EVEST Act

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Scalise for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed, as usual, until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

And again, as usual, on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

The House, Madam Speaker, will consider Senate 2959, the Supplemental Impact Aid Flexibility Act under suspension of the rules. This bill passed the Senate unanimously. It is on suspension in the House. It is coauthored by Representative Joe Courtney of the House.

This bipartisan legislation allows local educational agencies participating in the Impact Aid Program to use the student count or Federal property valuation data from their fiscal year 2022 program applications for their fiscal year 2023 applications.

This, Madam Speaker, will prevent schools from losing substantial funding upon which they have relied to address COVID-19 learning loss by giving them more flexibility to use prepandemic data to calculate funding needs.

The House may consider other bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

The House will also consider H.R. 4673, the EVEST Act sponsored by Chairman Mark Takano of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the rule for which we adopted this week.

This legislation would automatically enroll eligible veterans into the VA healthcare system so that no veterans are left behind when it comes to receiving quality, affordable healthcare.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, the House stands ready to act on the Build Back Better Act, as well as the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act should the Senate amend them and send them back to us.

Additional legislative items, of course, are possible.

Madam Speaker, because I don't have it in front of me, and I haven't read it as carefully as perhaps I should have, I don't know the specific answer to that question.

What I do want to say, however, is that we need to have kids in school. Everybody says that the learning experience is substantially compromised by virtual learning. It is better than nothing, and it has been pursued very vigorously and with great positive effect.

But having said that, we all think that young people ought to be back in schools. But I don't know whether this bill, which passed the Senate unanimously, deals with that particular aspect that the gentleman asked about. But let me say this: I think that every school system has adopted the premise that in school is better.

Clearly, we have been assaulted by a virus whose transmissibility is substantially more than the previous virus, the delta variant. The omicron variant, as we know, one of the problems is it is easily caught and easily transmitted.

The good news is if you have taken a vaccination and had a booster, the likelihood of you going to the hospital is much smaller, and if you go to the hospital, you are much less sick. But having said that, we continue to have a challenge to get this under control. And the administration, properly so, and the overwhelming majority of the medical community, properly so, and the overwhelming majority of scientists are recommending that we wear a mask, that we wear a KN95 or N95 mask because they are much better than the surgical masks or the cloth masks, that we continue to wash our hands regularly, and we continue to keep our distance.

But the gentleman and I agree that we need to ensure that--to the extent that it is possible and that parents will send their children to school because of being dissuaded by the transmissibility of this disease--we need to have kids in school.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I think everybody is concerned about this. Certainly, every parent in my district and your district is concerned about this, and anybody who is concerned about the welfare of our children is concerned about it.

But I think it would be appropriate for me to say that the teachers of America--and my wife was a teacher, and I happen to believe that teachers are the most important people in any society because they educate the leadership and the citizens of tomorrow--have been put to an extraordinary challenge.

And I have a granddaughter who has four children, so I have four great-grandchildren, three of whom are in school and were in school in 2020 and 2021. And Judy, my granddaughter, who is named after my wife, has told me on numerous occasions what extraordinary ends her children's teachers--there were three different teachers at different levels in the school system--went to make sure that while they were home, while they were learning virtually that they had a positive, productive experience. But all of them felt, I think, it is a lot easier to have kids in school if they can do so safely. I think that bears saying.

Like medical personnel, teachers have been put through extraordinary stress, as have parents generally have been put through stress.

So I think the gentleman's concern is rightfully placed, and we need to do everything we can to make sure kids get back in school and have a learning experience like you and I had in the classroom.

Madam Speaker, I understand the gentleman's position, which is held by a number of people.

My own view is that employers make a reasonable decision when they say to an employee--for the sake, not only of the employee but for everybody else in the workplace with whom they work--that you are required to be vaccinated because we believe that science and medical personnel tell us that is a much safer route. But I understand there is a difference on that.

But even then, I know Governors who have been against vaccines are not necessarily against the employer requiring that as an employee requirement as opposed to a governmental requirement.

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say inflation is a serious challenge confronting American families, particularly working families in this country.

I live alone, and because I am just one person, I buy relatively small amounts of food at the grocery store. And I go to the grocery store nowadays and whether it is the price of bacon, which is at $12 a pound for Hormel or another meat packing, it is high, and I think to myself how a family not doing as well as I am doing and with kids to feed, how tough it is on them. So this inflation is very tough.

It is a worldwide phenomenon. It is a phenomenon that is caused obviously by a pent-up demand asking for a lot of goods and chasing a lot of goods. And elementary economics, that any of us took in college, is that there are a lot of resources chasing few resources, i.e., a lot of money chasing a short supply of goods, and you have that demand so that it drives prices up.

This pandemic has had a global effect on the supply chain. The supply chain has been substantially affected. This was not the fault of, frankly, either Biden or his predecessor in terms of what happened to the supply chain. In Singapore they shut down companies, as you know, for months at a time. They just shut them down, which is one of the things that has led to this chip shortage, which has had ramifications.

So I want to assure the gentleman that the administration, our side of the aisle--I know your side of the aisle is very concerned about the inflationary pressure that is putting such a stress on America's families. This pandemic has caused extraordinary, historic things to happen. That is the bad news.

The good news is we have created more jobs in the last year and 2 months than were created--of course, net we lost jobs for the previous 4 years; over 2 million jobs net lost. So the good news is that we have a number of economic statistics that are, in fact, positive. However, having said that, we do need to be very concerned about inflation. The administration has expressed their concern.

We believe that the infrastructure bill will have a positive impact on inflation, assuming the Build Back Better Act passes, which I assume at some point it will.

I think that is going to have a very positive affect on inflation because it will help the supply chain, help the

health of the people, the employees, it will make people more able to get out. Childcare. It is going to help people get back to work, which will have a positive impact on the supply chain and on the availability of goods and services. So I think we are moving in the right direction.

Unemployment, as the gentleman knows, which is down 3.9 percent. So while inflation is up and unacceptably high, historically high, over the last 4 years, we need to get it down. And we see this phenomena happening all over the world. This is not the fault of the President or the Congress, it is the fault of an extraordinary, invasive, and widespread disease that has caused extraordinary disruptions within our society and economy.

But we need to get a handle on it. We need to take action. So I will talk to the gentleman about what issues he believes would be helpful in that regard.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Of course, as you know better than probably anybody, the Speaker appointed a task force to look exactly at that issue of the $800 billion and what has been done, what has been spent to make sure that it has been properly spent, because you are the ranking member on the committee headed up by Jim Clyburn that is looking at those issues. I know you had a hearing this past week.

Yes, we have a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion, you call it spending, I call it investment. We are investing in our children. We are investing in our families. We are investing in small businesses. We are investing in growth and opportunity. And we are investing in the ability of those folks that you talk about that are not in the workforce, the restaurant can't hire. Why can't they hire them? Because they are not paying sufficient amount to justify a mom getting childcare because childcare is so expensive. Or she is caught-- or a single dad--is caught in the catch-22 situation. If I go to work, I will earn money but I will pay it all to childcare. If I am going to pay it all to childcare, it is much better for me as a parent to be with my child, if the net result is going to be pretty much a wash.

We are investing in that. We are investing in childcare in the Build Back Better Act. We are investing in early childhood education, three- and four-year-olds. We believe that is investment. And it also is very important for that small business so that that mom or dad who has that child who is then going to go and be in a preschool environment can have time to themselves so that they can, in fact, pursue employment without simply putting it from one pocket to another pocket, none of which is their pocket.

So the difference, I think, really is you look at it as spending, we look at it as investment. We think it will have big, big return for our country. And that is what Build Back Better is about. The building back better you say it was not related to the pandemic. It clearly was related to the pandemic. The pandemic hit us in the gut. It hit everybody throughout the world in the gut. We have recovered better than anybody else in the world. And that is because we invested, sometimes in a bipartisan way, and sometimes in a partisan way, but we invested in our people, in our children, in our families, in our businesses, and in our health, generally of our country and indeed trying to help other parts of the world as well because this is a global pandemic that affects us all.

But I think the real difference is, we perceive this as an investment. We think it will help grow America. I am sure you have heard me talk about, from time to time, the Make It In America agenda. Our investment in both the infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better will have a positive effect on Make It In America.

So we see it, Mr. Whip, as investment. We think it will have a positive effect. We think it is having a positive effect. And as I say, unemployment is down below 4 percent and jobs are up over 6 million over the last 11 months. So that is a good accomplishment. Is it enough? Do we still have people who aren't working for a varied number of reasons, many of which are related to COVID-19?

So we see it as an investment, and I am hopeful the Build Back Better Act will pass and I hope that will have a positive effect not only on, as the President says, the next 5 years, but on the next five generations. So we are continuing to pursue that.

But inflation, which is how we started this discussion, is a problem and we need to deal with it. I would be glad to talk to the gentleman about what he thinks will be helpful to do that. I know part of that is stop spending money. I think if we stop investing money, our country will not get to where it wants to be and where it is now with respect to the rest of the world, leading the rest of the world in terms of economic recovery from the pandemic. We are not there yet but we are going to get there

Right.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would say at the outset, I believe the committee on which he serves with Mr. Clyburn is one of the committees, among many, who ought to be looking at those facts.

But let me say this, because in stating the facts, as you just did, the appearance is that substantial progress has not been made. I don't think that premise is correct. Let me read you some statistics.

Last year, the first year the President came into office, testing in America was molecular in at-home tests per day. The beginning of last year, 1.7 million per day. Today, 11.7 million tests per day are being conducted.

So to imply that somehow there has not been substantial progress, that is a 10-fold increase in the testing available to Americans every day. And when Biden took office, zero at-home rapid tests were available to consumers--zero. Today, 300 million at-home rapid tests are on the market each month.

Enough? No. Are more coming? Yes.

Has the government used the Defense Production Act to accomplish greater production? They have. The administration started using, as I said, the Defense Production Act. The Biden administration is increasing places people can get free tests, for instance.

You talk about a plan. When Biden took office, there were only 2,500 pharmacies offering free testing. Today, there are 20,000 sites, an 8- fold increase. The administration is purchasing 500 million at-home rapid tests to be distributed for free to Americans who want them, with initial delivery starting this month.

The administration is distributing up to 50 million free at-home self-tests to community health centers and rural health clinics. In addition to already covering PCR tests, the administration is requiring private insurance plans to cover at-home tests starting on January 15, just a couple of days from today. A lot is happening.

Is enough happening? Enough is not happening until everybody has immediate availability. ``Immediate'' may overstate it, but easy access. The fact is that some people are having problems finding the at-home tests now, and we need to work on that.

Those statistics show you that extraordinary increases have occurred under the Biden administration, and that is their plan, to make sure that these tests are available, because we know that testing will make a difference. If you find out you are sick, you quarantine.

I suggest to the gentleman that the Biden administration has made an extraordinary difference. Is the situation where we want it to be? Absolutely, it is not.

Do we have a new variant that apparently came out of South Africa or was first identified in South Africa that spiked up?

I talked to Dr. Monahan yesterday, and apparently, just in recent days, we have had a fall-off in disease recognized. I hope that is the case. I hope it keeps going down because we are perhaps now using the KN-95 or N-95 masks and keeping our distance a little more conscientiously. Let's hope all of that works for the people, for the country, and for the globe.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this has been a calm discussion so far. Let me remind the gentleman that the previous President said in February or March of 2020 that this is going to go away in about 30 days: Don't worry about it. It will go away.

A lot of your Members said we don't need a mask; we don't need to keep distance; we don't need to wash our hands; this is going to go away. It is here today and gone tomorrow. That was the previous administration's plan.

I agree with you. The science community, the private-sector community, and government on Operation Warp Speed did a good job-- extraordinary work in the private sector, extraordinary work around the world. Because of the computer age in which we live, they were able to share information instantaneously, in real time, and say that this alternative doesn't work, which accelerated greatly the ability to get, within a year, an extraordinary accomplishment, largely from our scientific and medical community but facilitated by Warp Speed. No doubt about that. Give credit where credit is due.

Very frankly, the leader--unlike President Biden, who said this is a problem; we have to be careful; we have to pursue it; we have to invest--said no problem. The gentleman conveniently forgets that.

He also ignores the statistics I just gave where we have had a tenfold, eightfold increase in the availability of testing and pharmaceutical access for literally millions of people. This is per day that we are talking about, 11.7 million people per day.

It doesn't take too long at that rate that the whole country, all 330 million people, in about a month and a few days has been taken care of. When you say we have to make progress, we have made extraordinary progress.

Our view is--and I know we differ on this--we have made investments in the American Rescue Plan Act to deal with the pandemic crisis; in the infrastructure bill to create jobs, additional manufacturing capacity, and training and apprenticeships for our people; in the Build Back Better bill to make sure that our families can keep their heads above water and can, in fact, have childcare that they can rely on and feel their children are safe so they can take a job, be productive citizens, and add to the growth of our economy.

We believe we are doing that. Are we doing it perfectly? None of us do it perfectly. Perhaps we need to do more, as the gentleman implies, and have hearings.

The gentleman says he was in a hearing. Private or public, I presume the gentleman had an opportunity to ask questions. I don't know who the witnesses were, so I don't know what expertise they have.

I can't believe that if you requested of Mr. Clyburn that you have relevant witnesses to come by and that you want to question about the progress that either has been made or you think ought to be made or further things that could be done, I can't believe that he wouldn't agree to do that.

In any event, great progress is being made, but the entire world--not the Biden world, not America--the entire world is confronting a crisis and is having a tough time getting ahold of it. We have done it better than anybody else in terms of growing our economy and keeping our people's heads above water. That is to be applauded.

Do we still have a challenge? We do. Are we still working on it? We are. Do we need to continue? Yes.

For a long time, the former President of the United States--apparently, he changed his view now and criticized DeSantis for not pursuing mask wearing, et cetera, et cetera. The fact of the matter is, of course, the former President discouraged wearing masks early on. He discouraged it: Oh, no, you don't need to wear a mask.

He had events that were spreader events, as we call them.

The gentleman heard me say that I think the President followed good advice and made a decision on Warp Speed that was helpful. As the gentleman noted, it was the scientists at NIH and scientists in the private sector and scientists throughout the world, but mainly our people, who did an extraordinary thing in an extraordinarily short timeframe--never been done before--to develop this kind of vaccine.

You talk about the three vaccines. The three manufacturers, it had never been done before. It was a wonderful event. Unfortunately, too many people are advising: Don't take the vaccine. You don't have to take the vaccine. Don't sweat it.

The government tells people they have to vaccinate their children to send them to school. Why? So other children don't get sick.

I told you I had those great-grandchildren, three of whom are in school. They have a child that sits in front of them, a child that sits to the right, a child that sits to the left, and a child that sits behind them. I want all of them well because I don't want my great- grandchild getting sick.

I don't think there was a very successful effort either by the former President or by many on your side of the aisle to say--you talk about science--do what the scientists tell you to do. Now, I notice most of your Members are doing so now, but still some wear it as a badge of courage and raise money off of it. I think that is harmful to our communities.

I think you sort of just set aside no plan. Well, no plan has resulted going from 1.7 million to 11.7 million tests per day. That is the plan. We invested in March, in the American Rescue Plan Act, in making sure that health services could respond properly. A lot of money went into health and testing in the American Rescue Plan.

You keep saying there is no plan. We have adopted plans, and we think they are positive plans. We think, hopefully, that we are going to get better soon.

Neither President Trump nor President Biden was responsible for this extraordinary virus. Our view is President Trump laid back for a long, long time before he really engaged heavily in this, and now he has changed his tune to a much more positive ``listen to the scientists'' kind of attitude, which we welcome.

I disagree with the gentleman that there is not a plan. We adopted together in 2020 five major pieces of legislation to address this challenge, and we have adopted in a partisan way, unfortunately, bills that continue to fight that fight, and I think it is fighting it, not as successfully because we have a new variant, much more transmissible, a different type. It has metastasized into a more communicable disease. That has caused us a challenge, we are addressing that, and we are accelerating the availability of resources to do so.

I just want to say in terms of where we are today, the overwhelming percentage--I am talking about 90 percent--of people who are getting really sick are people who are not vaccinated. And for the government to say: You need to be vaccinated because we don't want you coming to the office, we don't want you coming with other people who are being careful, who have been vaccinated, and who have done the responsible thing and getting them sick. Because what we have seen, unfortunately, even with vaccination, is that people who are vaccinated, of our own Members on both sides of the aisle who have been vaccinated, have gotten--thankfully--mild cases of COVID.

But when we talk about the President wanting people to get vaccinated--and my friend indicates that he and I both are advocates of that, and/or requiring them to get vaccinated--the reason you require people to get vaccinated, the more people you have unvaccinated, the more hosts this virus has to metastasize and to grow into a different type of virus that can attack in different ways. That is why you do that. That is why they talk 70 percent. Now we just have about 70 percent in America now. Very frankly, if we had a higher percentage we would be better off. So let's hope that we can work together to make sure that we give encouragement to people to do what the scientists advise.

My friend talks about the reason we were so successful in that year under Warp Speed of getting those three vaccines is because the scientists knew what had to be done. They found out and they had quick discoveries and eliminated a lot of dead-ends relatively quickly because of our computer capability and transformation of information around the world and dead-ends.

If we listen to them, we would be better off. But an awful lot of people are saying: Don't listen to them. Don't do it.

When the gentleman says for health reasons, there are hundreds, probably billions, I don't know what the billions are, people who have been vaccinated with a miniscule and almost undetectable adverse reaction. So I don't know what the gentleman talks about for health reasons. I know Djokovic is saying he is doing it for health reasons. I don't know what those are. Maybe my friend does. I am not an expert enough to know what that is. But all the doctors I talk to--and certainly our own doctor here whom we consult with on a regular basis, I know both of us have done that--say get the vaccine.

So I would hope that all of us would ask our constituents to get the vaccine. It is good for you, it saves your lives, it saves your families, and it saves others. Get it.

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House.

Madam Speaker, on the school bill, I know one of the big concerns many people have been raising is trying to get schools open again.

Last week it was reported that 5,200 different schools were closed last week. And I know this Congress has sent billions of dollars to school systems across the country. The intent was that that money be used to get schools opened, and yet, there are some schools taking the money and staying closed, which goes against all the medical science out there. We know the damage this is doing to our young children, learning, depression, and so many other challenges that it creates for them.

Will there be any part of that legislation that helps require that in order to get money schools have to be open?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. Maybe we can work on something that would ensure that as tax dollars are going to school systems that it is going to keep the schools open, not to allow them to then shut down on the kids because, as we know, the science is very clear that kids are much better off in school, safer in school than not being in school, and that the learning experience is dramatically less if they are not in school, as well as the mental conditions, the social development that is not occurring if they are not in the classroom.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, our teachers have been true heroes through this, our frontline hospital workers, people that work at grocery stores; we have seen so many people rising up to the challenge, and even where governments failed their ability to do their job.

I know one challenge that, hopefully, we see resolved in the United States Supreme Court--it won't be today; we were expecting it maybe this week, but, hopefully, early next week we see the Supreme Court resolve these challenges where there were mandates on vaccines that required people to get fired from their job if they chose a healthcare decision on vaccinations.

I have been vaccinated. I know the gentleman from Maryland has too, but for those who haven't, whether they are frontline hospital workers or teachers, people shouldn't be forced to lose their job based on that choice they make. But the Supreme Court will, hopefully, address that and resolve that next week. It is something that is out of our hands now, but it is in the court's hands at the highest level.

And I would hope the government would drop that mandate, but if not, it is hopeful that the Court would make it clear that the government doesn't have the authority to require that people get fired if they don't get vaccinated, encourage people to follow the science. If they have questions or concerns, that is a conversation they should have with their doctor, not a government mandate.

But as the gentleman knows, we may have disagreement on that, but fortunately for us, it will get resolved at the Supreme Court, hopefully, early next week.

I wanted to ask the gentleman since, we are looking at the schedule for next week, I didn't notice any of the bills that we have highlighted in the past that would address some of the many crises our country is facing, whether it is inflation, whether it is high gas prices, whether it is the border crisis--all that are running out of control--the empty shelves that we are seeing at so many stores.

Will the gentleman commit to working with us to bring some of the bills to the floor to address the real crises that are hurting hardworking families like the ones I just mentioned?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Clearly, some of those bills that have been discussed and offered up in the past to address the inflationary problems but also the policies of this administration that have caused that. And as we know from the energy crisis, it is not pandemic related that gas prices are so high. This President made a decision starting on day one of his administration to shut down American energy production, to shut down pipelines in America, green lighting pipelines in other countries, begging foreign countries to make more oil, but shutting off and making it harder to make energy in America.

Clearly, that self-imposed supply shortage has created higher prices that we would love to see addressed. We might disagree philosophically on how to get there, but I don't think there is much disagreement from people who spend over $100 filling their car up that it needs to change. But if you look at the workforce challenges, and every small business owner I talk to--I would imagine all of us could share similar stories--our small business owners are telling us they can't find workers. Somebody might want to go to their favorite restaurant but they are waiting an hour and a half and wondering why a third of the tables are empty, because they can't get people to work.

And so as some might want to look at the unemployment number, clearly the number of people that are not even in the workforce that just stopped working because they can get paid, right now large amounts of money, to stay at home is a challenge that we should confront here in this Congress to help encourage people to get back into the workforce, not to be paying people not to work. And the enhanced unemployment benefits were, one, part of that problem, but there were many other parts of that problem.

But it is the idea that there are too many dollars, as the gentleman said, chasing too few goods is the driver of inflation, but the biggest driver of that is all of the money that has been spent in Washington. And if you look at about $6 trillion that has been spent on various relief packages--some of it was targeted to COVID, which we all supported, very bipartisan, some of it had nothing to do with COVID which, unfortunately, has created higher inflation--there is talk right now that the administration--and I am not sure if the Democratic leadership is having serious conversations on this--is looking at yet another bill, potentially over a trillion dollars of additional spending.

I would ask the gentleman, is that something that is anticipated to be brought to the floor? I would urge, if that is being looked at, to not do it because there is about $800 billion remaining from other relief packages that are unspent. And hopefully we stop the spending in Washington that is driving inflation and try to encourage the economy to get opened at a more rapid pace. And if people need additional help, to look to the money that is sitting there, the $800 billion that is unspent, rather than trillions more dollars that would be put into a marketplace that is already oversaturated with Federal spending that is driving this inflation.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman, and clearly we have a difference on----

What the effects of spending trillions of dollars would have. And Build Back Better, as the gentleman brought up, would be about $4.5 trillion of higher taxes, additional spending, things that, by many accounts, would increase inflation even higher; but we will see where the Senate goes on that bill. I am not sure if the gentleman is anticipating bringing

other legislation, the bipartisan bills that we did, to do things like create Operation Warp Speed, which was maybe one of the most successful things government did in reaction to a pandemic in the history of the world, to come up with not one, not two, but now three proven and effective vaccines in less than a year to a virus no one even knew about. It never happened in the history of the world but something that we came together, Republicans and Democrats with President Trump, to achieve a great achievement, something we would sure urge President Biden to build on.

Because President Biden did run with a promise that he would, ``shut down the virus.'' Clearly, he has failed at that. We have asked through a number of different means to have hearings on some of the things we have heard concerns about. And I would start with testing. There was an article recently that the President was presented with a plan in October to come up with about 750 million tests that people could have for COVID at home that would be readily available by Christmas where they, in October, anticipated a resurgence of COVID by December.

It has been reported that the President rejected that plan. We have asked for a hearing into that. For whatever reason, the majority has not agreed to that. Here is a letter I sent to Mr. Clyburn and Mrs. Maloney through the Select Subcommittee on Coronavirus, as well as through the Committee on Oversight and Reform. Myself and Ranking Member Comer asked to have a hearing into some of these things, the testing failures that were reported. If they are true, we ought to hear about them. If they are false, the administration ought to be pointing that out. They have not, which tells me they must be true. But then why in October would the President have rejected a testing plan that could have prevented us from getting to the place we are at right now with this resurgence?

What about some of the national plans that the President said he had as a candidate that then he later told Governors recently he doesn't have a national plan on COVID. The mixed messaging coming from the administration is causing tremendous confusion across America, and we have asked that we have hearings to clarify, give the administration a chance to state their plan or the lack thereof, state whether or not they rejected a massive testing plan for the Nation in October that would have prevented what happened in December.

The lack of desire by the administration to be transparent about any of this is creating tremendous confusion across the country. This Congress could address that by holding hearings to get the facts out. I know we are going to continue to press for those kinds of hearings. I would hope we have them, but so far we have not gotten any response to the affirmative on that.

I don't know if the gentleman has anything to add. Maybe the gentleman would agree that we would have these kind of hearings to get some of these facts out or get some of these issues addressed.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

The problem with President Biden's plan is that it has been reactionary and not visionary. When he was presented with a plan in October to make sure that every American that needed a test would have it in December, when they in October said there will probably be a real uptick in December, the President said no to that.

So if today he says let's go and order 500 million tests, that sounds fine and well, except that he said no to that in October when he could have staved off what we see, and that is hours-long lines of people to get tested. People shouldn't have to be waiting 5 hours in a line to get tested when the President in October was presented with a plan.

Again, if he wasn't, as it has been reported, he should come out publicly and say that. The report has been out for weeks now, and he hasn't done that.

We should be having hearings on this to find out what was the plan that was presented and who was involved, by the way, in rejecting that plan. Was the CDC involved? Was NIH involved? Was HHS involved in rejecting a forward-thinking plan in October that predicted what inevitably did happen this Christmas?

Who was involved in the rejection of that plan, and why did they do it? Is it that the administration doesn't want accountability? I don't know, but we have asked those questions, and we have asked for a hearing on that.

We have been told that it is not going to happen. I hope the gentleman would help push to get this to happen, to find this out so we don't play catch-up every time something happens, when there were there people saying: Let's try to stop something before it becomes a problem.

If there are people in the White House who said, no, we are not going to do it until it is a problem for families, those people ought to be removed from the White House. And they shouldn't be involved in the decisionmaking chain because their decisions caused maybe more death, surely caused a dramatic increase in ills that people are facing right now because it could have been staved off, and it wasn't. We don't

have that information from an administration who promised to be transparent.

We did have a hearing a few days ago in the select subcommittee. It was a private hearing; it wasn't open to the public. I didn't agree with that, but that was the decision made by the majority. We have to start having transparency, as was promised to the people.

People deserve transparency. They deserve to have these questions answered and, frankly, to have a more forward-thinking plan, not a reactionary plan when forward-thinking was presented and rejected.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, under President Trump, when he created Operation Warp Speed, the one thing he did say is that we are going to move red tape so we can focus the entire scientific community, both the Federal agencies but also the private sector, in working together in removing the red tape so they can focus on getting a vaccine. He didn't say three, but he said let's at least get them the ability, all of these great companies, many that are American companies, to go put their innovation to work and get bureaucracy and red tape out of the way and follow science but expedite so that we can get there quicker when many scientists, including some who still testify at committees today, said it was going to take years to get a vaccine.

In less than a year, we had three. President Biden inherited that when he walked in the door and took the oath of office. He had three proven vaccines.

I know the gentleman talks about statistics. Look at COVID deaths. During the campaign, President Biden not only said he would crush the virus, but he said that anybody who presided over that many deaths-- that was months before the election--doesn't deserve to be President of the United States. I thought that was an inappropriate statement.

More people have died under President Biden's watch from COVID than under President Trump's. It was an unfair standard that President Biden put in place when he was at one of the debates. If he is going to say things like he is going to crush the virus and going to have a plan, but then he comes out and obviously didn't crush the virus and tells Governors that there is no Federal plan, I do think that is a mixed message, at the least. That dereliction in his promise, at the worst, ought to be confronted.

What is the plan, if there is a plan? If there is not a plan, admit there is not a plan. But you campaigned saying there was going to be a plan, and clearly, there is not one. Those are other facts that we can put on the table.

Clearly, when you look at how President Trump pushed the Federal Government to work and partner with the private sector to move red tape so we can expedite the research and the trials, more tests than were ever done maybe on any other attempt for a vaccine, and come up in less than a year with vaccines when many said it would take years, it was clearly a remarkable achievement that we all worked on. President Trump led the effort, and we funded it in a very bipartisan way, and it was very effective.

Obviously, this is a challenge for every country. There were other things said that ought to be put out there, and let's at least try to all be saying the same thing and focusing on the same thing.

When scientific experts say that this is what we anticipate happening--if you are going to reject that science, at least hold people accountable who were part of the discussions to reject that science, as I referred to the October rejection of a testing plan that would have been in effect for December that was rejected.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Clearly, we have some disagreements, but as we both have advocated for the vaccine, I do think one of the differences that we may have is that I strongly feel that it is a personal decision. It is a medical decision. And if government thinks that shaming people, threatening people, and firing people is going to address that challenge, they have missed the mark, and I wish they would instead move away from the shame and the firing. Hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with us and stops at least the firings of people by mandates from the government and just encourages people to have that conversation with their doctor if they have hesitation. But, ultimately, it is a decision that each individual would have to make.

We will continue this conversation I am sure, and I yield to the gentleman.

To be clear, I never said it was for health reasons. I said it was a health decision. So this is a medical decision that people are making.

Again, in the past we have seen this suggested by some in the medical community inaccurately that if you get vaccinated you can't get the virus. A Supreme Court Justice said that if you get vaccinated you can't spread the virus. That turned out to be false. We know whether vaccinated or not you can get the virus. You can receive the virus, you can give it to other people, and you can die. We know in the hospitals the higher propensity of people in the hospitals are unvaccinated.

Those are the kinds of things that we should be encouraging to get the facts out and then encouraging people to go make their decision with their doctor if they have concerns and questions.

There are valid questions. There are people in the past who have raised religious exemptions to other vaccines and, by the way, been given approval for those religious exemptions that today are not getting similar religious exemptions for this.

So let's just treat it equally, let's treat it fairly, and let's just focus on the facts. This idea that if you mandate something and threaten somebody it is going to change behavior, it is just not proving itself to be correct, and it is causing more division and forcing people into corners that they shouldn't be on. So hopefully, again, we can continue this conversation and get back to a place where we are in agreement which we have been in things like Operation Warp Speed.

Madam Speaker, 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. 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.