To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duty.

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 rise to speak in support of H.R. 1836, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, which will expand eligibility for post-9/11 G.I. Bill educational benefits to members of the National Guard and the Reserves.

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, will 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.

Under current rules, service members need three years on active-duty to be eligible for full Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, which include 36 months of in-state college tuition, a monthly living stipend and other payouts.

Reaching that amount of time mobilized to active-duty is difficult for guardsmen and reservists, and outdated and confusing eligibility requirements means the difference of tens of thousands of dollars for college for those individuals.

For example, the deployment of thousands of Guard troops to Capitol Hill following the January 6 attack counted towards GI Bill eligibility, because the mission was being paid for with federal funds.

However, troops mobilized for crowd control during racial equality protests in Washington, D.C., last summer were not able to count that time, because those missions weren't funded by federal dollars.

Some other riot response missions across the nation were funded by federal funds, and did count towards the education benefits.

Similarly, tens of thousands of Guard and Reserve troops have been mobilized for pandemic response missions over the last two years, but their eligibility varies depending on the specific orders and units involved.

For years, members of the National Guard and Reserve Components have been disadvantaged and overlooked in the accumulation of their education benefits while performing the same or similar service as their Active-Duty counterparts.

Time and time again, through natural disasters, global pandemics, and threats to our democracy, our National Guard and Reserve members have answered the call to serve.

But despite taking on the same risks and doing the same jobs as their active-duty counterparts, these service members don't have access to the same benefits.

This has become much clearer and more severe during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Members of the National Guard and Reserve Component have risked their lives on the front lines of this pandemic, administering aid and protecting the Capitol on training status.

Our brave men and women continue to selflessly answer our nation's call and are long overdue the benefits befitting their service.

The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021 will ensure the men and women of the National Guard are entitled to GI Bill education benefits when activated for service either for training or for operational needs of our country, just like their Active- Duty counterparts.

I want to thank all of our armed serviceman and women for their selfless dedication to our protection every day.

In my home state of Texas, the National Guard has been deployed time and time again to assist citizens and save lives during numerous natural disasters, including the Winter

Freeze of last February and the tragic Hurricane Harvey.

The Texas National Guard is host to nearly 21,000 troops, including its army and air components.

The National Guard is a diverse force that includes all ethnicities:

White: 69 percent;

Black: 15 percent;

Hispanic: 10 percent;

Asian: 3 percent;

Male: 83.1 percent;

Female: 16.9 percent

This bill, in which we further the benefits and recognition that our servicemen and women deserve, also reminds us that we have an overriding duty to protect the health and dignity of those serving today.

For this reason, I would like to discuss the crisis that our National Guardsmen and Guardswomen have been thrust into at the Texas Governor's direction on our Southern Border.

In March 2021, the Texas Governor launched the ill-fated and ineffective Operation Lone Star which he claimed was necessary to stem a so-called invasion of migrants at Texas' southern border.

As of November 2021, more than 10,000 Texas National Guardsmen have been deployed to the southern border in pursuit of this folly.

According to published media accounts, National Guard members who have been activated for Operation Lone Star are experiencing habitual pay delays and poor working conditions during the border mission, including being exposed to COVID-19, and many are missing the equipment necessary for safety and mission success.

In addition, the National Guard has faced austere conditions and limited resources, leading to unsanitary conditions such as the lack of portable restrooms.

Rather than addressing these conditions, just last week the Texas Governor filed a frivolous lawsuit in federal court challenging the authority of President Biden, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to require that members of the National Guard be vaccinated against COVID-19.

There is no merit to this nuisance law suit as demonstrated by the summary rejection of similar arguments raised by neighboring Oklahoma Governor Stitt.

The Texas Governor's failure to comply with the policies intended to reduce the spread of COVID-19 among the Armed Forces will mean that there will be less military personnel available national disasters that have struck Texas in recent years, such as the winter freeze of last year.

This will also mean that there are fewer personnel to respond to any attacks on the homeland.

Encouraged by the Texas Governor's obstinacy, about 40 percent of the members of the Texas Army National Guard are refusing to get vaccinated, which puts at risk their colleagues and the persons they are sworn to defend and protect.

National Guardsmen and Guardswomen deployed in this disastrous mission at the Texas Governor's insistence face the deadly spread of COVID-19, unsanitary conditions, lack of pay, and a lack of a certain future.

These uniformed men and women deserve better, and some of them, seeing no alternative to their present reality, have decided to end it all.

Five National guard soldiers have shot and killed themselves in the past three months, and one more survived a suicide attempt.

One of these men, private first class Joshua R. Cortez, was preparing to accept a ``lifetime job'' with one of the nation's biggest health insurance companies in late October last year, but the Texas National Guard had other ideas.

Operation Lone Star required involuntary activations to meet the Texas Governor's troop quotas, and Cortez was one of the soldiers tapped to go on state active duty orders--with no idea how long the mission would last.

In November, the 21-year-old mechanic requested a hardship release from the mission: ``I've been waiting for this job and I'm on my way to getting hired . . . I missed my first opportunity in September when I had to go on the flood mission in Louisiana. . . . I can not miss this opportunity because it is my last opportunity for this lifetime job.''

Cortez's company commander recommended approval. But his battalion commander and brigade commander disapproved.

Within 36 hours of his request being denied, Cortez drove to a parking lot in northwest San Antonio and shot himself in the head.

Three other soldiers tied to Operation Lone Star have died by suicide, including:

Sgt. Jose L. De Hoyos was found dead in Laredo, Texas, on Oct. 26. He was a member of the 949th Brigade Support Battalion's headquarters company.

1st Sgt. John ``Kenny'' Crutcher died Nov. 12, as time ran out on his temporary hardship waiver. He was the top NCO for B Company, 3rd Battalion, 144th Infantry.

1st Lt. Charles Williams, a platoon leader in Crutcher's company, died at home overnight Dec. 17 while on pass.

The string of suicides raises urgent questions about the mission's conditions and purpose, as well as the way it's organized and manned through indefinite involuntary call-ups.

This is an excellent and common-sense bill that will enhance the benefits of our servicemen and women.

We must also act to ensure that our servicemen and women are protected from COVID-19, both for their own safety and the safety of our nation.

When called to action, the National Guard performs the name duties as our active duty forces, oftentimes in extraordinarily difficult situations.

Although we cannot bring back the lives lost due to the Texas Governor's misguided actions, we can remember the names of those we have lost and work to ensure that we treat all members of our military equally and with dignity and respect.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor and for yielding.

We owe our veterans everything. They make us the home of the brave and the land of the free. They protect our democracy. They and their families make us so very, very proud.

I thank the gentleman again, Mr. Takano, as chair of the committee, and Mr. Levin for his leadership on this particular legislation which I will acknowledge in a moment.

First, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, nearly eight decades ago when Congress enacted the first GI Bill, our Nation made a bipartisan and unbreakable promise: that every hero who steps forward to defend our Nation deserves the tools to succeed when they come home. Today, the House will proudly take another strong step toward fulfilling that pledge.

On behalf of the Congress, I commend the outstanding leadership of the committee chair, Mark Takano, who has ensured that the Veterans' Affairs Committee remains committed to its long legacy of bipartisanship. I salute the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Congressman Mike Levin of California, both for leading on this important legislation every step of the way and for his lifetime advocacy on behalf of our military communities.

Every time our Nation seeks to strengthen and expand benefits for veterans, we have listened closely to our men and women in uniform and our veterans, taking their insight and expertise into account. We continue to listen to them today as we continue to build upon our progress and appropriately honor their service.

On a regular basis we have a meeting with our veterans service organizations. The American Legion is very much a part of that, as well as other groups reflecting our involvement in other wars since World War II, and we still have a few veterans from then.

What is interesting about this legislation today to me is that, again, it sprang from listening to our men and women in uniform and our veterans as to what their needs are. That is exactly how the first GI Bill came to be.

The veterans of World War I, recognizing the disadvantages that they were at after World War I, came forth with the proposal to have the GI Bill. So this was passed and signed by Franklin Roosevelt during World War II at the suggestion of veterans of World War I.

During the dark days of the Second World War and after listening to the calls of the brave veterans of World War I, President Roosevelt made clear the urgent moral imperative of supporting our returning soldiers.

In a message to Congress in November 1943, he said,

``The members of the Armed Forces have been compelled to make greater economic sacrifice and every other kind of sacrifice than the rest of us, and they are entitled to definite action to help take care of their special problems.''

I am very proud that my father, Thomas D'Alesandro, was in this Chamber. He was a Member of Congress from Baltimore when the President said that. His brother would be lost shortly thereafter in the battle leading up to the Battle of the Bulge.

Less than a year later, Congress enacted the first GI Bill on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote marking a turning point in how our Nation cares for our veterans. In doing so, we made a transformational investment in our servicemembers, opening the doors to a college education and home ownership, launching millions of families into the middle class.

In 2008 it was my great privilege to serve as Speaker as the Congress took a crucial step to bring these benefits into the 21st century. With the Post-9/11 GI Bill--passed on a strong bipartisan vote and signed into law by President George W. Bush--we expanded the promise of a full, 4-year college education to veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we ensured subsequent legislation that their families could also take advantage of that benefit. In 2017 we strengthened this law by improving benefits and closing gaps in eligibility so that we can best serve those who served our Nation.

Yet, today, too many veterans still do not receive equal access to the life-changing benefits they have earned. Over the last few decades, our valiant reservists and guardsmen have become even more integral to America's national security strategy. Our reservists often serve side by side with Active-Duty servicemembers, do the same jobs, and incur the same risks. And as our Nation has battled the pandemic, our communities have relied on our guardsmen to help protect our Nation from the deadly virus.

These heroes are essential to keeping our families and our Nation safe, but current law falls short of delivering the benefits they deserve. With the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, we will ensure that every day our reservists and guardsmen heroes serve in uniform count toward their GI benefits. In doing so, we will lift up hundreds of thousands of current and future veterans across the Nation so that they, too, will have the opportunities they need to thrive in the 21st century economy.

Let me be clear: ensuring every servicemember has equal access to hard-earned benefits is an issue of fairness. When the House passes this legislation today, we will build on the proud, bipartisan progress forged by generations of lawmakers in this Chamber and in the Senate as well, we show our heroes that they will always have our unwavering support, and we honor the sacrifice on the battlefield. The military vows that on the battlefield we will leave no soldier behind, and when they come home, we pledge that we will leave no veteran behind.

There is so much more that we can learn from listening to our veterans and our servicemembers that we must do, so that they can take their strongest position when they come home.

Mr. Speaker, in this all-American spirit, I urge a very strong ``aye'' vote for this legislation.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman for his leadership and Mike Levin for his relentless persistence for the benefit of our veterans as a member of that important committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Takano for yielding and for his support and partnership on this legislation and all the work that he does leading our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, bipartisan legislation I introduced to deliver some basic fairness in the way we provide GI Bill benefits for the men and women who serve our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the GI Bill has allowed millions of veterans to pursue higher education and find rewarding career paths.

Servicemembers consistently cite GI Bill benefits as one of the top reasons

they choose to serve in our Armed Forces because of the opportunities those benefits provide for them and their families. However, the way that we allow servicemembers to accrue GI benefits is inherently unfair. While Active-Duty servicemembers receive credit for GI Bill benefits every day that they are in the service, Guard and Reserve members only accrue those benefits in very limited circumstances.

That disparity continues to exist despite the fact that Guard and Reserve members are increasingly taking on the same risks and doing the same jobs as their Active-Duty counterparts. We have seen this trend for decades but it has become especially pronounced over the last 2 years.

In response to the attack on our Capitol on January 6 of last year, 25,000 National Guard members mobilized from 54 States and territories to protect this institution. For a time, they slept on the cold, hard floors of this building. National Guard members have also deployed across our country to support the COVID-19 response, including Guard members who deployed from Ohio, Maryland, Delaware, and Georgia to assist healthcare operations this month.

In 2020, 1,300 soldiers and airmen from five different States were mobilized to fight wildfires in my State of California and throughout the West Coast. Not only are these National Guard and Reserve members risking their lives to serve our country, but they are also forced to put their civilian lives on hold when they are called up, leaving behind their families and interrupting civilian careers. Similarly, they are forced to put their lives on hold every time they are called up for training. In some of those settings they are serving side by side with Active Duty members doing similar jobs and facing similar risks, but they are not earning the same GI Bill benefits as their peers. That is unacceptable and it is shameful that we have asked Guard and Reserve members to step up in response to natural disasters, the pandemic, and an attack on our democracy without providing them with this fundamental benefit.

Clearly, it is long past time that we provide some basic fairness in the way that we allow Guard and Reserve members to accrue these benefits. The legislation that we are considering today will do exactly that, with a simple fix to ensure that every day they spend in uniform counts towards their GI Bill benefits.

Now, I know my friends on the other side of the aisle might raise concerns about the costs of expanding eligibility for these benefits, and I would note that this bill includes provisions my Republican colleagues have supported in the past to help defray the cost of veterans' benefits. And to my colleagues who still are not willing to pay for these benefits, I would ask them to share their concerns directly with Guard and Reserve members the next time they are deployed in response to a natural disaster or other emergency in the community that they represent.

So I think we all want the same thing. My friends across the aisle, us on this side of the aisle, we all want the same thing. We all want to provide benefits to those who have served our country. I believe that in good faith. I do think that we have to not pay lip service, though. We have to make sure that we support servicemembers and not just when it is politically convenient. We don't need half measures. We don't need things that shortchange our servicemembers. So I think it is time for us to step up. It is time to give them the benefits they have earned for protecting the American people in a way now that they are doing unlike before. And that is what this bill aims to do.

As the chairman mentioned, it has support from a wide range of veteran service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Student Veterans of America, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and Reserve Officers Association. They are asking us to pass this bill, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, today because they agree that it is past time to provide some basic fairness in the way that we provide GI Bill benefits to Guard and Reserve members.

Mr. Speaker, passing this bipartisan bill is the right thing to do for all the men and women who serve and protect our Nation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''