Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank you, Congressman Jeffries, first of all, for your kind words and also for your continued leadership on this issue and so many other issues and especially in helping us, once again, beat the drum on behalf of the American people to make sure that people know exactly what the Republican Tea Party members are engaged in, in this body, so thank you very much to you and Congressman Horsford for this. Also, I just want to say to Congresswoman Fudge, our chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I want to thank her for her diligent work as chair and especially in her continuing efforts to fight against the extreme ideology that deters us from the real work our constituents sent us here to do. Once again, we are calling now tonight on Congress to get back to work putting Americans back to work. Rather than working together to create jobs, my Republican colleagues are pursuing a completely baseless lawsuit against President Obama at the expense of the American taxpayer. Mind you, never before has a sitting President been sued--not once. This lawsuit is nothing more than a political ploy designed for those who really want impeachment without cost. These Tea Party Republicans are driving the Republican Party to become so extreme and too conservative for the American people. To provide just one example, instead of voting on bipartisan immigration reform that would keep our families together, grow our economy, and enhance national security, the House has voted more than 50 times to repeal real health care reform that provides 54 million people with vital preventive health services like cancer screening. We were sent here to Washington to help enhance the quality of life for the American people, not to engage in these lawsuits against the President for no reason. We were sent to Washington to make America a better place, to create jobs, to grow the economy, to lift up the most vulnerable, and to build ladders of opportunity for the 46.5 million Americans, including 6 million children living in poverty today. This lawsuit is another example of the unfounded, wasteful, and really unconscionable attacks on our President, who was twice elected by the American people. It does nothing to help the American people. I tell you it is really troubling to see the extremists in the Republican Party marching down a path that is not based on fact, but, again, it is really nothing more than a political sideshow aimed at building its base, but it is a serious effort, I must say. Remember when President Obama, Congressman Jeffries, when he was first elected, Senator Mitch McConnell said that their goal was to make President Obama a one-term President? Well, they didn't accomplish their goal, so now, they are trying something else, and really, it is quite shameful, and the fact is that it is being funded with taxpayer dollars. This is nothing short than a violation of our constituents' trust. It is exactly like $2.3 million spent to preserve discrimination during the DOMA case. There is no constitutional or judicial precedent to adjudicate political disputes in the courts. We are ready, willing, and able to have a serious conversation about creating opportunities in the middle class for people who are fighting and aspiring to become part of the middle class, who are living on the edges and on the margins. We are ready, we have been fighting for this, and we want to have some consensus with the Republicans, so we can move forward on this, rather than filing lawsuits to detract from the real work that the Republicans, once again, refuse to do. Every day, I hear from my constituents about their real struggles. Too many of our constituents are looking for work. Too many are working full time, and they are still living on the edge in poverty. One in five American children still lives in poverty. Too many people in my district and throughout the country face real challenges, challenges that Republicans continue to ignore while pursuing an ideologically motivated lawsuit. It is about time we put these political ploys aside and get back to work. We need to stop this politically motivated, extreme, and disturbing march toward impeachment because that is where this is going, and hopefully, the public understands that, and we need to end the lawsuit. Instead, we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform and fix the broken system that is tearing families apart. Also, we have got to pass the Voting Rights Act and protect the voting rights of all Americans. We need to put workers back to work and raise the minimum wage. We need to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits and roll up our sleeves and get back to work. I believe that the American people are going to see right through this. So I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressmen Horsford and Jeffries for giving us the chance to really pull back the veil on what is really taking place with regard to this lawsuit.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Also, let me remind you that last month, we debated the Defense Appropriations bill. Over 150 bipartisan Members supported my amendment that would have prohibited funds from being used to conduct combat operations in Iraq. This resolution, which is bipartisan, merely requires the President to come to Congress, should he decide to engage in an escalated combat role in Iraq. The reality is, though, there is no military solution in Iraq. This is a sectarian war with longstanding roots that were enflamed when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Any lasting solution must be political and take into account all sides. The change Iraq needs must come from Iraqis rejecting violence in favor of a peaceful democracy and respect for the rights of all citizens.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank Congressman McGovern for yielding, but also for his tireless leadership on this very important issue. I am proud to join Congressman Walter Jones and Congressman McGovern in introducing this bipartisan resolution, and I thank them for their consistent support and work, as great Americans, to address these serious issues of war and peace. This resolution simply prohibits the President to deploy armed services or to engage in combat operations in Iraq without specific debate and authorization from Congress, but this resolution also seeks to reclaim a fundamental congressional responsibility, the constitutionally protected right for Congress to debate and to determine when this country enters into war. I also am personally concerned about mission creep. We hear many of the same voices who championed the unnecessary war in Iraq, once again, beating the drum for a renewed war in Iraq today. Last month, President Obama announced that 300 personnel would be sent to Iraq, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support, supported by attack helicopters and drones. A few days later, he announced another 200 personnel were soon to be deployed. There are promises to send many additional Hellfire air-to-surface missiles. Now, I, too, believe President Obama does not intend to send ground troops to Iraq, but we need to make sure that Congress reasserts its constitutional responsibility on this grave issue. After more than a decade at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with thousands of United States lives and billions of dollars lost, the need for Congress to reclaim its war-making powers is more critical than ever. Let me remind you, it was this absence of full debate that led to Congress passing the overly broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in the wake of 9/11. This law has been used to justify everything from the war in Afghanistan, warrantless domestic and international surveillance, holding prisoners indefinitely in Guantanamo, and conducting drone strikes in countries that we are not at war with. I couldn't vote for that resolution because I have always believed that such consequences are grave for the United States' national security interests unless we fully debate these issues and, of course, to our standing in the world. We did not debate that resolution any more than 1 hour, and I have continued to attempt to repeal and address the problematic actions justified under this law ever since. On July 16, Congressmen McGovern, Jones, Rigell, myself, and others-- over 100 Members of Congress from both parties wrote a letter--and we signed that letter--to President Obama to come to Congress for an authorization before any military escalation in Iraq, exactly what this resolution would do. I will insert the letter into the Record. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 02, 2014. President Barack Obama, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: We join you and with those in the international community who are expressing grave concern over the rise in sectarian violence in Iraq over the last days and weeks. The consequences of this development are particularly troubling given the extraordinary loss of American lives and expenditure of funds over ten years that was claimed to be necessary to bring democracy, stability and a respect for human rights to Iraq. We support your restraint to date in resisting the calls for a ``quick'' and ``easy'' military intervention, and for your commitment not to send combat troops back to Iraq. We also appreciate your acknowledgement that this conflict requires a political solution, and that military action alone cannot successfully lead to a resolution. We do not believe intervention could be either quick or easy. And, we doubt it would be effective in meeting either humanitarian or strategic goals, and that it could very well be counter-productive. This is a moment for urgent consultations and engagement with all parties in the region who could bring about a cease fire and launch a dialogue that could lead to a reconciliation of the conflict. Any solution to this complex crisis can only be achieved through a political settlement, and only if the process and outcome is inclusive of all segments of the Iraqi population--anything short of that cannot successfully bring stability to Iraq or the region. As you consider options for U.S. intervention, we write to urge respect for the constitutional requirements for using force abroad. The Constitution vests in Congress the power and responsibility to authorize offensive military action abroad. The use of military force in Iraq is something the Congress should fully debate and authorize. Members of Congress must consider all the facts and alternatives before we can determine whether military action would contribute to ending this most recent violence, create a climate for political stability, and protect civilians from greater harm. We stand ready to work with you to this end. Sincerely, Barbara Lee; Sam Farr; James P. Moran; Janice Hahn; Peter A. DeFazio; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Michael M. Honda; Scott E. Rigell; Chellie Pingree; Betty McCollum; John Garamendi; James P. McGovern; Richard M. Nolan; Beto O'Rourke, Members of Congress. Katherine Clark; Zoe Lofgren; Earl Blumenauer; George Miller; Anna G. Eshoo; Julia Brownley; Hakeem S. Jeffries; Chris Gibson; Jackie Speier; John J. Duncan, Jr.; Judy Chu; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott; Alan Grayson; James A. Himes, Members of Congress. Michael H. Michaud; John B. Larson; Mark Pocan; Reid J. Ribble; Frank Pallone, Jr.; Karen Bass; Maxine Waters; John Conyers, Jr.; Walter B. Jones; Peter Welch; Jared Huffman; John P. Sarbanes; Ed Pastor; Grace F. Napolitano, Members of Congress. Alcee L. Hastings; John Lewis; Jose; E. Serrano; Nydia M. Valazquez; Louise McIntosh Slaughter; Andre Carson; Gloria Negrete McLeod; Jim McDermott; Keith Ellison; Lloyd Doggett; Rush Holt; Bobby L. Rush; Emanuel Cleaver; Bennie G. Thompson, Members of Congress. Lois Capps; Kurt Schrader; Jerrold Nadler; Mark Takano; Collin C. Peterson; Ann McLane Kuster; Justin Amash; Charles B. Rangel; Raul M. Grijalva; Niki Tsongas; Kathy Castor; Michael E. Capuano; Yvette D. Clarke; Matt Salmon; Kyrsten Sinema; Donald M. Payne, Jr.; Lois Frankel; Rosa L. DeLauro; Richard E. Neal; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Alan S. Lowenthal; Stephen F. Lynch, Members of Congress. Paul Broun; Cheri Bustos; Marcy Kaptur; Sheila Jackson Lee; John Tierney; Henry Waxman; James R. Langevin; Thomas Massie; Carolyn B. Maloney; Tony Cardenas; Steve Cohen; Howard Coble; Donna F. Edwards; David Cicilline, Members of Congress. Ann Kirkpatrick; Donna Christensen; William Pascrell; Luis V. Gutierrez; Robin L. Kelly; Marcia L. Fudge; Dave Loebsack; Paul D. Tonko; Mike Doyle; Jan Schakowsky, Chaka Fattah; Suzanne Bonamici; Joseph P. Kennedy, III; William R. Keating, Members of Congress.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, the American people agree. After more than a decade of war, thousands of American lives lost, and billions of dollars spent, the American people are rightfully weary. Before we put our brave servicemen and -women in harm's way again, Congress should carry out its constitutional responsibility and vote on whether or not to get militarily involved in Iraq. Of course, after we pass this resolution, I urge the Republican leadership to bring up our bill, H.R. 3852, to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force. I want to, once again, thank Congressman McGovern for staying the course. He was one of the first Members calling for an end to the war in Iraq and to bring our brave troops home. He has provided tremendous leadership through a variety of legislative efforts. This is just another one of those efforts. So I want to thank you again, Congressman McGovern and Congressman Jones. I thank all of the Members who are supporting this, including our leadership. Congress should never allow war authorizations to remain on the books in perpetuity. We don't do this for the farm bill. We don't do this for the transportation bill. Sooner or later, we need to repeal the initial authorization.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. In the Statement of Administration Policy, it is clear that the President understands this. Actually, he understands that this also not only affects the 5 million families, it cuts it for an additional 6 million families. And so I am very pleased that the White House has advised that they do not support this and, hopefully, a veto threat would come if it ever got that far. Now, yesterday, I might say, Chairman Ryan--and I have to remind us that he rolled out his plan to reduce poverty. Yet, today we see this bill, which would increase poverty. I am not sure what is going on, Mr. Speaker. We are here to protect all families, particularly those living in poverty. Why in the world would we try, or the Republicans, at least, try to put a compassionate voice and face on such draconian policies? The rhetoric of yesterday, as it relates to the Ryan rollout of the antipoverty program, is totally inconsistent with the reality of what we are dealing with and seeing today. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me thank our ranking member for yielding and for your tremendous support on so many issues that affect working men and women, the middle class, the working poor, and the poor. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4935, which is the so-called Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014. Mr. Speaker, this is not an improvement at all. This bill fails to make permanent a key child tax credit improvement for working families earning as little as $3,000 a year. Instead, this bill permanently extends it to higher income families. A permanent child tax credit must address the needs of all families, but especially the ones who earn the least. Extending a permanent child tax credit that helps wealthy families while failing to make permanent the credit for those living in poverty is just not fair. It is un- American. This failure would have a devastating impact on more than 5 million families that are already struggling to make ends meet and who need the credits the most. The President clearly understands this.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Vincent Harding. Known throughout the country as a scholar, activist, father, friend and former speechwriter for Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr., Dr. Harding has left an indelible mark on our national discourse. With his passing on May 19, 2014, we look to the outstanding quality of his life's work and the inspiring role he played in the Civil Rights Movement. Born on July 25, 1931 in Harlem, New York, Dr. Vincent Harding began his education by attending New York public schools, graduating from Morris High School in 1948. After high school, he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from the City College of New York, and in the following year, he graduated from Columbia University, earning a Master's degree in Journalism. Dr. Harding went on to serve our country in the United States Army from 1953 to 1955. In 1958, Dr. Harding met Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who urged him to move to the South to join in the Civil Rights Movement. Once in Atlanta, Dr. Harding and his wife, Rosemarie, founded the Mennonite House, an interracial service center and began engaging in a wide variety of social and political campaigns. Dr. Harding worked closely with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee to challenge segregation in the South. As Dr. Martin Luther King's speechwriter, Dr. Vincent Harding drafted the famous and highly controversial speech, ``Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.'' Dr. Vincent Harding was a strong opponent to the Vietnam War and, as Chair of the History and Sociology Department at Atlanta's Spelman College, Dr. Harding was concerned that students were not aware of the situation in Vietnam. He worked to ensure that students and other Americans were aware of the atrocities occurring during the war in Vietnam. Dr. Vincent Harding founded the Veterans of Hope Project in 1997, which is a multifaceted educational initiative encompassing the topics of religion, culture and participatory democracy. His work through Veterans of Hope emphasized the importance of nonviolence and a grass root approach to social change. After the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, Dr. Vincent Harding worked with Coretta Scott King to establish the King Center in Atlanta, serving as the Center's first director. In addition, Dr. Vincent Harding wrote several books reflecting on the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King Jr., including ``Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero'' and ``Hope and History: Why We Must Share the Story of the Movement.'' Dr. Harding was deeply passionate about public service and impacted countless lives with his theology, activism and scholarly efforts. Dr. Harding once wrote that ``we are all a part of one another, and we are all part of the intention of the great creator spirit to continue being light and life.'' On a personal note, Dr. Harding was a loyal friend for over 30 years. During the late 1970's, I worked on Capitol Hill for Congressman Ron Dellums while raising two sons as a single parent. My sons wanted to attend the Penn Relays in Philadelphia, but we did not have a place to stay. A mutual friend called Vincent and Rosemarie to ask if we could stay with them. With no hesitation, they said yes, not knowing me and on short notice. I will always remember that weekend in their beautiful, warm home and their delicious meals. They treated us like family and our spirits connected. I did not see Vincent and Rosemarie again until the late 1990's when, as a Member of Congress, I attended a retreat in Santa Barbara sponsored by the Faith and Politics Institute. The Harding's led this retreat, which renewed my spirit, challenged my intellect and warmed my heart. Today, California's 13th Congressional District salutes and honors an outstanding Civil Rights leader and social activist, Dr. Vincent Harding. His dedication and efforts have impacted so many lives throughout the nation. I join all of Vincent's loved ones in celebrating his incredible life. He will be deeply missed.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. It was very interesting. Of course, they have opposed the Affordable Care Act and have tried to repeal it--what?--50- some times now, but yet have captured the savings, which the Affordable Care Act is very clear on having made, to base their budget on those captured savings. I think that, again, it is fuzzy math, and it is a way to deceive the public. It is a way to promote their policies of making sure that those who have access to affordable health care now don't have it in the future and that those who need it will be prevented from gaining it through the Affordable Care Act.

Ms. LEE of California. Exactly, Congresswoman Moore. I am glad you raised that because that is exactly what happens. First of all, there will be some requirements of the States but not many, and once the States run out of money, it is too bad. Food stamp recipients may or may not receive the type of assistance they need to help them with this as a bridge over troubled waters. It is not a fair system. We would see more people being cut from SNAP rolls, and we would also see more people needing food stamps because of the safety net being eroded even further. So it is a catch-23. Block-granting all of this to the States would harm the most vulnerable.

Ms. LEE of California. Yes.

Ms. LEE of California. It was $300 billion by consolidating the 11 programs that he wants to block grant to the States.

Ms. LEE of California. It is more than clever. I think it is wrong to mislead the public as it relates to the numbers. It is cooking the books. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It may be budget neutral, but, definitely, the cuts will take place in order to get to a budget neutral plan, and that is the problem I have with this. By consolidating all of these programs and by block-granting these programs, who is going to see the cuts and feel the cuts of the block granting? It is going to be the most vulnerable. Thank you very much for raising that, but it is true. We see this on the Budget Committee each and every day.

Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much. Let me thank you, Mr. Pocan, for yielding but also for organizing, not only this Special Order tonight, but for having these Special Orders in order to really raise a level of awareness with regard to these important issues facing millions of Americans in our country. We know that you are here every week, sometimes by yourself, but I have to thank you for your tremendous leadership and for helping the Progressive Caucus continue to beat the drum on behalf of the American people. Mr. Speaker, we all know today that, of course, the Republican Budget Committee chair, Paul Ryan, rolled out his expanding opportunities for all plan for addressing poverty in America. That is what it is called. I can say, like you, I am happy to see that there are some areas we can work on together in this plan. That includes fixing our broken criminal justice system, expanding and supporting the earned income tax credit if we don't, as his plan calls for, rob Peter to pay Paul. I am glad to see that the conversation on poverty in this country is finally catching up and catching on with my Republican colleagues at the national level. We have been working for a long time--our task force, you, all of us here tonight on this floor and others--to try to get this urgent issue the attention it really requires here in the House of Representatives, but we know that, ultimately, most of Mr. Ryan's recommendations are more about rhetoric than reality. My question in looking at his list of proposals is, first of all: Where is the jobs plan? We all know that the primary means and pathway out of poverty is a good-paying job with benefits. Add to that that his proposal has, really, the same--I call it--old- time block granting proposals that we have seen, once again, for, I guess, 4 years in the Ryan budget. In fact, if you will recall, the Ryan Republican budget takes more than two-thirds of its cuts from programs that serve low-income and vulnerable Americans. When he talks about consolidating programs, including SNAP, into block grants, it is as if he is forgetting that his budget cuts $300 billion in these 11 programs for the next 10 years. I can't quite figure out why the rhetoric in the plan lays this out, but yet his budget takes the same plan and cuts $300 billion. It does nothing, as I said, to create jobs. It does nothing to provide Americans a living wage or to extend unemployment insurance to the 3.3 million long-term unemployed. People really need to understand that this plan is not about substance. It is about Republicans trying to put a compassionate face on their draconian policies. That is what this is about. Some of us have raised some key questions about this proposal, and I would like to just lay out some of these questions when we are evaluating his plan. The House Ways and Means Committee, under the tremendous leadership of our ranking member, Sandy Levin, laid out some of these questions, which include: Does compassionate conservatism really just mean cutting spending while saying you are about caring for the poor? Will this plan include proposals that have been shown to both reward work and reduce poverty, such as increasing the minimum wage and extending benefits to the long-term unemployed who are looking for work? Will Representative Ryan support flexible assistance to States to help struggling Americans or will he push States to cut such assistance? Will Mr. Ryan's proposal fit into a balanced approach to address the deficit? I just have to say, Mr. Pocan and others who are listening tonight, in this block granting proposal and in many of his proposals, there are work requirements. For any of the services or for any of the programs, you have to have a job. They have cut workforce training, and they have not created any jobs, so their work requirement as eligibility for programs that help provide this bridge over troubled waters just doesn't make any sense. It is wrong. Unless you have got a full- employment economy and unless the recession has really ensured that everyone has a good-paying job, then a work requirement to be eligible for benefits in order to help reduce poverty or to help lift you out of poverty is just counterproductive, and it doesn't make any sense. This is something that we have to continue to work on in terms of Mr. Ryan. We need this conversation. It needs to be bipartisan. This week, some of us are taking the Live the Wage Challenge from the Raise the Wage coalition. We are living on $77 a week, which is what a minimum wage employee in this country has to live on after taxes and housing expenses. We are doing this, though, to raise awareness of the everyday struggles of millions of our constituents. We will be off of this $77-a-week budget in a week, but millions of our constituents won't be. I wish that this plan would really have a pathway so that millions of our constituents would be able to live off of a good-paying job with benefits. Finally, let me just say that this Congress should focus on supporting and expanding programs that are working to lift people out of poverty--programs that have worked for the last 50 years since the war on poverty began--such as Head Start. I will tell you that we have got a long way to go. We shouldn't talk about cutting these programs. They have helped people move into the middle class. We know that. We should not play politics with poverty. I hope the Republicans really get real about reducing poverty rather than trying to fool the public, and that is what is happening now. They are trying to fool the public with this new brand, and it is a new brand of conservative compassion, but I will tell you that this rhetoric has nothing to do with the reality of the Ryan budget. This is where the rubber meets the road. Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to talk about this.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank Congressman McGovern for your tireless leadership and for hosting this Special Order today. For many years, you have been raising the level of awareness with regard to the responsibilities of Congress, our duties as it relates to war making, as well as the impact of these tragic wars on our brave men and women. So thank you for once again coming forward with now a privileged resolution that directs the President to remove all United States military forces stationed in Iraq within 30 days or by the end of the year. Mr. Speaker, this is a very reasonable resolution. It is very consistent with what I believe the American people--we know, based on what the American people have said over and over and over again, they are war weary. And Mr. McGovern has really given us an opportunity to vote the views of the American people. This resolution exempts, of course, troops necessary for the security of the United States diplomatic post and personnel. We are all familiar with the reports coming out of Iraq about the horrific sectarian violence taking place. We hear many of the same voices who championed the unnecessary war in Iraq once again beating the drum for a renewed war in Iraq today. So we must not let history repeat itself. We must remember history. We must not be dragged back into a war in Iraq. This must be rejected. Many of my colleagues agree. And I want to remind us that over 100 Members of Congress now from both parties have signed a letter, Congressman McGovern, myself--many--Scott Rigell from Virginia, we are calling for the President to come to Congress for debate on an authorization before any military escalation on Iraq. Last month, during the consideration of the 2015 Defense Appropriations bill, over 150 bipartisan Members supported our amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to conduct combat operations in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, there is no military solution in Iraq. This is a sectarian war with longstanding roots that were inflamed when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Any lasting solution must be political and take into account all sides. The change that Iraq needs must come from Iraqis. They must reject violence in favor of a peaceful democracy that represents everyone and respects the rights of all citizens. The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people. Our job is to continue to promote regional and international engagement, recognition of human rights, women's rights, and political reforms. Only through these actions can Iraq and, of course, the United States, and the rest of the world, begin supporting a process of reconciliation and help the Iraqis secure long-term national stability. Mr. Speaker, after more than a decade of war, thousands of American lives, and billions of dollars, the American people are rightfully war weary. The American people are looking for Congress to act. We must heed their call and bring this privileged resolution to the House floor for an immediate up-or-down vote. As our President told the American people in May: United States military action cannot be the only, or even primary, component of our leadership in every instance. This is one of those instances. Before we put our brave servicemen and -women in harm's way again, Congress should carry out its constitutional responsibilities and vote on whether or not to get militarily involved in Iraq. But we must vote on this resolution immediately because I think this would give the American people a clear understanding of what this administration and Congress intends to do, and that is remove all military forces stationed in Iraq. So I want to thank, again, Congressman McGovern for his leadership for bringing this forward. It is time that we have a clear up-or-down vote on this. I want to thank Congressman Jones for cosponsoring this. Also, I will finally conclude by saying sooner or later--sooner or later--we have got to go back and repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force which has become a blank check for this war this past decade. It sets the stage for perpetual war. We need to repeal it. The American people deserve a vote on this resolution, and they deserve a vote for repealing this authorization. So thank you again for your leadership, and let's move forward and vote the will of the American people.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, it has been three long painful months since nearly 300 schoolgirls were kidnapped from their classrooms in Borno State, Nigeria, by the terrorist group Boko Haram. Since the kidnapping, these terrorists refer to these girls as slaves and threaten to sell them in the market. Congresswomen Wilson, Jackson Lee, and Frankel were brave and bold enough to visit Nigeria, and I thank them for continuing to beat the drum to bring our girls back. While some of these girls have escaped, tragically, more than 200 are still missing, and Boko Haram continues to terrorize villages across northern Nigeria and surrounding countries. Today, I stand here, as a mother and as a grandmother, to reaffirm our demand to bring our girls back and to make it clear that mass kidnapping and threat of human trafficking are human rights violations that cannot be ignored. Every child has a right to live. Every child has a right to receive an education in a safe and protected environment. Maifa Dame, Ruth Kollo, Esther Usman, Awa James are but a few of these girls being traumatized and terrorized by Boko Haram. We call on the international community, especially African nations and the African Union, to work together to find these girls and bring our girls back.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. I thank Congressman Heck for yielding and for his really bold and tremendous leadership on this. I am proud to join you, Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Rohrabacher, in cosponsoring this bipartisan, commonsense amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide important certainty to business owners, employees, government agencies, and financial institutions in 34 States and jurisdictions that have passed marijuana reform laws. By prohibiting Federal agencies from unduly penalizing financial institutions for providing basic banking services, like opening a checking account, this amendment would ensure that legitimate business owners can comply with State regulations and that regulators and law enforcement can hold businesses accountable. I recently had a chance to visit one of these small businesses in my home district of Oakland, California, and know how big an impact the access to financial services can have. When these businesses are unable to access financial services, they are forced to use unsatisfactory cash-based transactions that lack transparency, accountability, and create a threat to public safety. I was proud to cosponsor a similar amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill that passed the House. I want to thank Mr. Heck again for his leadership and hope this passes.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, let me thank the Chair and our Ranking Member Lowey and of the subcommittee, Congresswoman Kaptur for their very hard work on this bill. This appropriations bill is intended to provide the Department of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other offices with the funds they need to safeguard our natural resources. Unfortunately, instead of adequately funding these critical agencies, this bill has been turned into a vehicle for Republican efforts to cut protections that keep our drinking water safe, protect our rivers and oceans from toxic dumping, and to protect critical wildlife. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are proven public health tool to reduce dangerous pollution known to make people sick and cut short lives. That is why I am opposed to the Republican policy riders included in this bill that are designed to block or weaken clean air protections, specifically the EPA's proposed limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. This bill also cuts Federal investment in innovative clean energy research and development (R&D) at a time of significant global competition and progress. Mr. Chair, as a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, I know spending bills are difficult enough to pass without weighing them down with toxic policy riders. We need to continue this Appropriations process in good faith, and I am disappointed that the bill in front of us today does not reflect that.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Ms. Frances Dunham Catlett. Known throughout the Bay Area as a writer, painter, social worker, poet and devoted mother, grandmother, great grandmother and great-great grandmother, Ms. Catlett has left an indelible mark on our community. With her passing on April 22, 2014, we look to the outstanding quality of her life's work. Born on July 3, 1908 in Hartford, Connecticut, Ms. Frances Dunham Catlett was raised with an acute awareness of slavery in America. Her mother was formerly enslaved and her father was the son of a white slave trader. As the youngest of ten siblings, Ms. Catlett always proved to be an excellent student. Graduating high school in 1926, she received a four-year scholarship to the University of Chicago. In 1945, Ms. Catlett and her two sons, Kaye Lawrence and Michael Andrew, moved to San Francisco, where she worked at the Welfare Department. Breaking racial barriers, she was known as one of the first African American social workers in San Francisco. In addition, she later enrolled in Mills College and was one of the first African Americans to earn a graduate degree from that university. Ms. Catlett went on to teach social welfare at California State University, Sacramento. After moving to Berkeley, California, Ms. Frances Dunham Catlett enrolled in an art class at the de Young Museum in San Francisco and discovered her love of painting. Her artwork was showcased at the Oakland Museum of California and other galleries in Oakland and San Francisco. In addition, she published her third person autobiography in a compilation of stories entitled ``Black Women Stirring the Waters.'' Her entry, ``Soft Colors, Bold Statements,'' acknowledged the strong role her family and supportive church community played in her success in life. Ms. Frances Dunham Catlett was an inspiration to many African American women. At the age of 103, Carolyn Schlam painted Ms. Catlett's portrait to share her character and life story with others. This portrait, ``Frances at 103,'' was displayed in the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC and will move to the National Museum of African American History and Culture when it opens in 2015. With an adventurous spirit, Ms. Catlett traveled extensively, hiked with the Sierra Club, did Tai Chi into her 90's and bowled and painted until she was 102. She was featured as one of six women in the documentary ``Still Kicking: Six Artistic Women of Project Arts & Longevity,'' which challenged the perception and attitudes about aging. She was truly a woman for all seasons. Several years ago, I visited Frances at her apartment in Berkeley. We talked about many things, including politics and art. She showed me many of her beautiful paintings, which inspired me to purchase one and hang in my office for my constituents to admire. This painting is a reminder of her artistic genius, her lively and beautiful spirit and her big heart. Today, California's 13th Congressional District salutes and honors an outstanding individual, Ms. Frances Dunham Catlett. Ms. Catlett's contributions have truly impacted so many lives throughout the Bay Area. I join all of Frances' loved ones in celebrating her incredible life. She will be deeply missed.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exceptional life of Mr. Sylester Flowers. Known as a hardworking and long-standing public health advocate, and a visionary in the field of pharmaceutical services, Mr. Flowers has left an indelible mark on Bay Area communities. With his passing on June 21, 2014, we look to Sylester Flowers' legacy and the outstanding quality of his life's work. Born on June 30, 1935 in High Point, North Carolina, Mr. Flowers grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Howard University in 1958 and moved to California after serving in the military. He worked as a pharmacist at St. Luke's Hospital in San Francisco from 1961 to 1963 before opening his first retail pharmacy, The Apothecary, in East Oakland in 1964. He opened other pharmacies in working-class neighborhoods that grew into a successful chain, all while primarily serving underrepresented communities. In 1967, Mr. Flowers founded the Ramsell Corporation (Ramsell) as a holding company for his pharmacies. His business later flourished as he expanded into managing pharmaceutical services. In addition, he served as the Pharmacy Director for the San Francisco County Mental Health Department's methadone treatment program from 1971 to 1982, and also held teaching positions as an adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of the Pacific in Stockton and as an assistant clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco School of Pharmacy. Headquartered in Oakland, Ramsell serves as the parent company to four healthcare-related businesses including Ramsell Public Health Rx, Ramsell Pharmacy Solutions, Ramsell Information Technology and Ramsell International. In 1997, Ramsell won a competitive bid to administer the State of California's AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), and the company operates similar programs in Oregon, Texas, Washington, Colorado and Delaware. Active in 14 states, Ramsell provides forty percent of HIV/AIDS medications nationally with a mission to ensure that underserved communities receive access to prescription drugs and quality health care services. Ramsell has expanded services to include drug administration program management, medication therapy management, patient assistance programs tools and re-entry solutions for Corrections. Mr. Flowers served as CEO and President of Ramsell until 2008, when he stepped down and his son Eric Flowers took the reins. He served as Chairman of the Board until his passing. Throughout his prolific career, Mr. Flowers was also keenly committed to community leadership. With a strong passion for giving back to his community and finding solutions to bridging the gaps in care and treatment in marginalized populations, Mr. Flowers and his family established the Flowers Heritage Foundation in 2003 with an educational grant to Howard University. The Flowers Heritage Foundation became a non-profit organization in 2005 and is dedicated to working closely with community partners and stakeholders to achieve successful outcomes of the unmet needs in the healthcare system, which includes identifying and addressing disparities in HIV/AIDS care and prevention as well as other burgeoning health crises. Mr. Flowers also earned myriad accolades, including recognition by the California State Senate and then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007, and receiving the California Pharmacy Hall of Fame Award in 2008 by the California Pharmacists Association. In 2009, Mr. Flowers received the Pinnacle Award from the American Pharmacists Association Foundation for his leadership on enhancing healthcare quality. Additionally, he was honored by Howard University and received the Alumni Award for Distinguished Postgraduate Achievement for his accomplishments in business and public health service. In 2013, the Oakland African American Chamber of Commerce honored Ramsell with the Oscar J. Coffey Small Business Award for its vital contributions to improving the lives of Oakland and Alameda County residents. Today, California's 13th Congressional District salutes and honors an outstanding individual and community leader, Mr. Sylester Flowers. His invaluable service to improving the lives of the underserved will live on in the endless legacy of his life's work. I offer my sincerest condolences to his many loved ones, friends and colleagues he touched over the course of his incredible life. May his soul rest in peace.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan for organizing this important special order to highlight LGBT Pride Month. Thank you for your leadership as a Co- Chair of the LGBT Equality Caucus and really on so many other issues affecting our underserved communities. Let me just say how proud I am to be a founding member and Vice Chair of the LGBT Equality Caucus. Our Caucus is stronger than ever and is really beating the drum for equality, ending discrimination and violence, and promoting the health and well-being for LGBT people here in the U.S. and around the world. It makes me very proud to be here today during Pride Month as we commemorate the anniversary of last year's landmark Supreme Court decisions that struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act and brought marriage equality back to my home state of California. These decisions were strong and decisive steps forward in the march towards full equality for all. Following those decisions, I had the privilege of officiating weddings for same-sex couples at Oakland City Hall--and let me tell you, they reflected the diversity of my district, the diversity of this country, and the diversity of the LGBT community. Across the nation, some 2.8 million African Americans, Latino Americans, and Asian and Pacific Islanders identify as LGBT. The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law has produced studies that provide us with critical data and analysis of these LGBT communities and their unique features, challenges, and needs. The full reports can be found at http:// williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/. One of the most striking disparities as we know for LGBT people of color is in HIV/AIDS rates. In 2010, African American gay and bisexual men between ages 13 and 24 accounted for more than twice as many new infections as their white or Latino peers. These numbers show clearly that as we close out the month of June with our celebration of Pride Month, we must not lose sight of the hard work that remains to be done, in this country and around the world. Discrimination, unemployment, and even physical violence continue to be the daily reality for far too many LGBT people and it needs to stop. Congress needs to act. We must pass ENDA, SNDA, my bill, the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act, and other critical pieces of legislation that create real protections for LGBT people and full equality under the law. I close by reiterating how proud I am to represent a district with a strong and diverse LGBT community and join my LGBT Equality Caucus colleagues in staying the course and fighting for what's right.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and offer my personal congratulations to the 2014 graduating class of the Latin American School of Medical Sciences. They have all traveled a long way to earn Medical Doctorates in Havana, Cuba. These dedicated doctors overcame immense hurdles to complete their medical educations. They not only had to face six years away from home, but also had to pursue their education in Spanish after attending a 12- week intensive language program. They had to complete their studies cut off from their families and uncertain about their futures due to the draconian Cuban embargo that continues to threaten this excellent program. After a visit to Cuba in 2000, I was proud to have helped initiate the scholarship program, along with the other members of the Congressional Black Caucus. I am also proud to take advantage of this incredible opportunity to bring access to healthcare back to those who need it most. The 2014 graduating class includes 20 students from the United States, bringing the total of young physicians to 104 who are either completing residencies or practicing medicine in underserved areas of the United States. These students should be recognized not only for the many challenges they had to overcome, but also for their dedication to service. The Cuban government devoted scholarships, covering tuition, dormitory room and board, and textbooks, to students from the United States who are willing to commit to serve in medically underserved communities. This expensive and humane gesture allows students, who might otherwise not have the resources to pursue medical degrees in the United States, to become doctors and to serve the uninsured and underinsured who too often fall through the cracks of our for-profit healthcare industry. It also reduces the concern that health care for all is not attainable because there are not enough doctors to meet the need. It is my hope that what these doctors have achieved will not only bring desperately needed healthcare to the underserved, but will also serve as an example to the healthcare industry, the American people and the members of Congress, that healthcare is a basic human right, not a privilege. On behalf of California's 13th Congressional District, I salute the graduates of the Latin American School of Medical Sciences. I look forward to seeing all that you accomplish and I wish you all the very best in your future endeavors.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

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

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

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, my straightforward bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by Representatives Walter Jones and Jim McGovern. What this amendment does is prohibit any funding for combat operations in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014. Even though some of us would rather have all of our troops returned, the President announced in May that the United States would end the U.S. combat mission in December 2014. This simple amendment codifies and clarifies the President's position. It would also allow Congress to determine and reauthorize any further combat operations in Afghanistan should the President deem it necessary. By reinserting Congress' constitutional authority, this amendment would ensure that we have a debate and a vote in this body for the future of combat operations in Afghanistan. Last month, I joined Congressmen McGovern, Jones, Garamendi, and Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith in offering an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have required a congressional vote to continue deployment of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014. Unfortunately, that amendment was not allowed to come to the floor. Instead, to date, the Republican leadership of this House has failed to allow the American people any say in the future of America's longest war. It is really unconscionable that the Afghan public through the Afghan parliament has ample opportunity to weigh in on the future presence of United States combat troops in Afghanistan, while the American public has been given no such opportunity through this Congress. For many years, we have known there is simply no military solution in Afghanistan, and our constituents are sick and tired of this endless war. This war has cost taxpayers over $750 billion, and promises to cost tens of billions more for every year our troops remain in Afghanistan. We have lost thousands of our young men and women. They conducted themselves in a way that everything we asked them to do they did, and so it is time now to honor them by ending this endless war. This war, again, when you look at the human cost, the lives of I think it is 2,321 soldiers, and tens of thousands injured, it is really time to end this. It is time to look out for our veterans, our brave young men and women, bring them home, not fund any more combat operations, and ensure their job security, their health, their mental health, and their future. I reserve the balance of my time.