No Mandates Act

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of amendment No. 11 which would provide critical needed consumer protection to our servicemembers who hold medical debt.

No one chooses to get sick, yet medical debt is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in our country, and the pandemic has only made paid our medical debt crisis worse, especially for our veterans.

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, servicemembers and veterans are nearly twice as likely to submit debt collection complaints as the general public. And medical debt concerns comprise nearly 13 percent of servicemember debt collection complaints.

So this amendment is important because medical bills and reimbursements are often vague and confusing. Servicemembers often assert that the calculation of the underlying debt is inaccurate and unfair. Other times, bills go missing during deployment or are delivered to the wrong recipient.

So this amendment would strengthen servicemembers' consumer protections regarding medical debt by preventing the collection of medical debt for 2 years from the date of medical billing, and prohibiting credit agencies from reporting all medical debt collections for a year.

My amendment also requires medical debt collectors to provide servicemembers with their consumer rights upon contact.

Together, these protections would provide servicemembers much-needed clarity to figure out what they actually owe and what the impact will have on their credit.

So, Madam Speaker, debt collection particularly affects our young servicemembers and veterans who have little credit history upon enlisting.

Among servicemembers with 3 or fewer years of service, the CFPB has found 5 percent had medical debts in collection just prior to separation from service, and that number doubles to more than 10 percent within a year of their separation from service. As a result, those same individuals with 3 years or less of service, on average, exit the armed services with subprime credit scores.

So with that I really finally ask my colleagues to please help us ban medical debt also for medically necessary procedures from ever even appearing on servicemembers' credit reports.

This amendment would not prevent States from implementing stronger protections for our servicemembers. It would not preempt existing consumer protections for our servicemembers already on the books.

Again, I remind my colleagues that, again, this is really critical for our servicemembers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is remaining, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues that all of these protections have already passed the House this Congress but have yet to receive action in the Senate.

I want to remind my colleagues also the way the amendment is drafted right now currently, a medically necessary procedure is defined as, one, healthcare services or supplies needed to diagnose or treat an illness, injury, condition, disease, or symptom that meet accepted standards of medicine; two, healthcare to prevent illness and detect illnesses at an early stage when treatment is likely to work best, again, for services like Pap tests, flu shots, and screening mammograms

I want to remind my colleagues, this is a huge barrier. The credit reports are huge barriers for housing and employment for our veterans. We continue to support increased housing for our veterans, increased mental health services for our veterans and all these other issues but, much of that is due to the fact that we have credit reports with medically necessary debt, medical procedures on there, and really no pathway to protect our consumers, our veterans, in this case.

I really remind my colleagues again: we cannot continue to support housing and employment services for our veterans, and the credit report, the credit score, all of that, is holding them hostage unable to continue to create a good life in our country especially after sacrificing so much for our Nation.

So I really ask my colleagues this is the right thing to do. Again, this is basically folks who are getting sick that need healthcare, and we are not saying that they won't be able to collect, the healthcare agencies, they are able to collect. This is just to prevent it from becoming a barrier for many of our veterans who seek employment which does look at--many employers still now currently look at credit reports, and they also look at credit reports for housing. Again, we can't continue to try to fund these kinds of supports when this is a huge barrier for our veterans.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment No. 860, which is a modified version of my bipartisan Stop the Chinese Communist Party Infrastructure Act.

There is a growing concern, and rightfully so, surrounding awards of costly and sensitive public works projects across the United States to companies affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, otherwise known as the CCP.

Bad actors have taken advantage of the availability of unaccountable Federal tax dollars. It is critical that Congress ensures that the Chinese Communist Party-linked entities do not receive these, or any other Federal funds for that matter, for primary or subcontracts to complete infrastructure projects in America or through the Department of Defense.

U.S. taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects should be held to a high standard of both quality and security. Public funds should not line the pockets of the Chinese Communist Party, which is engaged in a large- scale offensive against American national and industrial security or help fund the Chinese Government's continued human rights abuses.

While hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet, Federal, State, and local governments have awarded major public works projects to the Chinese Communist Party-affiliated entities who have in turn produced lackluster results and cost the American people billions of dollars in the aftermath. The United States must do more to stand up to Communist China, while simultaneously bolstering our domestic construction and manufacturing industries.

This is why I submitted the Stop Chinese Communist Party Infrastructure Act as an amendment to this year's National Defense Authorization Act. This important legislation prohibits the Department of Defense from using Federal funds to enter, engage in, or award public works contracts in the United States to entities headquartered in China or affiliated with the Chinese Government or the Chinese Communist Party.

It is time for Congress to step up to the plate in support of American manufacturing and industry and against Communist China's gross human rights abuses and predatory trade practices.

Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I also rise today in support of other amendments introduced in this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

The first amendment requires an assessment of the previous U.N. arms embargo on Iran as well as a report on what steps the Departments of Defense and State are taking now in the absence of the U.N. arms embargo to constrain Iranian arms proliferation.

The second amendment requires a report on the activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps operatives abroad, including the ways in which the U.S. is working with other nations to counter the threat that they pose.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, and yet, the IRGC-affiliated officials continue to operate freely and openly in many foreign countries, often under the auspices of Iran's illegitimate diplomatic operations.

Even here in the U.S., the Iranian regime is reportedly continuing its efforts to plan and execute attacks against former senior government officials, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The time is now for the United States to increase cooperation with our partners and allies around the world to address and expose the full range of threats posed by Iranian operatives.

Finally, my last amendment requires a report on the threat of aerial drones and unmanned aircraft to U.S. military bases both here and abroad. Every U.S. military base and installation should be prepared to detect, disable, and disarm hostile or unidentified, unmanned aerial systems. Sadly, we know many are not.

My amendment will be a significant step forward to ensure that the Department of Defense has the resources it

needs to deploy unmanned traffic management, UTM systems, to protect our interests and personnel. The report is long overdue.

Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support these amendments, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including these amendments.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendments to the FY 2023 National Defense Authorization Act that will help save lives and promote the health and well-being of those who are serving or have served our country.

The CDC estimates that nearly 264,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year and as many as 1 in 8 women will live with this disease at some point in their life. The American Cancer Society predicts that 43,250 women will lose their lives to breast cancer in 2022.

My colleagues must also understand that the plight of breast cancer is not an equitable one. Black women are more likely to die of breast cancer. In my home state of Wisconsin, black women with breast cancer have a mortality rate of 56 percent, far outpacing the death rate for white women according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

While treatment for this disease has evolved drastically, access to a conclusive, accurate, early, and expedient diagnosis remains challenging.

Mammograms are a basic screening tool to help try and detect breast cancer as soon as possible. However, for women with dense breasts, mammograms alone may not be sufficient to help identify breast cancer as dense breasts can make mammograms harder to accurately read. As a result, women with dense breasts may be called back for additional follow-up tests more frequently than others and dense breasts can also put women at higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer within 12 months of a normal mammogram result.

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), nearly 50 percent of women over 40 who get mammograms have dense breasts and live with an increased chance of developing breast cancer, a risk that is separate from the effect of dense breasts on the ability to read a mammogram.

For individuals with dense breasts for whom additional testing may be needed to confirm breast cancer, even with insurance they may face additional costs for these potentially life-saving diagnostic screenings.

My amendment directs the GAO to examine current health policies at the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to ensure that those with dense breasts can access additional cancer screenings without facing burdensome financial barriers. Cumulatively, the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs provide healthcare to over 18 million American service members and veterans. My amendment would require GAO to examine whether existing VA and DOD programs provide beneficiaries with low-cost screenings and diagnostic tools needed to confirm breast cancer, especially when standard mammograms are inconclusive or ineffective. Additionally, GAO will be required to examine and provide recommendations on how each agency can improve their policies to address the unique challenges of identifying breast cancer in those with dense breasts.

We must do all we can to ensure that our veterans and active-duty personnel receive the highest quality care available. We can accomplish this by evaluating current policies and developing new ones that prioritize the health of those who serve or have served our country. While there is no cure for this disease, we can certainly do more to improve access to screening and treatment.

Additionally, I have offered an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that TRICARE includes programs and

policies to promote universal education on healthy relationships and intimate partner violence.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), around 1 in 4 women have experienced sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime. Sadly, it can occur in every community, including our military community, to both men and women regardless of age, economic status, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.

The amendment would require TRICARE to provide guidance to healthcare providers, health workers, and managed care entities to help educate and to establish routine assessment and screenings for signs of intimate partner violence.

I thank the Chairman for his support of my amendments.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my amendment that will help countless struggling small businesses and communities access new opportunities and unlock the local economic potential of military bases across the country.

My amendment would incentivize the use of local small businesses for military construction projects by asking the Secretary of Defense to provide preference for businesses that will use workers from within the same State or within a 60-mile radius from where the work will occur.

My amendment would also strengthen a provision in the underlying bill to finally provide some transparency in the military construction project award process, helping small businesses at least be aware of when possible contracts and subcontract opportunities become available.

I represent Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, which for decades has been an economic engine in my community and in my State with thousands of jobs tied to operations on the base.

However, too often contracts at bases like mine go unseen by small, local businesses who are qualified and ready and sometimes more cost effective than contractors from out of State.

Since coming into Congress, I have met with business owners from around the Joint Base who have stressed to me that not only are they not considered for military construction contracts, but in many cases the Department of Defense does not even make local businesses aware of the contracts that are available.

I introduced the Put Our Neighbors to Work Act and offer it as an amendment here for the construction workers in my district who are looking for their next opportunity and to provide some fairness to the award process for small and local businesses who have been passed over for far too long.

This is a good amendment that would help to expand opportunities for small and local businesses in the construction industry at a time when so many across the country are struggling.

I would like to thank Congressman Norcross, Congressman Garamendi, and Congressman Pfluger for helping push this bipartisan effort forward.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for small and local businesses by voting to pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am glad that we are able to have this debate and talk about what it is that we are trying to prioritize here. When we are talking about the workers here, this bill, this amendment, is not something that would force the Secretary of Defense to hire unqualified workers to be able to work on our bases. That is absolutely not the case here.

It is talking about, in the circumstances where there are qualified workers, wouldn't we want to prioritize the local workers that are part of that community?

We are proud in my district to host a military base. We are proud in New Jersey to have multiple different military installations, and I am sure other States are very proud of the military installations that they host as well.

I hope that the Department of Defense is proud of that partnership with our States. That is exactly what this is. It is a partnership. This can be a win-win. In the same way that we are looking out for our joint military base in our community, we would like the joint military base to think of itself as part of that community.

I believe in the workforce of my State and other States, and I believe that the workforce across America is strong. I believe that we have the skilled labor all over this country to be able to do this.

That is why we have been able to get this bipartisan bill. That is why I have been able to get the support of Congressman Pfluger and to be able to continue to move forward in the way that we need to do this for our small businesses, for our workers, to be able to help build strong national security.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I want to preface by saying that I do not agree with everything in this bill, but the committee-passed bill is worthy of support.

I want to especially thank Ranking Member Rogers and Chairman Smith for their attention to minimizing extraneous provisions in the markup that have little to do with our national security or supporting our servicemembers. Our struggle to close conference last year because of these issues were wholly associated with provisions that are not connected to national security. And these attempts, I believe, were offensive, and similar attempts to include these unnecessary provisions this year should be rebuffed.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi has not listened to the lessons learned from last year's conference and has decided to add several non-germane bills to the NDAA at Rules that have nothing to do with defense.

I want to make this clear for my colleagues offering these amendments: We should not use servicemembers as a tool to achieve partisan gain. I repeat: We should not use servicemembers as a tool to achieve partisan gain. And I voted in opposition to the rule, but I hope that I can vote for final passage of this year's NDAA.

As to the committee mark, we started with an anemic budget request from the Biden administration that in the Seapower portfolio requested only eight ships, two of which were fleet tugboats. How the administration can set China as the pacing threat and reduce Navy force structure is simply baffling.

Fortunately, with the leadership of Ranking Member Rogers and others on the committee, we were able to authorize additional funds to the defense top line to provide the real growth necessary to dissuade future conflict. With this, we authorized 13 battle force ships and rebuffed the administration's request to retire three cruisers.

Additionally, we sought to expand the submarine industrial base by authorizing funds that enable a submarine construction build rate of three by 2025. The mark also includes critical capabilities to support our Nation's deterrence with continued strong investments in the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine and the B-21 Raider bomber.

I think this is a good bill in its current form, and it is worthy of my colleagues' support.

MR. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes just to address a couple things the gentleman from Virginia said.

I want to be clear, it is the longstanding practice of our committee that we take issues that are not in our jurisdiction. We have done it under Republican leadership. We have done it under Democratic leadership.

It is also the longstanding practice of our committee to work with the committees of jurisdiction, and only if in a bipartisan, bicameral way those committees of jurisdiction agree, does it ultimately go into the conference report. So you don't need to be afraid of stuff that you don't like. Work with

your committees of jurisdiction and it goes into the conference report if we get agreement. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Second, last year that is not what held us up. The two things that held us up last year were one thing that was very much within the jurisdiction of this committee, and that was whether or not to rename military bases; to change the names of the bases named for Confederates, very much in our jurisdiction.

And the second thing was President Trump's last-second desire, out of nowhere, to add section 230 to the bill. We weren't held up by these things, and we will not be held up this year. If the committees of jurisdiction do not agree, we don't do it. We just have that negotiation. If they can, we give them a ride. So don't need to worry about that. It is a good bill. Go ahead and vote for it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the chairwoman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I rise to offer and support the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Sherman-Waters amendment, No. 746.

Madam Speaker, for quite some time, Chairwoman Waters and I have been in favor of strong sanctions against Russia for interference in our elections.

Now, I don't want this to be partisan. There is this idea that only Democrats care about protecting our elections from Russian interference. That is not the case.

When the Senate was controlled by Republicans, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report stating: ``The Russian Government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election.'' But there are those who think that perhaps President Trump did not believe that Russia tried to influence our elections.

Putting aside 2016, what did the Trump administration say about our 2018 election?

On September 30, 2019, the Trump Treasury Department announced sanctions in response to Russian interference in our 2018 election, and then the Trump administration imposed sanctions on a ``Russian agent'' for trying to influence our 2020 election. Partisanship stops at the water's edge.

We need to stop Russia from interfering in our elections. Both parties have imposed sanctions on Russia for doing so. The question is how we make those sanctions effective.

Existing sanctions apply to the purchase of sovereign debt--this is debt issued by the Russian Government--but only when you are acting as the underwriter, not purchases in the secondary market. That is ineffective.

In May of this year, the Russian Deputy Finance Minister told us that when he said sanctions-imposed restrictions don't cover the secondary market and so they are going to be ineffective or, in his words: ``So we don't expect the share of nonresidents to move far from the current levels.''

We need to listen to the Russian Deputy Finance Minister as to how to make the sanctions that both Democrats and Republicans agree on more effective. The sanctions imposed here will raise the cost of borrowing of the Russian Government by between half a

percent and three-quarters of a percent based on a rating by ACRA.

Further, it is good economic policy. We have a scarce amount of investment capital in the United States. I want to see it invested in American businesses, either in stock or as loans by our banks and others to our companies.

Can anybody make the argument that we are worse off if money is invested in American companies instead of being lent to Vladimir Putin?

There is no credible argument as to why American pension plans, asset managers, and households should be funding the Russian Government at a time when, in 2016, 2018, and 2020, both parties and former President Trump realized that Russia was interfering in our elections and deserves to be sanctioned. Let's make those sanctions effective by adopting this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I see no substantive reason why the ranking member is opposed to this amendment. Both parties agree Russia has interfered in our elections in 2016 but more recently in 2018 and 2020. Both parties and the Trump administration agree that Russia should be sanctioned. But the Deputy Finance Minister of Russia pointed out that our sanctions so far have not been effective, that they are not effective until they apply to the secondary market.

That is exactly what this amendment does. It is time to raise the cost of borrowing by the Russian Government and to see that money invested in American businesses, lent to American companies, instead of being lent to the Russian Government.

Madam Speaker, I hear no substantive argument against that proposition, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. DeGette

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding his time and for his leadership and protecting freedom for multiple uses of our public lands by opposing sloppy Democrat land grabs like the ones contained in this amendment.

This amendment is loaded with more than 30 different land grabs that undermine our national security interests. I have actually traveled in helicopters with our servicemen and servicewomen who say that this bill would hinder the land that they currently practice over, with these wilderness designations, and it would prevent them from amazing training that they do, bringing people in worldwide.

The U.S. Department of Defense uses 750,000 tons of minerals each year for equipment and other important technologies. Copper is used to manufacture military planes and ships. Silver is used in Apache helicopters. Beryllium is used to enhance the speed of fighter jets. Molybdenum is used for armored vehicles, missiles, and aircraft.

The amendment we are discussing proposes to add nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness and permanently withdraws 1.2 million acres from mineral production.

Again, our Department of Defense needs 750,000 tons of minerals each year. This amendment permanently withdraws 1.2 million acres that contain critical minerals and other rare earths that we need for defense, to protect our men and women in uniform.

Approximately 550,000 of those 1.5 million acres that would be locked up by these new wilderness designations are in my district. Now, can you imagine if I had a bill designating the 16th Street Mall in Denver, Colorado, and said that there would be a wilderness designation. I mean, it is wild and scenic, but I don't have a bill that does such because I tend to my district.

None of the Colorado acres proposed for the wilderness designation in this amendment are located in the district represented by the sponsor of this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, this amendment, which has nothing to do with the national defense, creates significant land restrictions on nearly 400,000 acres of land in Colorado.

This entirely inappropriate amendment to the NDAA seeks to create 73,068 acres of new wilderness in Colorado, which will severely restrict all forms of recreation, much-needed management, and economic activity. We can all agree that we need forest management, and the answer is not a hands-off approach.

While there are a lot of terrible policies in this amendment, one of my biggest concerns is the increased threat of disastrous wildfires that will result from the new wilderness designations and other land grabs in this bill.

Colorado just came out of one of the worst wildfire seasons we have ever experienced. In 2020 the U.S. set a new record for the number of acres burned by wildfires, as more than 10.3 million acres went up in smoke.

Wilderness is the most restrictive land use designation possible, and it prevents active management in our forests, which is critical to prevent catastrophic wildfires.

I have spent months meeting with foresters, experts in the timber industry, and active management advocates. Every one of them has said we do not need wilderness areas in Colorado, and wilderness areas prevent active management of our forests and have exacerbated catastrophic wildfires.

Madam Speaker, this amendment is a blatant attempt to sneak a deeply partisan environmentalist wish list into the vital and important funding vehicle of our Nation's defense.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to add the first six titles of the Protecting America's Wilderness in Public Lands Act to this year's NDAA bill.

This legislation will preserve nearly 1.3 million acres of public land across Colorado, California, and Washington State, and it will add more than 1,000 miles of river to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Preserving these untouched public lands from the threat of future development is more than just protecting our environment. It is about protecting our economy and jobs and our western way of life. It is also about ensuring that some of our Nation's most elite military pilots have the opportunity and the space they need to train.

Included in the nearly 1.3 million acres of land this measure would protect are some of our Nation's most important military training grounds, including the High Altitude Aviation Training Site, or HAATS, in Colorado, that is responsible for training some of our most elite helicopter pilots to take on some of the harshest conditions anywhere on the planet.

As a fourth-generation Coloradoan, I know how important these lands are to the people in my State, and I know how important these training grounds are to the brave men and women who serve in our Nation's military.

The designations included in this amendment were not made up overnight. They were the result of decades of hard work by citizens across the State of Colorado, and they have garnered widespread support among the public across the West.

It is why the legislation has been passed by this Chamber now three times in just 2 years, including as a part of last year's NDAA bill, and again, this year, as a standalone bill.

I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Huffman, Carbajal, Chu, Schiff, Kilmer, Neguse, and the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Chairman Grijalva, for their unwavering support and all the work they have done to get this package to the floor.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

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

Madam Speaker, all of the six areas in this bill have been studied, have been worked on, and have been under consideration for several decades, as my colleague, Mr. Schiff, pointed out.

The areas in Colorado in my bill were originally designated as wilderness study areas in the 1980s, and they have already been managed as wilderness for almost 40 years. What this would do is it would simply make permanent what everybody in Colorado knows. These are the most special wild areas that we can have.

My colleague from Colorado alleges that helicopter training would be prevented by this bill, but, in fact, that is incorrect. After working with the National Guard, we withdrew the areas that were scheduled to be wilderness and called them potential wilderness so that the helicopters can continue to land there, as I pointed out in my opening statement, allowing our military to have the high-level training that they need.

Finally, to my knowledge, there are no rare minerals in any of the six potential areas of this bill. In fact, what we are doing is simply preserving for future generations the wilderness that we all know and the wilderness that stimulates jobs and the economy throughout the West.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and preserve these very special places, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of en bloc amendment number two to H.R. 7900, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which includes three Lynch amendments that ill strengthen our capacity to find our missing service members, increase contracting transparency, and protect veterans from financial fraud.

Amendment No. 235 is a bipartisan amendment that will support the mission of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA). I would like to thank my Republican colleague Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska for joining me in cosponsoring this important amendment that simply clarifies DOD authority with regard to the resources it may use to fulfill its mission. Currently, the DPAA may accept gifts such as personal property, services, and funds to expand its capabilities and bring more of our missing service members home, but not solicit them. Under this amendment DPAA may seek out these additional resources as well. We make a promise to every brave American that we send into combat not to forget them, and we must do everything to ensure that the agency tasked with finding them has access to all the means possible to be able to do so.

Amendment No. 236 reauthorizes the Commission on Wartime Contracting to conduct oversight of U.S. contracting and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and other areas of contingency operations. This Commission has a proven track record of helping reduce waste and fraud in overseas operations contracting. A similar past commission, during its prior iteration from 2008 to 2011, found between $31 billion and $60 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds that were lost due to contract waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. At a time in which all Americans are worried about the state of our economy, their family finances, and what the future may hold, it is vital that we examine how our rebuilding and contract funds were used, and how we can spend more effectively and transparently in the future.

Finally, Madam Speaker, amendment No. 237 would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to establish an Interagency Task Force on Financial Fraud to identify, prevent, and combat financial fraud targeting service members, veterans, and military families. Service members, veterans, and their families are nearly 40 percent more likely to lose money to scams and fraud than the civilian population, and four out of five service members and veterans report they have been targeted by scams directly related to their military service or benefits. In total, service members and veterans reported financial losses of $267 million resulting from scams or fraud in 2021. Earlier today, I chaired a hearing in the National Security Subcommittee that examined this very issue. This task force is a necessary first step to understand what makes our military, veterans and their families so vulnerable, what can be done to better protect them, and how we can help make whole those who have been victimized.

I would like to once again extend my thanks to Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, Ranking Member Mike Rogers, and their staffs for including my amendments in this en bloc amendment and would urge all my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, the NDAA is one of the most important bills Congress passes annually. In fact, the past decade, the NDAA has been enacted every year. As such, the NDAA often becomes a grab bag for a variety of priorities. To protect the integrity of this process, I believe the NDAA should focus on strengthening the Department of Defense--its systems, its programs, and its personnel. This amendment would provide an unprecedented $25,000 one-time payment from the VA to World War II merchant marines. Therefore, we should not be discussing this proposal as part of the NDAA.

I thank Representative Green for his advocacy on behalf of the merchant marines, and I support the merchant marines. I am also grateful for the bravery of these men who served during World War II. They faced danger, and some made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country.

That said, their service has been recognized. The GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977 provided a pathway to VA care benefits for civilian groups, known as active duty designees, who supported the Armed Forces in World War II. The merchant marines are considered active duty designees and, as such, received veteran status and eligibility for VA benefits decades ago.

However, this amendment carves out a new benefit for merchant marines unlike anything Congress has authorized in the past, not even for our most highly decorated veterans.

I have heard that merchant marines feel they were shortchanged because they did not receive the GI Bill benefits. However, this bill creates an inequity among other veterans and active duty designees by providing a thank-you payment for merchant marines.

Ultimately, this amendment unfairly singles out one group of service above another. I also have questions about how many merchant marines would be covered under this amendment and why $25,000 was deemed as the appropriate amount.

Considering this bill under regular order before the House Committee of Veterans' Affairs would allow us to ask those questions. It makes more sense to have it done that way. This is why I cannot support this amendment's inclusion in the NDAA tonight.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, this amendment would provide an unprecedented $25,000 one-time payment for VA World War II merchant marines. It did not go through regular order. It did not go through the committee of jurisdiction. This amendment

should be placed in the committee that has jurisdiction to justify so that if not only this group but other groups would be able and should be able to receive benefits, as this amendment requires, we would be able to do that.

Madam Speaker, I support our merchant marines. I always have. My 20 years in the State legislature, I did just that. As a matter of fact, at every veteran ceremony, I mentioned and brought up our merchant marines as our veterans.

That being said, this is not the way to handle this bill. I plead with the Members of this body not to accept this. I am adamantly opposed. I would love to take it up in the committee, not in this bill where it is not the proper place.

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

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise. Tonight, I rise to express my gratitude to many persons who have caused us to have this opportunity. I thank Chairman Smith for his service and what he has done and Ranking Member Rogers, the members of the Committee on Rules, and the members of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I rise to say that I do support the NDAA. I understand the need for a strong military, but I also rise tonight with an appeal for some compassion, compassion and, to a certain extent, mercy for our veteran merchant marines. I ask for this compassion because they didn't get some of the benefits that others did.

Let me just read the words, if I may, of President Roosevelt. On June 22, 1944, these are his words when signing the GI Bill: ``I trust Congress will soon provide similar opportunities to members of the Merchant Marine who have risked their lives time and time again during war for the welfare of our country.''

Congress did not provide similar benefits for the merchant marines. As a result of Congress not doing so, most people don't know that the merchant marines were denied benefits within the GI Bill, denied the stipend for the cost of living, books, and supplies as it relates to education, denied tuition-free education, denied unemployment benefits, denied medical benefits, denied low-cost guaranteed loans, denied opportunities.

Madam Speaker, I appeal tonight for those who are still surviving, all of whom are in their nineties. I had the privilege of being with Mr. Charles Mills, 101 years young and still making the appeal for help for these veterans, who literally won a lawsuit to have themselves declared as such.

I make the appeal for compassion for our merchant marines, who had a very high casualty count during World War II.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, tuition benefits in today's dollars would be about $8,000. The stipend for the cost of living, books, and supplies would be about $1,200. The unemployment benefits-- and I am low-balling--would be about $16,000.

The medical benefits we can't measure. The loss of opportunities because of the loans that they could have received we cannot measure.

But we can do this: We can do what General Eisenhower asked us to do. We can do what President Roosevelt asked us to do and President Truman asked us to do.

This is our opportunity, a unique moment in time to correct an injustice. And I appeal to you to do so.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, to take this through regular order at this time would mean that we would call on witnesses who have long since gone to glory. It would mean that many of those who live today would not live to see the day that the justice would be served that they richly deserve.

So I make an appeal on behalf of the those who have earned this compassion, they risked their lives for their country, and many of them died. This is our final opportunity for many of them, and I yield back the balance of my time.