Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 86-90 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted no on #86, no on #87, yes on #88, yes on #89, and yes on #90.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 84-85 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on #84 and yes on #85.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Congressman Al Green, who served as president of the Houston Branch of the NAACP for more than 10 years, for hosting this important Special Order. We appreciate your leadership in coordinating this special order to honor the 106th Anniversary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). More than a century ago, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded in New York City. The month was February and would later come to mark Black History Month. As a child of the Civil Rights Movement, I witnessed firsthand the leadership of the NAACP in fight for human rights. I vividly remember the role the NAACP played in shattering segregation in my birthplace of El Paso, Texas and in my personal life. When I was in high school, it was nearly impossible for young women of color to become cheerleaders. At the time, I was participating in a work-study program at Pacoima Memorial Lutheran Credit Union and my boss, John Mance, was a member of the local NAACP Board. Together, he and Carl McCraven, the CEO of the credit union, worked to change the rules so anyone should try out to be a cheerleader. Thanks to them, I was able to cheer for the Tigers! We all know their great contributions that the NAACP has made to our nation: From their largest legal victory in Brown vs. the Board of Education, under the leadership of Special Counsel Thurgood Marshall--to their central role in the successful battles to overturn Jim Crow. Today, the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization continues to engage in groundbreaking and critical work to combat disparity and inequality in our society. Today, they boldly stand against repressive voter ID laws, economic inequality and mass incarceration. We know that inequality persists--the unemployment rate among African Americans is nearly twice the rate of their white counterparts and the African American poverty rate is nearly three times the poverty rate of white Americans. These statistics paint a clear picture of inequality in America. The American dream of equality, freedom, liberty, justice and opportunity should be open to all and the NAACP is working day-in and day-out to ensure that all Americans have an opportunity to achieve the American dream. I am proud that the NAACP has been a dedicated and constant partner and advocate. I am proud to join my colleagues in honoring the NAACP's 106th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Mr. Roy L. Clay. Known throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and the nation as a computer engineer, investor, community leader and a dedicated husband and father, Mr. Clay has left an indelible mark on our nation. Mr. Roy L. Clay was born in Kinloch, Missouri on August 22, 1929. Even at a young age, Mr. Clay was inspired to learn. In 1947, seven years prior to the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Mr. Clay was granted an academic scholarship to attend Saint Louis University. He graduated in 1951 with a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and, by 1956, he was among the first modern computer programmers. After serving as a computer programmer in what is now the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, Mr. Clay was invited to join David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett-Packard Co., to build the first reliable computer. Mr. Clay established software development, directed research and development of all computer products, and served as the General Manager of the computer division. By the time he left Hewlett-Packard, he was the highest ranking African American employee in the company. Mr. Clay's contributions to the information technology sector continued to grow. In 1971, Mr. Roy L. Clay consulted with Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Byers, a venture capital firm, to evaluate their investments in computer related firms such as Tandem Computer Company, Compaq Computer Company, and Intel. Then, in 1977, Mr. Clay founded ROD-Electronics to develop the first electronically controlled Dielectric Withstand tester. This test ensured that a product is safe from fire or electrical shock. Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM, AT&T, and Xerox adopted his Dielectric Withstand tester and added it to their production lines. In 2003, in recognition of his many accomplishments in Silicon Valley, Mr. Clay was inducted into the Silicon Valley Engineering Council's Hall of Fame. Beyond his contributions to the information technology sector, Mr. Roy Clay has been a dedicated member of his community. He was the first African American to serve as City Councilman and Vice Mayor for the City of Palo Alto in 1973. Mr. Clay is also a Founder and Emeritus Board Member of the Olympic Club of San Francisco Foundation; founded with the purpose of generating funds to support underprivileged children in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. Today, California's 13th Congressional District salutes and honors an outstanding individual, Mr. Roy L. Clay. His dedication and efforts in the information technology sector have impacted so many lives and helped to break the barrier for many African Americans throughout California and the nation.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 79-80 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on #79 and no on #80.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 71-76 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted no on #71, no on #72, no on #73, yes on #74, no on #75, and yes on #76.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 69-70 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on #69 and yes on #70.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 65-68 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on #65, yes on #66, yes on #67, and no on #68.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Congressman Donald Payne, Jr. and Congresswoman Robin Kelly for hosting this evening's Special Order. I appreciate your leadership in organizing this important discussion. Today we ask: where we were, where we are, and where we are headed. This year, we celebrate 50 years from the March in Selma. 50 years from the signing of the pivotal Voting Rights Act. Over that last 50 years, much has changed. But the work remains unfinished. Fifty years ago, civil rights leaders and concerned citizens marched in Selma for freedom. The freedom to vote, to assemble, to petition their government--the Constitutional protections enshrined in our nation's Constitution. It was a fight to end legal, Jim Crow segregation in the South that actively and systemically suppressed African Americans. But it was also a fight to protect all Americans--as Dr. King wrote in his famous letter from the Birmingham Jail: ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' We are still fighting to end injustice in our nation--we are fighting for economic justice and justice under the law. Nearly 50 years ago, Dr. King outlined the two Americas that still exist today. In a speech on April 14th, 1967 at Stanford University, Dr. King explained: ``there are literally two Americas. One America is beautiful for situation. And, in a sense, this America is overflowing with the milk of prosperity and the honey of opportunity. . . . tragically and unfortunately, there is another America. This other America has a daily ugliness about it that constantly transforms the ebulliency of hope into the fatigue of despair.'' Ladies and gentlemen--tragically, there are still two Americas. Systemic and institutional disparities and inequality are endemic at every level of our society--a legacy born in the suffering of the Middle Passage, nurtured through slavery and preserved with Jim Crow. Today, we see this legacy in African American unemployment that is more than twice the unemployment rate of whites. We see it in poverty rates for African Americans that are nearly three times the rate of white Americans. We see it in the faces of the 1 in 3 black men who will have spent some time of their life in jail. Mr. Speaker--In many ways, we are still living in two Americas. One of poverty, unemployment and injustice. Mr. Speaker--too many are being left behind. Sadly, Congressional leadership has decided to pursue partisan gridlock instead of acting for the millions of struggling Americans. Tragically, many of the rights we fought for 50 years ago we are still fighting today. Congress has reauthorized the Voting Rights Act four times, with large bipartisan support. However, there has been no Congressional action since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Not one hearing, not one vote and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has made clear, on this floor, that he has no intentions of taking up this matter. Likewise, the deaths of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Oscar Grant--one of my constituents--and many others illustrate that there are still two Americas. Recent events forced us to ask ourselves do Black lives matter? Yes-- black lives matter. Brown lives matter. White lives matter--all lives matter. Our institutions must reflect this core value that all lives matters. We in Congress have a duty to get serious about reforming our broken criminal justice system. We need to repeal unfair sentencing laws, increase police force diversity, improve racial sensitivity training, end the school-to-prison pipeline and work to re-integrate ex-offenders back into society. The Black Lives Matter movement parallels the Civil Rights Movement's call to action, a movement to that calls us to end economic despair, drives out hate and fear and embrace love, and unseats the unjust status quo. While Americans from all walks of life continue to protest and demand for change, Congress must hear their call and work to enact real change. Like Congress acted 50 years ago after Selma, we were sent to Washington to address the issues facing our nation--let's start working on the structural and racial biases that pervades and poisons our institutions. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the Grand Jury Reform Act, which authorizes an appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation and present the results to a judge in a probable cause hearing, open to the public, whenever a police officer kills an individual while acting in the line of duty. Mr. Speaker--We must pass this bill. I have also introduced the Half in Ten Act to create a national strategy to cut the poverty rate in half over the next decade and lift 22 million Americans into the middle class. Mr. Speaker--We must also pass this bill. As a nation, we have made progress against racism and injustice. But we are backsliding. We cannot lose the prize that our forefathers and mothers fought, bled and died to obtain and preserve. The soul of our nation is at stake. Today, we carry the banner of Dr. King, Rosa Parks, and Medgar Evers. We have a duty to continue the fight for freedom, equality and justice. This means Congress working together--Republican and Democrat--to pass important legislation to address unemployment and poverty and protect the voting rights of all. The American dream of equality, freedom, liberty, justice and life must be more than just words. It must be a promise to all Americans, regardless of race, gender, place of birth, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, nationality or religion. Together, we can continue the unfinished work of creating a more perfect union.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 59-64 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted no on #59, no on #60, no on #56, yes on #61, yes on #62, yes on #63, and no on #64.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 54-58 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted no on #54, no on #55, no on #56, yes on #57, and no on #58.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 51-53 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on #51, yes on #52, and yes on #53.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 46-50 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted no on #46, yes on #47, yes on #48, yes on #49, and no on #50.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also for being very vigilant in protecting women, women's right to privacy, and alerting us as to the dangers in this very terrible rule and terrible bill. Madam Speaker, first of all, once again, as I said yesterday, this is just downright wrong. This is a horrible bill. This takes away a woman's right to privacy. Again, I thought in our country we prided ourselves on the right to privacy. Women have a right to determine their own health care decisions. They can make these decisions with whomever they deem appropriate. There is no way that Members of Congress should intervene, direct, or superimpose views and government policies on women's health care and women's right to privacy. Once again, the Hyde amendment was passed, I believe it was--what--in the seventies. We should be providing access to women's health care so low-income women would have the same opportunities to determine their own health care decisions as other women who have the access, but Federal funds haven't been allowed for many, many years now. I don't know why these bogus arguments are being made on this bill because we don't have Federal funding of abortions, and I think women know that and see this as a real sinister move to, once again, deny women their right to health care and their right to privacy. Also, once again, we are seeing how another bill further undermines D.C.'s home rule. This bill prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own funds to provide abortions. Why would we do this? D.C. has a right to determine how they want to provide health care for women and have their own ability to determine their own destiny; but, once again, for low-income women in Washington, D.C., they are under assault with this bill. It is really a shame and disgrace that, once again, we have to get up here and debunk the argument that Federal funds are being used for abortions because they are not. Today, the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we should really be talking about expanding access to a full range of reproductive health services for everyone, including low- income women.

Ms. LEE. We should be talking about expanding reproductive health services for all women, including low-income women. We should be talking about pay equity. We should be talking about child care. We should be talking about paid family medical leave. We should be talking about creating jobs. But rather than that, here we go, once again, trying to get in the middle of a woman's decision to move forward with her own life based on the decisions that she and her physician and her family members make. The right to privacy, once again, is being undermined by this bill. You can't have a right to privacy and keep government out of your private life on one hand and, on the other hand, say government has got to interfere with your personal and private business. Health care is too important for women. Women need to be able to make their own health care decisions, and this bill would do the exact opposite. It would move our country backwards. It would move women's health care backwards. I hope that Members will vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the bill. We need to be expanding access to women's health care.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, when jobs are shipped overseas because of bad trade deals, communities of color bear the huge brunt of the loss of those jobs. Of the 2.7 million jobs lost to China as a result of past trade deals, nearly 1 million of those jobs lost belong to people of color--one million jobs. Even after they lost their jobs, bad trade deals continued to harm them. When they found another job, it was on average for a nearly 30 percent lower wage. Trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is being negotiated in secret, wreak havoc on communities of color. We cannot allow more bad trade deals to be enacted, especially when unemployment rates and poverty rates in these communities are much too high already. Congress must consider the consequences of these trade deals on communities of color and all workers in our country given the terrible impacts of past trade deals. We must demand transparency, ensure that environmental and labor standards and food safety standards are protected, and insist that Congress exercise its constitutional responsibility in ensuring fair and free trade. TPP is certainly not fair and must be defeated.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Bishop Gordon Arlester Humphrey, Jr. Bishop Humphrey was a beloved pastor, husband, father, and friend. With his passing on Sunday, December 14, we look to Bishop Humphrey's personal legacy of leadership, service, and the outstanding quality of his life's work. Born to Gordon Humphrey, Sr. and Helen Humphrey, in Ohio, Bishop Humphrey was educated in the public schools of Chicago and graduated from Hirsch High School. He went on to attend Morehouse College in Atlanta, and then went on to follow in his father's footsteps, entering the ministry with his wife, First Lady Diane and their two children, Gordon III and Cha'Rena. Bishop Humphrey was noted for establishing ``Sunday Night Live,'' a service where all are welcome to attend without any condemnation or judgment, aimed at those who otherwise may not have attended a church service. This model proved so successful that it was replicated across the nation. He was also a powerful singer and a talented musician, using his gifts to minister through music and song. He was the executive producer of an acclaimed album entitled, ``Olivet Oakland, Sunday Night Live! You're in the Right Place at the Right Time.'' The album was nationally and internationally recognized for its inspirational message. After the passing of his father, Bishop Humphrey moved to Chicago, away from his 30-year ministry at Olivet Institutional Missionary Baptist Church in Oakland. Upon his return to Chicago, Bishop Humphrey assumed the position of senior pastor at Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, the church his father once led for more than 40 years. Eventually, Bishop Humphrey would become the Senior Pastor at three churches: Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Chicago, Olivet Institutional Missionary Baptist Church in Oakland, and Olivet's sister church of the same name in Stockton, California. Bishop Humphrey was known as a bridge-builder, and he opened the doors of Olivet to the community for the Oscar Grant Forums, which took place weekly for more than three years. He was noted for his prolific urban message and was in great demand as an evangelist, preaching the Gospel across the nation. For years, he was known to walk the streets and meet with drug addicts and gang members, and was able to bring them together and begin the healing process. Today, California's 13th Congressional District salutes and honors an outstanding individual, Bishop Gordon Arlester Humphrey, Jr. His dedication and efforts have impacted so many lives throughout the state of California and the nation. I join all of Bishop Humphrey's loved ones in celebrating his incredible life. He will be deeply missed, but his life, legacy, and spirit will live in our hearts and our community forever.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. I want to thank the ranking member for yielding, for his leadership, and for really making it clear exactly what we are dealing with today and why many of us strongly oppose this rule and this bill. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman could make her own personal health care decisions without interference from politicians. Yet here we are again, in 2015, debating this constitutionally protected right. H.R. 36 would ban all abortions at 20 weeks, with extremely limited exceptions. A ban on an abortion after 20 weeks makes it harder for women who are already facing difficult circumstances. This is so bad. This is so wrong. Every woman has a right to a safe medical procedure. And this decision, while difficult, is hers to make, not yours and not mine. This is her decision. This bill is part of a broader effort to chip away at abortion access, a right that has already been decided by the Supreme Court and is the law of the land. Yet Republicans once again are focused on dictating what women can do with their bodies, denying their rights and endangering their health. Mr. Speaker, this radical GOP bill undermines women's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade. This is a dangerous assault on women's health freedoms. Women should not have to justify their personal medical decisions. Abortions later in a pregnancy can involve rare, severe fetal abnormalities or pose serious risks to the health of women, but these procedures may be medically necessary to save the woman's life. This is an agonizing decision that a woman should make with her doctor, her family, or whomever, but not her congressional Representatives. We have seen what happens when politicians interfere in these deeply personal medical decisions and tie doctors' hands.

Ms. LEE. Let me just say that the AMA has stated very clearly that this bill compromises a doctor's ability to provide medical treatment in the best interest of the patient. Members of Congress have no right to interfere in health care decisions of women. This is a private matter. And the last time I looked, I thought we do have a right to privacy in this country. So we have got to continue to fight against these attacks on women's health, on our constitutional rights, and on the right to privacy. I hope you vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call votes 17-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on #17, yes on #18, no on #19.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the devastating earthquake that struck the nation of Haiti. Monday marked 5 years since a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck some 15 miles southwest of Port-au-Prince, Haiti's population center and the seat of its government. Mr. Speaker, the aftermath of the quake was unimaginable. Estimates of as many as 316,000 people perished, and nearly 1.3 million were displaced. This tragedy struck in a nation already hobbled by grinding poverty, health disparities, and food insecurity. It crippled the infrastructure of government, destroyed the National Palace, ministry buildings, and tragically robbed the nation of some of its most talented civil servants. In spite of the many challenges, once again, the Haitian people rose to the occasion, and our Nation, to date, has contributed billions to recovery efforts, along with donors around the world. The American people and the Haitian people deserve that this aid be delivered in the most effective way. My bill, the Assessing Progress in Haiti Act, had bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Obama. This bill--now this law-- provides critical oversight and reporting. And this week, along with my colleague Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, we are asking our colleagues to join us to reintroduce a resolution commemorating this tragic earthquake.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the bill. For over 500 days, Republican leadership refused to bring comprehensive immigration reform for a vote, this despite ample support from both sides of the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation from the Senate. In the face of Republican inaction, however, President Obama made the appropriate and the lawful move to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and to create deferred action for parents. Now, Republicans have decided to hold our national security hostage in order to placate the anti-immigrant fringe. Make no mistake, this rule and bill have nothing to do with our national security and have everything to do with tearing down the President's legal executive action on immigration. It has been clear to me, though, that whatever this President puts forward, Republicans will oppose; but it is hard to believe, given the dangers we face, that Republicans won't work in a bipartisan manner to keep our country safe.

Ms. LEE. Thank you for the additional time. This is cynical. It is anti-immigrant. We should defeat this rule, and we should defeat the underlying legislation if these poison pill amendments are adopted.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on the Rules Committee and on so many issues. I rise today, Madam Speaker, in strong opposition to this rule and to H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, and H.R. 30, the so-called Save American Workers Act of 2015. Madam Speaker, both of these bills are damaging to the health of Americans, with one aimed at denying access to affordable health care and the other designed to strike a blow to our environment. Madam Speaker, approval of Keystone XL would worsen climate change by expanding the extraction of the dirtiest oil on the planet. Emissions from extracting the dirty tar sands oil that would flow through the Keystone XL pipeline would be equal to the tailpipe emissions from 5.7 million cars. That is not the air that we want to breathe. We must reject this assault on our environment, especially at a time when so many communities across our country are experiencing the impacts of climate change through severe weather, coastal storms, and crippling droughts. Let me turn quickly to H.R. 30, the so-called ``Save Health Care for Working Families Act.''

Ms. LEE. Sadly, this bill is nothing more than the latest Republican attack on the Affordable Care Act and would result in an estimated 1 million people losing access to their health care coverage. This is unacceptable. We should be in the business of providing hardworking Americans access to affordable health care, not taking it away. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and these damaging bills.