Providing for Consideration of H.R. Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Providing for Consideration of H.R. Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2022

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MORELLE. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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 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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source