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…
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.