Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her tremendous leadership on so many issues. I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. Our country has already lost too many good-paying American jobs because of past trade deals. We should be clear about what this rule would do. This rule is really a vote to extended Medicare sequestration and provides for no amendments in the fast track bill, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and the customs bill. We have seen what happens when bad trade deals are passed without congressional oversight: American jobs shift overseas--many come from communities of color; dangerous food makes its way to our meals; human rights are violated; labor standards are ignored; and the effects of climate change get worse. The American people do deserve better. The American people deserve a trade policy that creates American jobs and an open process for passing trade deals that gives them a strong voice. Passing this rule and passing fast track does neither. This is a bad deal for American workers. It is bad for American jobs. It needs to go back to the drawing board, a drawing board that is public and that gives the American people a voice in trade policy, not just big corporations and hedge fund managers. Between 2001 and 2011, the growing trade deficit with China cost more than 2.7 million jobs. Nearly 1 million of these jobs, mind you, came from communities of color. After these workers lost their jobs, their situation went from bad to worse. These workers saw their wages fall nearly 30 percent--or more than $10,000 a year. The total economic cost of this job loss to these communities is more than $10 billion. Now, that is $10 billion each and every year. We cannot allow another bad trade deal to shift millions more of American jobs overseas. We cannot allow another bad trade deal to strip billions from struggling communities. We cannot allow this rule or a flawed TAA or fast track to pass. Make no mistake, I support trade. I have the honor of representing the Port of Oakland, and I understand the critical role that trade plays in the economy in my district in California and also in our country. However, let me just say, trade only grows our economy. This bill is not fair; it is not open, and it is not transparent. I have the honor of representing the Port of Oakland and I understand the critical role that trade plays in the economy of my district, California and our country. However, trade only grows our economy when it's fair, open, transparent and creates jobs. This bill--Fast Track--is not fair. It's not open-- And it's not transparent. So once again, I urge a ``NO'' vote on this Rule, a ``NO'' on the flawed TAA, and a ``NO'' on Fast Track.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is really very simple. It is cosponsored by Representatives Grijalva and Ellison. It prohibits any funding in this bill pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force after December 31, 2015. This timeline gives the President and the Congress sufficient time-- that is 8 months after this is signed into law--to determine what if any authorization would be needed to replace the 2001 AUMF. This amendment is not only timely, but it really is necessary. On September 14, 2001, I could not vote for the 2001 AUMF. That was an authorization that I knew would provide a blank check to wage war any time, for any length, anywhere. In the last 14 years, it has become increasingly clear that this authorization has essentially provided the President--this is any President--President Bush, now President Obama--the authority to wage war against anyone, anywhere, at any time, against any country, with no authorization from Congress. In fact, the Congressional Research Service has found that the 2001 AUMF has been used more than 30 times to justify military action and other activities, including warrantless surveillance and wiretapping, indefinite detention practices at GTMO, targeted killing operations using lethal drones, and the open-ended expansion of military operations abroad, which have nothing to do with the original congressional intent. In addition to the activities I mentioned, the AUMF has reportedly been invoked to deploy troops in Afghanistan, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia. The 2001 AUMF is now being cited as the authority for the now 10-month-long war against ISIL--and, yes, we are in a war. We know that ISIL must be degraded and dismantled, but Congress must do our job. We should debate and vote on the use of force. That is our constitutional responsibility. I know that, while many of us may not share a common position on how to deal with the 2001 authorization, many of us do agree that the overly broad authority is a major and concerning deterioration of congressional oversight and warmaking authority. I think many of us can agree that a robust debate and vote is necessary, long overdue, and must take place, whatever we believe about how we should vote. The American people deserve to have their Representatives speak for them on these grave matters which the Constitution requires. Let me be clear. With the 2001 authorization still on the books in its current form, any administration can continue to rely on this blank check to wage endless war. That is why my amendment to prohibit funding for the 2001 AUMF after December 31, 2015, is so important. There was very little debate. I remember that very moment that we had this debate on this resolution 12 years ago. I think the debate maybe was about 1 hour--pro and con, 30 minutes. I probably was the only one who voted and said ``no'' in terms of the debate, but it wasn't a very long debate, and I am sure, if we had had more time to debate this, more Members would have realized that this was a blank check. Let's repeal this. I have introduced this legislation once again to get this off the books. Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional responsibility while the United States now is embroiled in yet another open-ended war in the Middle East. We can begin to address this today by passing this amendment, providing Congress and the President with plenty of time to decide what measures should replace this authorization before the end of the year. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), our ranking member, and thank him for his leadership.

Ms. LEE. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. LEE

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

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funding pursuant to the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force. And once again I am proud to offer this amendment with my colleagues, Representative Ellison and Grijalva. Now, why is this amendment necessary? Three years ago, mind you, President Obama declared that the Iraq war was over. Since then, the President has stated a number of times that the 2002 AUMF is no longer necessary, and that Congress should work to repeal it. Yet, Congress has allowed this war authorization to remain on the books indefinitely. Now, we all are familiar with the report, and we know what is taking place in Iraq, Syria, and across the Middle East as it relates to ISIL. We all agree that they must be degraded and dismantled. But just as with the 2001 resolution, the 2002 AUMF is completely inappropriate to deal with this threat. This is a new war, Mr. Chairman, not an old war. This is a new war, which the people of this country have a right to have their Members of Congress debate and vote on. Even the President included a repeal of the 2002 AUMF in the proposed authorization he sent to Congress in February. Yet, we can't even get that authorization brought up for a debate and a vote. So, simply put, the 2002 authorization is no longer necessary. We need to come back to the drawing board and decide, based on what this body wants to do, should we vote for a new authorization or not. If we want to commit the United States to another war in Iraq, then Congress must have that debate and decide whether or not to authorize another war. I am pleased that my sense of Congress resolution--it was an amendment actually--affirming this was passed on a bipartisan basis in committee and is included in this bill. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is common sense, and we cannot continue to leave authorizations for the use of military force on the books indefinitely. It is time for us to reassert our constitutional prerogative to declare war or not, to debate and vote on any military action in Iraq.

Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say with regard to this amendment, Congress has a constitutional responsibility. It is our prerogative to declare war or not. It is our prerogative to debate and vote on any military action anywhere in the world. More than a prerogative, it is our constitutional responsibility. We represent the American people. The American people deserve to have a voice in such grave matters. That is why the Constitution required that. And for us not to do our job and to continue to rely on old authorizations from 13 and 14 years ago really is an abdication of our responsibility. People did not elect us to Congress to duck and dodge the hard questions and the hard issues. Some of us agree that we need to go to war. Some of us don't agree. But that is not the issue, and that is not what this amendment, nor my prior amendment, was about. It was about doing our job here, laying out the pros and cons, making some heavy-duty decisions--and that is what they are, but that is why we are here--and then instructing our Commander in Chief what Congress believes should be the appropriate course of action. Many would vote for it; many would vote against it, but, again, not to have this debate and vote when we are now 10 months into another war is downright wrong. It is almost lawless. It is something that it is hard to imagine getting away with this long. So I hope that we get a good bipartisan vote on this. It is about time that we do debate this again. If the Speaker did not like the President's authorization that he brought forward, then let's get another authorization. Let's write one ourselves. I have one. I know other Members have one. Let's bring forth an authorization and debate what we want to do moving forward. That is the wise thing to do. That is the smart thing to do. That is the right thing to do. We have troops in harm's way. They need to know what their Members of Congress believe, what the Constitution requires in terms of doing our job. They deserve us to do better.

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

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank our ranking member for yielding, and for your tremendous leadership on this subcommittee. I also want to thank the ranking member and our chair for including report language on the Department of Defense's efforts to achieve auditability by the end of fiscal 2017. Ensuring that the Pentagon is auditable is common sense, and it is something that Congress mandated, mind you, 25 years ago. It is long past time to address the culture of unlimited spending and zero accountability at the Pentagon, and I know this issue has strong bipartisan support. Yet, there are many provisions of this bill which I cannot support. The appropriations bill includes an additional $38 billion over budget caps in the overseas contingency operations slush fund, and that is what it is; it is a slush fund. This is simply outrageous and this fund, quite frankly, in my opinion, it should be eliminated. We should have transparency, and the public should know how much it is costing to fight these wars. This bill also includes $1.3 billion for DOD operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Mr. Chair, it has been 10 months since the war started and 4 months since the President submitted his draft authorization to Congress, and Congress has yet to act. Now we see additional troops being sent into this war zone. Again, no congressional debate, no vote. Congress cannot continue to fund a war--and that is what this is-- without a robust debate on an ISIL-specific authorization. That is why I offered an amendment in committee, which was adopted on a bipartisan basis, that simply reaffirms that Congress has a constitutional duty to debate and determine whether or not to authorize the use of military force. It is also why I am offering two amendments to this bill that would prohibit funding for the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force. With these authorizations still on the books, Congress is allowing this President--and any President really--to wage war against anyone, at any time, anywhere. I hope we defeat this bill because we have got to stop this policy of endless wars.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Sanford for his leadership as it relates to this amendment and helping us try to end these outdated and failed policies toward Cuba. I rise in support of our amendment, and I am very proud to cosponsor this simple, bipartisan amendment. This amendment would strike two provisions included in this bill that would further limit travel to and from Cuba via flights and ferries. Not only are these provisions inappropriate policy riders, they would deny Americans the right to travel to Cuba. I understand some of my colleagues, including our subcommittee chair, have a personal interest in Cuba, yet personal interest should not stall progress nor interfere with what is good for the American people. I am joined by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and a diverse coalition of organizations and businesses in strong opposition to this and other attempts to undermine efforts to normalize relations with Cuba. Not only are the current provisions in this bill wrong for diplomacy, they are patently antibusiness. That is why this amendment is supported by the United States Chamber of Commerce, Orbitz, the American Society of Travel Agents, and the broad-based coalition Engage Cuba. These provisions that are currently in the bill set us back 50 years. They would eliminate flights that airlines have already invested in and would kill a new market for maritime carriers. Simply put, these provisions are an affront to Americans' basic freedom. Cuba is the only country in the world, including North Korea, Iran, China, and Vietnam, where Americans cannot freely travel. The President's announcement to expand travel was a step in the right direction. We should be passing the bipartisan and bicameral Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act, H.R. 664, which I am proud to cosponsor with my colleague Mr. Sanford, rather than moving backwards with these misguided provisions. Opponents to normalize the relations are quick to claim that renewed engagement somehow rewards the Cuban Government. That couldn't be more wrong. In order to engage on issues like human rights and democracy, Americans should be able to do just that. This amendment allows that. Those who are serious about moving our relations forward to the betterment of both Americans and Cubans know that increased exchange and formalized relations are the path we need to be on. A majority of Americans and Cubans agree: we need a 21st century approach to our relations with this nation 90 miles away from our shores. This is 2015, my colleagues, not 1960. The rest of the world is doing business with Cuba, allows its citizens to travel to Cuba, and also has normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. The United States is isolated. This amendment begins to thaw that freeze and to keep our country moving forward in this next decade and, further, to become part of the world family who understands that Americans should, like other citizens in other countries, have a right to travel wherever they so desire. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Ms. LEE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Ms. LEE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE. A couple of points I would just like to make. First of all, confiscated property 50 years-plus ago should be part of negotiations in terms of bilateral discussions as it relates to normalizing relations with Cuba. What is in this bill right now is what we have indicated, and which is why we offer this amendment. This bill prohibits Americans from traveling to Cuba. It eliminates jobs in America, and it eliminates economic growth through our maritime industry and our airline industry. Once again, all of the issues that occurred 50 years ago are subject to discussion based on any bilateral negotiations taking place.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Mr. Michael Finley Lange, a prominent actor, teacher, filmmaker, and playwright. Mr. Lange earned a reputation throughout the years as a progressive force in the theater arts. With his passing on May 20, 2015, we look to recognize his extraordinary life's work and all those he inspired as an actor and teacher of theatre arts. Mr. Lange was born in Oakland on January 2, 1948. His father was a thespian who inspired him to pursue the dramatic Arts. Mr. Lange graduated from Oakland Technical High School in 1967. He attended UC Berkeley where he obtained his undergraduate degree in Political Science and later completed his graduate studies in Public Health at California State University East Bay. He later taught for more than a decade at California State University San Jose to Hospitality, Recreation, and Health Science majors. Mr. Lange had a passion for theatre. From 1974 to 2006, Mr. Lange managed the Alice Arts Center (now the Molonga Casquelord Centre for the Arts). He also managed the Henry J. Kaiser building in Downtown Oakland. Mr. Lange directed stage productions in the Bay Area for more than 25 years. He produced The Meeting, a fictional meeting between the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and Honorable Malcolm X. He was also an exceptional playwright. He wrote ``Prophet Nat'', a musical docudrama based on the life of slave-prophet Nat Turner. He also directed two award winning plays: Ceremonies in Dark Old Men and The Old Settler. Since the early 1990's, Mr. Lange was known for his portrayals of Malcolm X. Mr. Lange was able to captivate and capture audiences with his performances, bringing the passion and presence of Malcolm X to life, while also presenting the crowd with pressing questions regarding racial discrimination still prevalent in today's society. Throughout his prolific career, Mr. Lange received numerous accolades, which includes being honored by the San Francisco Black Film Festival. I have known Michael since my college days at Mills College--he constantly encouraged me. His smile, words of wisdom, and his friendship will be deeply missed. Today, California's 13th Congressional District salutes and honors an outstanding individual, Mr. Michael Finley Lange. Mr. Lange's contributions have truly impacted so many lives throughout the Bay Area. I join all of Mr. Lange's loved ones in celebrating his incredible life. He will be deeply missed.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding but also for his very thoughtful leadership on the subcommittee as our ranking member. I rise to express my grave concerns regarding the funding levels for our transportation and housing programs provided in this bill. Once again, the majority has brought a bill to the floor that includes drastic and misguided sequester cuts to programs that are critical to the American economy and to the lives of the most vulnerable and to creating jobs. Under the transportation title, the bill funds TIGER grants $1.15 billion below the President's request. Similarly, Small Starts and New Starts are underfunded from the President's request by over $1 billion. These are programs that create jobs and create economic growth. It is completely nonsensical to starve our communities of the proven Federal investments in transportation that we so desperately need. The bill before us drastically underfunds our critical housing programs, including $25 million less than the President's request for elderly and disabled housing. Yes, that is elderly and disabled housing. It zeroes out the housing trust fund, which helps the lowest income Americans, and it is $320 million less than the request for Choice Neighborhoods. These cuts keep people living on the margins and push more people into poverty and homelessness. Before I conclude, let me just say how inappropriate it is in this bill, like all these bills that we are seeing, they contain language that would turn, now, this bill, the Treasury-HUD bill, into an ideological and wrongheaded foreign policy document by restricting travel to Cuba. I introduced an amendment to strike this language and will be introducing a bipartisan amendment with my friend Representative Mark Sanford to do the same on this bill. We need a 21st century approach to our relations with the nation that is 90 miles from our shores, not to cling to cold war era policies.

Ms. LEE. Americans deserve the right to travel to wherever they would so desire. They travel to China and Vietnam; Americans have that right. Why shouldn't they have the right to travel to a country 90 miles off of our shores? Cold war era policies are just that, 50-year-old policies that have failed. They are wrong, first of all. They are very ridiculous at this point, and they don't make any sense. So to keep trying to put these amendments into nongermane bills where it makes no sense is mind-boggling to me. I hope that we can get that amendment out. I just want to thank the ranking member for his efforts, given the tremendous constraints allotted by Republican austerity budgeting.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Finally, let me just say we need to stop starving our critical Federal programs. We need to protect our communities in crisis and drive scientific breakthroughs in the future. In committee, I sponsored an amendment along with Ranking Member Lowey to increase COPS Hiring funding and also introduced an amendment to require jurisdictions receiving Byrne-JAG grants to put their officers through training to better work with diverse communities that they protect and serve. Congressman Lacy Clay has championed this idea, and later in this debate we will enter into a colloquy regarding this important issue, and I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their support.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank our ranking member for yielding but also for his very steady and competent leadership of this subcommittee on our behalf. Also, I want to thank the chairman for his consistent work at bipartisanship, even though this is still yet another funding bill brought to the floor that woefully underfunds our critical Federal programs. The fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill really should reflect our Nation's commitment to growing our economy, keeping our communities safe, and driving innovation. Instead, it makes critical cuts to programs at a time when they are needed most. In the Justice title, this bill includes no funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program and a $68 million cut to juvenile justice programs from fiscal year 2015. It also includes a $75 million cut to the Legal Services Corporation, which provides critical legal services to low-income Americans. Given what is happening in communities around the country, especially in terms of communities of color and law enforcement, these are truly unwise and misguided cuts. Under the Science title, the National Science Foundation, which funds critical research at the University of California at Berkeley in my congressional district, is funded at $50 million below the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. These cuts are a huge blow to investments we should be making in scientific research to keep our Nation competitive. In the Commerce section, this bill also includes cuts to critical programs, such as a $274 million cut to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and funds the Census Bureau at $387 million below the President's budget request. Add to all of this an inappropriate policy rider about exports to Cuba and you have a bill that, despite the hard work of the chair and our ranking member, is deeply flawed.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I want to thank our ranking member and our chairman for their commitment to continue to work on this very important issue, along with Congressman Clay. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. LEE. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Once again, the other side is really pushing the envelope in terms of characterizing what this amendment actually does. This amendment would strike provisions included in this bill that would prohibit the Department of Commerce from issuing licenses for new types of exports that are permitted under the Obama administration's new policy of engagement with Cuba. This provision is not only an inappropriate policy rider in this appropriations bill, but, if included, it would put this House, once again, on the wrong side of history. Supporters of this provision claim that it would only prohibit exporting to anyone who works with the Cuban military, intelligence services, and their immediate families. The reality is that the effects of this provision are much, much broader. It would make it difficult for the Department of Commerce to issue licenses to companies that want to export to Cuba, U.S. companies that create jobs in the United States of America. This includes equipment and supplies for entrepreneurs that are related to running their own businesses here in America, and it includes the materials, equipment, and tools to construct or renovate privately owned businesses. Simply put, this rider is wrong. It is wrong for business, and it certainly should not be part of a bill that funds our critical Commerce, Justice, and Science programs. The majority of Americans and Cubans agree that U.S. policy toward Cuba has been an unpopular failure for more than 50 years. Instead of including misguided provisions that undermine the process of normalizing relations with Cuba, we should be moving toward increased exchanges, formal relations with our neighbors, and creating good- paying jobs in the United States by allowing the exporting of U.S. products to Cuba.