Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 860, I call up the bill (H.R. 1836) to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the time during which members of the Armed Forces serve on active duty for training qualifies for educational assistance under the Post- 9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1836, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1836, as amended, Representative Levin's Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021.

This bill is a long-needed fix to the unequal treatment of members of the Guard and Reserve for GI Bill purposes. Under current law, guard and reservists do not accrue education benefits the same as their Active-Duty counterparts, even when they are carrying out the same duties and taking on the same risks.

We live in a new age of national defense where we utilize the total force concept with an operational reserve, not a Strategic Reserve. We rely each day on guard and reservists to protect and defend our country. As we observed the anniversary of the January 6 attack on the Capitol, we were reminded of the brave Guard and Reserve troops who deployed to protect Congress, our staffs, and the foundation of our democracy.

We continue to rely on our Reserve components throughout the COVID-19 pandemic to activate and support public health response efforts across the country. The National Guard has been utilized at unprecedented levels in recent years.

Over the past 2 years, our Reserve components have fought wildfires, responded to protests, assisted with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and even helped Afghan refugees settle in the United States.

It is time the Guard and Reserve benefits reflect the key work they are doing and the need for equity across the total force. It is time for every day in uniform to count.

The cadence of activations for guard and reservists has increased significantly over the last 5 years, and with that comes the need to meet mission readiness standards.

To prepare for the critical role they fulfill in our national defense, guard and reservists must frequently train, which means more days in uniform, more days away from their civilian life, and more days away from their families.

The GI Bill is both a recruitment and transition benefit to help servicemembers transition into civilian life and close the opportunity gap with their civilian peers.

Now, the Guard and Reserves need this more than ever as they are constantly transitioning between military, civilian employment, and family life, facing continuous disruptions.

This legislation rectifies the disparity and ensures that members of our Reserve forces know that every day they commit to our Nation counts, and that they will have the education benefits waiting for them when they fulfill their commitment.

In both this and the 116th Congress, we reformed and updated the Post-9/11 GI Bill to ensure students who are eligible have easy access to a high-quality education.

We have implemented strong student protections and we are holding bad acting institutions accountable when they fail to meet standards we set for veteran education.

Now, if servicemembers can step up and do their part day in and day out

while holding down civilian jobs and squeezing in time to take care of their families, then the least we can do here in Congress is to get out of the way of the solution.

Now, there are troubling reports of upticks in suicide among our guard and reservists.

One of the best ways we can address veteran health, mental health, and ultimate veteran suicide is by providing veterans with support and a pathway to a successful civilian life.

H.R. 1836, as amended, will give guard and reservists access to the opportunities that post-secondary education and training provide and improve their reintegration into civilian life.

This legislation is fully paid for and uses loan fee provisions that this Congress and prior Congresses have supported. In addition, even the Republican substitute uses the same offsets.

Besides just being the right thing to do, investing in equitable GI Bill benefits for guard and reservists will provide more than a tenfold return to our country.

Who are we to stand in the way of an educational benefit that will not only make our country stronger, but will benefit our military by having military servicemembers and our guard and reservists who are even more able to do their jobs on behalf of our national defense? I can't wait to see what our servicemembers will do with this opportunity, and I know it will make our country a better country.

This legislation is endorsed by numerous VSOs, including the American Legion, the VFW, the Student Veterans of America, the National Guard Association of the United States, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and Reserve Officers of America.

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record letters of support and statements from the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Guard Association of the United States, Military-Veterans Advocacy, and the Reserve Officers of America.

The American Legion,

Washington, DC.

Tomorrow we are expecting the House to take votes on H.R.

1836, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act. The American

Legion supports this bill as our signature education priority

for 2022, and we strongly urge Representative Valadao to

stand for DC's National Guard troops and support its passage.

All 50 states have activated components of their National

Guard in response to unforeseen challenges over the past two

years. From protecting borders to delivering pandemic aid and

supporting local law enforcement our National Guard and

Reserve troops have responded to new challenges like never

before. Often, they are leaving both their families and

civilian employers for an extended amount of time sometimes

taking a sizeable pay cut with them. Yet despite all we ask

of them, too often they are denied a cornerstone benefit for

our nation's veterans: the GI Bill.

This is because servicemembers are activated under non-DNE

title 32 orders which VA statutes currently don't recognize

as valid ``active duty'' time. H.R. 1836 would fix this

disparity by expanding access to the Post-9/11 GI Bill for

servicemembers activated under Title 32 orders towards

benefits eligibility.

The American Legion urges support for H.R. 1836.

Thank you and happy to answer any questions.

John Kamin,

Legislative Associate, Legislative Division.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Steny Hoyer for considering this legislation today, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure every day a guard or reservist spends in uniform counts toward earning vital GI Bill benefits.

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

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

Before I yield to my distinguished colleague, I am going to make a few remarks in reference to what the ranking member said.

I will first say that the bill has been in the public for more than 2 years. In fact, the committee held a Guard-and-Reserve-only benefits hearing just over a year ago to review the disparity in these benefits, and we have worked closely with the stakeholders, as evidenced by the numerous numbers of VSOs whose support letters I entered into the Record earlier. And we also worked with the minority to ensure that this bill achieves the aims that we intend.

We have also worked closely with the Department of Defense and VA to ensure all Guard and Reserve members are covered.

The VSOs have been asking for this reform, and that is why we stand with them in support of H.R. 1836.

Now, moreover, it is not accurate to say that before the Rules Committee yesterday I characterized the $2 billion cost of this bill, which is paid for, as insignificant. I merely compared it to the idea that we should use this bill as part of an offset for the $300 billion or so that we are going to need for toxic exposure. And I thank the ranking member for joining together in trying to find a solution for our toxic-exposed veterans.

However, that $300 billion, I know we are going to figure out how to take care of that. It is really not a choice; it is a moral obligation we have to those veterans that were exposed to burn pits. It is not a choice. It is a cost of war, and we have got to rise together as a body. We found $30 billion willy-nilly to add to the National Defense Authorization Act. We will find the $300 billion. We don't need to be nickel and diming our reservists and our Guard units and deny them the days that should count toward their GI Bill benefits because they are doing every bit the same sort of readiness training that our Active- Duty servicemembers are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), my good friend and chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity who is also the author of this very impressive bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of instances where training time and readiness training has counted towards the GI Bill. We talk about the basic training that reservists and Guard unit members go through. That has counted toward the GI Bill. And if there is a worry about the Federalization, Federal dollars already pay for the training days that we are seeking for the Guard unit members and the reservists to get credit for.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan),

my good friend, member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and Modernization.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a member of the committee who also serves as the chair of our Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies in Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, there has been an honest reckoning and an honest assessment by the CBO, and this bill is paid for according to the rules, the same rules that my Republican counterparts observe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the Financial Services Committee, where he is chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman), my good friend who serves on the Education and Labor Committee with myself and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed honor and privilege to yield 1 minute to a champion and staunch advocate who is unparalleled in her support for our Nation's 22 million veterans. This Congress with her support we have continued to preserve the sacred trust of our men and women in uniform and the 200,000 servicemembers who become veterans each year.

Mr. Speaker, of course, I am referring to the Speaker of this great House from the great State of California, my own State.

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

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

The issue of how servicemembers are disciplined for refusing to take the vaccine has already been addressed in the National Defense Authorization Act. It already states plainly that there could be a general discharge, or an other-than-honorable discharge, or an honorable discharge. So there is, it seems to me, an irrelevance or it is unnecessary, this proposed MTR. So we already have a solution that has been agreed to in the Armed Services space and jurisdiction.

That being said, I do not have any further speakers, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I will, in closing, say that the minority has not raised a substantive argument, a serious argument against the substance of this bill. This is a good, good piece of legislation, one that is agreed to and supported by numerous veterans service organizations.

To the issue of and to the objection raised by the minority over a lack of process and a lack of regular order, this is simply not true. We have had ample opportunity for the minority to have input in numerous hearings related to this topic.

And as to the concern over recruitment and retention of our Active- Duty Forces, I will remind my esteemed ranking member, or the esteemed ranking member, for whom I have great admiration for his own service and the service of his family in the military, that we turned to the Guard and Reserve in greater and greater dependence in the post-9/11 era. And because we were able to turn to them, we did not have to have discussions about a draft.

We had issues recruiting folks for our military in the early aughts to the numbers that we needed, and we had to turn to the Reserve and the Guard. So we need good incentives and great retention incentives for our Guard units and our Reserve units all across this country because we aren't going to depend on them less. In fact, we are going to depend on them more.

And the tempo of the training, all we are saying is that the readiness training they undergo is no less than the readiness training of our Active-Duty troops. Regardless of whether they knew or didn't know at the beginning when they signed up as reservists or guardsmen, they deserve to have every day count.

Now is the time for Congress and this House to say that every day of readiness training should count toward GI bill eligibility.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Ross, Gonzalez- Colon, Moore, and Bowman amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, there is no way better way to connect veterans with medical care and services than first making sure that they are aware of the care that they have earned with their service.

The Ross amendment makes sure that VA informs our veterans of this care they have earned just as they are entering civilian life.

The first months are crucial in a veteran's transition out of the military, and the Ross amendment ensures that veterans are aware of what kind of care and support they can access and how they can access it.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Ross amendment.

Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to highlight for the sponsor of this amendment, Representative Moore, and all Members, just how severely this amendment would harm National Guard and reservists from their States and districts.

Congressman Moore represents the great State of Alabama. Despite being the 24th most populous State in the Union, Alabama has the 12th largest National Guard in the Nation by number of servicemembers. Among the units in the Alabama National Guard that the Moore amendment would shortchange by eliminating training days--and I say training days are also readiness days--is the Alabama 20th Special Forces Group.

Members from this group, and units like it, must complete roughly 2 full years of training, from basic training to completion of the arduous and highly competitive Special Forces Qualification Course, just to be qualified as Special Forces Green Berets.

In order to maintain a high level of readiness and be ready to deploy when our Nation calls on them, these servicemembers must constantly attend additional training to maintain certifications and proficiencies critical to their jobs as reservists.

To be clear, this training is conducted at Active-Duty schools right alongside their Active-Duty counterparts, yet guard and reservists don't receive the same credit for the days they are in uniform, despite maintaining the exact same readiness requirements.

Readiness matters. Consider this: In 2013, reservists spent 87,000 days on title 32 orders, which is how the Reserve Force assists with floods, hurricanes, and other significant events. However, in 2021, that number had grown to 9.5 million days.

This amendment would continue to uphold this unequal policy and prevent members of the Alabama 20th Group from accruing days of service for training. Training is another word for readiness.

Some States and servicemembers from units like Alabama's 20th Group carry a heavier burden, but this example is not unique to Alabama. All across the country, Guard and Reserve members from every State put their civilian lives on hold in defense of our Nation. They give much of themselves, their sweat, blood, and sometimes even the ultimate sacrifice in service. Whether during training or deployment, they deserve the same benefits for their days in service. They have earned it.

Finally, I would also note that the Moore amendment uses the same IRRRL rate change found in H.R. 1836, which we agree is a fair update to the IRRRL program.

Let's be clear: A vote for this amendment is a direct statement to our Guard and Reserve servicemembers that you don't think their days in service are equal to those of their Active Duty counterparts.

Representative Moore served in the National Guard, and I thank and commend him for that service. Now, I know that he is a humble man, like most of our servicemembers, but I think his days in service should be honored and given their due credit. I know he may have participated in ROTC, but if his education wasn't fully paid for by that program, then I think he should be given credit for his National Guard service for GI Bill eligibility.

Madam Speaker, I urge Representative Moore to reconsider his submission of this amendment, and I urge all Members to oppose the Moore amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

Madam Speaker, let me just say there is nothing commonsense about this amendment. Injustice to our reservists and our Guard units is not common sense. Unfairness to our guard and reservists is not common sense.

To say that this is a fiscal burden to our Nation, who depends on our guard and reservists in natural disasters and who our Nation will rely on even more in the future, that is not common sense.

Madam Speaker, it is time to make every day of readiness training that our reservists and our Guard unit members perform count toward their GI Bill eligibility.

The GI Bill, as Speaker Pelosi has said, did amazing things for this Nation in the post-World War II era. That same amazing contribution of our reservists and our guardsmen will continue.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1836, as amended, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021.

While I support the intent of this bill, I do not believe that it is the right solution for our Nation's guard and reservists at this time.

Founded in 1636, the National Guard evolved from groups of colonial militias into one of the toughest and one of the most professional fighting forces in the world.

From defeating the British during the American Revolution, to fighting in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Reserve component has served in every major conflict in the history of this Nation.

In recent years, the Guard and Reserve have been called up more often as their missions have changed.

These brave men and women are not only on the front lines overseas, but they are also deployed at home to protect the southern border and assist in the response to COVID-19, among others.

We must never forget the sacrifices the men and women in the Guard and Reserve make when the Federal Government calls on them to serve.

I agree that Congress must take a hard look at duty status reform and the potential expansion of benefits for guard and reservists. But this bill before us today would be an unwise expansion of benefits.

The higher level of sacrifice of Active-Duty servicemembers is reflected in the higher level of benefits provided by the VA. This is why the government recognizes the increased sacrifices of the Reserve component when they are called up on most Federal Active-Duty orders.

I believe that one of the biggest misunderstandings in this debate is that many of the types of Federal Active-Duty service that members of the National Guard and Reserve perform already qualify for the GI Bill eligibility.

I support the goal of ensuring that all time spent on nontraining Active Duty Federal orders should count towards GI Bill eligibility.

However, the bill before us today would go far beyond that and provide eligibility for the GI Bill for service related to annual training and drilling weekends.

Training has never counted towards eligibility, and members of the Guard and Reserve know that when they sign up. Let me say that again. Training has never counted towards eligibility with members of the Guard and Reserves. They knew it when they signed up. It is the additional call-ups to Federal Active-Duty service that members of the Guard and Reserve may not know about.

This type of service would be covered by Congressman Moore's amendment, which I believe is a better alternative.

Also, covering training is the largest cost driver of this bill, which leads to my second point.

The CBO projects that the expansion of benefits laid out in this bill would require nearly $2 billion in mandatory offsets for the first 10 years following enactment. While these costs are paid for in the current budget window, that does not tell the whole story.

CBO also estimates that this bill will cost taxpayers more than $5 billion in each of the next four decades after fiscal year 2032. This would equate to at least 20 billion extra dollars over the next 50 years.

None of these extra costs are offset, which means our children and grandchildren will be paying for them and be paying them off for many years to come.

In a tight fiscal environment, I believe that full Active-Duty benefits for training and drilling is a bridge too far. I am also concerned that the offsets that are used in this bill should be saved for higher priority issues like expanding services to toxic-exposed veterans.

Addressing the needs of toxic-exposed veterans is both my and Chairman Takano's number one priority that we are trying to deal with right now. That could require Congress to find hundreds of billions of dollars in offsets. Offsets are few and far between in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We will need every penny of them to enact these needed reforms that we were talking about earlier.

Earlier this week before the Rules Committee, Chairman Takano indicated that $2 billion is an insignificant amount compared to the potential full cost of addressing toxic exposure, and therefore, is not worthy to try to save here. I disagree.

It is silly that I even have to say this, but $2 billion is a lot of money. It is worth saving. Ask any taxpayer. And remember, the people we are talking about are taxpayers, as well.

Like me, my constituents and many Americans are concerned that Congress doles out billions of taxpayer dollars like candy. That must end. We can provide needed benefits for veterans without burdening future generations. But that requires Congress to make tough decisions and to put first things first.

Many of my concerns could have been discussed, debated, and possibly even addressed if the majority had conducted the proper level of engagement with committee members, VA, and other stakeholders on this bill.

The majority did not hold a single legislative hearing on this bill this Congress. As such, we were not able to receive views from the committee members, the administration, the mortgage industry, or veteran service organizations. Those views are a critical part of the legislative process.

Why was this bill not put on the agenda for one of the two legislative hearings the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity held this Congress?

This is no way to responsibly legislate, and I implore Chairman Takano to go back to our committee's bipartisan tradition of conducting full legislative due diligence before sending bills to the House floor.

In closing, I am supportive of reviewing and, where warranted, expanding benefits for members of the Guard and Reserve. However, we must do so in a way that is fiscally responsible, appropriate, and respects the many differences between Guard and Reserve service and Active-Duty service.

The bill before us today does not meet that standard.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just quickly before I yield time to my colleague from Ohio, I would like to remind the Members that training for members of National Guard and Reserve has never been counted towards GI Bill eligibility. Members of Guard and Reserve know that, as I said in my opening, when they sign up.

Now, the Democrat majority did not hold a legislative hearing on this bill, so to that extent, the expansion of eligibility was needed to increase recruitment and retention within the Guard and Reserve component and DOD, but DOD did not have the opportunity to testify to that before the committee because we didn't meet.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), who has actually served both in the Reserve and Active component of our military.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), a man who has truly experienced what it is to serve, the highest ranking officer that serves in this body today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to clear up some statements that I think were made by some of the people while talking, it was brought up that we actually have already dealt with toxic exposures, and we haven't. It is vitally important to understand that.

Those costs that we are still going to be looking at, whether it is 300 or 150 or whatever it is, we haven't found that out or figured that out yet. It is vitally important to understand that it is still out there, and there is going to be a cost.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), someone from our side of the aisle who does a great job and that we trust tremendously to watch our costs and watch our spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate with many others, and so many times it is being misunderstood that the Guard and Reserve don't receive these benefits when they are called up on Federal--they actually do on many of the Federal orders. The Moore amendment would allow that to occur.

I think many of our Members are confused on what they actually are receiving time for toward their GI Bill. I want to express again what we are saying is that the overreach here that occurs is that one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year, they know when they sign up that that is the difference. It is not going to be credited.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think Members of the House need to understand because many speakers, including the previous speaker, brought up the fact that those who serve should receive these benefits who actually serve on the battlefield. When they do, they do. Under this existing system right now they receive that benefit.

What we are talking about now is an expansion to those days of reservist, the weekend a month and the 2 weeks a year. It is completely different from the fact when they are on Federal orders, and the Moore amendment would actually deal with that and take care of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an additional 2 minutes.

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

I am ready to close, but there are a few things in the closing that I want to be sure and bring up.

First off, the GI Bill cannot be included in--was not included, and those benefits would be removed if they refuse to take the vaccine. So the MTR is actually a legitimate motion that is something that we do need to deal with that was not taken care of in that bill.

And just so you know, a vitally important issue that was brought up by General Bergman, our speakers that we have had here today, they don't take this lightly. They are very serious about this. They have served themselves. They have served in these capacities. They understand the concern. And the concern of retention in the Active Forces is a serious concern.

We just received notice that the Army raised its max bonus for new recruits to $50,000 due to struggling in trying to get people to come on to Active Reserve. By offering this benefit above and beyond that has been a concern of many of those that have expressed that concern.

But let me tell you this on this debate today. I want to thank Chairman Takano and others for a thoughtful and respectful debate, which is vitally important on an issue like this.

I also want to thank Congressman Levin. His passion on these issues was truly present as well, and we understand that.

You know, I am a former marine. I am a former active marine. I am a marine because, you know, once you are a marine you are always a marine. That is vitally important to remember. And as a father of a marine and a grandfather of a marine, these issues are personal to me.

Now, I understand the sacrifices that members of our National Guard make every day. And I think some of the things that were spoken of here today confuse the fact that when they get called up to Active Duty, go over to Iraq, go to Afghanistan, those qualify towards their GI bill. It does. And I am not opposed to them receiving education benefits, nor was anybody that spoke here today.

But the Guard and Reserve is that; it is a Guard and Reserve. And whenever they are activated, yes, they should receive those benefits. That is why the Moore amendment is so vitally important that we are going to be talking on

later as well. If we adopt that, it will cover everything except that component that those Guard and Reserve members knew when they joined, that they didn't get those benefits for that 1 weekend a month and those 2 weeks a year.

And why is that? Because it is a separate standing than an Active- Duty military personnel.

This discussion--and I know we all want to respect our Guard and Reserve, but this is not the way to do it. Doing it in the right order, hearing from everyone in committee, discussing these issues, bringing them up, and getting input from those stakeholders that are involved, was the proper way to do this; not to do it here on the floor in this manner.

I think the debate has been really good. I hope that the people that are listening understand. I hope that our colleagues understand what it is; that a vote against this is not a vote against the Guard and Reserve. A vote against this is simply saying, no, there is another way that is more fiscally responsible, that will still offer benefits and reward those for their service. But this is not the right way.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, ``yes'' on the amendments that we are coming up with, but ``no'' on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Ross' amendment would require VA to share information regarding mental healthcare, community care, and other services to veterans who have recently transitioned out of the military.

Leaving the military can be a difficult and vulnerable time for many veterans. It is critical that separating servicemembers receive support as they restart their civilian lives. Part of that is ensuring that they are educated and empowered to take advantage of the benefits they earned by serving the Nation in uniform.

Now, right now, the education occurs primarily through the Transition Assistance Program, or TAP. TAP was created in 1990, and always includes information on the VA care, benefits and services that those transitioning out of the military may be eligible for.

Now, TAP is a great program, and it is vitally important because those of us who are older veterans, the only tap we got was on the shoulder and a hey, good to see you; have a great life. But now TAP actually has that opportunity.

In addition, the Trump administration began the Solid Start program in 2019. Through Solid Start, all new veterans are contacted by the VA three times during their first year out of uniform. Those contacts occur 90, 180, and 360 days after separation from service and are a priceless opportunity for newly separated servicemembers to connect with the VA.

Congresswoman Ross' amendment would require that the VA provide information to those new veterans, including information regarding the healthcare, including mental health, community care, military sexual trauma, and the Veterans Crisis Line.

As I indicated, the VA already provides new veterans with information during TAP and through the Solid Start program. This amendment simply ensures that the materials VA provides to new veterans specifically includes these subjects.

For that reason, I am in support of her amendment, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support that. I thank Congresswoman Ross and the cosponsors of this amendment for their work, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Congressman Moore's amendment to H.R. 1836, as amended, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021.

While I do not support the underlying text of the bill, I believe that Congressman Moore's amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, would make important, commonsense changes to it.

The underlying bill would make a vast and costly expansion of benefits to Guard and Reserve members to include GI Bill eligibility for every day in uniform under Federal orders. This includes GI Bill eligibility for weekend drills and training.

As I stated during the general debate earlier, I believe that this bill's $2 billion mandatory cost is using rare offsets that take away from the priorities this committee has in serving our Nation's veterans. That is why today I stand in support of Congressman Moore's amendment.

These substituted provisions would simplify current law so that any time spent on Federal Active Duty by members of the Guard and Reserve for service other than for training would count toward GI Bill eligibility. This would include service in support of protecting the southern border, federally funded missions in support of efforts to combat COVID-19, and other critical Active Duty missions.

The amendment would only require $16 million in mandatory offsets, compared to the $2 billion the underlying bill would cost.

Not only is this policy change good for our Nation's veterans, but it also does not burden our children, grandchildren, and future generations of American taxpayers with tens of billions of dollars over several decades in unfunded offset costs like the underlying bill would.

This is without question a more measurable and fiscally responsible approach to more fully honor the valuable service that these men and women of the Guard and Reserve perform.

I want to thank Congressman Moore for his hard work on the amendment. Before yielding back, I would like to say that if a person votes against this bill, it is not a vote against the Guard and Reserve. It is a vote for the taxpayers, which Guard and Reserves are also taxpayers. It is the reason why we should have had a more full debate on this bill in committee so these things could have been brought up.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4673, the Ensuring Veterans' Smooth Transition, or EVEST Act.

This bill would require VA to automatically enroll every eligible separating servicemember into the VA healthcare system. As a veteran, I know firsthand that the transition from military to civilian life can be hard. One of the goals is to remove barriers to care for veterans, whether they left the military decades ago or just last week.

I believe the intention of the EVEST Act is to further that goal by connecting more at-risk servicemembers with the VA as they leave the service. I support the intention. I know many other Members do as well, which is why I expect the bill to pass the House, and probably on a bipartisan basis.

However, as the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have a different perspective on this bill than many of my colleagues. I have taken a long, hard look at this legislation, and what I have seen is a bill that may be well intended but has several potential problems.

To start with, the EVEST Act enrolls separating servicemembers into the VA healthcare system without their knowledge or consent. Only after they have been enrolled does the bill require VA to inform the veterans of their enrollment, the status of their enrollment, and how to opt out by disenrolling themselves.

We shouldn't be signing veterans up for a government program they aren't asking for and may never need without at least letting them know first. And

we shouldn't be telling them that if they don't like it, they can figure out how to disenroll themselves. That is backwards.

Veterans deserve better than that. Veterans also deserve better than a bill that has been rushed through Congress without due diligence. There has never been a single hearing on the EVEST Act in this Congress.

You may hear the chairman say that there has been a hearing on this bill last Congress. That is true. But last Congress and this Congress are very different. We had a different administration last Congress; we had a different VA Secretary last Congress. I believe more than 70 Members are new this Congress. More than half of the membership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is new as well. And, regardless, VA did not provide testimony at the hearing last Congress.

We have no idea if VA can implement the bill without disrupting service to the veterans already in the VA health system, further burdening VA's already overworked staff, or increasing the strain on VA's already overfull facilities. Every Member of the House hears from veterans in our districts who are waiting too long for care they need, stuck in crowded VA facilities, and being treated by VA staff who are struggling and overwhelmed. I am concerned that this bill could make each of those things worse.

I am not the only one who thinks so. Last week, right before this bill was considered by the Rules Committee, the Biden administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy on the EVEST Act. The statement reads, ``There may be challenges implementing this bill as drafted, and the administration looks forward to working with Congress. . . .'' In other words, even the President recognizes that this bill needs more work.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1836--Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021--Rep. Levin, D-

California, and nine cosponsors

H.R. 4673--Ensuring Veterans' Smooth Transition (EVEST) Act--Rep.

Takano, D-California

The Biden-Harris Administration supports efforts that

ensure veterans receive timely access to high-quality

benefits and services that they have earned.

The Administration supports H.R. 1836, which would expand

eligibility criteria for certain education benefits. Current

law defines the term ``active duty'' as those individuals who

are on full-time duty in the active military service of the

United States, including full-time training duty, annual

training duty, and attendance, while in the active military

service, at a school designated as a service school by law or

by the Secretary of the military department concerned. H.R.

1836 would expand eligibility criteria to include those

training in full-time National Guard duty, which includes the

National Guard, the Army National Guard, and the Air National

Guard, as well as those same members when performing active

duty.

The Administration supports the EVEST Act's goal of

seamless enrollment in health care coverage. As currently

written, H.R. 4673 would require the Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) to automatically enroll new veterans into VA

health care, and notify veterans of their enrollment and

instructions on how to un-enroll, if desired. There may be

challenges implementing this bill as drafted, and the

Administration looks forward to working with Congress on how

best to operationalize its objective.

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, the Veterans' Affairs Committee had numerous opportunities in the last year to do that work that I had just discussed, and I don't know why the chairman chose not to. I have heard him say over the last week that it is okay we didn't have a hearing on the EVEST Act in this Congress because the bill has been in the public domain.

Now, I am not sure what that statement really means because there have been almost 400 bills introduced in this Congress that have been referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I guess that each of those are in the public domain. But I don't think any of them are ready for a vote here on the House floor.

It is not too much to ask that we seek the input from stakeholders before voting on a bill to become law. That is actually the least we can do. I don't think our constituents sent us here to do anything less than that.

During last week's Rules Committee, Congresswoman Torres, a member of Chairman Takano's own party, seemed to agree with me by lamenting the lack of process this bill has received this Congress. With all due respect to the Congresswoman, I doubt that we agree on much, but we do agree on this, though. Having this bill go through a much more robust process this Congress could have resulted in a much better product for our veterans.

Finally, I want to note that the bill will also cost taxpayers $3.1 billion in new discretionary spending. Not a penny of that $3.1 billion is offset.

Implementing this bill will certainly require additional funding above the nearly $100 billion already appropriated for the VA healthcare system.

We cannot keep saddling our children and grandchildren with billions of dollars more debt. We have to do better than this.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that I understand why my colleagues will likely vote for this bill. I wish I could vote for this bill, as well.

Leaving the military was not easy. It can leave new veterans feeling adrift and alone. I have been there. But that is why I supported efforts during the Trump administration to improve the Transition Assistance Program and increase the VA's outreach to separating servicemembers during their first year out of uniform.

I want separating servicemembers who need additional support to be able to get it and the help they need in a seamless manner. And I am not at all confident that this bill will accomplish that goal without harming services to other veterans and adding to the national debt. As a result, I must oppose this bill today.

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

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

In response to the EVEST Act has been in the public domain, I think it is very important to note, as I mentioned earlier, the last Congress is not the same as this Congress. We have more than 70 Members who are new Members of Congress, half of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is new, we have a different President, and we have a different secretary.

Introducing a bill is not the same as conducting a hearing. You can't get input from the stakeholders. You can't engage in meaningful debate in the public domain. This reflects zero input from the VA, meaning we have no idea whether it is flexible, whether it is workable, whether it is disruptive to the VA system. We don't know.

And even the Biden administration agrees that more work is needed before this bill should become law.

And the previous speaker, Mr. Speaker, spoke about the person that didn't know what was available to them through the VA. If you were my age as a veteran it is true that you could not know because you got a quick class and the TAP program. And I have mentioned on this floor before that that is a tap on the back and see you later.

But today's TAP program is a course that you take, and you are bound to understand separation from your active service and what VA benefits are available to you.

And not only that, the Trump administration in 2018 put an administrative order out that you are then contacted after separation at 90, 180, and 360 days out to be notified of what benefits are available to you in the VA. We are doing that.

This instead enrolls members without their consent, and then they are enrolled. And the only option they have is to be notified later how maybe they can get out of being enrolled.

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

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

In my debate and the things that I brought up here today, I never said that VSOs didn't have input. I did say the VA did not come to the committee, and we did not have the proper hearings. If the VA is in support of this bill, I would request that the VA send the documentation saying how they are in support of this bill. Their input would be vitally important.

Whether it is a Republican or Democrat administration, the VA is vitally important to make sure they provide services to our constituents and to our veterans.

No one on this floor cares more about veterans than the people who serve on this committee--I can guarantee you that--whether it is the chairman or myself.

But we have to make sure what we are providing does what it is we are trying to do. It was mentioned earlier that they believe that this would help reduce suicide among transitioning servicemembers. I care deeply about this. This is something that both I and the chairman have worked on and will continue to work on.

The majority of veterans who die of suicide have not had meaningful engagement with the VA. They may have been enrolled in the VA, but they haven't gotten the VA care that they need.

This bill would add names of eligible separating servicemembers from the VA and put them on the rolls, but it doesn't do the outreach that is necessary to possibly prevent them from that ultimate decision to end their lives.

Those are the type of things we are working on and will continue to work on. This is not the answer to that. There are a lot of other concerns that I have expressed and will continue to express.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not do our job on this bill. We did not consider this bill in a legislative hearing. We did not seek input from stakeholders or the VA. We did not make certain that automatically enrolling newly separated servicemembers into the VA healthcare system would not impede access for existing employees or cause funding crises. And those things are very, very real.

Even the Biden OMB has admitted that there are going to be challenges with implementing this bill. If you look at the numbers--and I am going to add this into what should be mentioned--19.1 million veterans is what we have; 9 million veterans are enrolled; 7 million have used access to the VA. If we start and do it this way without letting veterans make decisions on their own, it can overwhelm the VA. That is what has been mentioned by OMB.

Veterans are already facing tough challenges. So is the VA health system that they can go to. But we don't need to add any more to their plates without at least hearing how it is going to affect the services that are already being provided to our veterans.

That is why, just so you know, I am offering a motion to recommit this morning. My motion to recommit, if adopted, would send this bill back to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to consider an amendment to H.R. 4673 that would delay implementation until 30 days after the VA has certified that it can implement, without disruption, services to veterans or requiring additional funds.

Mr. Speaker, I don't see how those who support this bill, despite its problems and the Biden administration's recognition that it may cause challenges, can object to this amendment. The very least we can do for the millions of veterans who are already enrolled in VA care and counting on VA services is to ensure--before this bill goes into effect--that it won't cause undue harm to them. I have already drafted an amendment that would accomplish that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the four en bloc amendments are offered by Congressman Delgado, Congresswoman Hayes, and Congresswoman Tlaib. I thank them for their work. I remain opposed to the underlying bill, and I explained why in detail over the last debate.

One of the reasons I was opposed to it is because the Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not do our job before bringing this bill to the floor. We did not hold hearings on the bill or seek input from stakeholders. And importantly, we did not get assurance from the VA that the bill could be implemented without negative impact to services.

In fact, shortly before this bill hit the Rules Committee, the Biden administration did release the statement that we talked about earlier. That statement, remember, says that there are challenges in implementing this bill.

Now, I wish we could have done that work in the VA Committee before considering the bill on the floor. If there are challenges, we need to know about them, and we need to be able to address them to make sure that no veteran is harmed by this bill.

Nevertheless, here we are. These en bloc amendments will help get some of the information we should have gotten before passing the bill. They will help us stay informed on how the bill is working and the impact it is having on veterans and on the VA healthcare system after the fact.

For example, one of Congressman Delgado's amendments would require GAO to study the best methods for VA to notify newly separated servicemembers of their enrollment status. His second amendment would require VA to consider texting newly separated servicemembers to inform them of their enrollment status and their ability to disenroll. If a veteran chooses to disenroll, Congresswoman Hayes' amendment would require VA to provide them with information on how to enroll at a later date if they change their mind down the line.

Finally, Congresswoman Tlaib's amendment would require VA to report to Congress on the implementation of this bill not later than 1 year after enactment. That would allow us to course-correct, as needed, if the bill is causing problems at least 1 year out.

Now, I feel like a broken record, but this is information we should have had already. Nevertheless, it is better late than never. That is why I will be in support of that amendment alongside the amendments for Delgado and Hayes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Escobar's amendment would expand automatic enrollment to servicemembers who left the military 90 days before this bill is enacted. There are already many existing mechanisms for separating servicemembers to connect with the VA if that is something they need and want.

As I explained during the general debate, I have a number of serious concerns with the underlying bill. The Biden administration agrees that there are challenges. I think that is an understatement. Regardless, we should not be further complicating an already difficult implementation by expanding it even more.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 860, I call up the bill (H.R. 4673) to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the automatic enrollment of eligible veterans in patient enrollment system of Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 4673, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4673, as amended, my bill, the Ensuring Veterans' Smooth Transition, or EVEST Act.

I have made suicide prevention a top priority for the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Last Congress, we passed bipartisan, bicameral mental health legislative packages, including the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Improvement Act and the Veterans COMPACT Act. This Congress, we continued this work by passing the Sergeant Ketchum Rural Veterans Mental Health Act into law, but there is always more to do.

EVEST builds on our work and finally closes one of the most glaring gaps for veterans being able to successfully access high-quality VA health services, the enrollment process. We shouldn't be trying to hide VA care from those who earned it.

We know that the months following transition out of the military can be very stressful and particularly risky for new veterans in terms of mental health. With the EVEST Act, servicemembers will be automatically enrolled in VA care during their transition out of the military, with the choice to opt out. This helps simplify the process and prevents veterans from potentially missing out on lifesaving care. It also keeps veterans from having to opt into VA care later and attempt to navigate a new bureaucracy all on their own.

The symptoms of PTSD can be significantly improved in veterans who receive prompt mental healthcare. A 2014 study led by researchers at the San Francisco VA Medical Center looked at nearly 40,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who received VA mental

healthcare between 2001 and 2011 and had a post-deployment diagnosis of PTSD. They found that veterans who sought and received care soon after the end of their service had lower levels of PTSD upon follow-up a year after they initiated care. Each year that a veteran waited to initiate treatment, there was about a 5 percent increase in the odds of their PTSD either not improving or getting worse.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the study from the San Francisco VA Medical Center.

[From Psychiatric Services, Dec. 2014]

Timing of Mental Health Treatment and PTSD Symptom Improvement Among

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans

(By Shira Maguen, Ph.D.; Erin Madden, M.P.H.; Thomas C. Neylan, M.D.; Beth E. Cohen, M.D., M.A.S.; Daniel Bertenthal, M.P.H.; Karen H. Seal,

A smooth care transition from DOD to VA can help support veterans as they adjust to the next phase of their lives and provide easy access to healthcare should any challenges arise.

Everyday Americans find it difficult and frustrating to sign up for healthcare. Now, imagine that you have just come off Active-Duty military service where, for years you were told when and where to show up for your healthcare. You probably heard something about VA services during your transition assistance program but, frankly, you were focused on everything you had to do to finalize your separation from the military and possibly looking for new employment and relocating your family.

Now, after having separated from the military, you are a veteran, and maybe for the first time you have to figure out how to check your eligibility for VA healthcare and navigate the system while potentially also facing some new stress in your personal and family life. This is completely avoidable with EVEST, which simply enrolls you in the VA healthcare for which you are already eligible, ensuring that when you need VA, there aren't any unnecessary roadblocks to seeing a doctor.

Now, let me say that again. This legislation has nothing to do with a veteran's eligibility, nor does it change VA standards or who is eligible. It only connects eligible veterans to VA care faster and easier.

We know that veterans are much more likely to use VA services and care when the process to enroll is simple, and we know that VA care is world class. EVEST is a straightforward tool that will allow us to simplify the transition process and take steps toward preventing veteran suicide.

Automatic enrollment is something policymakers and veterans service organizations and stakeholders have been trying to advance for years, and with EVEST it will finally become a reality.

Paralyzed Veterans of America and Disabled American Veterans have formally endorsed this legislation. The Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs, the American Federation of Government Employees, the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute, and the American Psychological Association also support EVEST.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs and the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute.

Nurses Organization of

Veterans Affairs,

January 14, 2021.

Chairman Mark Takano,

Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Takano: On behalf of the nearly 3,000 members

of the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs (NOVA) we

would like to offer our strong support for your bill, H.R.

4673, Ensuring Veterans' Smooth Transition Act (EVEST).

As nurses, caring for Veterans is our number one priority.

Your bill will provide Veterans with the option of enrolling

in VA healthcare during the critical months following their

transition to civilian life and ensure servicemembers

separating from active duty receive the critical health care

to which they are eligible.

Your bill will also help eliminate barriers to care--

including those who may not know they are even eligible to

receive care at VA. It will also help to assure the Veteran

that they are not alone in seeking care for any physical or

mental health condition acquired during their military

service.

Offering automatic enrollment with an opt out will help to

lessen the burden of navigating the VA healthcare system at a

time when they are dealing with many challenges as they

transition to civilian life.

NOVA believes that most Veterans will find care provided

them within the VA is suited to their individual and complex

needs and cannot be matched in the private sector. Many

providers at the VA are Veterans themselves so they

understand what it means to serve and are trained to provide

a Whole Health approach to the Veteran patients' health and

well-being.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue and your

continued support for Veterans and the healthcare

professionals who care for them.

Sincerely,

Taryn-Janae Wilcox-Olson, MHS, RN,

President, Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs (NOVA).

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer for considering this legislation today, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this vital legislation to increase access to care and ensure a smooth transition to civilian life for veterans.

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

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

I reiterate that we should not be hiding the care that our veterans have earned. Let me quickly say that this bill has been in the public domain for 2 years. It was reintroduced last summer, and the minority had over 6 months to talk with us and the VA about it.

Furthermore, the committee has held six hearings on suicide prevention and transition since 2019. The common sense of this bill shines through.

And let me also add that regarding the capacity of VA--and I am glad that the ranking member has entered the statement of administrative support into the Record; that statement clearly says and declares the administration's support and its willingness to work with the administration.

Data shows that VA enrollment has been going down in recent years, and while new enrollment hovers around 400,000 per year, it used to be double that, around one million per year, and using current assumptions, VA projects veteran enrollment in VHA to remain relatively steady from 2019 to 2029.

I am very confident about VA's ability to absorb the additional veterans that will take advantage of VA's world-class healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan), my good friend and a member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology Modernization.

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

I want to add that, in response to the esteemed ranking member, VA formally supports this legislation and has been discussing auto enrollment for years.

VA has already been working to make transition into VA healthcare smoother with Solid Start and will soon have data showing that warm handoffs have a positive impact on veteran outcomes without overwhelming the VA system.

In response to the criticism that VSOs have not had input, I want to point out that VSOs, including Paralyzed Veterans of America and Disabled American Veterans, have already formally endorsed EVEST. Why? Because the common sense of this legislation shines through.

All VSOs have had a chance to weigh in, and many did. The Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs, the American Federation of Government Employees, the Veterans Health Policy Institute, and the American Psychological Association also support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), my good friend and a former member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee who now serves on the Agriculture Committee, Homeland Security Committee, and House Judiciary Committee.

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

Let me say that the amendments that we are considering to this bill today, which I consider friendly, will address many of the ranking member's concerns about the reaching out.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), my good friend who serves on the Financial Services Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, in response to my friend, the esteemed ranking member, that his MTR, which would delay implementation in order to avoid harm to our veterans, dare I say that the harm is in the delay.

I am reminded of a quote from the VFW's Pat Murray that we had at yesterday's roundtable on toxic exposure: Our pay-for for this bill and our pay-for, frankly, for all that we do for veterans was the ticket that we sent servicemembers overseas to serve. I repeat: Our pay-for was the ticket we sent servicemembers overseas to serve.

And a little further discussion on the pay-for issue: The Congressional Budget Office does not estimate that this bill will increase mandatory spending and does not require an offset. These are the rules we play by.

Again, we are not creating new eligibility here. The only cost of this bill is veterans seeking care that they are already eligible for. We are all better off when veterans are seeking the care that they need, and we should not be hiding that care for which they are eligible.

Automatic enrollment in VA healthcare for eligible veterans is a long-needed suicide prevention tool. We cannot put a price tag on protecting the health and safety of our veterans. Many of these veterans would go on to use VA healthcare even if they are not automatically enrolled, and the minority does not give a compelling reason why we should hinder or make that process more difficult for our veterans.

Again, I repeat, we should not be hiding the care for which our veterans are already eligible.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all my colleagues join me in passing H.R. 4673, as amended, and I anticipate we will see a big bipartisan vote today.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 860, I rise to offer the four amendments en bloc to H.R. 4673.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of these en bloc amendments. Seamlessly connecting veterans with the benefits and care they earned through their service is paramount to the transition process.

The Delgado amendment No. 1 makes sure that VA can easily notify veterans regarding care and services through mass texting. As technology and communication methods improve, so should how VA uses those capabilities to easily inform veterans of their benefits. Texting eligible veterans to tell them they have been auto-enrolled in VA healthcare is an effective, simple way to increase awareness of the care available to them.

The Delgado amendment No. 2 requires GAO to submit a report to determine the best methods to notify veterans regarding their automatic enrollment in VA healthcare. This amendment will strengthen the underlying bill and inform best practices for how VA can ensure veterans have the information they need regarding their access to care and services.

Getting information to veterans in an effective manner is crucial to their transition into civilian life, and the Delgado amendment No. 2 will help improve how VA communicates an eligible veteran's enrollment in VA healthcare so they can easily access the care they need.

The Hayes amendment requires that VA notify veterans who opt out of automatic enrollment that they may elect to enroll at a later date. We understand there will be some veterans who opt out for auto-enrollment for a variety of reasons, but it is our duty that they know that the VA will be waiting for them if their future needs change.

Ensuring VA adopts and scales best practices related to auto- enrollment while also learning from any issues that arise during its rollout is important to the long-term effectiveness of the aims of H.R. 4673.

The Tlaib amendment requires the VA to submit a report a year after the first veteran is auto-enrolled in VA healthcare to preserve lessons learned from the rollout. This report will help improve auto-enrollment for both the VA administrators implementing the program and veteran users alike.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), my good friend who serves on the House Committee on Armed Services as chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces and the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), my good friend and author of this amendment. She serves on the Financial Services Committee, the Natural Resources Committee and the Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), my good friend and member of the Financial Services Committee where he is chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close. I ask all my colleagues to support me in supporting these four amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Escobar amendment to H.R. 4673.

Mr. Speaker, seamlessly connecting veterans with the benefits and care they have earned through their service is paramount to the transition process. The Escobar amendment extends the automatic enrollment in VA healthcare to eligible veterans discharged within 90 days before enactment of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, many of the 175,000 veterans who served in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn are unaware of their eligibility for 5 years of VA healthcare upon separation. Automatically enrolling recently separated eligible veterans into VA healthcare will support our aim to prevent veteran suicides and improve their access to care during their transition to civilian life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Escobar amendment.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 860 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 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

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 860. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1836, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity 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 Veterans' Affairs, makes in order two amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4673, the EVEST 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 Veterans' Affairs. The rule also makes in order five amendments, provides the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs with en bloc authority, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through February 4, 2022.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased we are here today to provide for consideration of two important bills to support our Nation's veterans.

H.R. 1836, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act will make important improvements to the way GI Bill benefits are calculated for our National Guard and Reserve veterans. Since 9/11, our seven individual Reserve and Guard components of the United States Armed Forces have played a larger and larger role in military operations. Despite putting on the same uniform and taking on many of the same risks as their Active Duty counterparts, these servicemembers don't have access to the same benefits.

Under current law, active component servicemembers receive credit for every day they serve while reserve component and National Guard servicemembers earn credit depending on their duty status. H.R. 1836 would expand eligibility for the GI Bill to count every day a servicemember is paid and in uniform toward benefit eligibility and ensure parity for National Guard and Reserve members. It only makes common sense. This service would include all training and general duty for which basic pay is warranted.

These men and women answer the call to serve without hesitation. Our National Guard has stepped up these last several years to assist in the fight against COVID-19, help communities affected by natural disasters, as in Colorado, we had a terrible wildfire a week ago and the National Guard stepped up, and even protecting our Capitol following a domestic terrorist attack. It is past time these servicemembers have access to the GI benefits they deserve.

I commend Congressman Mike Levin for sponsoring this legislation to provide parity, and I am proud to support this bipartisan bill.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4673, the EVEST Act, to improve healthcare benefits for departing Active Duty servicemembers as they transition into VA healthcare and civilian life, again, something that is just common sense and I thought was already part of the law.

Approximately 200,000 servicemembers transition out of military service each year. This service is difficult, demanding, and dangerous, and the transition from military to civilian life can be challenging for servicemembers who suffered a service-related injury or a traumatic experience. A recent survey of 10,000 veterans showed their chief concern in their first year after leaving the military is their health and their mental well-being.

At this moment, veterans eligible for VA healthcare must choose to enroll in the VA's healthcare system using its online, phone, or in- person services. However, veterans are often confused regarding their eligibility status for enrollment despite all veterans being eligible for VA healthcare benefits for 5 years after separation from the military.

A 2014 study found symptoms of PTSD can be significantly improved if veterans receive prompt mental healthcare, and for each year a veteran waited to initiate treatment, there was a 5 percent increase in the odds of their PTSD not improving or even worsening. Simply put, our veterans cannot afford to not get the healthcare they need and deserve.

The EVEST Act requires the VA to enroll veterans in its patient enrollment system within 60 days of receiving relevant information and notice from the Department of Defense. This bill uses existing DOD systems through the Transition Assistance Program as well as VA's existing patient enrollment system to enable a warm handoff from DOD to VA. The bill would require the VA to provide veterans notice of enrollment and instructions for how the veteran can opt out if they so wish.

Smoother access to VA healthcare has never been more important than it is today. It is time to shift the burden from the veteran to the DOD and the VA where it belongs.

I thank Chairman Takano for introducing this commonsense legislation to improve the health of our recently separated veterans, and I also recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his service to the country as part of our military.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say in response to my friend, this is a situation in the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act where the National Guard and the Reserves are standing side-by-side with active military, and they are entitled to the same benefits that the active military has when it comes to the GI Bill. So that one, in my opinion, is a no-brainer.

The other, and I would say, the VSOs, the veteran service organizations supporting the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, H.R. 1836, are Student Veterans of America, National Guard Association of the U.S., Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the Reserve Officers Association of the U.S.

With respect so the EVEST legislation, H.R. 4637, again, here we are, people have acted with military service and then have to opt in as opposed to just let the system move quickly for them to become part of the veterans medical care and benefits system. And we have a number of different organizations that support that.

VSOs supporting that are the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs, and the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of Mr. Reschenthaler and Mrs. Hinson about schools. But this, in a word, is the Congress of the United States. This is not the Des Moines school board or the Punxsutawney school board where they may have individual respective issues for their area.

Madam Speaker, my wife is a teacher--as you are--and in Jefferson County, Colorado, the schools are open.

Now, are people getting sick? Is there a lot of pressure on teachers? You bet there is. But those schools are open.

So I appreciate the comments of my friends about wanting to open the schools in Chicago or maybe wanting to open them someplace else, but they are open. And so I am not exactly sure what they are railing against other than maybe the school board of Chicago or the school board of Des Moines.

Madam Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Madam Speaker, I would just respond to my friend from Oklahoma, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Obviously, they have some issues with their school systems if this is the problem that they are bringing up.

In Colorado, schools are open. I can tell you that my wife, Nancy, is pretty stressed because COVID is still around and the teaching ranks have been hit by COVID. There is a lot of stress on teachers, but the schools are open.

Maybe those gentlemen need to talk to their school boards. In Colorado, we believe in local control. In Colorado, we have kept these open.

I would just suggest to the gentlemen to take a look at their own school boards instead of having some national standard that they want to create here about keeping schools open, because they are open.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Reschenthaler mentioned something about the economy. Let's talk about the economy. Let's start with the stock market.

The stock market is up 10,000 points since Joe Biden took office. Madam Speaker, 10,000 points. Do you know what that means? It is $1.4 billion per point. It means the stock market is up $14 trillion in 1 year under Joe Biden. Since Donald Trump lost, the stock market is up $14 trillion.

If that weren't enough, let's talk about how many jobs have been added since Joe Biden won and Donald Trump lost. Madam Speaker, 6.2 million jobs have been added in the last year.

Wages have increased by 4.7 percent, at levels we haven't seen for decades.

We had the sharpest drop in unemployment since Joe Biden won and Donald Trump lost, over the course of the last year, down to 3.9 percent.

The stock market is up. Jobs are up. Wages are up. My friends are complaining about the economy. Well, they have to complain about something, so that is what they want to complain about.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Utah, as well as my friend from Pennsylvania. They are focusing on schools. Okay, focus on schools. Obviously, I think local control of these school districts is the appropriate way to go and not kind of a Federal mandate.

Obviously, we would like to see vaccines used more and COVID eliminated. If we got everybody vaccinated and people wore masks, I think that would be the direction we would go.

What these bills are about, and what this rule is about, is the mental health of our National Guard and Reserve troops. We are talking about the National Guard, and we are talking about the Reserves.

They may want to bring in a school bill, which is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but what we are talking about here should have been either passed under some kind of an expedited fashion or it should be the law already. Obviously, they want to argue about something that is not before the body because they can't argue against these two bills.

We want to make sure that there is parity that exists between the National Guard and Reserve and active military when it comes to the GI Bill and the ability of those individuals to take advantage of the benefits of the GI Bill, which will benefit this Nation greatly.

My dad had a saying about the original GI Bill. He said: America has made many investments, but of the two best investments that America made, the Louisiana Purchase was second only to the GI Bill in terms of the value to America.

Here we are, talking about all sorts of other things and not parity for National Guardsmen, Reserve officers, and Reserve troops with the ability to access the GI Bill.

We are also ignoring the mental health issues that so many coming out of the military may experience once they are out of the Department of Defense, out of their active service. We want to make sure there is a seamless approach to them entering into the VA system.

Madam Speaker, I understand my friends arguing about everything else, but what we have before us are very important matters that have to be addressed.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friends wanting to talk about the Chicago Teachers Union because, again, they don't want to talk about the National Guard; they don't want to talk about the Reserve; they don't want to talk about the GI Bill; and they don't want to talk about mental health benefits or health benefits generally for veterans because they don't have any complaint about that. There is just a whole other conversation going on here.

Again, I don't know what is going on in Wisconsin, whether the gentleman has a complaint against collective bargaining in Wisconsin; I don't know if it is the problem in Pennsylvania if there is an issue with collective bargaining. That is not the issue before the House today.

Madam Speaker, we need to get these National Guard and Reserve pieces of legislation passed, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to thank the gentlewoman from Louisiana for talking about the need for broadband because in the American Rescue Plan there is funding for broadband for rural areas such as she represents as well as in the infrastructure bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so my friend can close.

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

I want to just recognize my friend for his service to our country both in the military and here in the United States Congress.

I want to thank my colleagues for joining me here today to speak on the rule, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, and the EVEST Act and how we provide and care for our Nation's veterans.

We have an opportunity through passage of both bills to improve the healthcare of our separating servicemembers and ensure our National Guard and Reserve component members receive parity in their GI Bill benefits to thank them for their service to

our country. I again want to thank the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their work along with Chairman Mark Takano and Representative Mike Levin for sponsoring these important bills.

As we kick off 2022 and continue the House's work for the people, I am glad we are starting with our Nation's veterans. I want to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Reschenthaler, and the numerous other veterans who have served in this body for, again, service both in the military and service here in the United States Congress. I have always fought hard for our Nation's veterans throughout my time in Congress as my way to show my gratitude for their service and fulfill my belief that it is our country's responsibility to care for our Nation's veterans after they have cared for us.

Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 682) to encourage local educational agencies to

resume in-person instruction at elementary and secondary

schools, and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any 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

Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 682.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.