let's repeal this blank check and finally, 90 days later, debate and vote on an AUMF to address the ISIL threat. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, let me just make one comment before yielding to my colleague from Minnesota. First, the President has sent over an AUMF. He sent this over 15 months ago. The Speaker yet has to take this Authorization for Use of Military Force up. The President has asked for it. Why don't we do our job? We could at least either bring the one that he sent over, or we need to put our own on the floor. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, I will just close by saying my amendment is enacted 90 days after the signing of this law. That means we have 90 days to debate and vote upon an ISIL-specific Authorization for Use of Military Force. We need to do our job. We have a constitutional responsibility to do our job. Unfortunately, Congress is missing in action. We need to do exactly what the American people sent us to do. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank Congressman Polis for yielding time and for his work to ensure that our Nation's fiscal security is secure through this amendment. It is an honor to cosponsor this amendment with him. I want to thank the ranking member also for guiding us through this very difficult bill to make sure that we all know what is included in the bill. I just have to say, our amendment, I think, would take a modest step in making this bill a lot better to help us rein in the over-the-top, quite frankly, Pentagon spending, while protecting the pay or health benefit accounts of our brave servicemen and -women and their families. Over the last 15 years, Pentagon spending has ballooned by 50 percent in real terms. Pentagon spending now consumes more than half of the Federal discretionary budget. That is just outrageous. Recently, The New York Times made this case in their editorial called ``A Better, Not Fatter, Defense Budget,'' which I include for the Record. [From the New York Times, May 9, 2016] A Better, Not Fatter, Defense Budget (By the Editorial Board) To hear some military commanders and members of Congress talk, the American military is worn out and in desperate need of more money. After more than a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, they say, troops are lagging in training and new weaponry, which is jeopardizing their ability to defeat the Islamic State and deal with potential conflicts with Russia and China. While increased funding for some programs may be needed, total military spending, at nearly $600 billion annually, is not too low. The trouble is, the investment has often yielded poor results, with the Pentagon, Congress and the White House all making bad judgments, playing budget games and falling under the sway of defense industry lobbyists. Current military spending is 50 percent higher in real terms than it was before 9/11, yet the number of active duty and reserve troops is 6 percent smaller. For nearly a decade after 9/11, the Pentagon had a virtual blank check; the base defense budget rose, in adjusted dollars, from $378 billion in 1998 to $600 billion in 2010. As the military fought Al Qaeda and the Taliban, billions of dollars were squandered on unnecessary items, including new weapons that ran late and over budget like the troubled F-35 jet fighter. The waste and the budget games continue with the House Armed Services Committee approving a $583 billion total defense authorization bill for 2017 last month that skirts the across-the-board caps imposed by Congress in 2011 on discretionary federal spending. The caps are supposed to restrain domestic and military spending equally, but defense hawks have insisted on throwing more money at the Pentagon. That doesn't encourage efficiency or wise choices. The panel took $18 billion from a $59 billion off-budget account, which has become a slush fund renewed annually to finance the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other trouble spots, and is not subject to the budget caps, and repurposed that money for use in the $524 billion base military budget. The move will underwrite the purchase of more ships, jet fighters, helicopters and other big-ticket weapons that the Pentagon didn't request and will keep the Army from falling below 480,000 active-duty troops. It also means the war account will run out of money next April. Representative Mac Thornberry, the Republican chairman of the committee, apparently assumes the next president will be forced to ask for, and Congress will be forced to approve, more money for the war account. This sleight of hand runs the risk that troops overseas, at some point, could be deprived of some resources, at least temporarily. The full House should reject this maneuver. Many defense experts, liberals and centrists as well as hawks, agree that more investment is needed in maintenance, training and modernizing aging weapons and equipment. These needs were identified years ago, yet the Pentagon and Congress have chosen to invest in excessively costly high- tech weaponry while deferring maintenance and other operational expenses. The Pentagon can do with far fewer than the 1,700 F-35s it plans on buying. It should pare back on President Obama's $1 trillion plan to replace nearly every missile, submarine, aircraft and warhead in the nuclear arsenal. Defense officials recently reported that 22 percent of all military bases will not be needed by 2019. Civilian positions will have to be reduced, while reforms in health care and the military procurement system need to be carried out. All of these changes make good sense, given the savings they would bring. But they are politically unpalatable; base closings, for instance, have been stubbornly resisted in recent years by lawmakers fearful of angering voters by eliminating jobs in communities that are economically dependent on those bases. Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says that sustaining the current military force of roughly two million and paying for all the new weapons systems will cost billions more than Congress has allowed under the budget caps. To maintain sensible troop levels, Congress and the administration need to begin honestly addressing the hard fiscal choices that they have largely been loath to make.

Ms. LEE. The article lists program after program, many of which our generals did not ask for, that have cost taxpayers billions without making us any safer. Clearly, we also need to audit the Pentagon. That is why I am pleased the House adopted the Burgess-Lee amendment yesterday to require a report on auditability and help keep moving toward auditing the Pentagon. While we were working on that, we should take every opportunity to address Pentagon spending. The article in The New York Times sets forth: ``The waste and the budget games continue with the House Armed Services Committee approving a $583 billion total defense authorization.''

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank Congressman Ellison for yielding and for his tremendous leadership. This amendment is extremely important. Today I rise to urge my colleagues to support this amendment and, really, allow our ground commanders to do their job. Now, of course, time and time again, Congress has refused to do its job. From Zika funding to confirming a new Supreme Court Justice, we failed to do our job. Instead of letting Congress do its job, the majority only seems interested in Congress doing other peoples' jobs, and that is including our military commanders. There is no way we should be allowing this to happen. Make no mistake, Republicans are trying to expand the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and further expand America's longest war. For nearly 15 years, we have been fighting a war in Afghanistan. Our brave servicemen and -women have gone way beyond the call of duty. They have done everything we have asked them to do. It is past time to bring them home to their families and to their children. But minimally, we should not be telling our military leaders what to do in a war zone, especially before they have completed their on-the-ground assessment. So I hope that we vote ``yes'' on this commonsense amendment. While our young men and women are in Afghanistan, until we bring them home, let's use the best type of intelligence, the best information, and the best direction that the ground commanders have determined based on their ground assessment in this war.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding, and for introducing this amendment, and for his leadership to end waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon. This amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, would stop Republicans from using the overseas contingency operation fund as a piggy bank for more wasteful Pentagon spending. Yes, it really does appear that Christmas is coming in May for the military-industrial complex. Right now, Republicans have robbed critical programs, like military suicide prevention, and redirected that money to the OCO fund where there is no accountability, no transparency, or oversight. By funneling this money to the OCO account, Republicans are shortchanging lifesaving programs to fund wasteful programs, like the F-35 and tanks that rust in the Nevada desert. Even the Pentagon say they don't want these programs funded. Yet, Republicans are jeopardizing our real national security priorities to further enrich the military-industrial complex. Our troops deserve better, Mr. Chairman. This is a dangerous budgeting gimmick. This amendment would end the OCO fraud and return the funds to the important programs that they were intended for. Let's end this scheme and put the money back into where it belongs, and that is protecting our troops and the American people.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Lowey for yielding and also for her very steady and effective leadership on our committee. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Labor-HHS and State and Foreign Operations subcommittees, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5243, which is the so-called Zika funding bill. Earlier this week, the majority finally decided to act on Zika, yet their proposal shows just how unwilling they are to take this crisis seriously. Even now, they have offered barely one-third of the resources needed to fight Zika. Not only are my Republican colleagues' efforts 3 months late, they are also woefully inadequate to address this major public health emergency. If that weren't enough, Republicans have once again included poison pills that have no place in this legislation. While we are trying to work to protect our Nation's most vulnerable, including pregnant women and their children, the majority is putting politics over public health, and that is just wrong. The Zika outbreak has already spread to more than 26 countries, including the United States and our territories. Sadly, there have been two Zika deaths in Puerto Rico. This summer, Americans living in Southern States face tremendous risks from the virus. Not only does this bill underfund our Zika response, it raids vital funding for other dangerous infectious diseases, such as Ebola. Quite frankly, we should not roll the dice should another Ebola outbreak occur. We know how this appropriations process works. I don't want to chance that. We appropriated Ebola funding for Ebola. This is not the time to rob Peter to pay Paul. The experts are clear. We need the full $1.9 billion request, emergency request, without offsets. Now, we have seen war funding emergency supplementals fly through this House without many questions raised. This is an emergency, and we need to treat it as such. Finally, this bill includes Hyde-like language, a dangerous rider that denies access to abortion coverage for women if they are poor, a veteran, in the military, or a Federal Government employee. Let me be clear, politicians have no business denying a woman health coverage based on her income, her employer, or her ZIP Code. Once again, the majority has decided to put their extremist ideology over public health. Why in the world would they put this rider in this Zika funding bill? It doesn't make any sense, and it is wrong. It has been 3 months since the World Health Organization declared the Zika virus as a public health emergency. That was February. Three months since the President requested emergency funds, the time to act is now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to reject this bill and let's instead pass a bill with adequate funding and without ideological antiwomen riders. The American people can't afford to wait much longer for Congress to get this right.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. Every year on May 17, LGBT individuals and their allies use this day to bring awareness to LGBT discrimination. Since 2004, this day has expanded to every corner of the world. It is celebrated in more than 130 countries, including 37 countries where homosexuality is illegal, where courageous individuals and organizations are standing up for basic human rights. Sadly, homophobia, transphobia, and LGBT discrimination still exist around the world. Despite last year's victory for marriage equality, many still want to turn the clock back on equality. North Carolina, Mississippi, and Tennessee's recent anti-LGBT laws cast light on this discrimination. Sadly, these hateful bills are nothing more than State- sanctioned hate. I am proud to have introduced H. Res. 263, supporting the goals and ideals of the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. I would like to thank the 70 cosponsors and encourage all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me tomorrow and every day in speaking out against LGBT hatred.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I first thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for those very kind and humbling remarks. I want to thank her for her tremendous leadership and for continuing to come down here each and every week to ensure that her voice, the Congressional Black Caucus' voice, and Congressman Jeffries' voice are really put forth so that the people of our country will understand the critical issues before us and the fact that the Congressional Black Caucus is really leading on each and every issue. Congresswoman Beatty and Congressman Jeffries really have done a phenomenal job. They both have gone way beyond the call of duty, and so we thank them so much for their efforts. Make no mistake--and I think we are hearing this over and over again tonight--mass incarceration is a crisis in our country. The United States of America imprisons far more people than any other nation in the world. When African Americans are incarcerated at six times the rate of Whites, it is no surprise to me. It is no surprise that African Americans constitute nearly half of the total 2.3 million incarcerated Americans in 2008. Together, African Americans and Latinos comprise 58 percent of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Latinos make up approximately one-quarter of the United States population. While our prison population grows unchecked and is growing unchecked, we continue to criminalize our students rather than invest in their education. Right now we spend $10,500 a year to educate a child, but we spend $88,000 a year to keep a child locked up. That is unacceptable. Let me repeat that. It costs eight times more money to keep a child in jail than to educate them and prepare them for a good future. We are not just talking about a few children here. Our country incarcerates five times more children than any other nation in the world. Sadly, two-thirds of these kids will never return to school. When we lock up these children, we are essentially throwing away the key. Instead of preparing them for a future, we are just getting them ready for a life in a cell. Now, let me be clear, from the moment many of these children are born, they are funneled into the prison pipeline. Simply put, the system is really stacked against them. For instance, one in three African American children lives in poverty today, while one in four Hispanic children lives in poverty. Mr. Speaker, while Black children represent just 18 percent of preschool enrollment, they account for nearly half of all preschool suspensions. Now, Congresswoman Beatty, we are talking toddlers ages 2 to 5. These kids don't even get a start, let alone a head start. They are being suspended from school. How do you suspend toddlers and babies from school? Something is wrong with this. So we, I must say, in the Appropriations Committee are trying to address this with the Department of Education. This is immoral. When they get older, African American students are four times more likely to be expelled from school than their White peers for the same offense. More than half of all students who are involved in school- related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Black or Latino. This has a lasting effect and impact on young students. Studies show that students who are disciplined by schools are more likely to end up in the juvenile justice system where their chances of returning to school are slim to none. This is unacceptable. These young people are having their futures ripped away before they even have a chance. We need to change the system and end the school-to-prison pipeline. First, we must start by making serious investments in our young people. We should ensure that all students have equal access to high-quality public school education. We must also expand summer youth job opportunities and summer training programs so that our teens have the opportunity to learn workforce skills, contribute to their communities, and start a path to economic opportunity. As a member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, we are working to try to make sure that these resources become a priority of our subcommittee, which they, unfortunately, aren't at this point. We also need to tear down the institutional racism, quite frankly, that is holding students of color back and trapping our young people in a broken criminal justice system. I am reminded of when I was in the California legislature. I was on the public safety committee, and proposals were brought to us, plans for building prisons 10 to 12 years out for kids who are just starting kindergarten. That is what we had to deal with. Now we see what has happened to the prison industrial complex in California. That is why we must work together and pass legislation to end mass incarceration and fix our broken criminal justice system. We need to get rid of these outdated minimum sentencing standards. These are relics from the failed war on drugs and disproportionately target people of color. In California, once again, the three strikes law passed. Of course, I opposed that while in the California legislature. This law has incarcerated young African American men for nonviolent drug offenses 25 years to life. That is 25 years to life for nonviolent drug offenses. We need to repeal that law. We also need to make sure that law enforcement officers reflect the diversity of communities that they police. So we have introduced H. Res. 262, which supports effective community-oriented policing and encourages greater diversity in law enforcement. During the last appropriation season, the Congressional Black Caucus worked with Congressman Lacy Clay to direct the Department of Justice to begin collecting training data. Our legislation tracks when officers receive training for use of force, racial and ethnic bias, de- escalation of conflict, and constructive engagement with the public. This was just a small step, and we need to do more. With regard to reentry, banning the box is essential. We have worked with the White House to try to make sure that Federal contractors ban the box. We haven't accomplished that, but Federal agencies cannot now ask for one's criminal history records. In my district, we do expungement, we do record remedies. We have remedied thousands and thousands of young people who now can go on and move forward with their lives. I want to thank the Family Law Center in Oakland, California, for doing that. We need to go back to the drawing board and repeal the welfare reform provisions that are denied for life. There is a Federal ban for food stamps, eligibility for public housing, and Pell grants for those who have been incarcerated for drug felonies. Now, you know who that targets; primarily African American and Latino men. They don't even have a second chance when they get out of jail as a result of these lifetime bans. Finally, let me just say it is time to really look at this problem in a big way and to understand that we have to dismantle, not reform--but we have to dismantle this prison industrial complex and start investing in our communities, especially our young children. And we must understand that, in doing this, we have to look at institutional and systemic racism, which is at the core of many of our policies. So this is a fight that we are going to win, but it is going to be because all of us here in the Congressional Black Caucus--Congresswoman Beatty, Congressman Jeffries, Congressman Scott, and Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and the entire membership--continue to fight the good fight to make sure that finally we will begin to see a real criminal justice system, which it is not right now.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to challenge this House to live up to our constitutional duty to debate the ongoing war in the Middle East. For nearly 2 years, our brave servicemen and -women have been fighting yet another war. As they face snipers and mortar rounds, incredibly, some claim that they are not in combat. How can we claim this is not combat? And, worse, how can we ask them to go to war when Congress cannot muster the courage to debate it and authorize it or not? The last four Presidents have bombed the Middle East with little or no congressional oversight. Will we allow a fifth President to continue these wars unchecked? As the National Defense Authorization Act comes to the floor next week, I submitted an amendment to force a debate on this war and repeal the 2001 blank check for endless war that got us into these perpetual wars. As you can see, the Congressional Research Service has indicated that this 2001 resolution has been used over 37 times. These are some of the areas in which that has been used. That is just wrong. The Rules Committee should allow this important debate to come to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, let us debate this war, its costs, its consequences, and talk about a real strategy to end ISIL's reign of terror.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to challenge this House to live up to our Constitutional duty to debate the ongoing war in the Middle East. For nearly two years, our brave servicemen and women have been fighting yet another war. As they face snipers and mortar rounds--incredibly some claim that they are not in combat. How can we claim this is not combat? And worse, how can we ask them to go to war when Congress cannot even muster the courage to debate it? The last four Presidents have bombed the Middle East with little or no Congressional oversight; will we allow a fifth President to continue these wars unchecked? As the NDAA comes to the Floor next week, I submitted an amendment to force a debate on this war and repeal the 2001 blank check for endless war that got us into this mess. The Rules Committee should allow this important debate to come to the House Floor. Mr. Speaker, let us debate this war, its costs and consequences and a real strategy to end ISIL's reign of terror.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4901, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization (SOAR) Act. H.R. 4901 would reauthorize the District of Columbia's private school voucher program, the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), for five years through 2021. Simply put, this bill diverts much needed resources from the D.C. public school system into this unsuccessful and counterproductive voucher program. We know that this voucher program has failed to improve academic achievement, threatens vital civil rights for students, undermines constitutional protections, and is poorly managed. Mr. Speaker, this bill is just another Republican attack on the District of Columbia's right to self-governance. Even worse, the Districts' government did not request this reauthorization--nor did its representative, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. If the District wants to establish a voucher program, it has the authority to do so. But it hasn't for many of the reasons I listed above. Mr. Speaker, we should work to fully fund our public schools and ensure equal access to education for all students--not funnel additional funds into this ineffective and poorly managed program. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding and also for his long-term and longstanding commitment to child nutrition programs and to our Nation's children. I have to say to Mr. Takano that I am not happy at all, and I don't think many of us are happy at what is taking place with regard to this Improving Child Nutrition Education Act and what is happening to our children who many go to bed hungry at night. So I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership. Let me just say to Mr. Scott, who is our ranking member, it is very important that we recognize the gentleman's leadership and know that he is on this committee fighting each and every day to make sure that this reauthorization bill, which would take food out of mouths of American schoolchildren, does not do that. So I thank the gentleman for his fight on the committee. Let me say just a couple of things with regard to H.R. 5003. It would turn the clock back on years of progress and prevent children from eating healthy meals every day. This Republican child nutrition bill would roll back critical, evidence-based nutrition standards made in the 2010 reauthorization bill, which we were very actively involved with. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, it would also deny eligible children access to the Free or Reduced Price School Meals Program, and it would slash funding for some electronics benefits transfer. I just have to say that as a young, single mother on public assistance and food stamps, I don't know what I would have done had my children not had school lunches. This was a bridge over troubled waters for me, and my children and I have to thank my government for that helping hand. But today, in 2016, this bill will roll back these programs, which means more hungry kids in our schools and in our neighborhoods. That is why several of us are sending a letter to the Education and the Workforce Committee outlining our deep concerns with the changes to our child nutrition programs. I hope that everyone on our side of the aisle signs this important letter, and I hope that the majority will read it carefully. It lays out some of the basic problems in this bill. We want to make sure that everyone on the committee and this entire body understands the impact of what this will cause. When we take away access to these meals, we jeopardize children's health, their educational attainment, and, really, their future. We know that children who have access to healthy meals are more likely to do well in school, have decreased behavioral problems, and come to class ready to learn. That is what we should want for all of our children. For the children growing up in high-poverty neighborhoods and who lack equal access to healthy meals, these school meals really are a lifeline. We are not just talking about a few students. The numbers are clear. More than 15.3 million children are living in food-insecure households. Let me say that again. More than 15 million kids are at risk of going to bed hungry every night in America, the richest and most powerful country in the world. We also know that childhood hunger is far from colorblind. Children of color are disproportionately affected by hunger every day. For example, in 2014, one in three African American children and one in four Latino children were food insecure. For children who live in rural communities, food insecurity is coupled with other barriers, like lack of access to transportation to get to summer feeding sites. More than 17 percent of rural households--that is 3.3 million households--are food insecure. Child hunger and the lack of nutritious food is a problem that affects every child in every ZIP Code. It is endemic in our country, in rural, urban, and suburban schools. Every Member of Congress has constituents who are hungry. This should be a priority for all of us. I have seen the impact of food insecurity in my own community in Oakland, California, where one in four children at the Oakland Unified School District do not have access to affordable, nutritious food. These families are forced to make impossible choices to feed their children, especially during the summer months when schools are closed. These families are making decisions every day between food and medicine, food and rent, or food and paying the electric bill. Mr. Speaker, we need real solutions to these very real problems. Let me just mention my legislation, the Half in Ten Act, H.R. 258, that would develop a national strategy to cut poverty in half over the next decade. That is more than 23 million Americans lifted out of poverty and into the middle class in just the next 10 years. This bill that we are talking about tonight goes just the opposite way. Surely, we can all recognize that ensuring healthy meals for American children is the first step in this ongoing War on Poverty. It should not be a partisan issue. Feeding hungry kids is a moral imperative. So let's put our children first, and let's strengthen our child nutrition programs rather than cut them. Our children deserve the security of knowing where their next meal is coming from. That is just basic. It is a basic American value. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Scott for his leadership and thank him for yielding.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call No. 153. Had I been present, I would have voted yes.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight yesterday's Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing on the ``Failure of Trickle-Down Economics in the War on Poverty.'' The hearing highlighted the daily hardships that are faced by more than 46 million Americans. We know that too many families struggle to buy healthy food, to pay rent, and to access good-paying jobs. I was very proud that, among the witnesses at the hearing--all of whom were phenomenal--was my constituent, Oakland resident Violet Henderson, who shared her personal story of overcoming poverty. After leaving, unfortunately, the criminal justice system, after being paroled, she told her story. She is a phenomenal individual who is raising her two children and is a student. She succeeded against overwhelming odds. Her story is a powerful example of resilience and dedication, which so many struggling Americans have. It should be a call to action for Members of Congress to help more people like Violet by supporting policies that will end poverty. Yet our Republican colleagues continue to promote harmful cuts to critical safety net programs despite knowing that these cuts will push more families over the edge; and the record of the members on Speaker Ryan's so-called Task Force on Poverty, Opportunity, and Upward Mobility are just as bad, if not worse. Time and time again, they have voted to cut SNAP, to erode higher education funding and Pell Grants, and to weaken affordable housing programs. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record Violet Henderson's testimony. Testimony of Violet Henderson at House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee Hearing: ``The Failure of Trickle Down Economics in the War on Poverty,'' April 14, 2016 Thank you Leader Pelosi, Congresswoman DeLauro, Congresswoman Edwards, and Whip Hoyer. Thank you to the other panelists up here with me. And I want to give a special thank-you to my Congresswoman, Congresswoman Barbara Lee. I'm here today because of you, Congresswoman Lee, both because you invited me to this hearing, but in a bigger sense, your leadership in Oakland and support of good reentry and economic policies has made it possible for me to escape poverty and live a life I am proud of and talk to you about today. I am honored to be here, and grateful that you have given me the opportunity to speak about these issues. I am a worker, a mother, a grandmother, a formerly incarcerated person, a churchgoer, and a student. I can speak only for myself but I hope that my testimony today can give voice to the millions of people who, like me, got caught up in the criminal justice system, worked incredibly hard to transform their lives, but still face lifelong stumbling blocks to financial stability. Unlike me, too many people who worked have never escaped poverty despite their hard work. For me, like so many, the challenges started with childhood poverty. My father died when I was four years old. My mother had seven children to care for on her own and she really struggled. I grew up in the Aliso Village housing project in East Los Angeles. I never remember, as a child, having hope or vision about a bright future. My ``escape'' came when I was fourteen years old. My 21- year-old boyfriend took me to Oakland and made me work the streets. At the time, I did not have the privilege of believing that I deserved more and better for my life. I was first arrested for when I was sixteen years old but I was not seen as the victim of sex trafficking. I was treated like a criminal. And I became one. My next boyfriend, who was 25 years older than I was, taught me how to become a thief. When I was 19 years old I was sent to prison for grand theft and conspiracy of several hundred dollars in a street scam. Because I was a high school dropout, I got my G.E.D. while I was in prison, and afterward I took college-level classes. For the first time in my life I was exposed to learning, and I loved it. While in prison I met a mother and a daughter who were incarcerated at the same time. This broke my heart because the daughter had a child whom she missed dearly and tried to escape from prison to get back to her child. The moment I heard that the daughter tried to escape, I made a decision to change my life. I wanted children but I was going to put them through that. I have never looked back. Once I got out, I had two wonderful children and dedicated myself to supporting them. I worked full-time as a cosmetologist but still did not earn enough to feed my family. For a while we survived because we had access to food stamps, which we needed even when I was working multiple full-time jobs. Then, thanks to an affirmative action program, I was able to join the local Laborers Union and I worked heavy construction for the next 20 years. It was hard physical labor but I was grateful for the opportunity because I earned more money than I had ever earned at any other job. It allowed me, as a single parent, to provide for my children, though we still struggled. Working as a laborer became more and more difficult as I grew older and I looked for other work. When I was 54 years old I was denied office jobs because of my convictions, which were then 30 years old. Thanks to free reentry clean slate legal services--which Congresswoman Barbara Lee helped start in Oakland at the East Bay Community Law Center--I was able to clean up my record, and as a result I was able to get a great job, and thankfully one that this sixty-one-year-old body can handle. I'm coordinating the environmental/waste reduction program for a large city agency. It has been an inspiring and wonderful opportunity. I was even able to fulfill my life-long dream of becoming a homeowner and I bought a condo in Oakland. A few years back I enrolled in a community college in Oakland to study Environmental Management, where I take night and evening classes. I have surprised myself by earning a 3.92 GPA, and was even more surprised when I was recently invited to transfer to the University of California at Berkeley. But--and this why we are here today--despite my successes, and despite working as hard as a person can work, I have worried constantly about keeping my head above water financially. I have had stable employment, and I have catapulted myself out of the deep poverty my family knew when I was a child. BUT still, even now, I can't say that I have feel economically secure. I struggled mightily to hold onto my condo through the economic recession. I am 61 years old and worried about being able to retire anytime soon. I don't exactly know how to define ``middle class'' but it can't mean what I have done for the last 3 decades of my life: Working full time, being very frugal, but yet also constantly worrying about meeting my basic financial obligations and the threat of eviction. And I am someone who has been exceptionally lucky in terms of the abundance of learning and employment opportunities I have had! I cannot imagine the financial burdens of people who have been less fortunate or live in areas with fewer programs. My plea today is that you work for policies that reward all hard working people in America with a fair chance to support their families. This is the challenge my children face even though both of them are resourceful, intelligent, and have good jobs. I pray that my children will be able to know economic prosperity, which at very least means living without constant worry about day-to-day about making it. I sit before you as a very different person from who I was as lost and hopeless 16-year-old girl on the streets. It has been a long journey of seeking forgiveness for the harm I caused others, and healing myself I hope my story can inspire women who are now struggling on the path I was on thirty years ago. I want them to be encouraged to persevere and make positive changes in their lives, and to have faith in the system. But the system must also have faith in us! Successful reentry requires government policies and programs that remove stumbling blocks to economic security. I am exceptionally grateful to be here but I am not exceptional. I am an example of what's possible when we support people through smart and fair reentry and economic programs. Thank you.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. First of all, I thank the gentleman so much for his tremendous leadership in Future Forum. I want to thank him also for really stepping up since he has been here in Congress not only in showing dedication and phenomenal representation for his constituents, but, also, he has shown such a tremendous ability to organize his peers and to really focus on the issues that really give our young people, the millennials, a hope that they can actually achieve the American Dream. So I thank the gentleman very much. I am really proud to share our region with Congressman Swalwell. I want to first congratulate him also because I think today is the anniversary of Future Forum. One year?

Ms. LEE. The gentleman is doing such critical work to make college affordable and debt free and to really provide opportunities for our young people and our millennials. So I thank the gentleman. We represent the east bay, as we have said. For years now, this is nothing new to us. I have my office full of cases that go back, actually, 10 years of qualified people of color who wanted to work in the tech sector and never could get in the door. Let me also say that 40, 50 percent of the jobs in the tech sector are non-tech-related. They are human resources attorneys, lawyers, jobs that many people of color qualify for and still they have been shut out from these opportunities. So this is an important issue to talk about. Tech is making a home for itself in my district and your district, and it is creating new jobs. Unfortunately, too many of my African American and Latino constituents have been locked out of these opportunities for years, which have been created by the region's booming sector. Believe you me, it is not unique to your district or my district. It is a systemic problem that we need to address across the country. When major tech firms have released workforce data--and, mind you, many have not--we have seen that, at some firms, employees that are African American can make up as much as 7 percent of the workforce. At other firms, this can be below zero percent. I don't know how you get below zero percent, but some don't even think about it, despite the fact that African Americans, for example, make up 14 percent of the American population. So that is why I am really honored to serve with our Congressional Black Caucus chair, Chairman Butterfield, as his co-chair of the CBC Diversity Task Force. In May of last year, our task force launched the TECH 2020 initiative to increase diversity and inclusion in the tech sector by 2020, specifically as it relates to African American diversity. Let me just take a moment to thank Reverend Jesse Jackson and Rainbow PUSH because they have been for several years now really making sure these companies commit to releasing their data and coming up with a plan to address inclusion and diversity. The core principles of TECH 2020 initiative let me lay out very quickly. T, transparency; education and training; corporate responsibility and investment; hiring and retention. Transparency means ensuring that companies set and achieve inclusion goals, release their data annually, and put this information in a central location for the public to access. Education and training, STEM education, commitment to long-term STEM investments, working with minority-serving institutions, Hispanic- serving institutions, HBCUs, and advancing public and private investment in education. Corporate responsibility and investment means working to increase board of director diversity. When you look at the boards, you don't see much inclusion at all in diversity. We have to target philanthropic investments, expand venture capital to diverse ideas, to new, young ideas, seek out diversity in the supplier area and helping young, millennial small businesses grow. The last principle, hiring and retention, means encouraging companies to provide specific programs, goals, and timetables focused on inclusion and recruit from minority-serving institutions and invest in African American and Latino employees. The TECH 2020 initiative--we have taken these principles on the road to the boardrooms of some of the biggest names in the tech sector. So I am pleased that we are continuing this conversation tonight with the head of Future Forum because this really is about the future. In our district, we have many, many young people, many young African American young men and women, who are working on coding, BlackGirlsCode. When you look at some of the investments that the Kapor Institute, Mitch and Freada Kapor, have made in terms of investments in firms that require inclusion in STEM education, it is really phenomenal. We have seen companies add highly qualified people of color, business leaders, to their board of directors, not enough, only a couple, but we are going to continue to work to develop and implement and, most importantly, disclose their diversity and their inclusion plans. We have also made progress in gaining commitments to investments in science, technology, engineering, and math--of course, the STEM pipeline--to help educate and create the next generation of coders, innovators, and tech leaders. Last year I was proud to lead a letter--and it was cosigned by 67 of our colleagues--to support the President's Computer Science for All Initiative, which will ensure that every student from preschool to grade 12 will be able to learn how to code. This initiative specifically focuses on girls and students of color and will help us close the achievement gap in STEM education. These are all steps in the right direction, but we can and we must do more. America has become more and more diverse. Increasing diversity and inclusion within the tech sector really is not only a moral imperative, it is an economic imperative. As a former businessowner myself, I can tell you that diversity is really good for business. It is good for the bottom line. When you have a diverse and dynamic employee base, new doors of opportunity open. So I am very pleased to be helping to lead this effort with our chair of the Black Caucus, Mr. Butterfield, and other colleagues and yourself to achieve parity in the tech sector. I also look forward to working with Future Forum in addressing these critical issues as we move forward with Future Forum in terms of the next generation of leaders. Young people are concerned about student loan debt, college affordability, and climate change, all the issues that really create a planet worthy of the future of our young people. As future members of the modern workforce, they are also concerned about equity. So I have to commend the gentleman once again in Future Forum for his vision and his efforts to engage and empower our future leaders. I know that together we can and we will achieve a future where people of color, African Americans and Latinos, are fully represented within every level of the tech sector, from entry-level coders and H.R. representatives, legal professionals, C-suite officers, and corporate directors. Finally, let me say that one effort that some of the companies are mounting, which I think you know about, which we need to talk a little bit more about in the future and Future Forum should look at, are the unconscious bias studies that these companies are undertaking. Because oftentimes it is the culture of the organization and unconscious biases that translate into policies and programs that create a discriminatory effect which, in fact, need to be addressed and dealt with, and they are so unconscious that people don't even realize that this is the ultimate outcome of those unconscious biases.

Ms. LEE. Yes. Absolutely. If you don't have the facts, if you don't have the data, how do you know, first of all, that there is an issue and a problem of exclusion? Secondly, oftentimes people hire people and work with people whom they are familiar with. There are some systemic issues that, unless you have the data, you don't know what these systemic issues are. So that is absolutely essential. That is why we continue to ask tech companies to release their data and to really be transparent. So you have to know what the issues are and what the problem is before you can look at how to rectify it and how to move forward. So I think that many employees and many corporate officials want to do the right thing. They just have not done the right thing, and they are trying to begin to understand what to do next. So Future Forum, the Congressional Black Caucus, our Tri-Caucus, all of us here, our Dem Caucus, have really been working hard to try to get this movement forward.