Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I thank our Speaker for scheduling this, and Rep. Raskin for his leadership and deep knowledge of our Constitution.

I speak today with sadness in my heart but purpose in my bones. This Congress must take action to remove Donald Trump from office as soon as possible, for the clear and present danger he poses to our Democracy, our national security, and to the American people.

Last Wednesday, we saw Donald Trump incite a violent and deadly insurrection at our U.S. Capitol in an attempt to reverse the results of a free and fair election. The risk that he might do so again in the next week is why he cannot be trusted for another minute as commander in chief, overseeing the nuclear codes and the U.S. Military.

The fastest way to protect our republic from Donald Trump is for the Vice President and the cabinet to take action under the 25th Amendment. I implore them to do so. But if they do not, my colleagues and I stand ready to defend our democracy from Donald Trump.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Ameer K.

Edwards, and his many contributions as a health care provider, as a father and grandfather, and as a beloved member of his community.

Ameer was born in Camden, New Jersey on May 4, 1970, where he was the youngest of 4 children born to Cheryl and Malik Chaka.

Shortly after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, Ameer's mother Cheryl Amana Burris moved to San Francisco, where she took a job as senior assistant to Willie L. Brown, who was then a California State Legislator and later became Speaker of the California State Assembly during her tenure.

While in San Francisco Ammeter attended various local elementary and secondary schools including Grattan Elementary School and Ecole Notre Dame des Yictoires.

Ameer moved back to the east coast with his mother who needed to assist with her father who was diagnosed with cancer. He attended schools in New Jersey, Philadelphia and North Carolina, where he graduated from Charles E. Jordan High School.

Ameer attended college at Hampton University, North Carolina A&T State University and later graduated with honors from North Carolina Central University. He continued his education by getting a master's degree from North Carolina State University.

Ameer worked for over 20 years at University of No11h Carolina Memorial Hospital as a Health Care Unit Coordinator. He was a hard worker who rarely took time off, and who was highly respected by his coworkers. Ameer received numerous awards for his work. As recently as May 2020, he was chosen as the top employee in his position throughout the entire university.

Ameer was the father of three adult children and two grandchildren, all of whom he loved and with whom he spent as much time as possible. He was devoted to his mother and siblings, and there was nothing he would not do for them to make their lives more enjoyable.

Ameer departed this life on early Monday morning of December 28, 2020, after an extended struggle with cancer. His mother was holding his hand when he quietly passed away.

On behalf of California's 13th Congressional District, I recognize Ameer K. Edwards for his contributions to his family and his community, and I extend my sincere condolences to his loved ones.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendment No. 49 as the designee of Mr. Khanna.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to offer this amendment with Representatives Khanna, DeFazio, Omar, and Pressley.

What this amendment would do is freeze fiscal year 2020 defense spending in the NDAA to 2019 levels by reducing the overseas contingency operations account by $16.8 billion.

Now, by restoring defense spending to the levels authorized in last year's NDAA, this increase would be even more modest than the $700 billion top-line figure publicly embraced by the President just 9 months ago before he reversed course and requested an outrageous $750 billion.

Mr. Chair, just last year, the Department of Defense failed its first ever agencywide audit, something that I have long called for, along with my colleague Representative Burgess.

I want to thank Chairman Smith for including our bipartisan language on audit readiness to ensure that the DOD is acting to address waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon and ensure that it has a plan in place so it can pass an unqualified audit.

If the Department of Defense cannot even keep track of its current funding, it is truly outrageous that Congress would reward the Pentagon with a massive spending increase. This amendment is simply about reining in the bloated Pentagon budget.

At the minute-by-minute level, American taxpayers are already spending nearly $2 billion a day at the fiscal

2019 NDAA enacted levels this amendment seeks to cut funding to.

The $16.8 billion to the top-line funding level, what this amendment would do would require the fund to fund 6.8 million Head Start slots for 1 year, 1.63 million veterans receiving VA medical care for 1 year, and providing 7 million low-income children healthcare for 1 year.

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney called OCO a slush fund and a sham when he served in Congress, and there is growing bipartisan support urging Congress to significantly cut OCO. That is why I urge ``yes'' on this critical amendment to rein in our out-of- control defense spending.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, this is a modest approach that would ensure that Congress doesn't reward the Pentagon with even more money after it failed its first agency-wide audit last year.

Recent polling shows that a majority of the public does not want defense spending increased. Nearly three-quarters of Americans would not support more of their tax dollars going to the Pentagon.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this critical amendment, and we must move forward and at least begin to control this out-of-control defense spending and support this amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Amash for yielding me time and for his leadership on this issue.

Let me also thank Chairman Smith for his tremendous leadership of the committee and for working with us on this critical amendment, as well as so many other amendments in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Amash-Lee amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

This amendment guarantees that persons arrested on U.S. soil under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force or provisions under the 2012 NDAA will receive the due process that they deserve, as required by the Constitution.

The 2012 NDAA codified worldwide detention authority that, as the ACLU said at the time, ``violates the Constitution and international law because it is not limited to people captured in an actual armed conflict, as required by the laws of war.''

The Amash-Lee amendment would remedy that by repealing that provision and ensuring that we remain consistent with our fundamental values.

Mr. Chairman, we should have no doubts that our Federal criminal courts can handle international terrorism cases, and indeed they have.

The Department of Justice has charged, tried, and convicted more than 200 defendants for international terrorism crimes in these very Federal courts.

That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this critical amendment. I, again, want to thank Representative Amash and Chairman Smith for their leadership on this issue.

Madam Chair, it is up to Congress to prevent another costly war in the Middle East. For too long, Congress has ceded its responsibilities as a coequal branch of government when it comes to matters of war and peace.

As The New York Times recently put it: ``It is long past time that the legislative branch reclaimed its central role in overseeing war waged in the name of the American people.''

Madam Chair, I thank Congressman Khanna for this amendment. He has been persistent and very clear about our role in the areas of war and peace, and it builds upon the amendment I got into the Defense appropriations bill that indicated and said that nothing in the Defense appropriations bill could be construed as authorization for the use of force in Iran.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I thank our chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, and I thank the chair of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Smith, for working with me and all of our members on this amendment and for making this amendment in order.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to offer this amendment along with Representatives Adam Schiff, Eliot Engel, Jason Crow, John Lewis, Seth Moulton, Max Rose, and many, many others.

Madam Chair, this amendment is straightforward; it is timely; and it should be noncontroversial. It would immediately repeal the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq. Repeal of the 2002 AUMF would not impact any existing military operations because it no longer serves an operational purpose.

Leaving the 2002 AUMF on the books runs the risk that it could be utilized by the executive branch for military operations that Congress never intended to authorize.

When Congress passed the 2002 AUMF prior to the invasion of Iraq, it was intended to address the perceived threat posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein as it related to the presence of weapons of mass destruction. United States military deployments and operations carried out pursuant to the 2002 AUMF, Operation Iraqi Freedom, officially concluded in 2011.

Seventeen years after the resolution's passage, the United States recognizes the sovereignty of Iraq and considers the Iraqi Government a key ally.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations have maintained that the 2002 AUMF only serves to reinforce currently existing legal authority. None of the counterterrorism operations being carried out in Iraq independently depend on the 2002 AUMF for authorization.

For these reasons, the 2002 AUMF is outdated and should no longer be on the books. Leaving it in effect risks abuse by this and any future administration.

For example, the Trump administration has claimed that the 2002 AUMF authorizes the use of force to address both ``threats to'' and ``stemming from Iraq,'' and it authorizes force in ``Syria or elsewhere.''

Expansive interpretations such as this demonstrate why we strongly believe that the 2002 AUMF should be immediately repealed.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), a veteran who served his country well and now is serving this body well.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), an expert on national security.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, first, I thank our Rules Committee chair, Mr. McGovern, as well as all the members of the committee for making this amendment in order. And I also thank our chairman, Mr. Smith, for working with us to bring this amendment forward.

I am proud to offer this amendment with Representative Max Rose. It is a very straightforward amendment. It simply expresses the sense of Congress that the 2001 AUMF has been utilized well beyond the scope than Congress intended, and that it is far past time for Congress to reassert our constitutional mandated role in war making.

Our amendment also states that any new authorization should include more specific provisions, including a sunset clause, clear and specific expression of objectives, targets, and geographic scope.

Madam Chair, my amendment is not only necessary, but it is timely. Right now, the Trump administration is threatening to use the 2001 AUMF as a legal basis to go to war with Iran. This demonstrates the dangers of leaving this authorization for the use of military force on the books indefinitely.

The 2001 AUMF is only 60 words, and one of the only modern authorizations

for the use of force that includes no limitations in time, geography, operations, or a named enemy.

On September 14, 2001, 3 days after the horrific attacks, I was the only ``no'' vote in Congress for the 2001 AUMF. It was an authorization that I knew would provide a blank check for the President, any President, to wage a war anywhere, any time, and for any length. In the last 18 years, it has been used by three consecutive administrations to wage war at any time, at any place, without congressional oversight or authorization.

According to a 2018 Congressional Research Service report, which I encourage all of my colleagues to read, the 2001 AUMF has, in fact, become that blank check for war. In the almost 18 years since its passage, it has been cited 41 times in 19 countries to wage war with little or no congressional oversight. And this report only looks at unclassified incidents. How many other times has it been used without the knowledge of Congress or the American people?

The AUMF has reportedly been invoked to deploy troops in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger. We know that this is far beyond what Congress intended when it was passed in 2001 in the days after the terrible attacks of 9/11.

That is why our amendment is so important. It is a sense of Congress simply recognizing that this has been used well beyond what Congress originally intended when it first passed in 2001; that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides Congress with the sole authority to declare war; and that any new AUMF to replace the 2001 should include a timeframe within which Congress should revisit the authority provided in any AUMF, which many experts agree needs to be included in any replacement AUMF.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose), my colleague, who serves on the Homeland Security Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank Chairman Quigley for his leadership and for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2020 Financial Services and General Governmen Appropriations bill.

This includes $1.4 billion in funding over fiscal year 2019 enacted levels to support critical functions and services in the executive and judicial branches, it ensures the integrity of our Federal elections, as well as supporting critical programs that protect consumers.

I am pleased that the bill includes my language that would nullify President Trump's proposed changes to the calculation of how we measure poverty, which would have a devastating impact on families all across the country.

This bill also includes $23 million for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, which provides critical financing to attract grocery stores, food banks, and other fresh food businesses to underserved areas. Thanks to HFFI, healthy food initiatives are available in all of our congressional districts in urban and in rural communities, and also in my congressional district at the Mandela MarketPlace in Oakland, California.

As co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, I thank Chairman Quigley for lifting the ban on the use of local D.C. funds for abortion services. This ban has unjustly prevented 55,000 D.C. women of reproductive age from accessing the full range of reproductive healthcare, including abortion. This has been targeted to low-income women, primarily women of color, so I thank Chairman Quigley for this.

The bill also includes language prohibiting funds appropriated in this bill from being used to penalize financial institutions from providing financial services to an entity that participates in a business or organized activity involving cannabis that is legal on the State level.

With 33 States and the District of Columbia legalizing some form of cannabis use, it is past time for Congress to ensure that the Federal Government can't infringe on what State and local jurisdictions are doing on cannabis reform. Whether you agree or not, States and local jurisdictions have passed some form of legalization or medical marijuana, so let's leave the States to their own business on this issue.

I thank Chairman Quigley, also, for including $30 million for community financial development institutions, which is an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2019 enacted levels. CDFIs are really a lifeline across the country, especially underbanked communities, which many of us represent.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the Jackson Lee amendment to Rules Committee Print 116-20 which makes appropriations for fiscal year 2020, H.R. 3351, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2020.

I wish to commend Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry for their work in shepherding this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee amendment is simple but provides an important and necessary protection for grieving parents. The Jackson Lee amendment ensures that the IRS Tax Advocate Service has adequate resources to assist parents of a deceased child whose Social Security number was stolen by tax cheats and used on a Federal tax return to receive an Earned Income Tax Credit.

The Jackson Lee amendment is intended to be a compassionate use of IRS funds to help grieving parents navigate the process of reclaiming their child's identity from tax cheats. This amendment is necessary when we consider the story of little Alexis Agin who was just 4 years old when she died of a brain tumor in 2011.

Her parents grieved. Someone stole Alexis' identity to commit tax fraud. Alexis' parents did not discover the crime until they filed their taxes.

The sad fact is, Alexis' parents are not alone. They were one of at least 14 other parents whose children died of cancer and learned that their child's Social Security number had been stolen by tax thieves.

Nearly all of us understand the importance of safeguarding our Social Security numbers, but, after someone dies, Social Security numbers are published on a national online registry called the Master Death List. The Master Death List registry exists to alert businesses and financial institutions to not renew credit cards or create new credit in the deceased person's name, but it also alerts thieves of opportunities to steal identities and commit tax fraud.

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, identity thieves have stolen the tax refunds of more than 490,000 dead persons since 2008. The thieves typically claim that a dead person is their dependent when they file their tax returns.

In fiscal year 2012, the IRS initiated approximately 900 identity theft-related criminal investigations, triple the number of investigations initiated in 2011. Direct investigative time applied to identity theft-related investigations increased by 129 percent over the same period.

On July 30, 2013, in St. Louis, Missouri, Tania Henderson was convicted of theft of government funds and aggravated identity theft, sentenced to 144 months in prison, and ordered to pay $835,883 in restitution to the U.S. Treasury. According to her plea agreement and other court documents, Henderson stole the identities of more than 400 individuals, many of whom were deceased, and filed fraudulent tax returns using their names and Social Security account numbers.

The theft of identities of deceased children for the purpose of committing tax fraud is a sad fact that too many parents have to face when they are attempting to cope with the tragedy of losing their child. The Jackson Lee amendment will help ensure that the IRS Tax Advocate Service has the resources needed to assist these grieving parents with the filing of the last return where their child's name will be listed as being a member of their household.

I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which would be a compassionate, mind you, use of IRS funds.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time

Madam Speaker, this week, the U.S. inched closer to a dangerous military confrontation with Iran.

From President Trump's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Iran deal to alienating our key allies and imposing crushing sanctions on Iran, it's clear that Trump Administration has no interest in pursuing principled, diplomatic engagement to resolve our differences.

In addition, Secretary of State Pompeo once again floated the idea of using the 2001 AUMF as the legal basis for the use of force against Iran--allowing the Administration to circumvent Congress.

This is a stark reminder of the dangers of leaving the overly-broad 2001 AUMF on the books.

That's why I was proud that the House passed a federal spending package this week that included my language to sunset the 2001 AUMF after 8 months.

This sent a clear message to the Administration that the 2001 AUMF cannot be used as the legal authority to go to war and that it MUST come to Congress to seek authority for the use of force against Iran-- as required by the Constitution.

Congress must work to repeal the 2001 AUMF and ensure that the U.S. doesn't barrel into another disastrous war in the Middle East.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to demand that the Trump administration stop its assault on immigrant communities and abandon its plan on public charge.

Now let me be clear: No one should be denied a visa due to their possible, potential need for public assistance, also known as public charge. It is beyond appalling that the Department of Homeland Security is using this criterion to prevent deserving families from coming to the United States.

This heartless and un-American proposed rule also makes it extremely difficult for individuals who are seeking a new life in the United States to receive a green card if they are considered likely to use public benefits in the future.

If this rule is implemented, the Trump administration would expand the list of programs to include SNAP, Medicaid, and housing assistance to determine permanent residency.

Madam Speaker, basic programs are there to help struggling families put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads when they need it. Denying immigrant families green card status with this criterion is just plain wrong.

This anti-immigrant rhetoric is not new, Madam Speaker. For over 100 years, the Federal Government has used the argument of public charge in immigration law for inadmissibility or deportation. Public charge was first created when the 47th Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1882. This restricted certain individuals from migrating to the United States.

This legislation specifically targeted unmarried women who were presumed to be a so-called public charge because employers would not employ them, leading the government to take care of them, which is ridiculous.

But it wasn't just women that this law targeted. It was also immigrants from Asia. As many of us are aware, fear of Chinese laborers was part of the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the time. There was widespread fear of the Chinese influence on the economy and the racist perception that these immigrants would not contribute to American society.

This fear was compounded when Chinese immigrants started to bring their families to America and use public infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals.

One of my constituents, Dr. Elaine Kim, who lives in Berkeley, California, experienced this discrimination firsthand. In her own words, she said: ``I am 76, and I am a child of immigrants who arrived in this country in 1903 and 1926, respectively. My parents were not allowed by law to become naturalized citizens and faced very serious racial discrimination in their lifetimes. But they both worked hard, harder than most native-born Americans, all their lives. They contributed importantly to the United States and never, ever caused any legal, social, or economic problems to anyone in this country.

``At 76, I have also worked hard and consider myself a model U.S. citizen. Putting myself through school at a time when most women, and certainly most women of color, faced many obstacles, I finally finished a Ph.D. degree. I served the public for 44 years until I recently retired.

``When I was an impoverished single mother, I received help from both the Maternity and Infant Care Project and unemployment insurance. Now, after working hard and raising a family of hardworking, well-educated children, I receive a modest Social Security check each month as well as Medicare, though I have kept myself in good enough health as to not need much from this entitlement program.''

Dr. Kim and her family came to the United States and contributed greatly to our Nation. They used public benefits when hardships occurred, but they paid it back in many ways when they no longer needed the benefits to help their family get by.

The Trump administration is trying to create discriminatory policies that would restrict families such as Dr. Kim's from even entering the country. This harmful, xenophobic argument evokes fear and scapegoats immigrant communities.

Let's get straight to the facts. This country was built and continues to stand on the strength of immigrants. We know that a little help for our hardworking immigrant families reaps exponential returns to our economy and society.

Immigrants contribute in taxes, and they should be able to use social services when they need it, just like every other person in our Nation who pays taxes. Our immigrant community should not be seen as a drain on America but as an investment in our future. We are one Nation.

In closing, I want to reiterate that it is the constitutional duty of Congress to write our immigration laws and ensure that they are equitable to all individuals, regardless of race, age, or socioeconomic status. That is why, last week, during the Homeland Security appropriations markup, I offered an amendment along with Congressmen Price, Pocan, and Aguilar that would make it clear that no Federal funds can be used to expand public charge.

We must defeat this anti-immigrant and un-American public charge rule. I hope that all of my colleagues will stand up and demand that the administration abandon this plan once and for all.

Mr. Chair, I thank Madam Chair for her leadership and for yielding time.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would strike the provision in the bill that increases funding for international family planning and reproductive health programs.

Women around the world deserve access to the full range of reproductive healthcare, and the Fiscal Year 2020 State and Foreign Operations bill will help to ensure that.

USAID provides vitally needed family planning funds to overseas health centers. Evidence has shown that USAID family planning programs have had important, real-world effects on the health of women and families worldwide, resulting in fewer unintended births, abortions, and miscarriages.

Funding for our international family planning programs has also helped reduce maternal and infant deaths, a goal that has strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Chair, I have been around the world, to Africa and to other countries and continents, and have talked with families in villages, women and their spouses with maybe five, six, seven children.

I have visited these villages with Republicans. And their first request to us is to help them with family planning. They know that it is so important in terms of planning the births of their children and in terms of just the stability of the family and the empowerment of women that family planning services be available.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Lowey for her leadership, for yielding, and for her tireless work day and night on behalf of the American people.

As a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am really pleased to see such a comprehensive bill that strongly invests in our communities.

For example, there is a $150 million increase for HIV research at NIH and an $8 million increase to the Office of Minority Health to ensure decreases in health disparities for our communities of color. We have a $92 million increase to Historically Black Colleges and Universities' and Hispanic-Serving Institutions' undergraduate programs to help improve higher education access for our students of color.

Also, it is important to recognize the $65 million increase to the Education Innovation Research grants for computer science for young girls and students of color, and the $9 million increase for teen pregnancy prevention and the $114 million increase to Title X Family Planning, both programs providing evidence-based, comprehensive sex education.

Also, as the proud vice chair of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee, we increased the Global Fund. It remains, of course, at 33 percent, sending an important signal, in terms of our leadership to international partners, that we intend for the United States to stay in the leadership to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Let me just say, with regard to defense, yes, we did, and I want to thank those who have supported this effort to repeal the 2001 AUMF, Authorization to Use Military Force.

It was passed 3 days after the horrific tragedy of 9/11. It was 60 words. It has now allowed for the use of force over 41 times in 17 countries, unrelated to the terrible events of 9/11.

So, we need to do our job. We need to allow Congress to debate and make some decisions on a new AUMF.

Mr. Chair, the point is we will have 8 months to debate a new authorization, depending on what this Congress determines should move forward as the Authorization to Use Military Force.

The 2001 was passed in 3 days. Certainly, 8 months gives us enough time to do our job. The Constitution requires us not to be missing in action.

We have the power of the purse, and we should use that because we have sent our young men and women into harm's way. They have done their job. They need to know now that, in the wars in which they are engaged, Congress has their back.

We should make some decisions on this, and it doesn't make any sense to

continue using this authorization on wars 18 years later.

Twenty percent of Members of Congress serving today were here in 2001. Members deserve to represent their constituents and to debate and to make sure their voices are heard also.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

First of all, this dangerous and discriminatory rule attempts to enshrine discrimination in virtually all facets of healthcare by granting new rights to those who believe that their personal and religious beliefs should determine the care that a patient receives.

Under this rule, nearly anyone or any entity involved in a patient's care, from a pharmacist, to a receptionist who schedules procedures, to hospital room schedulers, can put their personal and religious beliefs ahead of a patient's health.

This rule could mean that rape survivors, same-sex couples, women with unintended pregnancies, those seeking life-saving abortions, and transgender patients could all be refused medical care.

Mr. Chair, I have to tell a story. This reminds me of my late mother. When my mother was pregnant and about to deliver me, she needed a cesarean section. She was refused admittance into the hospital because she was Black. She nearly died. I almost didn't make it here into this world because of religious beliefs that it was okay to deny healthcare to African Americans.

Mr. Chair, let's not go back there.

One's personal religious beliefs should never determine the care a patient receives. Instead, hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other individuals should be making decisions based on what is best for the patient.

Mr. Chair, yes, we know that it is those who need care the most that will be disproportionally impacted, like patients of color, low-income patients, and the LGBTQ community.

Mr. Chair, I urge defeat of this amendment. It is discriminatory, it is dangerous. Let's not go back to the days of discrimination. It is un-American.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my friend from Florida's amendment to increase funding for legal services, child advocates, and post-release services in the Office of Refugee Resettlement Unaccompanied Alien Children's Program, and I thank the Congresswoman so much for introducing this amendment. That is why the underlying bill under consideration today set aside a minimum of $190 million for these activities. Legal services need to be a priority for these children.

Studies have demonstrated that when a child has access to legal representation, the in absentia rate drops to 5 percent. Released children with attorneys show up to court and continue to show up to court until case completion in 95 percent of the cases.

Child advocates support the most vulnerable of children who are in ORR's care. There were 15,000 tender-age children, children under the age of 12, in ORR's care last year. This year, more than 11,000 children have been transferred to HHS care, through April, and again, that is only for children ages zero to 12.

Legal services, child advocates, and post-release services cannot be considered optional, and we should not fund them as if they are. So I thank the gentlewoman, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague and friend from northern California, next door to my district, for offering this amendment and for his tremendous leadership on so many issues relating to our working men and women.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that a decade of flat funding has left BLS in critical condition, which is why the underlying bill increases funding for BLS by $61 million over the 2019 enacted level. This investment will make up for the loss of purchasing power and help BLS take full advantage of advances in statistical methods to promote the high-quality statistics required for a thriving 21st century economy. Expanded capacity will allow BLS to better examine critical issues such as job loss due to automation, job loss due to contracting, and mass layoffs.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this amendment. It has drawn more attention to the importance of BLS, and I am happy to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Lack of communication can lead to barriers, it can prevent survivors from restoring their quality of life, and really prevents patients, survivors, from understanding all of their options and

their course of treatment so that they, too, can stand here with us.

I thank my colleague for sharing his personal story to make sure that others understand what is necessary and using his experiences to help others.

The committee recognizes the leadership of the National Cancer Institute's Office of Cancer Survivorship. The report encourages the office to expand its focus, in particular, on the needs of childhood cancer survivors.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' This is so important to reduce the barriers to care.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and Statewide Family Engagement Centers. I thank the gentleman for offering it.

This vital program helps States and school districts implement evidence-based family engagement strategies that promote student success, including programs that engage diverse families and interventions that address specific parent needs. To expand these proven practices, the underlying bill increases the program by $5 million over the 2019 enacted level.

However, I am aware of and concerned by reports that a processing error by the Department of Education will cause reduced awards for existing grantees, and I hope to work with my colleagues in the Senate to address this problem.

So I appreciate that the amendment is drawing attention to the importance of this program and this issue, and I am very happy to support it.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and say, once again, that I rise in strong support of this amendment.

In any given year, the percentage of young people with mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders is estimated to be between 14 and 20 percent.

These disorders among young people interfere with their ability to accomplish developmental tasks, such as healthy interpersonal relationships, succeeding in school, and, ultimately, transitioning into the workforce. Also, early signs of difficulties can help prevent violent outbreaks at school.

Now, as a clinical social worker by profession and chair of the Social Work Caucus here in the House of Representatives, I know the importance of addressing the mental health needs of our children where they are, and that is at school.

I am proud that the underlying bill that we are considering includes an increase of $13 million for Project AWARE, which supports mental health strategies in schools.

School-based mental health needs, including training for school personnel to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental health issues, are critically important to identifying and referring children to services.

Mr. Chair, I again thank Congressman DeSaulnier and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment. Recent research has found that food allergies are far more common in the United States than previously thought, and the prevalence has been increasing in the last two decades.

Food allergies can cause severe reactions and can even be deadly. Allergic reactions to food lead to more than 200,000 emergency room visits each year.

The Consortium of Food Allergy Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is supporting research to identify the causes of and treatments for food allergies. The proposed funding increase will allow this critical research to continue and to accelerate.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California again for offering it.

Madam Chair, first, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for this amendment.

I rise in strong support of this amendment. More women die from pregnancy-related complications in the United States than any other developed country.

There are major disparities. For example, Black women are 3 to 4 times more likely than White women to die during pregnancy or childbirth.

I was proud to support a new initiative to address maternal mortality in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations act. This amendment will enable the bureau to expand support for State Maternal Health Innovation Grants, which fund evidence-based, State-led demonstrations to improve maternal care service delivery and, ultimately, reduce maternal mortality.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering this tonight.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment would cut funding for important programs and services that provide opportunities for working families. Many of these programs are already underfunded and fail to meet the existing need.

For instance, the amendment would cut Head Start by more than $1.6 billion, denying slots to 80,000 children we are trying to provide with access to high quality, early learning programs, as well as rejecting our proposal to increase funding for trauma-informed care, which is critical for children affected by the opioid crisis.

This amendment would cut after-school programs by $185 million, taking away enrichment opportunities for roughly 222,000 students.

It would cut Title I funding by $2.4 billion, reducing resources for an estimated 25 million students in high-poverty schools.

It would cut the number of new and competing research grants at NIH by approximately 87 percent, which is over 10,000 fewer new research grants.

It cuts tens of millions of nutritious meals for more than 2 million low-income seniors.

Also, this amendment would close Social Security field offices in every district, while worsening wait times for in-person services, phone services, and exacerbating the disability hearings backlog.

It would also cut Federal Work Study programs by $200 million, resulting in 114,000 fewer awards to students.

The sponsor of the amendment cites the national debt as a reason to cut funding to programs that benefit working families, but I note that he did vote for the Republican tax scam, which added more than $2 trillion to the national debt by cutting taxes for big corporations and the wealthiest families.

My Republican colleagues don't object to adding to the debt when it benefits corporations and the wealthy. They only object to it if it means providing opportunities for hardworking families.

Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this amendment would cut $25.6 billion from programs that fund schools, Pell Grants, community health centers, substance abuse prevention and treatment, biomedical research, the CDC, childcare, and early childhood learning programs, also job training, as well as agencies that protect workers and workplaces, among so many other programs that provide opportunities to low and middle-income families.

The amendment is totally misguided, and it will harm tens of millions of Americans.

Madam Chair, I strongly oppose it. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, first let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for offering this extremely important amendment, and I fully support it.

Social factors such as poverty, substandard housing, and unsafe neighborhoods are critical drivers of health outcomes. I share the gentleman's concern and agree that we need to better understand how environmental conditions such as these play a role in human health.

Let me just say to the gentleman, we work very closely with the Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American Caucus in terms of our health strategies with regard to communities of color to close health disparities. This amendment is so important in those efforts.

I would note, also, that the committee report accompanying the Labor- HHS appropriations bill encourages the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to clarify and disseminate strategies to States to address social

determinants of health in the Medicaid and CHIP programs.

I thank the gentleman once again for offering this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my colleague for raising the importance of the American history and civics national activities program, and I support this amendment.

These competitive grants reflect one of two dedicated funding streams for civic and American history in the Labor-HHS bill helping to spur innovation and assist underserved students.

The underlying bill rejects the Trump administration's harmful budget request to eliminate these programs.

I appreciate that the amendment draws attention to the importance of the American History and Civics National Activities program, and I am happy to support it, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I thank the gentleman, again, for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the gentleman for this very important amendment, and I rise in strong support of it.

Civilian first responders in the disciplines of law enforcement, fire services, and emergency medical services routinely face highly stressful situations. They are the ones we call upon when we are in need. This amendment raises attention to the importance of the mental health needs of our first responders.

Peer-to-peer mental health programs for our first responders acknowledge that those who are committed to the same type of work may be the ones best suited to support their own colleagues' mental health.

For so long mental health issues were relegated to the shadows, approached with the shame and misunderstanding that only exacerbates pain for people and their families.

Now, as a clinical social worker myself by profession and the chair of the Social Work Caucus here in the House, we know how widespread these issues are. It is up to all of us to work to erase the stigma around mental health.

I thank my colleague for offering this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of D-Day and to lift up the 92nd Infantry, as well as the Tuskegee Airmen, for their service on that fateful day that was instrumental in the success at Normandy for the Allied advance.

Known as the Buffalo Soldiers, the 92nd Infantry was a segregated, all-black military unit; among them was my father, Lt. Col. Garvin A. Tutt.

Madam Speaker, we must never forget that African Americans have fought in every major military conflict of the United States, from the Revolutionary War to our current military conflicts.

I rise to thank the men and women who fought in World War II, including 900,000 African Americans, 800 of whom were African-American women from the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion.

America owes a debt of gratitude for the service and sacrifice of these African Americans who, even while fighting the oppression of segregation, defended our nation and contributed to victory for the U.S. and the Allied forces.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, but I also want to thank her for her tireless and longstanding steadiness and leadership in support of our Dreamers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, which ensures the Dreamers, temporary protected status recipients, and individuals with deferred enforcement departure status are protected from deportation. This bill will also establish a path for 2.5 million people to become lawful permanent residents.

These young people have lived in the United States for decades and have made a life for themselves and for their families.

Now, let me be clear. Dreamers, TPS, and DED recipients make our Nation better. They are active members of our community and contribute to our economy and make America a stronger nation.

I am so proud to represent so many Dreamers in my district. They are American in every way except on paper, and it is beyond cruel to deport them to countries many of them barely know.

By passing this bill today, House Democrats are maintaining the promise of the American Dream to immigrants around the country.

It is time to protect our young people, recognize their love for America, and finally help their dreams come true.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 6.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment passing in the House giving women the right to vote.

Today, along with my yellow rose, I stand here wearing a purple and a black ribbon honoring the history of African American women who are unsung heroes, like Sojourner Truth, and Ida B. Wells, and Mary Church Terrell.

These women fought tirelessly so all women would have the right to vote. Although, even after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, many Black women and Native American women were still denied their voting rights.

Madam Speaker, let us not forget the sacrifices and the achievements of Black women and all women of color who continue to fight for women's right to vote, many of whose names we may never know, but without whom many of us would not be here today.

As we celebrate this important milestone with this historic number of women and women of color in Congress, let us remember the words of suffragette Mary Church Terrell. She said: ``And so, lifting as we climb, onward and upward we go.''

[From ACLU, May 18, 2019]

Celebrate Women's Suffrage, but Don't Whitewash the Movement's Racism

My 94-year-old great-aunt, Paralee Wilmer--we call her

Aunty Lee--voted for the first time after moving to

Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1944. Born to no-nonsense, small farmers

in Millers Ferry, Alabama, and the youngest daughter of 12

children, Aunty Lee was one among many African Americans who

moved from the South to the North in search of better job

opportunities and greater freedoms during the The Great

Migration. These freedoms included the right to vote without

intimidation or any other hindrance.

Aunty Lee's memory is a bit cloudy regarding whether the

first time she cast her ballot was in an election for local

politicians or a presidential race, but one thing she knows

for sure is her pastor at the time inspired her to exercise

her constitutional rights and fulfill her civic duties. He

said, ``When it's time to vote, make sure you vote. When it's

time to do grand jury, make sure you go.''

At age 20, Aunty Lee understood the magnitude of her

pastor's advice, given the disenfranchisement of Black folks

that she witnessed growing up in Millers Ferry--including

poll taxes, literacy tests, and outright violence and

intimidation that prevented Black people from voting. To be a

Black citizen in America but denied full citizenship rights

epitomizes the hypocrisy of American democracy. This is a sad

truth that I repeat like a blues refrain to my students.

This summer--as the nation celebrates the 170th anniversary

of the first major convention for women's rights at Seneca

Falls and the 98th anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the

Constitution, which granted women the right to vote--how do

we reconcile widespread narratives of a triumphant, steady

march towards women's enfranchisement with the more

complicated and painful reality of my great-aunt's lived

experience as a young, Black woman in Jim Crow America?

One word: intersectionality.

Legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw argues that racism and

sexism intersect in a manner that compounds Black women's

oppression. Although the above historical events occurred

long before Crenshaw articulated intersectionality, this

insightful theory should be applied to all historical

narratives that do not fully engage with the lived

experiences of African-American women.

What do we notice when we take an intersectional view of

the events that transpired at Seneca Falls? How does our

understanding of the history of all women's political

empowerment in the United States change?

When suffragists gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, in

July 1848, they advocated for the right of white women to

vote. The participants were middle and upper-class white

women, a cadre of white men supporters and one African-

American male--Frederick Douglass. The esteemed abolitionist

had forged a strong working relationship with fellow

abolitionists and white women suffragists, including

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. No Black women

attended the convention. None were invited.

Although women of color were profoundly absent at Seneca

Falls, a greater degree of cultural inclusion was on the

horizon. In May 1851, African-American abolitionist Sojourner

Truth spoke at a women's rights convention in Akron, Ohio.

During her famous speech on the abolition of slavery and the

promotion of women's rights, Truth allegedly bared her breast

and proclaimed, ``Ain't I a woman?''

It was a melodramatic act and statement, but as historian

Nell Painter argues, it never happened Instead, it was a

quaint fiction crafted by convention organizer Frances Dana

Gage and other white feminists who depicted Truth to white

audiences as a genuine albeit primitive ally in the fight for

women's rights. Thus, the 1851 convention marked a modicum of

progress, but this progress is tainted by white suffragists'

attempts to control Truth's voice.

By the turn of the 20th century, Black suffragists such as

Mary Church Terrell represented intersectional feminism at

its best. Born to former slaves in Memphis, Tennessee,

Terrell earned her bachelor's and master's degrees from

Oberlin College and served as president of the National

Association of Colored Women. In February 1898, Terrell spoke

at the National American Woman Suffrage Association

convention in Washington, D.C.

Her speech forced powerful white women attendees to reflect

on the compounding oppressions and systemic violence that

Black women endured during slavery. She ended on a more

optimistic note--praising the sheer grit and intellect of

freed women. Terrell's rhetorical style echoed the American

ethos of self-made men and women, but she oversimplified the

historical reality that the paths to racial and gender

equality are long, jagged, and still unwinding.

The history of women's suffrage in America is not nice or

neat, because the impact of white supremacy is broad and

human nature is messy. Furthermore, a nation built on stolen

land from Native Americans and stolen labor from African

slaves is flawed from the start. We must constantly

acknowledge this truth and engage in an intersectional

celebration of women's rights activists and landmark events.

In addition to celebrating the passage of the 19th

Amendment, let's celebrate the upcoming birthday of African-

American suffragist Mary Church Terrell, who would be 155 on

September 23. Let's celebrate the lives and legacies of the

true Sojourner Truth, abolitionist and suffragist Harriet

Tubman, and Shirley Chisholm--the first Black woman elected

to Congress and to seriously run for president.

Let us celebrate and support current-day Black Lives Matter

founders and organizers Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and

Opal Tometi, three queer Black women committed to ``placing

those at the margins closer to the center'' of political

leadership. Last but not least, let's celebrate the lives of

everyday people like my Aunty Lee--a Black woman born and

raised in Jim Crow Alabama who sought out a better life in

Ohio and has religiously exercised her right to vote for the

past 74 years. Let us celebrate these Black women while

recognizing that the struggle to vote without obstacles

continues.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Nadler for yielding and for his tremendous leadership on this issue.

Also, I have just got to acknowledge and thank Congressman David Cicilline for his steady and strategic leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I, too, was at the first press conference with our great warrior, John Lewis, and it has been so exciting and uplifting to see the progress and the process in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, as a cofounder of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus, along with our dear former colleague Congressman Barney Frank, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Equality Act. This critical bill, of course, would end discrimination against LGBTQ Americans once and for all.

Now, as an African American woman, it is my moral responsibility to fight discrimination wherever and against whomever it raises its ugly head. The Equality Act will ensure that there is clear, lawful protection for LGBTQ Americans under the Civil Rights Act. What is more, this bill will ensure that no one lives in fear because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Let me be clear. It is un-American that in 30 States it is still legal--mind you, legal--to discriminate against LGBTQ Americans in employment, in housing, in education--in every aspect of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, this discrimination disproportionately affects LGBTQ people of color. This is a shame. Discrimination must end against everyone.

And, yes, Mr. Speaker, as a person of faith, my religion teaches me to love thy neighbor as thyself and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So let's pass the Equality Act today so there will be, truly, liberty and justice for all.

Again, I thank Congressman David Cicilline for this today.

``Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President's decision to fire Comey was Comey's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President's repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement. Other evidence, however, indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign.'' Volume II, pages 75 and 76.

``In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed in June 2017 and

that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed.''

Volume II, pages 5 and 6.

``The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the Federal false statements statute.''

Volume I, page 9.

``Two days after the President directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one with Corey Lewandowski in the Oval Office and dictated a message to be delivered to Attorney General Sessions that would have had the effect of limiting the Russia investigation to future election interference only.''

Volume II, page 90.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Jayapal for yielding, and I thank her for her tremendous leadership and for staying steady and focused. And, also, I just have to recognize her for the input which she has provided to the conference committee to keep the government open, but, also, it was a conference committee to fund Homeland Security. Her input and what she gave us really was extremely important to get that done. We have a lot of work to do. So I thank her very much for that, also.

Yes, our Nation has yet to recover from the Trump administration's cruel zero-tolerance, zero-humanity prosecution policy that tore and is tearing thousands of children from their parents and guardians, which was announced 1 year ago this week.

Since Donald Trump started his zero-humanity policy--and that is exactly what it is--we have learned more and more disturbing evidence.

We know that the Trump administration piloted family separation on a limited basis and planned to impose a policy of mass separating of children from their moms and dads--a policy. We have seen the administration's memos contemplating how this could be done and the resources needed to separate and detain thousands of children and parents.

The Government Accountability Office has investigated, finding that, despite the administration's contemplation, this is a very serious, serious problem, that they were unaware the then-Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, intended to launch this zero-humanity policy. They didn't even know this, they said.

At least as of February this year, we know that the Justice Department and their attorneys are still not tracking when they prosecute parents and legal guardians separated from their children.

And that brings me to what may be the most disturbing part of it all: The Department of Health and Human Services' inspector general found that the total number of children separated from a parent or guardian by immigration authorities is unknown and that thousands of children may have been separated.

So the bottom line is that Donald Trump and his administration, showing horrific cruelty and disregard for the well-being of children, planned for months--this was a plan--to tear children from their parents' arms.

Key officials were warned about the potentially lifelong harm to children, and Donald Trump and his administration still did absolutely nothing to ensure children could be reunited with their parents.

Yes, Congresswoman Jayapal, this is not a stain, but this is yet another stain on the United States.

I am reminded that 400 years ago, when the first Africans were brought to this country to begin the horrific, inhumane institution and government-sanctioned slavery, children were separated from their parents. And that was a plan, just as it is a plan now. African families were split and destroyed.

We still experience, in the Black community, generational trauma from these crimes against humanity. I couldn't help but be reminded of what my ancestors experienced as I visited McAllen, Texas, and Brownsville, Texas, last year.

I saw children sleeping on concrete floors, behind barbed wire, crying for their parents. I spoke with mothers and fathers who did not know where their children were after several months. And we were told that they could make these phone calls, but also that these calls cost money.

Where do they have money? How could they get any money?

These children and their parents had no access to mental health professionals.

Now, my background is psychiatric social work, and I know the trauma of separation of children from their parents, just within 24 hours that trauma settles in.

They had no access to legal services. And, yes, I couldn't believe it when I saw that these detention centers were prisons. They reminded me of San Quentin.

I saw mothers in prison uniforms. These were asylum seekers. They were put behind barbed wire in prison uniforms. This was like something I had never seen in my life.

And yet it took me back to what our government sanctioned and promoted and had as its policy 400 years ago.

Yes, I was born in a border city, El Paso, Texas. I was just there with Congresswoman Escobar on Monday. And El Paso, the people of El Paso are doing everything they can to help with the children and with the families that are being so ruthlessly treated by our immigration officials.

Now, I just have to tell you, these children will grow up with a disdain for America; okay? Their trauma will turn into anger. And I know that, professionally. I know what is going to happen to these kids.

The long-term impact will not be good for our country, so this administration better figure this out pretty quickly. There are so many dimensions to what they are doing. I don't think they even get it.

The humane and the humanitarian crisis that we are experiencing is first and foremost, but we also have to remind the Trump administration they are creating children now who will be adults soon, and this trauma is going to stay with them all of their lives. So we better get it right, and get it right quickly.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) for her leadership. We have done much work in the Appropriations Committee.

Thank God we were able to pass some of the amendments last year that would not allow the immigration officials to chain pregnant women--get it?--chain pregnant women. We got rid of that. Hopefully, they are implementing that properly.

So there is a lot to do, but this is something that cannot last. This is America, and we should not--the world should not see us leading an immigration policy or promoting an immigration policy that, central to it, destroys families and children and lives.

These are human beings. They don't deserve this, and we have to do more to stop it.

Madam Speaker, I again thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Speaker, Congresswoman Jayapal's bill is extremely important, and I hope that Republicans also join us in this effort because this is a concern that should be bipartisan or nonpartisan.

But let me just mention a couple of things. Everyone who is a parent, a grandparent, or has ever babysat children, or who has been around children, if a child walks off, or you can't locate the child that you are caring for, I know you have felt the panic. I know when my children were small, and I would turn around and they were gone it was like: Oh, my God, what has happened? And the anxiety and the fear, and just getting very emotionally distraught behind not knowing where my children were, will always be with me.

So I think everyone in our country should understand what these parents are going through and what a lost child is feeling if they have had that experience before.

We had a hearing on this family separation policy in the Appropriations Committee, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Services Subcommittee, and we had a panel of individuals. Some were mental health professionals. And we were told in no uncertain terms that a day or two of counseling is not going to get it. These parents and these children need a specific form of psychotherapy, and it has got to be sustained. It has got to be professional, and it has got to be the type of therapy that addresses specifically trauma.

So I am not sure that DHS even understands this. So it is on the record, and we have been trying now to make sure that we can provide the funding for the proper type of mental health services so that we can begin to deal with this trauma that has to be addressed early on. Because otherwise, this, again, is not going to be only these kids. This will be generational because there are DNA changes through the generations as a result of family separation and children being separated from their parents at an early age.

Peeping out at you, begging for help.

It is hard to process that.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Adams.

First, I have to thank the gentlewoman for her tremendous leadership on so many issues. Our young people at our Historically Black Colleges and Universities really owe her a debt of gratitude.

I thank her and Congresswoman Underwood for forming the Black Maternal Health Caucus, and also Congresswoman Robin Kelly, who has been such a tremendous leader in healthcare. Her MOMMA's Act, which I am proud to cosponsor, is really, truly, making a huge difference already.

The horror of health disparities for African American women in many ways is very personal to me. Let me just share a quick story about my birth.

When my mother, Congresswoman Adams, went into labor--this was in El Paso, Texas--she went to the hospital, and she needed a cesarean section. They refused her admission, and she nearly died as a result.

By the time the very racist--it was a hospital that did not allow African Americans into the hospital. By the time they allowed her in, though, after my grandmother had to fight to get her in--as she told me the story over and over again as a child--they put her on a gurney in the hall. They just left her there. Again, she needed a C-section.

She became delirious, became unconscious. Somebody finally saw her. By then, it was too late to do a C-section.

They pulled her in, and the doctors really didn't know quite what to do. They finally decided to deliver me using forceps.

My mother almost died. I almost didn't get here. And I bore those scars on my eye, the forceps scars, for many years. They went away just a few years ago, actually.

I share that story because here we are now, in 2019, and we are talking about many of the same issues that my mother had to face, maternal death, infant mortality with African American women now here in this country.

We have gone backwards. The United Nations did a report indicating that we have gone back 25 years in this country. This is unacceptable. It is totally unacceptable.

As a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, though, we are working every day to address the crisis swiftly and with a firm resolve to turn the tide on these unacceptable disparities in health plaguing the African American community and African American women.

It is utterly unacceptable that Black women are four times more likely to die--again, I have to think about my mother tonight--four times more likely to die from preventable pregnancy complications than White women. We do have a Black maternal health crisis in America.

So as we celebrate Mother's Day, and as we honor our grandmothers and our aunts and our mothers for giving us life, let us recommit ourselves, on their behalf, to improving Black maternal outcomes.

But also, as Congresswoman Adams continues to remind us, we must address the structural racism, structural racism which is really at the core of this deadly issue. And it is a deadly issue.

So let me just remind us tonight that Black lives do matter.