Further Additional Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2023

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 567, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend and colleague from the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 567. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4346, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees.

The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Ryan, makes in order 12 amendments, provides en bloc authority for Chairwoman DeLauro or her designee, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration H.R. 4373, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees.

The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Lee, makes in order 36 amendments, provides en bloc authority for Chairwoman DeLauro or her designee, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4505, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees.

It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Cartwright, makes in order 61 amendments, provides en bloc authority for Chairwoman DeLauro or her designee, and provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise and speak in favor of critical investments that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have worked tirelessly to secure for the American people. First, I would like to congratulate Chairwoman DeLauro on her exemplary leadership in bringing us a package of legislation that we can be proud to support and as well commend Chairs Cartwright, Ryan, and Lee on their dedication to ensuring America's greatest needs are reflected in this year's appropriations bills.

The underlying package we are considering today includes fiscal year 2022 funding for the Commerce, Justice, and Science; Legislative Branch; and State and Foreign Operations appropriations bills that invest in the future of America's hardworking families and America's engagement around the globe.

These investments are more than just a commitment to our districts, they are firm action items that will help Americans throughout our country grow and heal as we emerge from this pandemic.

The Commerce-Justice-Science bill supports good-paying American jobs, fosters groundbreaking scientific research, and helps to make our communities safer. These critical programs include investments in economic development in distressed communities with support for small businesses, including small- and medium-sized American manufacturers.

This package also increases funding to address gender-based violence in our communities, supports programs to reduce gun violence, and helps us tackle the opioid crisis.

I, for one, know that my community in Rochester, New York, will benefit greatly from the priorities secured in the CJS appropriations bill, and I look forward to delivering on our promise to support safer communities with funding for local law enforcement while bolstering police and criminal justice

reform, increasing funding for community-based violence intervention initiatives, and expanding gun violence prevention efforts.

The Legislative Branch appropriations bill strengthens congressional capacity to recruit a diverse and talented workforce while investing in efforts to protect our Capitol. After hearing firsthand yesterday from the brave officers who protected all of us on January 6, it is our duty to return the favor by doing our job and showing full support for our Capitol Police force.

The insurrection on January 6 left widespread physical damage to the Capitol Complex and emotional trauma for Members, congressional employees, and Capitol Police. This measure is essential to protecting the Capitol and ensuring that we can continue to do the work of the American people. It provides funding to support training, recruitment, retention, and readiness of the Capitol Police force.

The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bills supports the world's most vulnerable with foreign assistance to meet urgent humanitarian needs, many of which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This appropriations bill will promote democracy with funding to support allies and partners of the United States, particularly to counter governments that undermine the core values of our democracy and of democracy around the world.

Additionally, it confronts climate change with funding for global efforts to reduce emissions, advances women's rights by increasing funding for family planning, increases United Nations Population Fund funding, and repeals restrictions on safe and legal abortion.

This is a package I am proud to take home to my constituents, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reflect on whom we are here to represent and support, make good on our promises to the American people, and pass this rule and these critical appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to in response, and I appreciate the comments from my friend, include in the Record a 2013 American Progress article titled, ``How the Hyde Amendment Discriminates Against Poor Women and Women of Color.''

[May 10, 2013]

How the Hyde Amendment Discriminates Against Poor Women and Women of

Color

(By Jessica Arons and Lindsay Rosenthal)

In 1973 the Supreme Court decided in the landmark case Roe

v. Wade to recognize the constitutional right to abortion for

all women. Forty years later, however, this guarantee remains

an empty promise for thousands of poor women and women of

color thanks to the Hyde Amendment, an annual appropriations

measure first passed in 1976. This provision intentionally

discriminates against poor women by prohibiting Medicaid, the

health-insurance program for low-income individuals and

families, from covering abortion care.

Because of the intersection in our country between race,

ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, this restriction also

has a disproportionate impact on women of color. Due to a

number of root causes related to inequality, women of color

are more likely to qualify for government insurance that

restricts abortion coverage, more likely to experience higher

rates of unintended pregnancy, and less likely to be able to

pay for an abortion out of pocket. The Hyde Amendment

therefore does not only undermine gender equity, but it also

violates principles of racial and economic justice.

The Hyde Amendment discriminates against poor women.

Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in order to deny poor

women access to abortion. Former Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), the

law's sponsor, admitted during the debate of his proposal

that he was targeting poor women. ``I certainly would like to

prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a

rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman,'' he said.

``Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the Medicaid

bill.''

1 in 10 women of reproductive age in the United States

relies on Medicaid for their health coverage. By prohibiting

Medicaid from covering abortion services, the Hyde Amendment

has used the primary source of health care for low-income

women to restrict access to abortion.

Poor women face significant disparities when it comes to

reproductive health. Compared with higher-income women, poor

women's rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion are each

five times as high, and their unplanned birth rate is six

times as high. These disparities are rooted in deeply

entrenched inequities in the areas of health-insurance

coverage, health care, and medically accurate sex education,

as well as other health-promoting resources.

Abortion costs between $300 and $950 in the first

trimester, making it unaffordable for poor women without

insurance coverage. In

2009 more than half of nonelderly adult women enrolled in

Medicaid had family incomes below the poverty level; one-

quarter had incomes below 50 percent of the poverty level.

The monthly income for a family of three living at half the

current poverty level is $813.75.

One in four Medicaid-qualified women who seek an abortion

is forced to carry her pregnancy to term because of cost.

Many more are forced to delay their procedure for as long as

two to three weeks while they raise money, with the costs and

risks of the procedure increasing the longer they wait.

The Hyde Amendment discriminates against women of color.

A dissenting Supreme Court opinion recognized that the Hyde

Amendment was discriminatory. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood

Marshall's dissenting opinion in Harris v. McRae noted that

the law was ``designed to deprive poor and minority women of

the constitutional right to choose abortion.''

Women of color are disproportionately poor and therefore

less likely to be able to pay out of pocket for their health

care. According to 2011 census data, 25.5 percent of African

Americans and 25 percent of Latinas are living below the

poverty level, compared to only 10.4 percent of whites and

12.2 percent of Asians. Moreover, certain groups of Asian and

Pacific Islander women face much higher poverty rates than

are reflected in the aggregate census data. For example, 67

percent, 66 percent, and 47 percent of people of Laotian,

Hmong, and Cambodian descent, respectively, live in poverty

in the United States.

Women of color are more likely to be enrolled in government

insurance. In 2011, 40.9 percent of African American females

and 36.3 percent of Latinas had government-based insurance,

including 29.2 percent and 29.6 percent participation,

respectively, in Medicaid. In contrast, 32.6 percent of white

females and 24.4 percent of Asian American females got their

insurance through a government program. While Asian and

Pacific Islander women use Medicaid at lower rates for a

variety of reasons--only 6 percent were enrolled in the

program in 2004--participation is quite high among various

subgroups. For example, 20 percent of women of Southeast

Asian descent are covered by Medicaid.

Women of color are disproportionately more likely to need

an abortion. Black women had the highest unintended pregnancy

rate of any racial or ethnic group and more than double that

of non-Hispanic white women. The unintended pregnancy rate of

Latinas is 78 percent higher than the non-Hispanic rate.

These high unintended pregnancy rates are part of the reason

women of color seek abortion at higher rates than non-

Hispanic whites. Although they represent much smaller

segments of the population as a whole, black and Latina women

comprise 30 percent and 25 percent of women who have

abortions, respectively. Data on Asian and Pacific Islander

women's utilization of health services, including abortion,

is extremely limited, but one study has shown that 35 percent

of pregnancies for Asian and Pacific Islander women end in

abortion, compared to 18 percent for non-Hispanic white

women.

These health disparities mirror other health disparities

that women of color experience. In addition to higher rates

of unintended pregnancy and abortion, women of color face

higher rates of reproductive cancers, HIV and other sexually

transmitted infections, premature births, low birth weights,

and maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. They also

encounter poorer health outcomes for diabetes, cardiovascular

disease, and obesity, among other health conditions.

Root causes of inequality drive the health disparities

women of color face. Differential access to treatment, lower

levels of respect and competency from health care providers,

lack of trust in the medical establishment, lack of accurate

information, and a host of other socioeconomic factors lead

to poorer outcomes along racial and ethnic lines for overall

health indicators, specifically with regard to reproductive

health.

The Hyde Amendment treats the rights of women in this

country according to two different standards: whether you can

afford to pay for your rights or not. That is not equality.

Mr. Speaker, I do note that in my home State of New York we have made the decision for many years to support women in poverty who seek reproductive rights.

Rights are granted to us under the Constitution. Those rights are as fundamental as any other right guaranteed to us under the Constitution, but we don't have economic tests for rights in the United States. So if you have a right, Mr. Speaker, you have a right. We don't say you have the right to free speech as long as you can pay for it. We don't suggest that the right to assemble, the right to have your grievances addressed by your government, the right to petition, the right to press or to select the religion and support the religion that you choose is subject to some kind of economic test. We believe the same should be true for reproductive rights.

So I would just say that in New York it is something that we have supported for many, many years, and we continue to urge support, public dollars for reproductive rights and for women's health, which is very much at stake, particularly in communities of color.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), who is my friend on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I do want to respond to my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma and friend from the Rules Committee as it relates to the McGirt decision. I share his concerns for the challenges being faced by the people in the State of Oklahoma. I know his amendment has been made in order. Without regard to how that vote takes place, I would love to work with him--and, I am sure, others would--to address the real concerns by the people of the State of Oklahoma. I look forward to that conversation.

I do want, before I yield to my friend, to mention that I talked, in my opening comments, about some of the things that are in the bill. I do want to highlight some of the important things in the Legislative Branch appropriations, which provides $4.8 billion, an increase of nearly 14 percent.

I mentioned earlier that we hope to build upon the emergency supplemental bill, which we passed in May, that would continue to support the Capitol Police, National Guard, et cetera. In this bill, we put money to improve training and bolster wellness support for the Capitol Police, who were attacked on January 6, and provide funding to hire up to over 2,100 sworn officers and 450 civilian members of the Capitol Police and more resources for recruitment, retention, and readiness for them.

We strengthened congressional capacity. It increases funding for congressional offices to help recruit and retain a talented and diverse staff and supports mental health and wellness for Members and staff.

We always talk about being Article I of the Constitution, and we really need to support that legislative branch and make sure we have the resources to be able to provide balanced, thoughtful support for the American public.

I wanted to highlight some of the really important things. I appreciate, certainly, Chairman Ryan and the work that he, the ranking member, and the members of that subcommittee did in getting that bill before the House and the rule that we are debating right now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), my colleague and friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to commend the previous speaker for her encouragement of all Americans to be vaccinated. We certainly want to continue to promote that message and urge everyone in the United States to be vaccinated.

Mr. Speaker, in my previous comments, I talked about the congressional and legislative appropriations.

I include in the Record a July 13 Business Insider article entitled: ``Capitol Hill staff take second jobs with Postmates, Starbucks, and J. Crew to make up for their low salaries.''

I continue to repeat that men and women who work here shouldn't struggle to make ends meet just because they have dedicated their careers to public service.

[July 13, 2021]

Capitol Hill Staff Take Second Jobs With Postmates, Starbucks, and J.

Crew to Make Up for Their Low Salaries

(By Kayla Epstein)

With no choice but to accept low pay, Capitol Hill staffers

often have to pick up second jobs.

Retail, gig-economy, and service-industry jobs are frequent

options.

Staffers told Insider the second jobs add to an already

stressful workload and lead to burnout.

The next time you order takeout in the DC area, your

delivery person might work for Congress.

Given no choice but to accept startlingly low salaries in

exchange for the privilege of working on Capitol Hill, many

interns and junior staffers to America's most powerful--and

wealthy--politicians take second jobs to survive in

Washington, DC, one of the most expensive cities in the

country.

Some staffers and interns go for gig-economy roles like

Postmates, Uber, and DoorDash, while others work as baristas

and bartenders. For those who struggle to afford a

professional wardrobe, retail jobs help provide additional

wages and a discount on clothes.

While it's common for people in the US to work second jobs

to make ends meet, civic groups and staffers say that low pay

on Capitol Hill pushes out talented staff and creates an

environment in which employees from privileged backgrounds

have an edge in building long-term careers.

``You could tell when certain people kind of came from

money and didn't have to'' work second jobs, one former

staffer to a House Republican said. ``I have some friends

that didn't need to because they came up from a wealthy

upbringing . . . They were comfortable. Others were kind of

like, `OK, yeah, I need to really do some extra jobs because

this is not livable.'''

Insider spoke to five current and former staffers who had

worked second jobs as a way to compensate for what one former

senior Democratic House aide called ``poverty wages.'' They

described exhaustion and burnout from pulling double duty,

their only days off eaten up by delivering takeout or

grabbing graveyard shifts at clothing stores. Some spoke on

the condition of anonymity because they feared losing their

jobs or hurting their careers by speaking out.

``It's tough for the normal traditional staffer because

that is easily a 50- to 60-hour week,'' said one former House

and Senate aide who started out at $27,000 a year and had to

take a second job at apparel company J.Crew.

When you add on the additional hours for a second job, he

said, ``you just burn yourself out to stay afloat.''

Do you have a tip about Capitol Hill workplace issues to

share? Bad bosses, toxic offices, or questionable behavior

toward congressional staffers? Insider is continuing to cover

Congress as a workplace.

An open secret

The fact that many congressional employees take on second

jobs has been an open secret on the Hill for years. But when

some staffers do seek outside work, they face repercussions.

Audrey Henson, who was a Republican House aide making

$25,000 before she founded the internshipplacement program

College to Congress, said she faced pushback from her manager

when she took a bartending job near the Hill.

``I would work until 2, 3 in the morning on a Tuesday,

Wednesday, Thursday night. I'd come into Congress absolutely

exhausted,'' she said of her job, which she held from 2013 to

2014.

``Whenever I was having to pick up more shifts at the bar,

and then when I ended up getting a weekend job, I was talked

to by my chief of staff about priorities,'' she told Insider.

``And he was like, `This job should be your priority.'''

``I said, quite frankly, it is. I'm only doing these other

jobs so that I can give you more,'' Henson said. ``Trust me,

this is my only priority. Those jobs allow me to afford this

job.''

She worked at Union Pub, a popular watering hole on Capitol

Hill.

``I was like, I'm up here to work in Congress, and I'm

putting in equal hours at Union Pub. There's an issue with

this picture,'' she said. ``And I wasn't alone.''

Union Pub spokesperson Sam Sanchez said that, ``pre-

pandemic, Capitol Hill staffers made up a good portion of our

staff working as part-time servers or bartenders--more than

50% at times.''

One current Democratic House staffer, who started in DC

before eventually making her way back to a district office,

worked at a law firm and a retail store to make it through

her part-time, unpaid Senate internship.

``I would do a shipment shift at like 3:30 in the morning,

go to the law firm, and go to my internship,'' she said. ``I

was working seven days a week . . . I wanted to work

somewhere I could buy work clothes because it's very

expensive.''

After her predawn store shift, ``I would leave at 7, go

catch the Metro'' to her law firm gig, she said.

As a part-time Senate intern, she didn't get any travel

benefits.

``I spent $260 a month on my Metro,'' she said.

Even after getting a full-time role with a committee, she

continued to work her $10-per-hour retail job on the weekends

to have enough spending money and afford work clothes.

``It was exhausting all the time. But in my mind it's what

I had to do for the job on the Hill,'' she said. ``I didn't

have much of a social life. I kind of missed out on a few

years of my 20s just working myself to death.''

Union Pub, a popular bar near Capitol Hill in Washington,

DC. ERIC BARADAT/AFP via Getty Images.

`I was giving up a lot'.

Other Hill veterans echoed the detrimental impact of

holding a second job while working full-time in Congress.

Instead of using weekends to recuperate from weeks of late-

night votes, political chaos, and a stressful office

environment, they had to spend their time finding ways to

make money.

The former Republican House staffer started driving for

Postmates to bolster his $30,500 salary.

``I would typically do it Friday evening, Saturday,

Sunday,'' he said. He could make about $200 to $300 a month

from Postmates but had to ``really grind to make those

numbers.''

``I was making money, to have extra money, but I was also

giving up a lot,'' he said. ``And it was just really hard

sometimes to do my second job because I wanted to go out, I

wanted to have fun, I wanted to just be lazy on a Saturday or

Sunday. I wanted just to be able to relax.''

Sometimes, the staffers said, the stress affected their

physical health, too. One current staffer told Insider that

the exhaustion of working sunrise Starbucks shifts on top of

her Hill internship made her hair fall out.

``I wasn't getting a lot of sleep. I was looking very

tired,'' she said. ``I was breaking out a lot. My hair was

not in great shape--it was thinning out.''

`They're missing out on the most talented people'.

House and Senate offices and committees have only so much

money to spend, and that allotment must fund everything,

including travel, office supplies, direct mail, and staff

salaries. Each office functions like its own business,

determining pay and the number of workers and interns. There

is no formal human resources office on Capitol Hill that can

help regulate pay for certain jobs, and the pay band system

that exists across the federal government to standardize

salaries doesn't apply to Congress.

On June 14, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and

more than 100 Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to the House

Appropriations Committee to demand an increase in the

Members' Representational Allowance, the pool of funding that

is distributed equally among all House offices.

``For years, pay and benefits for the staff of Member

offices, leadership offices, and committees have fallen

farther and farther behind what is offered in the private

sector,'' the lawmakers wrote.

A few days later, the House Appropriations Committee

released its legislative funding bill that calls for a $134

million increase to the MRA. It would also increase the

spending for intern pay and committee budgets.

But there's no guarantee that the extra money to the MRA

would go toward bolstering staff salaries. And many House

offices still don't properly use the money available for

internships, said Carlos Vera, executive director of the

advocacy group Pay Our Interns.

Low pay is simply accepted as the cost of admission into

the legislative branch, and many job candidates fear

attempting to negotiate with hiring managers because of the

scarcity of these opportunities.

But Henson, who bartended, said it's long past time for

that to change. Forcing staffers to work themselves to the

point of burnout hinders their ability to do their jobs for

the American people, she said.

``What other profession do we ask full-time professionals

to be a barista on the side?'' Henson said. ``What if you had

professional athletes leave practice every day to work at

Starbucks? Would they be winners? Would the teams be getting

the best talent? No.''

``That's what's happening in Congress,'' she added.

``They're missing out on the most talented people because

they're not paying them.''

Mr. Speaker, having talked about the legislative branch, let me take just a moment now to talk about where we are globally with this appropriations bill.

The State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee asks for an increase of more than 12 percent, an appropriation of $62 billion to support the displaced and vulnerable, rebuild public health infrastructure, confront climate change, advance women's health, and promote democracy.

If I could take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some

of these things, particularly as it relates to rebuilding the public health infrastructure.

The rule which supports the underlying bill would dramatically increase funding to confront the current COVID-19 pandemic, prevent future pandemics, and shore up gains made in global health. It includes $10.6 billion to support the health of families and communities around the world. The total includes a billion dollars for global health security to prevent future pandemics through both bilateral and multilateral mechanisms, something that is critical to stop the spread of future pandemics.

It also places a premium on confronting climate change and the climate crisis by expanding global efforts to address environmental threats and reduce emissions, with over $3 billion to address the climate crisis and other environmental programs and includes the first direct appropriations for the Green Climate Fund, to the tune of a $1.6 billion investment.

It also promotes democracy around the world, provides funding to support allies and partners of the United States with a $1.6 billion appropriation to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific and help counter the growing influence of the People's Republic of China in developing countries, something that I think people on both sides of the aisle know is a growing threat to freedom and democracy around the world. It also funds a $2.517 billion effort to increase democracy programs and provides $300 million for the National Endowment for Democracy.

For those of us who care deeply about the world in which we live and care deeply about those countries that seek to limit democratic institutions and democracy, this is welcome news and I think very, very appropriate to the American values which we hold so dear.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a moment to dive a little deeper in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriation, and thank, again, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Cartwright, for the great work that he did in getting the appropriations bill before the House.

Overall, the appropriation bill provides $81.6 billion, an increase of 14 percent, to create jobs, support safer communities, and confront the climate crisis here at home.

I would like to take just a moment to highlight some of the specifics, because it is important, as the American public observes the conversation going on here in the Congress about what our priorities are. Budgets always describe our priorities and our values.

For instance, this bill provides $25 billion, an increase of $1.77 billion for NASA, with strong funding and a total effort to gain scientific knowledge about the Earth's changing climate.

It includes $6.46 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for climate research and mitigation efforts, including improvements to weather forecasting, understanding the impact and degree of sea level rise, supporting offshore wind energy, fisheries management, and STEM education.

It fosters innovation in U.S. economic competitiveness with $9.63 billion for the National Science Foundation to support climate science and sustainable research, as well as research on artificial intelligence, quantum information science, advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, and other critical research efforts, which I might say, parenthetically, is critically important, not only for economic security, not only for the climate crisis, but for national security as we confront these threats across the globe.

In this bill we also address gender-based violence, providing $753.8 million for Violence Against Women's Act prevention and prosecution programs and includes $60 million for grants to reduce the backlog of unprocessed rape kits, which is critically important.

This bill also provides support to create good-paying jobs for Americans, including providing $10.95 billion for the Department of Commerce, an increase of $2.03 billion, with investments in economic development in distressed communities and support for small businesses, including small- and medium-sized American manufacturers, as we continue to be concerned about the supply chain and the value chain as it relates to not only competitiveness by American companies but also, again, to make sure that we support our warfighters, and to make sure the supply chain for critical components and parts is ready for the defense of our Nation.

It invests directly in our communities, with $433.1 million for the Economic Development Administration, an increase of $87 million, to boost economically recovering areas and launch innovative community development efforts, as well as $275 million for the very important Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which we utilize in my community and others across the country, and an increase of $125 million to help small- and medium-sized United States manufacturers create and preserve jobs.

Much of this will also be involved with making sure that people who have been displaced because of the pandemic economically will have opportunities to go into new industries and be trained, as well as make sure that incumbent workers continue to upgrade their skills so they can be competitive

in what is a very, very competitive global economic environment.

So I want to highlight those, Mr. Speaker. I know that I just talked about a lot of things that are not before the House, but I thought I would spend just a few moments talking about what is actually before the House and some of the critical investments that we are making in the bills that are before us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just remind folks that the Members of the House who are on the floor today are working very hard to make sure that we pass appropriations to support the American people, to create jobs, to make America safe, to make our interests around the world known.

I do want to talk a little bit about making our communities safer, because there are substantial resources in the appropriations bill to do just that, providing resources for local law enforcement who are facing a period of great challenge: $360 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants; $156.5 million for COPS hiring grants, it takes concrete actions and provides resources for meaningful police reform initiatives, including requiring recipients of Federal law enforcement funding to comply with requirements in the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act; provides $100 million for community-based violence intervention initiatives; addresses the epidemic of gun violence in the United States with $100 million to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; $40 million to incentivize States to establish or refine red flag and gun licensing laws; and $10 million to develop and expand gun buy-back and relinquishment programs.

We are working very, very hard, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to move ahead for the American people who have been through one of the most difficult times in the history of our country, in the history of the world, a pandemic which has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. We do see rising rates of infection. If you look at and do the correlation of those States who have the lowest vaccination rates, that is where the greatest numbers of those infections are occurring.

And we are working hard. We are trying to move forward an agenda that will serve all Americans from a public health perspective, from an economic recovery perspective, and how to move forward and build this country back better and make sure that all people in America, every American citizen has the right, the opportunity, the potential to meet their dreams and aspirations.

That is our work before the House, and we are not going to be distracted. We are not going to be taken down the proverbial rabbit hole. We have work to do, and that is the work before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 567, I call up

the bill (H.R. 4346) making appropriations for Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.

While this subcommittee may be small, it has a very important role. I very much appreciate the hard work and collegial attitude of all the members of this subcommittee, particularly the contributions and cooperation of our ranking member, Ms. Herrera Beutler.

This is a good bill. I am proud of this bill and I am proud that it makes a substantial investment to expand recruitment and retention of staff, prioritizes funding to expand diversity and inclusion campus- wide, and funds needed investments to support the day-to-day operations of the House so that we can support our constituents.

Included within this bill is a 21 percent increase for the Members' Representational Allowance, which covers staff, district office space, and day-to-day operations for lawmakers to best serve our constituents. This has been a priority for me as I recognize the important role of expanding pay and benefits for our staff as we strive to recruit a more diverse workforce in our offices, and then to retain these staff, instead of losing them to the private sector.

Additionally, this year's bill makes important steps in exploring other areas where we can expand benefits for staff to compete with the private sector. And so, this year's report directs the Chief Administrative Officer to conduct a benefit and retention study to look at possibilities such as tuition credits, the creation of 529 accounts, a House-wide leave policy, and childcare subsidies so that we can continue to meet the needs of existing and future staff.

It is vital that we prioritize initiatives to expand a diverse and talented workforce here on Capitol Hill. The report provides an additional $350,000 to establish a task force within CAO to include the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, and any other House office as may be necessary, to develop a methodology for regularly surveying the House workforce on pay and benefit issues, to provide guidance and support for the content and development of a centralized human resources hub and to make policy recommendations.

Additionally, while the bill continues the prohibition of cost-of- living adjustment increases for Members, in order to ascertain all the facts on this issue we also require the CAO to provide a report comparing Members' pay with executive and managers' pay in the private sector who have similar levels of experience and responsibility.

In a year full of trauma and hurt, with the apex being the insurrection on January 6, our human resources entities within the Capitol complex have adapted to the evolving and increasing mental health needs of our campus. The bill includes $2.3 million, a $635,000 increase for the Office of Employee Assistance, and a $1.7 million allocation for the Office of Well-Being to ensure that people here on Capitol Hill have the resources to support the needs of our community and to fund culturally

sensitive mental health services so everyone feels comfortable seeking the support they need.

We have also included $2 million for the House Modernization Initiatives account to build off last year's efforts to make Congress more effective, efficient, and transparent on behalf of the American people.

Second, the bill provides $15.4 million to expand the paid internship program. This will increase the amount to $35,000 per Member office to pay interns. We have also extended this funding to committees, and continue to support these funds being used for interns both in D.C. and in district offices.

We want to make sure that any citizen in this country, any young person in this country who wants to come to Washington, D.C., is able to do that. We are trying to eliminate those economic barriers so that people can come here and get the experience they need to improve their lot in life, and to serve their country.

But we also recognize the ongoing inequities in congressional internships, so we included language directing the Office of Diversity and Inclusion working in conjunction with the Chief Administrative Office to conduct a feasibility study on recreating a centralized House internship program--similar to the old LBJ intern program from many years ago--which could provide various support services, such as housing, training, professional development, and focus outreach on students attending historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions. I believe this is a vital step for us to create a pipeline for students from all backgrounds, all economic areas, to come and work on Capitol Hill.

The bill also includes $3 million for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and directs the CAO to increase their staff cap from 7 to 10 staffers to allow them the additional workers that they need.

Additionally, once again, this year's bill includes language to permit DACA recipients, Dreamers, to be able to work for Congress and other legislative branch agencies.

Turning to other legislative branch agencies, the bill provides strong support for the security and operational needs of the House and surrounding Capitol complex.

H.R. 4346 includes $600 million for the Capitol Police, which is an almost $90 million increase above the fiscal year 2021 bill. This provides vital resources for training, recruitment, retention, and readiness efforts. This funding will provide for a total of 2,112 sworn officers.

Additionally, this continues to build off previous efforts in ensuring a robust trauma and resiliency program for our sworn and civilian officers. This is an extremely important investment as they continue to heal from the events of January 6 and Good Friday. And we saw further testimonials yesterday in the hearing as to why exactly this investment is needed.

The bill includes an increase of $37 million from 2021 for the Library of Congress, as it is this subcommittee's duty to protect the valuable collections and preserve the Library's ability to chronicle this great Nation and provide access to our history for generations to come.

And it includes $3.8 million to continue the Library's work on the Veterans History Project to collect and preserve the personal accounts of American war veterans.

The bill also increases funding for the Architect of the Capitol over 2021 by $152 million to address necessary construction activities, such as the Cannon Office Building renovation. Also included are various other provisions to ensure the Capitol Visitor Center and Capitol complex are accessible for individuals with disabilities and all visitors who wish to tour the Capitol or meet with their Members of Congress.

And, finally, the bill includes language for the removal of statues or busts in the Capitol of those who tried to overthrow the Government of the United States or were white supremacists.

Before I finish, I would like to recognize the staff for all their hard work and time they have put into this bill. From the majority committee staff, I would like to thank my clerk, Steve Marchese and Rachel Jenkins from my personal office. From the minority committee staff, I would like to thank Michelle Reinshuttle. And, again, to the Chair of the full committee, Rosa DeLauro, Ranking Member Kay Granger, and Ms. Herrera Beutler. This was a great team effort to put this thing together, and we are proud to submit it to the body today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the chair of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Just a quick response, Mr. Speaker.

We have passed a bill, the rescue package, that sent billions of dollars to the local communities to pay for police, fire, and first responders, State support for teachers. We passed a supplemental bill out of this Chamber that reimbursed the National Guard and made huge investments into the Capitol Police. In both instances, we didn't get one Republican vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

This is a good bill, and we have put a lot of work into this bill. The essence of the Legislative Branch appropriations bill is an understanding that everybody that works on Capitol Hill is a public servant.

The Capitol Police, those on the dais, the people who clean the offices, the people who do all of the construction, the young staffers, the middle-age staffers, the older staffers have spent sometimes decades trying to make this government run and help this government run.

This bill is an opportunity for us to continue to invest into those people, making sure that they can stay here, they can work here, they have competitive wages, competitive benefits compared to the executive branch, compared to the judicial branch, compared to the private sector; and also knowing and understanding that we have an obligation to protect this Capitol.

That is what we have done in this bill. We have made increases to Members' allowances so that they can maintain their staff and the talent that they have. We are making sure that we have a paid internship program here so that some young person from Youngstown, Ohio, or some small town or city across the United States can actually take advantage of the opportunity to stay for a summer or semester in one of the most expensive housing markets in the whole United States.

I am very proud of the investments we are making in this bill. I am proud of all of the efforts to protect this Capitol, the first branch of our democracy, and I am very much looking forward to voting on this. This will provide the needed funding for the day-to-day operations of the House. I urge all Members of this body to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 567, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

The amendments en bloc include a number of proposals offered by my Democratic colleagues. It reflects our shared values of investing in a more diverse congressional workforce, strengthening the legislative branch, and providing for the day-to-day operations of the House.

I urge my colleagues to support the important proposals contained in this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close on this bill, but since my name was invoked, I want to make a couple of comments to what the minority leader was saying, maybe much to the chagrin of staff who is here.

Fear, fear, fear. The Attending Physician of the United States Capitol, the top doctor for Congress, asked us to put on masks when we come to a Chamber with 435 people. I hate these things. It is absolutely terrible having to put this back on. We do it because the top doctor for all of us asked us to.

I may not be from a hotspot. The Speaker may not be from a hotspot. Speaker Pelosi may not be from a hotspot. Somebody in this Chamber is coming from a hotspot. Somebody represents the hotspots. They get in a plane, and they fly here, and they interact with all of us. Then, we leave here, and we go home to our families. Some take care of their sick parents. Some take care of kids who may have an autoimmune disorder.

I find it absolutely immature and appalling to somehow diminish it to try to score cheap, political points. That is exactly what we saw a few minutes ago. That is beneath a minority leader of one of the major political parties in the United States of America, saying we should take no caution that someone from a hotspot is working in this Chamber and could potentially get someone infected that could go home to a sick parent or an immunocompromised kid.

That is beneath us, and it is certainly beneath leadership here in Washington, D.C.

I am sorry, I had to comment on that because it is very frustrating. We are dealing with a complicated pandemic, a new strain, and we are trying to figure everything out.

The Attending Physician says, since you are a group from all over the country, be a little bit cautious. And he gets mocked. This is the doctor we all go to. You are denigrating the Attending Physician? Has it gotten this bad here? We will be the first ones to go down there when we are sick, need an antibiotic, or to get a checkup.

I mean, come on. Stop. Just stop with this craziness. We are trying to be safe. We are trying to protect our family members, our kids, our parents, close relatives.

The minority leader mocks that and mocks the top doctor, who has a very distinguished record and a very distinguished career and spends his life making sure we are healthy. It is shameful.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

The amendments en bloc include a number of proposals by my colleagues. This is a bipartisan amendment.

It includes funding to prioritize the removal of accessibility barriers on the Capitol complex, conduct a study on security risks and technical limitations of the Capitol switchboard system, and provides for a collaborative drafting program to help Members' offices work better with the House Office of Legislative Counsel.

I urge my colleagues to support the important proposals contained in this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 567, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I have offered this en bloc for purposes of legislative efficiency. I strongly oppose it.

This amendments en bloc makes severe and harmful changes to the bill under consideration. This amendment would strike language that will enable noncitizens who meet requirements under DACA to be employed by the United States Congress and to cut funding from the Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

Let's address the first point around DACA.

This is allowing Dreamers to work for the legislative branch. I can't figure out for the life of me why the minority would like to refuse the American Dream to people who came to the United States as children, for people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans.

I have met these recipients, these Dreamers, and they have personally told me their stories. I encourage each of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk with a Dreamer, to listen to their stories. It is absolutely heartbreaking. They have done absolutely nothing wrong.

They were brought to this country by no choice of their own. Their parents brought them here. The United States is their home. They have built their lives here, whether that means getting an education, raising a family, or contributing to our economy.

We are a generous and compassionate Nation always looking to form a more perfect Union, a country that has empathy for a struggling family in a new country, in a country that lifts up our younger generation so that they can have a better future.

The vast majority of Americans overwhelmingly support allowing these young people to continue their relentless pursuit of the American Dream because they knew in their hearts that they are American. As Americans, there is no better place for them to continue to serve their country than here in the United States House of Representatives, the people's House. To deny them this opportunity is about the most un-American thing we could do here today.

Madam Speaker, again, their parents brought them here, and they have been here for years and years and years. They should have an opportunity to give back to this country.

Madam Speaker, I am opposed, on the second point, to decreasing funding for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion by $1.5 million.

The Office of Diversity and Inclusion is committed to maintaining a diverse and inclusive workforce in the House of Representatives. Their mission is to assist in developing practices to recruit and retain a diverse workforce.

I am proud of this year's bill. It provides $3 million for the office in fiscal year 2022 and increases their staff cap from 7 to 10. The $1.5 million in additional funding for 2022 and expanding staff cap would give them the needed funding to support ongoing operations while providing additional flexibility to expand their work.

Additionally, this increase in funding will enable ODI to implement various other provisions that are included in the Legislative Branch bill, such as assisting the Chief Administrative Officer in the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights to establish a task force about the workforce in the House.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this task force will develop a methodology for regularly serving the House workforce on pay and benefits issues and provide guidance to us on how we could create a centralized human resources hub to improve human resource management practices throughout the House.

Finally, this increase in funds will allow the Office of Diversity and Inclusion to conduct a feasibility study on re-creating a centralized House internship program. We have citizens in this country, young students--White, Black, Brown--who can't afford to come here to work. They can't afford to get an internship here. They work hard, do everything right, try to climb the ladder. We want to provide opportunity.

This money will help reach out to those people and bring them into the legislative branch to give them the experience they need, the contacts they need to develop, the education that they need to move forward.

Madam Speaker, I am proud of what we have in this bill, and I will oppose this amendment. It is vital we prioritize initiatives to promote diversity and the opportunity for people from all over the country to come work in the legislative branch and intern in the legislative branch.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this amendments en bloc, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, first, let me commend Chairman Ryan for his cooperation on this bill. He has worked in good faith with me and my staff to include requests in this bill every step of the way, and I really appreciate it. I think it is a good model for the rest of how Congress should work, and I would work with him anytime. I want to say thank you to his staff and to the staff under Chairwoman DeLauro, Steve Marchese. I want to thank my staff, Michelle Reinshuttle for getting us to this point, although, I don't believe we are quite there yet. I am going to explain why.

Madam Speaker, I have to rise in opposition to H.R. 4346, the fiscal year 2022 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. This bill does include some provisions that I support, including critically needed funding to address the requirements of the Capitol complex.

It provides funding that allows Members and our staff to better serve our constituents by providing better software to improve the accessibility of casework forms that our offices use to help constituents resolve problems and issues with Federal agencies. It implements measures to increase staff retention, and it allows offices to acquire new technologies to strengthen the protection and productivity of our IT infrastructure.

This bill also supports the critical mission of the Capitol Police by providing funding for additional personnel to replenish their really depleted ranks, new leadership training initiatives, and additional resources so they can continue to protect Members, staff, and visitors who come and occupy the Halls of Congress on a daily basis.

In the aftermath of an incredibly difficult and challenging year for the men and women of the Capitol Police, these measures are really an important step toward improving the police force.

However, Madam Speaker, while there are many parts of this bill that I do support, this bill, like the others that the majority has put forward, is based on what I believe is a flawed fiscal foundation. The majority is forging ahead with massive increases to nondefense spending. The bill we are considering today includes a nearly 13 percent increase over current levels. I am going to explain why that in context creates some problems. At a time of record high deficits and debt, we need, I believe, a more measured fiscal response.

In addition, the majority has also included controversial policy riders that our side of the aisle opposes. With the approach that the majority is taking with this bill--and really all of them in the appropriations packages we are considering here today--we are on the path to yet another continuing resolution. If we are to break this cycle, our majority counterparts need to be more willing to work with the minority on all the bills to create a more bipartisan support that garners more of a bipartisan thumbs up.

Furthermore, the majority has not put forward any of the Capitol Police reforms to the board that governs the Capitol Police or its leadership structure, and that is a real sticking point, Madam Speaker. Including funding to hire more officers and to get more equipment is a necessary step. I would go to bat for that any day of the week. We will never see lasting improvement to the operation of the force or officer morale without these necessary reforms. We are going to continue to see the erosion of the force until those changes are made.

As we grapple with the trillions in new spending that the majority has passed and is proposing already 6

months into this year, I want to emphasize this point, we must course correct now rather than wait until our Nation has passed the point of no return. The Democrat majority got out of the gates by pushing through a $1.9 trillion package that includes bailouts for States like California that were already raking in billions more in State revenue than was previously forecast.

My colleagues across the aisle and this administration are insisting on using reconciliation to force through $4 trillion more on a gigantic wish list.

For perspective, the spending I outlined is above and beyond the normal congressional appropriations. Specifically, it is nearly four times what the Democrats are proposing to spend on this and these appropriations bills that we are considering.

Last year when the entire Nation was grappling with COVID-related shutdowns, when hospitals were down to their last box of surgical gloves, and Congress had to step in to make sure that our health system and our communities didn't collapse, those were needed dollars. But we should not make the mistake that national emergencies like the COVID pandemic should green-light and invite further spending that is going to usher in record inflation, trillions more in debt, and, honestly, a reckless increase in spending.

I fear that some here are simply not aware of how spiking the prices are of food, of gas, and of other everyday items impacting families. Unbridled spending brings on the kind of inflation that increases prices exponentially. When we talk about saddling the next generation with crushing debt, we are talking about your kids, Madam Speaker, my kids, and their grandkids, and they are going to have to pay for these decisions.

I believe that we can do better. The funding increases in this bill I think are going to fuel that fire. I think we need to recalibrate.

Madam Speaker, for all these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), who is the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak on the motion to recommit that the gentleman from Arkansas offered. I know it sounds like, with the majority, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I think that there are a lot of good things in this bill that I support. But the biggest challenge for me, having spent this year, like the rest of us, trying to help our families, our constituents move on through COVID, help our small businesses survive, and then starting off this year in the manner that we did and recognizing the impact on not just the Capitol campus, but the men and women who protect us, the Capitol Police, I really feel like in this bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations, there needed to be some significant reforms to some of the failures in response that we experienced.

Now, I know that there are other efforts, not related to this bill, that are looking at other actors, other players. I am setting all of that aside because I don't have control over that. But I do have a say here, with my voting card, on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill.

What is frustrating to me--and I heard, you know, my good friend from

Ohio and the Speaker mention: Well, we did this supplemental and put all of this other stuff in here for the Capitol Police. Well, there are things that were left out of that supplemental that are so crucially significant to reforms that will help prevent another January 6, and they are in the motion to recommit.

Let me explain a couple of those. One of those that we have in the Republican motion to recommit is a reform to the Capitol Police Board. We know that there was a major failure and breakdown in communication on the Capitol Police Board, which inhibited the response, the coordinated, collective response of the law enforcement here.

Talk to any police officer who bravely defended us, and they will tell you that they weren't getting clear directives in their headpieces. They will tell you that the coordination effort from the leadership broke down, and they were doing everything they could on the front lines themselves. So a rational response to that would be: Why did that break down and what can we do to fix it?

One of those things is to provide oversight, congressional oversight, over that Capitol Police Board by requiring that board, who made those decisions, who left a lot of our police officers on their own, to meet together in front of congressional committees, the committees of oversight.

As it stands now, we can't get the entire police board together in one room for a hearing. The gentleman and I--on Legislative Branch appropriations--we got to meet with different members of the police board in different hearings at different times. It was helpful. But to really correct the problem--and when you ask each of them: Where was your failing on January 6? They all do this--or they did this. There are now new actors in there.

But I look at the function of that board, and I think, okay, common sense would be to put the Architect of the Capitol, the two Sergeants at Arms, and the Capitol Police chief all on a witness panel in front of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee or the House Administration Committee or the Senate Rules Committee.

That wasn't in your supplemental, that is not in this Legislative Branch appropriations bill, or in any of President Biden's rescue plans. We do throw a lot of money at it, but we are not fixing a structural, fundamental problem that helped complicate our response.

Our motion to recommit fixes that. It simply changes the language, and it requires them to come before the committees of jurisdiction together and answer questions of oversight capacity from Members of Congress. That is a simple fix. It shouldn't be partisan. It is not in the underlying bill, and it should be. Our motion to recommit does that.

Another thing that we do in our motion to recommit to improve the underlying bill is, we require an improved and streamlined response, and we give that authority to the Capitol Police chief to call in the National Guard on a quick, developing emergency.

One of the things that we heard in the aftermath of January 6 was he said, she said. I called them in, they said they couldn't come. This person said they couldn't come. I mean, we just got very convoluted responses into why the National Guard wasn't here quickly.

Again, I recognize there are other efforts looking into other actors on that front. I am not getting into that. What I am talking about is what we have control over right here.

The underlying Legislative Branch bill does not improve that streamline process. In fact, it leaves in place the process whereby the chief of police has to go through this bureaucratic, arcane process to get permission from every member of that board before they can respond to an immediate emergency and request the National Guard. Well, that was part of the problem on January 6.

Our motion to recommit fixes that. It says that the Capitol Police chief, in an emergency, a quick, developing emergency, can call in the National Guard and have the authority to request them to come. It also has a failsafe in there that says, if the Capitol Police Board gets their act together and meets quickly and sees the issue differently, they can rescind that authority. But what it does, it is an opt-in. Automatically, the police chief has authority to call in the reserves when there is an emergency.

Just like you see where a chief in a major metropolitan area has the authority to call in things, and then they are accountable to the mayor or to the city council, but they have that authority. Right now the Capitol Police chief doesn't have that authority, that was a problem on January 6. Unfortunately, if this bill passes as it is, it will still be a problem today, 7 months later.

Again, there are things in the underlying bill that I like and support, but it is like having the salt for your steak, but you don't actually have the beef. You have got to have that sizzling steak and you add the salt to it and it is a wonderful meal. That is how I look at this.

We do want to put the money forward to make sure that we are adding to the force and we are putting in training programs and that is in this underlying bill. Those are good things. But we have to change the fundamental flaws with how the Capitol Police Board operates.

This is the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. This is the appropriate place. I would have yielded if the House Administration Committee wanted to do that. Had they done it, you wouldn't hear me piping up about it, but they haven't. It needs to be done so that we are taking responsibility for failures here on our campus that we can correct. So I urge adoption of the motion to recommit.

One more thing that I think is really significant, and this is where I differ from the gentleman from Maryland, who I also have great respect for, is the underlying bill talks about pay and making sure that we are adding more police officers to the force. I am there every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The problem is, they are going to hit a cap.

So when a police officer, which we saw in January, February, March, they would work their regular hours, and then because they were short- staffed and there weren't enough officers on the force, they would be called to work overtime. They are accruing that overtime, and at some point, they will have earned too much money to get paid all of it because there is a cap in law that says they can only make so much.

The underlying bill does not fix that cap. However, our motion to recommit does. Our motion to recommit removes that cap so that those officers who are owed that overtime, because they worked their tails off weeks on end, will be able to get that pay and not risk being furloughed as we get to the end of the year.

Again, there are good things in the underlying bill, but it is not quite good enough. We can make it better. We can make it better by adopting the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing.

Again, I just want to say it has been a privilege to be in this process.

You know, it is ironic to me, because the Legislative Branch appropriations bill is generally one that significantly only impacts the Capitol community. I serve an amazing district in southwest Washington, 2,500-plus miles away from this campus. Generally, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill isn't high on their radar, until this year, until we saw that there are events and there are actors who we are going to have to protect against.

We are going to have to protect the guests and the visitors. This is the people's House, and I want the people from my district to have the right and the trust to come here and feel safe, to be able to have their voices heard. That is why this bill went from kind of being one that most people didn't pay attention to, to a lot more attention, a lot more front and center.

It is such an honor and privilege to get to work on this because I believe, in a very strong spirit of bipartisanship, we can make sure that we are lifting up and girding up the Capitol Police force, making sure that the Sergeant at Arms is working together

with the Architect of the Capitol to ensure the safety and continuity of the work of the people's House.

This is the Constitution in action. It is a privilege to get to work on this. I think that we can improve this underlying bill. I think that we need to adopt the motion to recommit. I think we need to introduce some of these ideas so that we can stave off a continuing resolution in the eleventh hour.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the motion to recommit, and in its absence, I do believe we need to send this bill back in order to get it completely right. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendments.

Madam Speaker, I specifically call out the gentleman from Rhode Island's amendment. It increases funding by $3.5 million for the Capitol Grounds account, and it is offset within the bill. The intent of these funds is to be used to prioritize the removal of accessibility barriers on the Capitol complex.

I am thrilled about this amendment. Parts of this building and the surrounding complex were built over 100 years ago, so, obviously, there are accessibility issues that today we are saying we are going to remove those barriers.

I commend both of the bipartisan amendments in the amendments en bloc. I urge Members to please support it. I think this does good work.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 567, I call up the bill (H.R. 4373) making appropriations for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, to present the fiscal year 2022 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill for the first time as chairwoman of this critically important subcommittee. Indeed, it is an honor to be entrusted with the responsibility of managing the SFOPS bill which has been a key component of United States foreign policy since World War II.

The resources provided in this bill are based on the fundamental generosity of the American people, but they also protect and advance our national security, economic prosperity, and global leadership. I commend the Biden-Harris administration and our chair, Rosa DeLauro, for recognizing the importance of the State and Foreign Operations budget, and I urge my colleagues to follow suit by supporting this bill.

With unprecedented levels of human suffering and so many complicated challenges around the world, the bill rightfully increases funding for global health and the prevention of future pandemics and for migration, refugee, and disaster assistance, and continues our support for key allies and partner organizations such as the United Nations. These are just a few of many ways the SFOPS bill meets urgent humanitarian needs, many of which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID pandemic has caused significant economic and social harm. That is why the development investments in this bill are especially crucial as we strive to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, including eliminating extreme poverty, achieving an AIDS-free generation, and supporting efforts to build inclusive, equitable, and accountable societies for everyone.

Now, let me address directly some of the questions I have heard about what the SFOPS bill does and does not include.

To my friends who focus, as I do, on women's global health, the fiscal year 2022 SFOPS bill substantially increases funding for bilateral family planning for the first time in a decade to $760 million, which is an $185 million increase over last year. It also more than doubles our contribution to UNFPA to $70 million, which we know was completely cut off and politically scapegoated during the previous administration.

Just as important, the bill does not include previous years' policy riders like the harmful Helms amendment and the global gag rule which only served to undercut our programs' effectiveness and ability to provide women, especially women of color, around the world with comprehensive healthcare.

To our friends committed to fighting the climate crisis, this year's SFOPS bill provides a $1.6 billion contribution to the Green Climate Fund, which is the first direct appropriation that this House has provided for the fund. Along with an additional $1.4 billion for our other environmental programs, this bill invests $3 billion to combat the climate crisis which will help ensure that the United States resumes its leadership in this global fight and work in partnership with other countries.

To my friends who have requested increased funding for our own hemisphere, this year's bill includes a 25 percent increase for the Caribbean, including $10 million in new funding for projects in the Caribbean to promote inclusive economic growth.

The bill also includes $350 million more than last year for assistance to Central America, which is urgently needed in the Northern Triangle, to address the root causes of migration and to help combat corruption and impunity which are so endemic among local government officials. We all have met and are haunted by the experiences that migrants have conveyed to us despite all the odds about their dangerous journey across Mexico. We must do better so that the United States border is not their last and best hope for survival. That is why the House bill makes targeted investments in local communities through trusted NGOs while holding national governments accountable.

The bill also provides critical support for vulnerable communities in Africa and upholds our abiding commitments to the security of our allies, such as Israel, Jordan, Ukraine, and Colombia. Many of our partners continue to struggle with growing economic challenges at home resulting from conflicts in their region, migration, and the impact of

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), our very distinguished chair who serves for the first time this year as the chair of the Appropriations Committee and has done a phenomenal job in helping us get this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey and read a section of this bill.

It says: ``None of the funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts may be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, directly supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization: Provided, That any determination made pursuant to this paragraph must be made not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and must be accompanied by the evidence and criteria utilized to make the determination: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion.''

Finally, I will just say that Hart Research recently conducted a poll of Americans across the political spectrum and found that over 60 percent of the American public supports reproductive freedom for women.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), who serves as a very valued member of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee and has had tremendous input into this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, let me just say, in responding to Mr. Smith, it is really long overdue to stop partisan attempts to scapegoat and score political points over UNFPA.

The fact remains that UNFPA vigorously opposes any and all coercive practices and only supports access to safe and voluntary family planning. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply false.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the resources and programs in this bill which provide us the unique opportunity to restore America's global leadership that has been missing in recent years.

Together we can address the greatest challenges facing the United States and provide vital support to the world's most vulnerable people.

I want to take a minute to just thank our staffs on both sides of the aisle. As a former staffer, I know how these bills get put together, the length of time that they put in, and the real forthright and straight-up honest negotiations, given our differences. I think the bill is a very good bipartisan bill, and I think it is, in many respects, due to our staffs' relationships and their respect for each other.

I specifically want to mention Craig Higgins and Erin Kolodjeski, Jason Wheelock, Jean Kwon, Marin Stein, Clelia Alvarado, Lacy Kilraine, Greg Adams, of course, in my office and Julie Nickson, Susan Adams, Jamie McCormick, John Muscolini, and all of the members of our staffs that haven't been mentioned, because I know a heck of a lot goes into this in terms of our support staff day and night and for their diligence and their brilliance and their respect for the process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3473. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHenry. Mr. Speaker, this year's State/Foreign Operations appropriations bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in IMF giveaways to China, Russia, and state sponsors of terrorism. It's an abomination that the spending bill which funds our foreign policy priorities writes massive checks for America's adversaries.

Under this legislation, the Treasury Department would be required to support an allocation of more than one-and-a half trillion Special Drawing Rights (SDR)--trillion with a T. These SDRs represent no- strings-attached liquidity that will be lavished on some of the worst regimes in the world.

The Democrats' bill would send over $140 billion in hard currency to the Chinese government to use as it wishes. Russia would get its hands on nearly $60 billion. State sponsors of terrorism like Iran and Syria would find themselves with more than $17 billion in support that they can use to kill civilians and destabilize the world, while Venezuela and Belarus would receive billions more.

Like last year, House Democrats have included these dollars for dictators in the base text of this bill so that it can't be struck. They're so ashamed of financing America's adversaries that they don't want to require their Members' votes on this issue to be public. Perhaps they suspect that their Members don't want billions in hard currency going to the Chinese Communist Party, Vladimir Putin, and the ayatollahs.

There are responsible ways to help the world address the COVID-19 pandemic without showering billions on genocidal regimes and other human rights abusers--this is not it.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 567, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of amendments en bloc No. 1 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for these amendments. Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), our ranking member. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I reiterate my support for the amendment, and urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 567, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to amendments en bloc No. 2, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment includes changes to the bill that I believe would be counterproductive, and I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of amendments en bloc No. 3. Let me first thank my colleagues for raising these important issues.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me just say I am very proud of the resources and programs in this bill,

which provide us the unique opportunity to restore America's global leadership that has been missing in recent years.

Together, we can address the greatest challenges facing the United States and provide vital support to the world's most vulnerable people.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments en bloc and the underlying bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 4373, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2022, which incorporates Jackson Lee Amendments Nos. 15, 16, and 17.

I thank the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order and State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chair DeLauro for including them in this En Bloc Amendment.

Jackson Lee Amendments No. 15 and No. 16 have been approved several times by the relevant subcommittee, made in order by the Rules Committee, and adopted by the full House; Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17, while being offered for the first time, makes a very important contribution to the health and safety of the global community.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 will designate $1,000,000 to combat the trafficking of endangered species.

The amendment makes a good bill better by providing a $1 million focus to combat the transportation of the remains of endangered species, to confront the transport of the remains of killed endangered species.

The brutal killing of Cecil the lion after being lured off a protected preserve was an indication that we needed to do more to protect endangered species at risk of being killed.

At that time, I introduced and sought the support of my colleagues as original cosponsors of my legislation, Cecil the Lion Endangered and Threatened Species Act of 2015.

This bill sought to strengthen partner countries' capacity in , countering wildlife trafficking and designating major wildlife countries for protection.

The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 is again offered in the same spirit: to prohibit the taking and transportation of any endangered and threatened species as a trophy to the United States.

Currently, the Endangered Species Act does not protect most wildlife animals killed. At this point, we can choose to make wise decisions that will sustain the global population, or we can ignore the warning signs.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 is one that the House has strongly supported in the past because it would bring greater awareness and protection to these beautiful and vital populations that are too often taken for granted, by allowing this amendment to address the senseless trafficking in trophy killings of all endangered and threatened species.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 15 provides funds to be allocated for Global Health Programs to the fight against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation.

I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women.

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.

Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.

For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C, annually.

The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetric fistula, complications during childbirth and death.

Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion.

According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 15 prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end.

Finally, I thank the Rules Committee for making in order, and Chairwoman Lee for including in this En Bloc Amendment, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17, which increases and decreases the Global Health Programs fund by $1,000,000 to emphasize the national commitment for USAID to provide unused vaccines that would otherwise be destroyed to countries in need around the world.

Increasing the availability to those countries in need of superfluous but life-saving vaccines is what a great nation does; not only is it the right thing to do, but it also builds goodwill and rebuilds important global relations that were ruptured by the previous Administration.

With the spread of Covid-19 variants on the rise, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17 will help our neighbors in this hemisphere, and our friends and allies around the world cope with this ongoing global public health crisis.

I urge all members to vote for the En Bloc Amendment and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4373, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2022.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 4373, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2022, which incorporates Jackson Lee Amendments Nos. 15, 16, and 17.

I thank the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order and State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chair DeLauro for including them in this En Bloc Amendment.

Jackson Lee Amendments No. 15 and No. 16 have been approved several times by the relevant subcommittee, made in order by the Rules Committee, and adopted by the full House; Jackson Lee Amendment #17, while being offered for the first time, makes a very important contribution to the health and safety of the global community.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 will designate $1,000,000 to combat the trafficking of endangered species.

The amendment makes a good bill better by providing a $1 million focus to combat the transportation of the remains of endangered species, to confront the transport of the remains of killed endangered species.

The brutal killing of Cecil the lion after being lured off a protected preserve was an indication that we needed to do more to protect endangered species at risk of being killed.

At that time, I introduced and sought the support of my colleagues as original cosponsors of my legislation, Cecil the Lion Endangered and Threatened Species Act of 2015.

This bill sought to strengthen partner countries' capacity in countering wildlife trafficking and designating major wildlife countries for protection.

The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 is again offered in the same spirit: to prohibit the taking and transportation of any endangered and threatened species as a trophy to the United States.

Currently, the Endangered Species Act does not protect most wildlife animals killed. At this point, we can choose to make wise decisions that will sustain the global population, or we can ignore the warning signs.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 is one that the House has strongly supported in the past because it would bring greater awareness and protection to these beautiful and vital populations that are too often taken for granted, by allowing this amendment to address the senseless trafficking in trophy killings of all endangered and threatened species.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 15 provides funds to be allocate funds provided for Global Health Programs to the fight against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation.

I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women.

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.

Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.

For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C, annually.

The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetric fistula, complications during childbirth and death.

Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion.

According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad.

Jackson Lee Amendment #15 prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end.

Finally, I thank the Rules Committee for making in order, and Chairwoman Lee for including in this En Bloc Amendment, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17, which increases and decreases the Global Health Programs fund by $1,000,000 to emphasize the national commitment for USAID provide unused vaccines that would otherwise be destroyed to countries in need around the world.

Increasing the availability to those countries in need of superfluous but life-saving vaccines is what a great nation does; not only is the right thing to do, but it also builds goodwill and rebuilds important global relations that were ruptured by the previous Administration.

With the spread of Covid-19 variants on the rise, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17 will help our neighbors in this hemisphere, and our friends and allies around the world cope with this ongoing global public health crisis.

I urge all members to vote for the En Bloc Amendment and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4373, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2022.