To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish in the Department of Veterans Affairs an Advisory Committee on United States Outlying Areas and Freely Associated States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the Smith-Norcross amendment to the Fiscal Year 2023 NDAA directs the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure high-quality workmanship on federal construction projects by providing each of their districts with clarifying, uniform guidance and to enforce compliance more strongly with already existing laws--especially the Davis-Bacon Act--that mandate proper worker classification and the corresponding wages.

Additionally, it requires the Corps to investigate worker classification complaints and third-party related complaints within 30 days of filings and reaffirms transparency and disclosure requirements for certified payroll reports.

For years, we have witnessed disingenuous contractors purposely hire underqualified workers for military construction projects and put them in high-skilled jobs for which they lack the needed expertise--a practice known as ``worker misclassification''. These contractors dishonestly undercut their more skilled, better-value competitors, only to have those important projects mismanaged, understaffed, delayed, unfinished, and in some cases, rebid--then properly redone by high- skilled tradesmen and women who should have gotten the job in the first place.

There are two different types of misclassification: craft misclassification and independent contractor misclassification. Craft misclassification occurs when dishonest contractors misclassify high- skilled workers as general laborers or lower wage classifications in order to avoid paying the higher prevailing wage rate applicable to the high-skilled work actually performed. Independent contractor misclassification occurs when contractors misclassify employees as independent contractors to avoid paying prevailing wages thereby reducing labor costs and avoiding state and federal taxes.

These practices deny workers of their rights to critical benefits and protections, including

prevailing wages, worker's compensation, and unemployment insurance; and communities suffer because misclassification results in lower tax revenues for federal, state, and local governments.

Additionally, the end product is often compromised by shoddy workmanship which can lead to do-overs and substantial cost overruns.

Congress has passed laws to prevent such problems and punish the offenders. The Davis-Bacon Act is critical in this effort as it requires contractors working on certain federally funded construction projects to pay their workers a prevailing wage to ensure that our federal projects are completed by skilled workers who have been properly trained, classified, and paid according to their expertise and locality. The Act stands as a check and balance designed to protect employees from low-wage, low-bidding contractors who look to do the job cheaply while hurting the workers and the client, i.e. the federal taxpayer.

When it comes to domestic construction projects, the Army Corps of Engineers procures more than most divisions of the Department of Defense. As recently as 2019, the Corps obligated over $11 billion for domestic construction contracts, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO)--the federal government's ``watchdog'' agency.

Each federal agency is primarily responsible for enforcing the Davis- Bacon protections at its construction worksites. The Army Corps has a lot of construction projects and federal construction monies to properly oversee. Unfortunately, federal construction projects in my district, including Army Corps projects at Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Lakehurst--have fallen short in oversight and compliance and have run into trouble with unqualified, subpar bidders who avoid hiring needed skilled workers. We have seen cases of sophisticated work--HVAC, plumbing and sheet metal--needing to be ripped up and redone after the irresponsible bidders failed to properly do the work.

To combat this persistent problem and ensure these important laws are being enforced, in 2019, Congress passed an amendment I authored, cosponsored by Congressman Norcross, to the 2020 NDAA directing the GAO to study the contracting practices of the Corps with a focus on the monitoring and enforcement of the Davis-Bacon Act.

The GAO conducted its audit from May 2020 to March 2021 examining Corps guidance, relevant documents about the Davis-Bacon Act, Department of Labor guidance and other relevant laws and regulations. They conducted semi-structured interviews in four Army Corps district offices--Louisville, New Orleans, New York and Walla Walla--based on the district's activities and representing ``various geographical areas in the U.S. and a mixture of volume and type of construction contracts (e.g. military and civil projects)''. They interviewed Corps headquarters officials, DOL officials and four external groups including two labor unions and two trade associations.

The GAO said that ``monitoring, including payroll reviews and on-site inspections, are key to ensuring that the Corps enforces contractor's compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act''.

But the report also described implementation inconsistencies across the various districts that can easily lead to gaps in compliance with Davis-Bacon.

The GAO concluded that aspects of the reviews and on-site inspections ``may not be sufficient.'' They found that ``Corps documents lack information'' and said that ``In the absence of directions to consistently document on-the-ground conditions, like the number of employees on site'' district officials ``may not be fully using on-site inspection to ensure contractors' compliance with the [Davis-Bacon] Act.''

Ultimately, the GAO recommended that the Army Corps provide clarifying information on how they conduct payroll reviews and document on-site inspections to ensure the proper monitoring of the number of workers and work performed.

More work remains to be done to implement these recommendations and crack down on this harmful practice.

Today's amendment addresses those problems and instructs the Corps' to fully comply with relevant federal laws and regulations for: building quality facilities--labs, hangars, housing, and workspaces-- for our military men and women; providing an honest wage for construction workers; and providing the best investment for the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, working with partners such as the AFL-CIO, North America's Building Trades Unions, New Jersey trades like the IBEW and the Plumbers and Pipefitters, and my friend, Congressman Norcross, we can finally ensure that military construction is done with the best possible workmanship, that we make best use of the hardworking Americans' taxpayer dollars, and that the men and women who work with our military are treated fairly.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, at its core what this amendment says is simple: After an estimated 30,000 extrajudicial killings in the Philippines between 2016 and today, after the assassinations, arbitrary arrests, torture, and red tagging of labor organizers and opposition leaders, after former President Duterte's calls for assassinating politically engaged bishops, after the Philippines has been named year after year by the International Trade Union Confederation as one of the world's 10 most repressive countries for the labor movement and workers, the time is long overdue to begin putting some basic human rights guardrails in place in the United States-Philippines relationship.

I believe our policy should be built on a clear principle: Our constituents' tax dollars should not be used to supply weapons, training, or any other assistance to state security forces that violently target political opponents, including a United States citizen, Brandon Lee, a human rights activist, who was shot by state security forces in 2019 and remains paralyzed from the chest down today as a result of that attack. Brandon deserves to know that his government stands with him, not with his attackers.

I have made this point to the Trump administration, and I am making it to

the Biden administration. If we in the United States are going to say that we stand for human rights around the world, then we need to stand for human rights around the world, not just when it is politically convenient and not just when it is easy.

Is it too much to ask that our country put some modest conditions on arming and assisting the security forces of an authoritarian government waging war on its own people?

Is it too much to ask that our government side with workers and the labor movement here at home and around the world? With faith and religious leaders? With human rights activists and dissidents who are simply trying to build a free society?

Those who oppose this amendment will claim that providing uncritical, unconditional assistance to the Philippines, regardless of the war its government is waging against its own population, is critical for our national security objective of countering China. But the need to counter the Chinese regime's authoritarianism on the international stage is precisely why it is so important that we maintain our credibility on human rights. It is why it is so vital that we do not undermine our own case for democracy and open ourselves up to charges of hypocrisy by supporting brutal regimes out of short-term political expediency.

Let's pass this amendment and send a resounding signal to the world that we are prepared to make respect for human rights a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy rather than an empty slogan that we yield arbitrarily.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle is arguing for the status quo. As I said before, it is critical for our own national security objectives of countering China that we maintain our credibility on human rights issues. It is absolutely vital that we do not undermine our own case for democracy.

If I have one message for all those who defend the status quo on this issue, all those who claim that we effectively need to choose between our security and our principles, it is this: It doesn't need to be this way. Abdicating our values makes us less secure in the long run. That is why I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment by a resounding margin and to cosponsor my bill, the Philippines Human Rights Act.

The vote on this amendment is just a first step of what must be a sustained commitment to standing with the people of the Philippines. Together, we can finally begin shaping a U.S. policy toward the Philippines that is anchored in respect for human rights and human dignity, those of the people of the Philippines as well as those of our people and all people around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call No. 337 on H.R. 7900, I mistakenly recorded my vote as no when I should have voted yes.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Allred (Neguse)

Barragan (Correa)

Bentz (Obernolte)

Brown (MD) (Trone)

Cardenas (Correa)

Castro (TX) (Neguse)

Cohen (Beyer)

Crist (Schneider)

DeFazio (Pallone)

Deutch (Stevens)

Doggett (Beyer)

Evans (Neguse)

Fallon (Carl)

Gonzalez (OH) (Armstrong)

Hartzler (Bacon)

Jacobs (CA) (Correa)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Kahele (Correa)

Katko (Meijer)

Kirkpatrick (Pallone)

Lawrence (Stevens)

Leger Fernandez (Kuster)

Lieu (Beyer)

Moore (WI) (Beyer)

Moulton (Stevens)

Newman (Beyer)

Panetta (Beyer)

Pappas (Kuster)

Pascrell (Pallone)

Pingree (Kuster)

Porter (Neguse)

Pressley (Neguse)

Reschenthaler (Keller)

Rice (NY) (Murphy (FL))

Ryan (Beyer)

Salazar (Dunn)

Sires (Pallone)

Smith (NJ) (Kelly (PA))

Taylor (Armstrong)

Timmons (Armstrong)

Trahan (Stevens)

Upton (Meijer)

Walorski (Baird)

Wasserman Schultz (Schneider)

Wilson (SC) (Lamborn)

Amendment No. 395 Offered by Ms. Speier

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note if there has to be a Democrat in that seat, there is no Democrat I would rather see than the gentleman from New York. He is a fine gentleman who I have worked with over the years and respect greatly.

As the ranking member of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee and a co- chair of the U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, I would submit that our alliance with the Philippines is one of our most important relationships across the globe. We have partnered with them for over 70 years now, and cooperation between our two nations is just as important today as it has ever been.

In the face of territorial aggression in the South China Sea by the People's Liberation Army, which of course is the military wing of the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP, our partnership with the Philippines serves as a geostrategic counterweight to China. As Chairman Xi seeks to control international maritime trade routes, including key waterways like the Luzon Strait, the Philippines remains a critical partner in checking his nefarious ambitions.

As with all our strongest alliances, our relationship with the Philippines extends beyond military affairs, for example, to cooperation in law enforcement. Our joint efforts with the Philippines in this regard are really critical to strengthening maritime security as well as tackling the evils of human trafficking and narcotics trafficking.

Of course, we have all been appalled by former President Duterte's brutal drug war, particularly its extrajudicial killings. Such brutality was the primary reason why Congress suspended International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement assistance to the Philippine National Police.

However, it would be self-defeating to simply cut off all cooperation with Philippine law enforcement, as this amendment seeks to do. The amendment would end maritime law enforcement activities that strengthen U.S. national security. It would block joint efforts to pursue drug traffickers and child traffickers, and it would stop human rights and rule of law assistance.

Fortunately, the June 30 inauguration of President Marcos is an opportunity to strengthen the U.S.-Philippines relationship to address not only threats to maritime security in the Indo-Pacific but also human rights and respect for rule of law.

This amendment would undermine the Biden administration and those of us in Congress who are working towards these efforts. It would curtail cooperative efforts between our security forces at a time when Chairman Xi seeks to dismantle our more than 70-year mutual security partnership with the Philippines. It doesn't make sense.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues for all the reasons that I just mentioned to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude and actually reiterate some of my previous remarks, I have been the co-chair of the Philippines Friendship Caucus, the Republican co-chair, along with my colleague Bobby Scott from Virginia, for quite a few years now. We were both appalled by President Duterte's looking the other way and actually probably being involved to some degree directly in the command of a lot of the extrajudicial killings as well as the loss of life and brutality that took place for quite a few years.

We agreed with him on the war on drugs. Drugs kill far too many Filipinos and kill far too many Americans. But we do not agree on extrajudicial measures which take human life.

However, this is an opportunity now, because that government is in the past, and we have a new government. This is a new opportunity to build up this relationship once again between these two key allies, the United States and the Philippines. It is an important relationship, particularly when one considers that our principal challenge across the globe right now is countering the nefarious actions of the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party.

So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Although well intentioned, I think ultimately it would do more harm than good.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment, which would correct a decades-long gap in VA's Allied Beneficiary Program by extending this program to South Korean veterans now living in the United States who served alongside the United States during the Vietnam war.

For 63 years, veterans of allied forces from World Wars I and II have been able to enroll in VA healthcare. The U.K., Australia, France, New Zealand, and Canada have had reciprocal agreements with the United States, reimbursing the VA for care provided to their veterans and vice versa.

In the 1970s, Congress also made veterans of the Czech and Polish Armed Forces who have been American citizens for at least 10 years eligible for VA healthcare. However, neither the Czech Republic nor Poland have reciprocal agreements with the United States, so VA is not reimbursed for the care provided to these veterans.

Yet still today, veterans of the Republic of Korea who fought alongside us in the Vietnam war and then went on to become citizens of the United States are denied what their European counterparts already have: access to veteran-centric, high-quality care from VA.

Over 300,000 Koreans fought alongside the United States in Vietnam. Thousands went on to build lives here and

become citizens, but today only 300 of these veterans are still living.

However, despite their service as our allies in the Korean military, these Korean Americans are not recognized as U.S. veterans in theory or in title and are therefore not granted access to VA services under the law. They are also not covered by the Korean healthcare system while living here in the United States.

Once they are naturalized United States citizens, they are recognized by South Korea as foreign nationals, with no benefits available to them in the United States. This is the decades-long inequity that this amendment would seek to address. This amendment is about supporting naturalized United States citizens as much as it is about sending a clear message to our allies abroad: If you serve alongside us in times of war, we will have your back.

This is important not only to provide vital healthcare to veterans here in the United States but also to instill confidence in our country as an international partner and ally. Three hundred Korean Vietnam veterans, now Americans, are asking this country to respect their service as fully as we respect the service of our European allies.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, implying that he would be supportive of this if we included other categories and other cohorts of veterans in a similar place. I go along with that.

I would be willing to work with the ranking member to address these other cohorts because I believe that we need to extend this particular offer to these others, but there is no reason for us not to act on this particular amendment because we have these 300 now-naturalized Korean- American citizens who served with us in the Vietnam war who have critical health needs.

Let us take care of these veterans now, but I pledge to work with the ranking member to address the other categories of naturalized American citizens who have served in a similar vein as our Czech Americans, our Polish Americans, and all of our other American allies.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I just urge that all Members of Congress support this amendment. The ranking member and I can work on the other classifications, other classes of veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would direct the VA to conduct an awareness campaign regarding types of fertility treatments, procedures, and services that are available to veterans.

While I do agree that all veterans should be made aware of the care and services covered under the earned VA medical benefits package, I must oppose this inclusion of the amendment in the NDAA.

I cannot support an outreach campaign that champions a process like in vitro fertilization, a process that creates life in a petri dish and then either destroys, discards, or forever freezes it on a shelf. This is not life-affirming. This is not right for veterans or their spouses or their children.

Being a father is one of the highlights of my life. I wish every veteran could know the joy of parenthood, and I want to help veterans struggling with infertility to connect with life-affirming resources and support.

I hope to work with my colleagues and fellow veterans to find a better way forward for veterans who are unable to conceive. Dropping an amendment into the NDAA is not the way forward, and for that reason, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier in my statement, I cannot support this amendment that promotes the provision of in vitro fertilization as part of the VA medical benefits package, and I urge Members to oppose the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would provide access to VA medical care and services for veterans who served in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Korea during the Vietnam conflict.

There are approximately 3,000 Korean veterans living in the U.S. as citizens and who served alongside American forces during the Vietnam conflict. This amendment would grant them eligibility to enroll in the VA healthcare system. This would create an inequity between these individuals and veterans of U.S. Armed Forces who are not currently eligible to enroll in the VA care.

It would also create a disparity with the veterans of other allies of other conflicts who later became U.S. citizens. Ultimately, the amendment unfairly singles out one group of service above others. That is why I cannot support the amendment's inclusion in the NDAA.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work on doing that as well, but this amendment itself being included in the NDAA will not take care of those others. I would like to work with him to make sure that everybody that needs to be included is included.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my statement, I cannot support the amendment that would provide benefits to one group of allied veterans before considering that same eligibility for all veterans. I appreciate the opportunity for the chairman to work with us to make sure that all the U.S. Armed Forces that have supported us over the years, that we can come to some sort of agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.