[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H4095-H4104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4346, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4373, 
     DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4505, 
 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2022

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 567, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 567

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4346) making 
     appropriations for Legislative Branch for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees; (2) the further amendments described in section 2 
     of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in 
     section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the 
     chair of the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to 
     offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 4.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.

[[Page H4096]]

       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House 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. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment printed in part C of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees; (2) the further amendments described in section 6 
     of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in 
     section 7 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6.  After debate pursuant to section 5 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part D of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 7 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 7.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to section 5 of this resolution for the chair of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part D of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 8.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part D of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 7 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 9.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4505) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, 
     Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2022, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment printed in part E of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees; (2) the further amendments described in section 10 
     of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in 
     section 11 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 10.  After debate pursuant to section 9 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part F of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 11 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 11.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to section 9 of this resolution for the chair of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part F of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 12.  All points of order against the further 
     amendments printed in part F of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules or amendments en bloc described in section 11 of 
     this resolution are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. MORELLE. 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. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORELLE. 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

[[Page H4097]]

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. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
and my friend from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of 
three appropriations measures for fiscal year 2022. I first would like 
to start off by thanking Chair DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger and 
their committee staff for their tireless work on these measures. It is 
truly an honor to be part of the appropriations process on the 
committee, and I am very grateful for their efforts.
  Unfortunately, though, Mr. Speaker, like the package of seven funding 
measures considered yesterday, the majority marked these three bills to 
unworkable 302(b) allocations, and the package before us today stands 
absolutely no chance of becoming law.
  Collectively, these three bills provide for $147 billion in spending, 
which is a 13 percent increase from fiscal year 2021.
  Overall, the majority's proposed spending levels increase nondefense 
discretionary spending by 17 percent while only increasing defense 
spending by 1 percent. That is not even enough to keep up with 
inflation.
  This is at a time when our Nation and when our military faces threats 
from China, Russia, and Iran. Because of these threats, we should be 
investing in the U.S. and our partner nations, not underfunding our 
military and national security programs and obligations abroad.
  While H.R. 4373, which funds the Department of State and Foreign 
Operations, does include support for our allies, Israel, Jordan, and 
Taiwan, it also places conditions on our strategic partner Egypt. These 
conditions will undercut national security efforts which is another hit 
to our defense operations.
  Further, H.R. 4373 removes longstanding bipartisan policies including 
the Helms amendment which prohibits foreign aid from being used for 
abortions. It also doubles funding to the United Nations Population 
Fund. This organization has historically supported coercive abortion 
and involuntary sterilization.
  Finally, this bill provides for more than $3 billion for climate 
change programs, including $1.6 billion for the Green Climate Fund. 
Even Secretary Yellen acknowledged the Green Climate Fund has oversight 
issues and has been mismanaged.
  The rule before us today also provides for consideration of H.R. 
4505, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. Like H.R. 4373, this bill removes longstanding 
bipartisan language restricting the Justice Department from spending 
taxpayer dollars on abortion.
  The measure also fails to include four bipartisan Second Amendment 
protections including two provisions that have been in the CJS bill 
since fiscal year 2006.
  Finally, H.R. 4505 imposes new, unauthorized conditions on many State 
and local law enforcement programs, including Byrne JAG and COPS. Many 
of these conditions require legislation to be passed by States and 
localities and are outside the control of law enforcement agencies. 
These requirements will effectively defund programs relied on by our 
Nation's police officers, including initiatives that support training 
and equipment purchases, active shooter response training, and suicide 
prevention.
  This measure also fails to address the real challenges facing our 
Nation, including cyberattacks on American companies, extortion plots 
on critical infrastructure, and the flow of deadly fentanyl at the 
southern border.
  At the end of the day, if my colleagues across the aisle are serious 
about enacting appropriations measures before funding runs out at the 
end of September, it is absolutely critical they remove their far-left, 
radical policy riders to restore longstanding bipartisan provisions; 
otherwise, we will face a continuing resolution or a Democrat-driven 
shutdown.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. 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

[[Page H4098]]

     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. MORELLE. 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. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Morelle for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule and the underlying 
bills. I am pleased to see the House make significant progress this 
week by passing these appropriations bills which include important 
funding for my district, our communities, and for people all across the 
country.
  I do want to highlight two bipartisan amendments made in order under 
this rule which I have offered to H.R. 4505, the Commerce, Justice, and 
Science Appropriations bill.
  First is amendment No. 43, which I introduced with Representatives 
Brian Babin, Chrissy Houlahan, and   Donald Norcross. Our amendment 
would elevate the Office of Space Commerce by moving it out of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and into the Office of 
the Secretary of Commerce. This relatively small office has growing 
responsibilities to license remote sensing activities or satellite 
imagery of the Earth and implement a pilot program on space situational 
awareness.
  Elevating this office would better leverage the expertise of the 
entire department to support their work and improve interagency 
collaboration, which is critical to their responsibilities. This 
proposal has been discussed for years, and it is time to finally make 
this move. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee to further define these new roles and 
responsibilities.
  I also want to highlight another bipartisan amendment No. 44, which I 
introduced with Representatives   Ken Buck,   Joe Neguse, Doug Lamborn, 
Diana DeGette, and Jason Crow from the Colorado delegation. Our 
amendment is a plus-minus amendment to NASA's exploration account to 
show our support for additional funding for the Orion Multipurpose Crew 
Vehicle totalling $1.45 billion.

                              {time}  1045

  Orion is America's deep space exploration spacecraft which will carry 
our astronauts back to the Moon and on to Mars as part of the Artemis 
program. This additional funding for Orion will reduce costs in the 
program over the long term by maximizing reuse of Orion's systems and 
establish efficient production flows for the Artemis III Orion 
spacecraft and beyond.
  Our amendment would fully fund Orion while also supporting full 
funding for the Space Launch System and Exploration Ground Systems, as 
all three are critical to the Artemis program. The entire NASA 
Exploration program should be increased to meet these standards, and I 
hope to work with Chairman Cartwright and our Appropriations Committee 
to do just that and support NASA's important work without cutting other 
programs.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support these amendments, the 
rule, and the underlying bills.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, my mentor, 
and the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Pennsylvania 
for yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to the rule, Mr. Speaker. I have two 
matters I wish to discuss today.
  First, I want to speak to the Republican motion to recommit on H.R. 
4502, on which the House will be voting in the coming days. While I 
have many concerns with the bills reported out of the Appropriations 
Committee, none is more alarming than the systematic removal of 
longstanding provisions to protect the lives of unborn children and 
preserve the conscience rights of American taxpayers. This has been 
done in bill after bill after bill.
  If my motion to recommit passes, Republicans will restore essential 
pro-life protections that have been stripped from these bills.
  We will restore the Hyde amendment, which prohibits Federal tax 
dollars

[[Page H4099]]

from funding abortions on demand and has been included in 
appropriations bills for every year for the past 45 years.
  We will restore the Weldon amendment, which protects American 
doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals from participating 
in or providing an abortion if they have a moral objection to that 
procedure.
  We will restore the Dornan amendment, which prevents District of 
Columbia resident taxpayer moneys from being used for abortions on 
demand.
  We will restore the Smith amendment, which prevents the Federal 
Employee Health Benefit Plan from subsidizing abortions on demand for 
Federal workers.
  We will restore the Helms amendment, which prevents American 
taxpayers from financing abortions to foreign organizations or 
countries.
  Regardless of one's personal views, lawmakers and Presidents of both 
parties have always agreed that Americans should not be forced to pay 
for abortions on demand with their hard-earned tax dollars.
  It is not too late for Democrats to change course, abandon their 
radical, far-left policies, and restore these important protections 
before a final vote on this measure. Every Democrat who is not a 
freshman has voted to support this language and these amendments on 
this floor, and we know they must again if any of these appropriations 
bills are ever to become law.
  All Republicans in the House stand united with the American people on 
this issue, and none will support appropriations bills that do not 
include these important pro-life protections.
  We urge Democrats to accept the motion to recommit, restore these 
bipartisan compromises, and allow appropriations bills to move forward 
toward a final negotiation in good faith. Ultimately, failure to do so 
will result in either a continuing resolution or, even worse, a 
government shutdown later this year. Neither outcome should ever be 
acceptable to any Member on this floor.
  Let me now turn, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to an issue that is more 
parochial but where the outlook is more promising. That is the Federal 
response to the so-called McGirt decision by the United States Supreme 
Court.
  Many Members will not be aware of this, but last year, the Supreme 
Court decided that much of Oklahoma, for the purposes of criminal 
prosecution, remains Indian Country.
  In Indian Country, only the Federal Government and Tribal law 
enforcement officials can prosecute Indians who commit crimes, again, 
on Indian reservations. That, obviously, in the State of Oklahoma, will 
now call for enormously robust Federal law enforcement and Tribal law 
enforcement capabilities.
  I am happy to report that in one of the measures that we face today, 
that reality has been taken into account. Frankly, our friends, the 
Biden administration, asked for an additional $70 million for the 
Department of Justice to finance additional U.S. attorneys, additional 
Federal marshals, and additional FBI for Oklahoma to respond to the 
McGirt decision.
  Sadly, our friends did not request similar funds for Tribal law 
enforcement officials, and none of the bills in front of us actually 
deal with that issue.
  Last night, we placed an amendment dealing with this before this 
House. It was part of an en bloc amendment. I actually believe if it 
had come on its own, it would have passed. But it failed.
  However, the appropriations process is a long process, and I think 
negotiations in good faith with the full committee will eventually 
result in additional Federal dollars for law enforcement.
  Regardless, that Supreme Court decision, the McGirt decision, means 
the Federal Government and Tribal law enforcement officials must do 
more in this area. Again, one of the bills in front of us helps with 
regard to the Federal Government. I am hopeful, in the final 
negotiations, we can do more on McGirt.
  My last point, Mr. Speaker, is simply to say we need to look at all 
of these bills collectively. Just as a piece of friendly advice to my 
friends, if we are going to get to a deal, three things absolutely have 
to happen.

  The first is, the amount of money we spend on defense simply must go 
up. There is not enough money in the bills passed out of the 
Appropriations Committee to adequately fund our defense in a dangerous 
world.
  Second, the outrageous domestic explosion of spending must come down. 
We simply, as my friend from Pennsylvania pointed out, can't afford a 
spending spree.
  Finally, and most importantly, and my friends need to realize this 
politically, for any of these bills to pass the United States Senate 
and ultimately become law, all the pro-life provisions that they have 
systematically stripped out of these bills have to be restored. 
Otherwise, my friends will get Donald Trump's last negotiated budget 
for the second year of the Biden administration. I don't think that is 
what they want, but that is exactly where we are headed unless they 
change course and work with us to preserve these longstanding, pro-life 
protections that have been in these bills for, in many cases, decades.
  Mr. MORELLE. 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.
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this 
SFOPs bill, which, in the words of President Biden, says that the 
United States is back on the world stage.
  The bill reflects the importance of diplomatic and development 
assistance and cooperation with valuable partners to advance peace and 
prosperity around the world. It rebuilds public health infrastructure, 
confronts climate change, and advances basic education in undeveloped 
nations.
  On a subject I know that we can agree on, on both sides of the aisle, 
the bill is proudly pro-Israel. It fulfills our commitment to Israel, 
whose security in a very, very dangerous region of the world is 
America's security, too. We expand our development partnership between 
our two countries to work together and improve lives around the world 
in poor areas.
  I say to my colleagues, let's maintain this bipartisan support to our 
very good friend, Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill also recognizes that when girls and women 
succeed,

[[Page H4100]]

the world succeeds. The bill invests in education, health and maternal 
care, economic opportunity, and combating barriers to success like 
gender-based violence and child marriage. It supports the 
implementation of the ``Women, Peace and Security'' strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, most importantly, this bill removes the harmful Helms 
amendment, which restricts U.S. funding for abortion services around 
the world, and removes the global gag rule, which forces healthcare 
providers to choose between U.S. global health assistance and the 
ability to counsel and provide clients with accurate and a full range 
of safe and legal reproductive options.
  The gag rule has resulted in good and honest healthcare providers 
turning down United States financial assistance, forcing the closure of 
clinics around the world, leaving more than a million women without 
access to healthcare, including reproductive care.
  Yesterday, I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk 
about restricting abortion in the United States. Now, today, it is 
Ghana and the rest of the world. I want to say to my colleagues, let me 
respectfully clue you in that in poor, undeveloped countries, you are 
not stopping abortions. You are stopping safe abortions. Unsafe 
abortions are responsible for 13 percent of maternal deaths around the 
world.
  Let me give you another clue. The best way to stop abortions is with 
access to family planning and contraception, which is in this very, 
very good bill.
  I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about 
polling, and I say polling, schmolling. Polls say one thing; polls say 
another thing. I want to ask you, has any woman or even man in the 
world taken a poll to decide whether or not they should become a 
parent? I don't think so.

  I am talking about past bills that have had these terrible 
provisions, the gag rule, the Helms amendment, and so forth. You know 
that sometimes you go along not because you want to go along. This has 
been the case for many of us with these provisions.
  Let me just say as loud as possible, women cannot live their full 
potential unless they get to make their own decisions about parenthood. 
So, removing the global gag rule and the Helms amendment makes this 
such a very, very good bill that I celebrate today. This is an 
important bill, and I support it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The Biden administration has extended border shutdowns with Mexico 
and Canada, extended European and other international travel 
restrictions, and has reimposed mask mandates for fully vaccinated 
people, contradicting previous CDC guidance and, sadly, choosing to 
follow the political science, not the science.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the chaos at our southern border, where illegal 
immigrants have been apprehended from over 160 countries, undermines 
any efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19. That is why, if we 
defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to 
the rule to immediately consider Congresswoman Yvette Herrell's PAUSE 
Act of 2021.
  This legislation would provide for stringent enforcement of Title 42, 
a public health order allowing illegal immigrants to be quickly 
expelled from the United States, and would prohibit HHS and DHS from 
weakening Title 42's implementation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), a doctor and my good friend, who is here 
to explain the amendment.
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
we can take up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, which was introduced by my 
colleague and friend, Representative Yvette Herrell. As a physician and 
former Director of Public Health for the State of Iowa, I am proud to 
cosponsor this legislation, and I believe we must bring this to the 
floor today.
  This legislation would prohibit the Federal Government from ceasing 
or lessening the implementation of COVID-19 border health provisions 
until the COVID-19 public health emergency is no longer in effect, both 
at the Federal level and all 50 States.
  At the start of the pandemic last year, through the Centers for 
Disease Control, President Trump implemented Title 42 border health 
restrictions. These commonsense restrictions ensure that people 
crossing our northern and southern border do not present a public 
health risk to our country. President Biden, to his credit, had left 
some of these restrictions in place as our country works to eradicate 
the COVID-19 pandemic, until now.
  Now, the Biden administration is considering eliminating Title 42 
border health restrictions and allowing individuals who pose a health 
risk to enter into our country.
  This comes in the same week where the President is considering 
requiring Federal employees to be vaccinated because of the delta 
variant, and this comes a day after this Chamber is reimplementing a 
mask policy due to rising cases of COVID-19 across the country, and the 
Senate is not.
  Mr. Speaker, the President is rightfully concerned about the rising 
number of COVID cases across the country, the vast majority of which 
are among the unvaccinated. While the President and I have different 
ideas on the best way to stop this virus, it is clear we all want 
Americans to be safe and healthy from this virus.
  Yet, while this administration is considering more COVID restrictions 
for American citizens on one hand, it is planning to loosen 
restrictions on migrants at the border on the other. This has opened 
our borders to an unparalleled surge that is not diminishing and is 
also risking bringing north the lambda variant, just as the Texas House 
Democrats brought north the delta variant.
  This administration is considering ending Title 42 restrictions in 
the middle of a public health crisis at our southern border. Last week, 
reports indicated that the number of migrants who tested positive for 
COVID-19 in the Rio Grande Valley sector has increased by 900 percent. 
Last month alone, over 188,000 migrants were encountered at the border, 
and 105,000 of those were turned away under Title 42 restrictions.
  If we are going to eradicate COVID, we cannot afford to repeal Title 
42. Lifting these restrictions would threaten the health and safety of 
U.S. citizens and could lead to higher levels of migration. Our Border 
Patrol agents and CBP officers are already dealing with migration 
surges, they support the continuance of Title 42, and we must ensure 
that they have the tools and processes needed to protect themselves and 
our country. This includes the ability to process migrants under Title 
42 health restrictions until the public health emergency ends.
  Additionally, testing for COVID-19 should be done at all airports or 
other ports of entry.
  Eliminating Title 42 would only exacerbate the current 
administration's crisis at our southern border and likely lead to an 
increased public health crisis. Failure to either close the border or 
continue Title 42 puts all American lives at risk, both vaccinated and 
unvaccinated.
  I urge Americans to get vaccinated so we can eradicate this virus.
  I urge the President not to repeal Title 42 restrictions.
  And I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can 
bring the PAUSE Act to the floor and keep Title 42 border health 
restrictions in place until the end of the COVID-19 public health 
emergency.
  Mr. MORELLE. 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.

[[Page H4101]]

  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. MORELLE. 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

[[Page H4102]]

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. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely disappointed that an amendment offered 
by my good friend, Mr.   Michael Waltz from Florida, was not made in 
order under today's rule.
  This amendment would support a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Olympic 
Games in Beijing. I would actually support a total boycott of the 
Olympic Games in Beijing. But just looking at the diplomatic boycott, 
China has an abysmal record on human rights. They currently are housing 
Uighurs in concentration camps in western China, they are using slave 
labor, and even forced organ harvesting.
  The CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, exports fentanyl to the United 
States, steals our trade secrets, and constantly threatens to invade 
the free and independent nation of Taiwan.
  The last thing we need to do is to reward the CCP with the economic 
benefit and, frankly, the cachet on the world stage by hosting the 
Olympic Games. I just wish that my liberal colleagues across the aisle 
had allowed us to debate at least a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing 
Olympic Games.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
McClain).
  Mrs. McCLAIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the radical, 
partisan, and polarizing appropriations bill the Democrats are ramming 
through this Chamber.
  It wasn't enough for the Democrats to disregard the opinion of an 
overwhelming majority of Americans who do not want their tax dollars 
being used to bankroll abortions here in the U.S. In this 
appropriations bill, they want to take it a step further and export 
abortion around the world. You heard it right.
  The Helms amendment, which predates the Hyde amendment, ensures that 
U.S. tax dollars do not fund abortion through foreign assistance 
programs. Foreign assistance programs should help defend our country. 
Democrats felt the need to strip it from this bill.
  My constituents do not want their hard-earned tax dollars shipped 
overseas to kill unborn children. And you know what? Neither do 77 
percent of Americans, according to a January 2021 Marist poll. Yet, 
Democrats are saying they are giving people what they want. Well, that 
is a flat-out lie.
  Who exactly are they catering to with this radical move? Far left-
wing activists?
  I am disgusted by some in this Chamber and the President for their 
shameful disregard of taxpayer wishes; their hypocritical double 
standards; and, most importantly, their shameful disregard for human 
life.
  As a reminder to this administration and my colleagues, I am wearing 
flip-flops today so they can be reminded of this administration's 
ability to flip-flop on issues. This administration could not be 
consistent if their life depended on it, or worse, ours.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. MORELLE. 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

[[Page H4103]]

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.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague earlier offered 
as the previous question with respect to Title 42, because what we are 
seeing at the border is an absolute travesty, and my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are going to do nothing, literally nothing 
about that today, even as we see people spilling across the border who 
are clearly testing positive for COVID.
  We have a hotel in La Joya, Texas, that is literally filled right now 
with individuals who are heavily testing positive for COVID. These are 
the facts on the ground.
  I know my friend, the Speaker, knows how bad it is at the border, 
knows how bad it is in Laredo, knows how bad it is in Del Rio, knows 
how bad it is in McAllen.
  I have got a text here from a sheriff in a small Texas town saying, 
``We are passing an emergency declaration tonight at city council that 
no illegal immigrants can be released in the city of Uvalde per the CDC 
guidelines of countries on their list without a negative COVID test. We 
have had our health authority write orders that give us the authority 
to have them, government, Border Patrol, and immigrants, quarantine for 
10 to 14 days.
  We have a crisis at our border, and we are playing footsie with mask 
mandates in the people's House. I mean, it is absolutely absurd what 
this body is doing, the people's House. It is an embarrassment. It is a 
mockery.
  The American people are fed up. They want to go back to life. They 
want to go back to business. They want to go back to school without 
their children being forced to wear masks, to be put in the corner, to 
have mental health issues.
  We are running around here, and the Speaker comes down here at 10 
a.m. saying we have got to wear masks in the people's House while we 
have got thousands of people pouring across our border, and Democrats 
don't do a darn thing about it.
  Heavily infected with COVID.
  We have The New York Times today.

       What a mess. CDC about to reverse on indoor masking for the 
     vaccinated.

  This is some serious nanny-state stuff that will only breed 
resentment. No kidding.
  Consider resentment being magnified right here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives. We are absolutely sick and tired of it. So 
are the American people. This sham of an institution is doing nothing 
for the American people. Nothing for the betterment of the people that 
send their Representatives here.
  I just met this morning with an organization that tries to take care 
of people from human trafficking; met with an elected official from 
Mexico while cartels are raping and pillaging and killing. And we have 
people infected with COVID coming across our southern border into 
Texas. And you all put masks, masks up front here? Here in the people's 
House? We have got to go around and see, okay, I can't come to the 
floor, I can't execute my constitutional duty unless I wear a mask.
  Which is it, vaccines or masks? Do the vaccines work or don't they 
work? Do the masks work or don't they work? I would like to know which 
it is. I would like Dr. Fauci to come down and answer a single question 
about natural immunity. If you have been infected with the virus, do 
you have immunity? Or are they just going to go around poking people 
saying: You must take a vaccine. Oh, but sorry, the vaccine doesn't 
work. You must wear a mask.
  This institution is a sham, and we should adjourn and shut this place 
down.
  Mr. MORELLE. 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.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Arrington), my good friend.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, to comment on my Democrat colleague's 
comments that they are just trying to build America back better, nobody 
in the United States of America in their right mind believes that what 
is happening in this country--the disastrous economic policies, the 
spike in crime in the neighborhoods from sea to shining sea, the chaos 
that burns out of control at the border--believes that you are trying 
to make America better.
  I associate myself with the comments of Representative Roy from the 
Lone Star State. It is absurd for us to be mandating and restricting 
the American people when we have hundreds of thousands of people 
pouring into this country, and in the last 2 weeks we had a 900 percent 
increase in COVID-positive people illegally crossing our sovereign 
border into the United States.
  We can't take anybody seriously, not the President, and with all due 
respect, not our colleagues who think they are trying to make our 
country better, stronger, and safer. That is just absurd. It is 
ridiculous.
  I can hardly get through my comments about the appropriations on 
account of some of this rhetoric that is empty. It is absolutely hollow 
in the ears of those who hear it who live on the border and who are 
experiencing the devastating effects; not the least of which are the 
poor, vulnerable people who are coming over here and paying a high 
price by the cartels who we, because of the policies of this 
administration, are enriching and empowering every day.
  I rise in strong opposition and great concern as a result of the 
proposed massive and irresponsible spending bills that reflect, Mr. 
Speaker, the

[[Page H4104]]

Democrats' insatiable desire to expand the Federal Government beyond 
recognition, beyond the recognition not only of our Founders, but of 
our citizens here today, and to, once again, jam through their partisan 
priorities.
  These spending levels are beyond fiscally unsustainable. They are 
going to push us to the brink of bankruptcy, into a place where we can 
see the sovereign debt crisis from the precipice upon which we stand. 
We won't be able to print money or borrow to bail out of that crisis, 
Mr. Speaker.
  American families have worked hard. They have made sacrifices, 
tightening up their belts. And by the way, dealing with the every-man 
tax of inflation while our Democrat colleagues continue to push these 
massive spending bills. It is completely irresponsible.
  It is unbelievable that my Democrat colleagues would ask the American 
people for a 21 percent pay raise, $100 billion. The White House wants 
a 40 percent pay raise for the crimes fight, for the chaos at the 
border, for the inflation, for the fact that their policies have locked 
people into unemployment, and the policies they are proposing will trap 
them in poverty for the rest of their lives, and generations to follow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to my 
good friend.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, aside from the insulting disregard for 
our national debt for our children and grandchildren, this is the 
greatest threat. It is not the existential threats. It is our 
insatiable appetite to expand the government, government's power, and 
the costs associated.
  If these bills, these supposed funding bills are enacted, here are 
the policies that will follow:
  Abortion providers will be funded and abortion, and the abortion 
manufacturers that abort, terminate unborn children at a rate of almost 
1,000 a day.
  Allow illegal immigrants to receive our tax dollar financial aid and 
Federal employment. What a disrespect to the law-abiding American 
citizens.
  Choke out our ag and energy producers with extreme environmental 
policies, disrupt the supply chain, undermine our ag and energy 
independence.
  The list is too long, Mr. Speaker.
  Give contraceptives to students without parental knowledge.
  Fund sex changes at the VA.
  These are the priorities, these are the values reflected in the 
budget of my colleagues?
  Mr. Speaker, this is a radical reimagination of government's role in 
the life of its citizens and a drastic departure from America's values 
and interests, and I oppose it. I pray to God I can get a Democrat to 
oppose it. I doubt it.

                          ____________________