Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Let me yield the 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. LEE of California. I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds.

Ms. LEE of California. Let me just say I respectfully disagree that this would undermine the current Six Party Talks. I think it would strengthen the Six Party Talks. We need bilateral and multilateral negotiations if we're going to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This bill is very clear in terms of the military option, in response to my colleague on the other side. The underlying bill says it shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action, if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon. In no way does this amendment appease the Iranians. What it does is bring some semblance of balance and another strategy, another layer to strengthen the negotiations that are currently taking place so that we can keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and prevent an all-out war. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. I'd like to yield now 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Woolsey.

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

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It would appoint a Special Envoy for Iran to ensure that all diplomatic avenues are pursued to avoid a war with Iran and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. It is cosponsored by my colleagues, Congresswoman Woolsey and Congressman Conyers. I must say that all of the cosponsors of this resolution agree that we must prevent an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, which would be totally unacceptable. As President Obama said, all options, including diplomatic options, need to be on the table with Iran. We all recognize that the military option has been and will continue to be on the table, but we must not let the military option override any diplomatic initiative which would keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Let me just say and cite section 1221 of the bill in its Declaration of Policy on Iran. This is in the bill as it is currently written: It is the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action, if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon. The bill also sets forth what it takes to require the military to prepare for war. So we all recognize that the military option in this bill is on the table. It's stated very clearly. My amendment would just take two simple steps to support the diplomatic option. First, it would require President Obama to appoint a high-level Special Envoy to Iran to engage in sustained bilateral-- that's country to country--comprehensive negotiations with the aim of ensuring Iran gives up any efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Secondly, my amendment would lift the ``no contact policy'' that prohibits high-level American diplomats from communicating directly with their Iranian counterparts. In addition, it's just common sense that in order for the current multilateral negotiations to be effective, we need to get rid of this current policy that treats diplomatic talks as a prize rather than a tool for statecraft. My amendment in no way undermines current multilateral negotiations. In fact, we need both; we need bilateral and multilateral negotiations if in fact we're going to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We can all agree that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons really is unacceptable. Experts agree that at best an armed strike against Iran would set its nuclear program back 3 years while locking in Iran's determination to obtain nuclear weapons. So we're trying to do everything we can do. As one who has always supported nonproliferation, I understand what is taking place as it relates to the multilateral negotiations, but I think it is very important that we strengthen those with bilateral negotiations. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. LEE of California. In reclaiming 30 seconds of my time, I just want to respond to the gentleman and say that that's further from the truth, what he just said. First of all, our active duty troops in the field are covered by the Overseas Contingency Operations funds. Secondly, the Pentagon did not ask for this money. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today is very straightforward. It would limit the Department of Defense funding to the amount authorized under the Budget Control Act of 2011. This would result in an $8 billion reduction in spending from the level authorized by the House Armed Services Committee. The amendment is cosponsored by my colleagues, Representatives Paul, Woolsey, Stark, Blumenauer, Schrader and Frank, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee and a long-time advocate for reasonable defense-spending reform. As you know, Mr. Chair, last year Congress passed the Budget Control Act, which put in place spending caps on discretionary spending. Despite these statutory limitations, the House Armed Services Committee set overall military spending billions of dollars above what the Pentagon requested, or what was agreed to under the Budget Control Act. While many of us did not support the discretionary caps under the Budget Control Act, our amendment simply brings Pentagon spending in line with the law. It does this while protecting our active duty military personnel and retirees. Let me repeat: not a single penny would come from active duty and National Guard personnel accounts, or from the defense health program. The Pentagon budget already consumes almost 50 cents out of every discretionary dollar that we spend. And adding billions of unrequested dollars, at the expense of struggling families during the ongoing economic downturn, is just downright wrong. So I ask my colleagues, if we are really concerned with the deficit, then vote for this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. First of all, sometimes we respectfully disagree with the President. I think that this $8 billion in cuts to bring us back to the Budget Control Act of 2011 is reasonable given the very difficult times we are faced with now and the fact that, of all the government agencies, the Pentagon has benefited the most from generous funding. We've got plenty of outdated and unnecessary Cold War-era weapons systems that can and should be canceled. I think this is a reasonable amendment. I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. First, let me just say this. It is just downright outrageous that the McGovern-Jones amendment was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee, denying this House the opportunity to debate and vote on their amendment. Secondly, we really do need a clear and 2 days of debate, at least-- not 20 minutes--on this critical issue of Afghanistan. So for the life of me, 20 minutes is not long enough. And I don't quite understand why, in fact, the McGovern-Jones amendment was not given the full amount of time, because the American people deserve to hear both sides of this issue from a variety of policy perspectives. My amendment today would put a responsible end to combat operation in Afghanistan by limiting the funding to the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors. And I have to thank the cosponsors of this bipartisan amendment-- Representatives Jones, Conyers, Paul, Woolsey, Welch, Nadler, Hastings--and all of our colleagues who have worked on this issue throughout the years to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan. I have offered this amendment in the past, and it has been a bipartisan amendment. It is clear that the American people have been far ahead of Congress in supporting an end to the war in Afghanistan. My amendment allows Congress the opportunity to stand squarely with the war-weary American people who want to bring our troops home. The call has been growing across this land to bring this war to an end. It's time now for the Congress to answer the call here today. The reality is there is no military solution to the war in Afghanistan. Our brave troops have done everything that was asked of them and more. As a daughter of a military veteran, I also know firsthand the sacrifices and the commitment involved with defending our Nation. But the truth is that they have been put in an impossible situation. There is no military solution, and it's past time to end the war and bring the troops home. Over a decade now, over $500 billion spent in direct costs and, mind you, not a penny of it has been paid for. Instead, we should have been investing in jobs and in our economy here at home and a smarter national security strategy. It is time to say enough is enough. With almost 2,000 United States troops killed in Afghanistan and many tens of thousands more maimed with injuries both hidden and visible, we must recognize that the boots on the ground strategy in Afghanistan must end. It's critical to our economy and the future of this country that we stop pouring billions on a counterproductive military presence in Afghanistan. The American people have made it clear that the war is no longer worth fighting--not for another year, not for another 2 years, and surely not for another 12 years. Today, Congress should stand with seven out of 10 Americans who oppose the war in Afghanistan. After 11 long years, it is time to bring our troops home. We can do that responsibly by voting ``yes'' on the Lee amendment today. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. LEE of California. I'd like to yield now 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. LEE of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank you, Congresswoman Donna Edwards, for your long-time and steady support and work on behalf of so many issues relating to women, especially those as they relate to violence against women. You have consistently over the years done this work, oftentimes when no one else was doing it, and thank you for staying the course. It is so important that we come together again in a bipartisan way to get the right bill, the correct bill, passed; and so thank you very much. I want to thank Congressman Garamendi for your leadership in helping to put together this Special Order but also for your leadership on behalf of women all around the world. I know your wife very well and your children, and you have always really stood on the side of what was right for equity and for justice as it relates to women, so thank you very much. I believe we all can agree there really is an acute need to put an end to domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual harassment. It's critical that we continue to speak out against intimate-partner violence at every opportunity and call attention and awareness to it whenever we can. And so that's why we really have to get this bill back in the shape that it needs to be in so we can protect women, because I can remember when I was in the California legislature. For example, I wrote California's Violence Against Women Act for the State of California; and I worked on many domestic violence bills that were signed into law, mind you, by then-Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican Governor. And, of course, I continue to cosponsor and work on numerous bills here in Congress to support victims of domestic violence and to prevent domestic violence. Now, as someone who understands domestic violence on a deeply personal level, I know how traumatic this experience is. I know the strong and consistent support system needed to emerge as a survivor. There was no Violence Against Women Act in the late sixties and early seventies when I had to deal with many, many issues that we're talking about tonight. There was no place to turn. I also know from personal experience that domestic violence is not only physical. It is emotional. It is brutal. It is dehumanizing to the batterer and the battered. And without strong and enforceable criminal laws and services in place, one's life really can be shattered and destroyed. Unfortunately, instead of being serious about the Federal reauthorization of VAWA, Republicans are attempting to roll back current law and weaken protections for women. This bill, H.R. 4970, would further marginalize LGBT victims, tribal victims, and immigrant victims by removing the limited, but important, protections that the Senate version extends to LGBT domestic violence victims, including key nondiscrimination provisions. Those are essential. It removes the commonsense and constitutionally sound provisions in the Senate version that would allow the prosecution of nontribal violators who commit domestic violence against tribal women. This is horrible. It's wrong. It's immoral. Under this bill, the protection of immigrant victims would be subject to unsubstantiated, abuser-provided evidence, among other bureaucratic barriers to protection, including delays in the prosecution of abusers. Now, without changes and rollbacks like these--and these are only a few of them--I question, really, if the Republican proposal should even be called a Violence Against Women Act. I understand that Congresswoman Adams' amendment would make some small changes to this bill; however, it would still roll back key protections for immigrant victims, allowing the abuser to have the power during investigations and to maintain control of the victim's immigration status. Under the guise of fraud concerns, Republicans are attempting to roll back important protections even as the Department of Homeland Security officials say that VAWA petitions are among the hardest immigration programs to defraud because of the already high evidence requirements. Now, our colleagues in the Senate recognized the need to modernize and expand protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. On April 26, the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act passed with a rare show of bipartisan support, and that is what we are here to say we should do tomorrow in this House. In this bill, though, that the House is considering, this would really pose a serious threat to the lives of victims. This is happening while all around the world nearly one in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime--one in three, here in the United States. As many as one in three American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or a boyfriend at least once in their lives. That's shocking. In my home State of California, the statistics are even more staggering, where approximately 40 percent of California women experience physical intimate partner violence in their lifetimes. Of these women, three out of four had children under the age of 18 at home. Children who see or experience domestic violence have a much greater chance to become either victims or perpetrators as adults. They are also more likely to attempt suicide, abuse drugs, run away from home, engage in teenage prostitution, and commit other crimes. So there is unquestionable evidence of the need for a serious proposal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. So I urge my colleagues to pass the Senate Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. We cannot afford to play political games with women's lives. We must not go back to the days, which many of us remember, where there were no protections, no safe places, where the courts would not allow battered women syndrome as admissible evidence in court, and women were incarcerated for defending themselves against their abusers. So I have to thank Congresswoman Edwards, again, for your tremendous leadership in bringing us all together and continuing to try to work in a way that's in a bipartisan fashion--because that's the only way we can do this--on behalf of all women. This really is, in many ways, about life and death.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the African American Education Task Force, co-chaired by Mr. Oscar Wright and Mrs. Wandra Boyd, for its record of success in encouraging and acknowledging academic achievement by African American youth in California's Oakland Unified School District. Today, the African American Education Task Force and the Oakland Unified School District will celebrate a successful decade of recognizing our local African American students' Honor Roll status. The African American Education Task Force Academic Achievement Celebration takes place at the ACTS Full Gospel Church, pastored by Bishop Bob Jackson in Oakland, California. During this year's event, 1,026 African American students from the 8th through 12th grades will be honored for attaining grade point averages of 3.00 or above for the 2011 2012 school year. This outstanding group of young people has accomplished a great deal, and we are pleased to commend them for their academic dedication and success. Especially in light of the great budgetary challenges faced by the State of California and the city of Oakland, these students have proven themselves to be bright, capable and resourceful. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate each and every student for earning this distinction. Thank you for understanding and promoting the importance of staying in school. By continuing to be the best students possible and by making the most of your education, you will enjoy a full range of opportunities to achieve your personal goals, as well as give back to your communities. Your accomplishments represent the strength of your initiative and a commitment to excellence. The skills and discipline you have developed will be of great use as you continue to follow your dreams toward success. I am so very proud of you for taking personal pride in your studies. Oakland's future leaders are certainly present at this celebration of academic achievement, and I welcome your many civic contributions in the years to come. On behalf of the residents of California's 9th Congressional District, I again salute you for your exemplary academic performance. I am confident that you will continue this fine record of scholarship, service and success. Keep up the good work, and I wish you the very best in all of your future endeavors.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Israel, its rights as a nation, and its unequivocal right to defend itself. I fully support the provisions of this resolution aimed at strengthening Israel's defensive military capabilities. Unfortunately, this resolution also contains overly broad provisions that go well beyond support for those defensive capabilities. Specifically, I am concerned about provisions that include the terms ``defensive articles'' and ``defensive services'' and ``specialized munitions,'' which security experts understand to include a vast array of offensive weapons, including bunker buster bombs. The increased militarization of the Middle East could endanger Israel's security and is a source of regional and global instability. While the bill enumerated ways the U.S. can lend military support to Israel, there was not an emphasis on achieving a negotiated peace with its neighbors. No amount of American military assistance will fully compensate for the lack of a productive and effective peace process. This bill was a missed opportunity for Congress to show balanced support for a comprehensive peace plan. The neglected Israeli Palestinian peace process must be given stronger support by the United States, and this bill reflects the lack of U.S. leadership in achieving a lasting peace. Because of these flawed provisions, I voted present on H.R. 4133.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. Today, House Republican leadership is asking low and middle income families to sacrifice their health care and basic services in order to protect bloated and wasteful Pentagon spending and to protect tax cuts for millionaires. This out of touch budget to end the Medicare guarantee while giving massive tax breaks to Big Oil and the wealthiest is not a serious proposal, Mr. Speaker. In these difficult times for millions of struggling families, Republicans are asking that we vote to cut $36 billion from the food stamp program and children's health services so we can spend more money on cold war weapons that do nothing to improve our national security. Our budget should reflect our values. We should not be balancing our budget on the backs of the most vulnerable. We do not have to make these heartless cuts that hurt our poor and struggling families so we can spend more money to build two more nuclear submarines or buy more over budget V 22 helicopters. We do not have to make choices that abandon the needy, our seniors and the futures of our children. We must come together to protect people who are struggling, our Nation's children and our elderly during economic downturns, not make them more vulnerable. We must protect and invest in the futures of our most vulnerable families, not dole out more money to the Pentagon for outdated and over budget weapons programs that we don't need and doesn't make America any safer. We should not be shortchanging the education of our children, risk the health of our seniors and allow our infrastructure to crumble beneath our feet so that bloated defense contractors can keep getting contracts. The priorities on display in this bill are clear and shameful. Once again, the Republicans put millionaires and billionaires, subsidies for big oil and gas, and bloated Pentagon spending above everyone and everything else. As co-chair of the Out of Poverty caucus, I urge my colleagues to reject this attack on our most vulnerable.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Yes.