Commentary

“Big Sister” Barbara Lee’s Advice for the New Women of Color in Congress

NNPA NEWSWIRE — “…there have been vocal women of color pushing for progressive change in Congress for a long time. California Rep. Barbara Lee, who Pressley called a ‘big sister & mentor’ in her tweet, is one of them.”

Published

7 years ago

January 26, 2019

Oakland Post

“You have to break through all of that sexism and racism. You have to really confront that all of the time.”

By Christina Cauteruci

There’s a crew of new women in Congress who’ve become fast friends since the election. Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have become instant progressive icons and visible markers of a long-overdue shift in legislative demographics. They’ve posted loads of selfies together, called themselves a “squad,” tweeted support for each other’s policy ideas, and defended each other from right-wing detractors. Their fans have seen them as harbingers of hope in a dark time descending on a stalled-out Congress to help save America from itself.

It’s important to remember, though, as Pressley told her Twitter followers over the weekend, that there have been vocal women of color pushing for progressive change in Congress for a long time. California Rep. Barbara Lee, who Pressley called a “big sister & mentor” in her tweet, is one of them. In a phone conversation earlier this month, I spoke to Lee about her role in the new, more progressive Congress, what it was like to be one of the few black women in national office in the 1990s, and what it might mean to have a “critical mass” in the legislature. Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Christina Cauterucci: I was looking through all the pictures you and other Democratic women posed for on the first day of the new Congress, and there was a palpable feeling of celebration. What was that day like for you?

Barbara Lee: It was exciting. The younger and new members of Congress are very smart, they’re authentic, they’re passionate, they’re committed to their constituencies and to the country, to the world. And it’s just been wonderful being with them. I hope to be able to help them find their paths.

But also, I have to say, just as a progressive African-American woman, they give me a lot of hope. They strengthen me. They really formed that bond that means a heck of a lot when you’re in a Congress where—for example, in 1998, I was only the 20^th African-American woman ever elected to Congress since 1789. So this is really quite a happy moment and a really profound and positive development for the country.

There seems to be an incredible camaraderie among this new class of congresswomen—they’re hugging each other in photos, calling each other sisters in their tweets. Is there always such a strong feeling of solidarity among new progressive members of Congress?

There’s always solidarity. But I think this year is unique because you have so many women of color, and women from diverse backgrounds, and women who have broken so many glass ceilings. For example, Pennsylvania did not have one single woman in their delegation. Now we have—I believe it’s four. This is amazing. This is groundbreaking. It really tells me there’s no way we can ever go back. I think the excitement and the joy and the hope that this election brought was really a special and unique moment in history.

I’ve been thinking a lot about power in numbers when it comes to race and gender representation in Congress. Some studies of women in business leadership suggest that there needs to be a critical mass of people from underrepresented groups to make a tangible difference, because one person alone can be more easily ignored or tokenized. Does that resonate with your experience in Congress?

Absolutely. You know, it’s really good to have allies. And coming to Congress then, as a progressive African-American woman, it took a while to build the level of collegiality that others have, especially white men, because there were so few of us.

In terms of speaking out in a meeting or at a hearing with new ideas—folks would shake their heads and say “Great,” or whatever. Then 10 minutes later they would reiterate the same thing I just said, as if it were new. [Laughs.] It’s just like being invisible. You know what that’s like, being invisible? But let me tell you: I wasn’t gonna let that happen. I was working for former Congressman Ron Dellums, who passed away in July. And when I started working as a chief of staff on Capitol Hill, there were maybe two African-American women as chiefs of staff, OK? Maybe three, but I think it was two. I had to represent Ron at meetings with Cabinet officials. And I’d walk into those meetings, and primarily white men were there, and I would engage in the meeting, and it was almost like I just wasn’t there. Or they didn’t recognize me as a chief of staff, or they would never call on me to ask my question or make my point. Or they sometimes didn’t know that I was a chief of staff, they thought I was another staffer just taking notes to take back to the congressman. You know, it was very ugly and demeaning, disrespectful.

So I remember those days, and we’ve made a lot of progress, but let me tell you, we have a long way to go. You still have institutional biases, you have to break through all of that sexism and racism. You have to really confront that all of the time, whether it’s subconscious or conscious.

[Congress is] still just a microcosm of America. It takes a while. But I think that we’re moving forward, we’re making progress. With this new Congress, you know, it’ll never go back to the days of long ago, when Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American congresswoman, was elected in the late ’60s.

You know what it’s like to stand alone on an issue—I’m thinking specifically of your vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001. [Ed. note: Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the broad, still-active authorization of war.] What advice are you giving new members of Congress on speaking up, even if they’re alone?

I think they all are very courageous and all have to know their bottom lines, what they bring to Congress, their values, who they are, and what they stand for. And it may not be the same thing, but you have to know how far to go for compromise, or how far you will allow yourself to go on any given issue. For me, as a daughter of veteran and someone whose dad was in World War II, Korea, and who was raised in a military family, I know that the use of force should only be the last option, recognizing that we have to make sure that our national security is secure. So for me, that’s a bottom line.

For me, another bottom line is you do not cut public assistance and food stamps. I had a very difficult period in my life—I was a single mother with two young sons. And I was on welfare and food stamps and Medicaid. And I knew what it was like, and it was really hard. But in that moment because I had this bridge over troubled waters, like a lifeline, I’m not gonna allow, on my watch, my involvement in cutting any of this basic support for people and families and children who need it. And I’m gonna look out for others who may be in similar circumstances. So that’s a bottom line for me.

[The new members of Congress] come with a lot of courage. Just to get here took a lot of courage—to break through, given the fundraising barriers and everything that you have to deal with. But now they’re here, and they’ve demonstrated how courageous they are. They just have to know how far they’re willing to compromise and what they stand for. And I think most of them know that.

How do you see your role in this wave of new progressive women, especially women of color, taking seats in Congress?

I hope I am a supportive peer who can really help them navigate the legislative process, and do exactly what they want to do in their congressional career—serving their constituents and how they want to go, what path they want to take. And now as a co-chair of the Steering and Policy Committee, I want to make sure they’re able to get to the committees that they want—to carve out what issues they want to address. In terms of the seniority system and how you navigate that—I’ve had a lot of experience … [with] ways to think out of the box and be creative in what I want to do when there are systemic and institutional kinds of roadblocks.

So I want to help [new members of Congress] figure those out. But also, I have to tell you: They encourage me, and they give me a lot of insight, and I learn a heck of a lot from them. It goes both ways.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

2019 Kia Forte EX Quick Look

Don't Miss

COMMENTARY: Origin of Black Politics in America

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of February 11 = 17, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – February 11 – 17, 2026

Published

6 days ago

February 16, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Advice

Rising Optimism Among Small And Middle Market Business Leaders Suggests Growth for California

“Business leaders across the Pacific region continue to demonstrate a unique blend of resilience and forward-thinking, even in the face of ongoing economic uncertainty,” said Brennon Crist, Managing Director and Head of the Pacific Segment, Commercial Banking, J.P. Morgan. “Their commitment to innovation and growth is evident in the way they adapt to challenges and seize new opportunities. It’s this spirit that keeps our region at the forefront of business leadership and progress. We look forward to helping our clients navigate all that’s ahead in 2026.”

Published

1 week ago

February 14, 2026

Oakland Post

Super Scout / E+ with Getty Images.

Sponsored by JPMorganChase

Business optimism is returning for small and midsize business leaders at the start of 2026, fueling confidence and growth plans.

The 2026 Business Leaders Outlook survey, released in January by JPMorganChase reveals a turnaround from last June, when economic headwinds and uncertainty about shifting policies and tariffs caused some leaders to put their business plans on hold.

Midsize companies, who often find themselves more exposed to geopolitical shifts and policy changes, experienced a significant dip in business and economic confidence in June of 2025. As they have become more comfortable with the complexities of today’s environment, we are seeing optimism rebounding in the middle market nationwide – an encouraging sign for growth, hiring, and innovation. Small businesses, meanwhile, maintained steady optimism throughout 2025, but they aren’t shielded from domestic concerns. Many cited inflation and wage pressures as the top challenges for 2026 and are taking steps to ensure their businesses are prepared for what’s ahead.

Overall, both small and midsize business leaders are feeling more confident to pursue growth opportunities, embrace emerging technologies and, in some cases, forge new strategic partnerships. That bodes well for entrepreneurs in California. Here are a few other key findings from the Business Leaders Outlook about trends expected to drive activity this year:

Inflation remains the top concern for small business owners. Following the 2024 U.S. presidential election, many anticipated a favorable business environment. By June 2025, however, that feeling shifted amid concerns about political dynamics, tariffs, evolving regulations and global economic headwinds.
Going into 2026, 37% of respondents cited inflation as their top concern. Rising taxes came in second at 27% and the impact of tariffs was third at 22%. Other concerns included managing cash flow, hiring and labor costs.

For middle market leaders, uncertainty remains an issue. Almost half (49%) of all midsize business leaders surveyed cited “economic uncertainty” as their top concern – even with an improved outlook from a few months ago. Revenue and sales growth was second at 33%, while tariffs and labor both were third at 31%.
And tariffs are impacting businesses costs. Sixty-one percent of midsize business leaders said tariffs have had a negative impact on the cost of doing business.
Despite challenges, leaders are bullish on their own enterprises. Though the overall outlook is mixed, 74% of small business owners and 71% of middle market companies are optimistic about their company’s prospects for 2026.
Adaption is the theme. For small business owners surveyed across the U.S., responding to continuing pressures is important in 2026. Building cash reserves (47%), renegotiating supplier terms (36%) and ramping up investments in marketing and technology are among the top priorities.
Big plans are on the horizon. A majority midsized company leaders expect revenue growth this year, and nearly three out of five of (58%) plan to introduce new products or services in the coming year, while 53% look to expand into new domestic and/or international markets. Forty-nine percentsay they’re pursuing strategic partnerships or investments.

The bottom line

Rebounding optimism among U.S. business leaders at the start of the year is setting the stage for an active 2026. With business leaders looking to implement ambitious growth plans that position themselves for the future, momentum in California could be beneficial for leaders looking to launch, grow or scale their business this year.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Discrimination in City Contracts

The report was made public by Councilmember Carroll Fife, who brought it this week to the Council’s Life Enrichment Committee, which she chairs. Councilmembers, angry at the conditions revealed, unanimously approved the informational report, which is scheduled to go to an upcoming council meeting for discussion and action. The current study covers five years, 2016-2021, roughly overlapping the two tenures of Libby Schaaf, who served as mayor from January 2015 to January 2023.

Published

1 week ago

February 13, 2026

Oakland Post

Dr. Eleanor Ramsey (top, left) founder, and CEO of Mason Tillman Associates, which conducted the study revealing contract disparities, was invited by District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife (top center) to a Council committee meeting attended by Oakland entrepreneur Cathy Adams (top right) and (bottom row, left to right) Brenda Harbin-Forte, Carol Wyatt, and councilmembers Charlene Wang and Ken Houston. Courtesy photos.

Disparity Study Exposes Oakland’s Lack of Race and Equity Inclusion

Part 1

By Ken Epstein

A long-awaited disparity study funded by the City of Oakland shows dramatic evidence that city government is practicing a deeply embedded pattern of systemic discrimination in the spending of public money on outside contracts that excludes minority- and woman-owned businesses, especially African Americans.

Instead, a majority of public money goes to a disproportionate handful of white male-owned companies that are based outside of Oakland, according to the 369-page report produced for the city by Mason Tillman Associates, an Oakland-based firm that performs statistical, legal and economic analyses of contracting and hiring.

The current study covers five years, 2016-2021, roughly overlapping the two tenures of Libby Schaaf, who served as mayor from January 2015 to January 2023.

The amount of dollars at stake in these contracts was significant in the four areas that were studied, a total of $486.7 million including $214.6 million on construction, $28.6 million on architecture, and engineering, $78.9 million on professional services, and $164.6 million on goods and services.

While the city’s policies are good, “the practices are not consistent with policy,” said Dr. Eleanor Ramsey, founder and CEO of Mason Tillman Associates.

There have been four disparity studies during the last 20 years, all showing a pattern of discrimination against women and minorities, especially African Americans, she said. “You have good procurement policy but poor enforcement.”

“Most minority- and women-owned businesses did not receive their fair share of city-funded contracts,” she continued. “Over 50% of the city’s prime contract dollars were awarded to white-owned male businesses that controlled most subcontracting awards. And nearly 65% of the city’s prime contracts were awarded to non-Oakland businesses.”

As a result, she said, “there is a direct loss of revenue to Oakland businesses and to business tax in the city… There is also an indirect loss of sales and property taxes (and) increased commercial office vacancies and empty retail space.”

Much of the discrimination occurs in the methods used by individual city departments when issuing outside contracts. Many departments have found “creative” ways to circumvent policies, including issuing “emergency” contracts for emergencies that do not exist and providing waivers to requirements to contract with women- and minority-owned businesses, Ramsey said.

Many of the smaller contracts – 59% of total contracts issued – never go to the City Council for approval.

Some people argue that the contracts go to a few big companies because small businesses either do not exist or cannot do the work. But the reality is that a majority of city contracts are small, under $100,000, and there are many Black-, woman- and minority-owned companies available in Oakland, said Ramsey.

“Until we address the disparities that we are seeing, not just in this report but with our own eyes, we will be consistently challenged to create safety, to create equity, and to create the city that we all deserve,” said Fife.

A special issue highlighted in the disparity report was the way city departments handled spending of federal money issued in grants through a state agency, Caltrans. Under federal guidelines, 17.06%. of the dollars should go to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs).

“The fact is that only 2.16% of all the dollars awarded on contracts (went to) DBEs,” Ramsey said.

Speaking at the committee meeting, City Councilmember Ken Houston said, “It’s not fair, it’s not right. If we had implemented (city policies) 24 years ago, we wouldn’t be sitting here (now) waiving (policies).”

“What about us? We want vacations. We want to have savings for our children. We’re dying out here,” he said.

Councilmember Charlene Wang said that she noticed when reading the report that “two types of business owners that are consistently experiencing the most appalling discrimination” are African Americans and minority females.

“It’s gotten worse” over the past 20 years, she said. “It’s notable that businesses have survived despite the fact that they have not been able to do business with their own city.”

Also speaking at the meeting, Brenda Harbin-Forte, a retired Alameda County Superior Court judge, and chair of the Legal Redress Committee for the Oakland NAACP, said, “I am so glad this disparity study finally was made public. These findings … are not just troubling, they are appalling, that we have let these things go on in our city.”

“We need action, we need activity,” she said. “We need for the City Council and others to recognize that you must immediately do something to rectify the situation that has been allowed to go on. The report says that the city was an active or inactive or unintentional or whatever participant in what has been going on in the city. We need fairness.”

Cathy Adams, president of the Oakland African American Chamber of Commerce, said, “The report in my opinion was very clear. It gave directions, and I feel that we should accept the consultant Dr. Ramsey’s recommendations.

“We understand what the disparities are; it’s going to be upon the city, our councilmembers, and our department heads to just get in alignment,” she said.

Said West Oakland activist Carol Wyatt, “For a diverse city to produce these results is a disgrace. The study shows that roughly 83% of the city contracting dollars went to non-minority white male-owned firms under so-called race neutral policies

These conditions are not “a reflection of a lack of qualified local firms,” she continued. “Oakland does not have a workforce shortage; it has a training, local hire, and capacity-building problem.”

“That failure must be examined and corrected,” she said. “The length of time the study sat without action, only further heightens the need for accountability.”