Supporting Coptic Christians in Egypt.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of strong national security policies, policies like the remain in Mexico policy, enforcement of our existing interior immigration laws, and the completion of key miles of fencing and technology that protect our southwest border--policies, Madam Speaker, that President Biden hastily removed on his first day in office, without any plan to replace them.

President Biden and the Democrats in the House and Senate supported ending those Trump-era policies. Those policies, Madam Speaker, were working to rein in the flow of illegal immigration.

Now, with no plan and no substitution, the result is pure political theater, simply because those were Trump policies. While they were working, President Biden stopped them.

President Biden appointed Vice President Harris to serve as the border czar. One would think that she would act in critical ways to replace those national security policies that were working under the Trump administration and that President Biden ended. Not only did she not present solutions to the historic number of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were pouring across our southern border, but she refused to visit the border for nearly 100 days since being appointed border czar.

She even laughed at the idea of visiting the border, comparing it to taking a trip to Europe. Finally, after cries from the American people and calls from House and Senate Republicans, she did agree to take a trip to the border.

Madam Speaker, I have been to the border seven times over the past 5\1/2\ years, most recently in April. Specifically, I traveled to the Rio Grande sector in the Rio Grande Valley. The conditions I found there were worse than I have seen on my previous trips. In fact, Border Patrol estimates that the drug cartels in Mexico made $400 million in February alone in human trafficking.

Think about that, Madam Speaker: $400 million in one month by charging $5,000 to $9,000 to traffic hundreds of thousands of people across the border, some innocent, some not.

These drug and human trafficking challenges are just part of the crisis at the border because while Customs and Border Patrol are working on the humanitarian elements of this crisis, drugs are coming across the border and criminals are coming across the border.

In fact, Madam Speaker, we have interdicted in the first 6 months of this year enough fentanyl to kill all in America. It is shocking that we have interdicted that much fentanyl drug that it could kill everyone in this country because it only takes the amount in a Sweet'N Low packet, Madam Speaker, to kill 500 Americans. This is a deadly drug.

The Vice President chose to visit El Paso. El Paso is nearly 1,000 miles west of the Rio Grande Valley, where this crisis has its epicenter. If she had gone to the Rio Grande Valley, she would have seen cartels dropping off migrant families by the dozens and holding camps for migrant families struggling to get the water, time, and care that they need.

Regardless of who designed the policies, the Biden administration should be for stronger national security policies on the border. But the Biden border crisis is out of control, and it is going to take more than a short public relations visit to El Paso to fix it.

I encourage the Vice President and the administration to come to the table with Republicans in the House and Senate and implement strong national security borders and reform our broken illegal immigration system.

Announcing American Hostage Task Force

Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce that the Congressional Task Force on Americans Wrongfully Detained Abroad has been initiated by Congressman Ted Deutch from Florida and myself.

The inspiration for me to form this task force was Majd Kamalmaz, a former resident of central Arkansas who was traveling to Syria to attend a family funeral where he was wrongfully detained and has been held in Syria ever since. I am dedicated to bringing him home safely to his family.

Having a loved one detained or held hostage abroad is unimaginable. It is a heartbreaking experience for any family.

Representative Deutch and I created this task force not only to help these struggling families but to be a resource for our colleagues in the House, as there are over 50 families here in America who are struggling with a member of their family held abroad. We want to help Members of Congress help their constituents cope with this issue.

Every channel of the United States Government should be working to bring these Americans home and to disincentivize the wrongful detention of Americans in the future, by state actors or nonstate actors.

Madam Speaker, I am committed to bringing Majd Kamalmaz home to his family. Ted Deutch and I are committed to using this task force to bring other Americans wrongfully detained home, into the arms of their loved ones.

Marking 100th Anniversary of CCP

Madam Speaker, a century ago, the Chinese Communists took control of one of the great countries in global history. The Chinese Communist Party marks, this month, a century since the beginning of China's descent into authoritarianism.

Just as the Chinese Communist Party used violence to impose its will onto the Chinese people during the Chinese Civil War, now it uses that same violence and threat of violence to crush any dissent within its borders.

We saw this last summer, when the CCP silenced the democratic voices of Hong Kong, swiftly marching troops into the city to stop demonstrations for freedom. Beijing has blatantly ignored the terms of its 50-year treaty with the United Kingdom and ignored Hong Kong's legislature, arresting pro-democracy activists and lawmakers en masse and crushing a long history of press freedom with the recent closing of Apple Daily.

As I speak, over a million Uighurs and other Muslims have been interned in concentration camps for reeducation. Families have been separated, lives destroyed, and cultures all but erased in the name of the magnificent Chinese Communist Party's ultimate authority.

Respect for human rights is a fundamental tenet of American foreign policy. The continued suffering of the Uighurs, the citizens of Hong Kong--and all other individual rights of speech, privacy, assembly, and religious belief are trampled by the Chinese Communist Party.

It is no 100-year celebration here on the House floor, Madam Speaker. The American people stand with the hardworking people of China. The Congress of the United States stands with the hardworking people of China, and we will work to continue to advocate for freedom of people, assembly, belief, and press in China.

Applauding FBI Cyber Busts

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the tireless dedication of members of the FBI in recently seizing approximately $2.3 million from the hacker group responsible for the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack.

After the Colonial Pipeline paid the hackers the entire $4.4 million ransom, and with the money seemingly lost forever due to bitcoin encryption, these FBI agents were able to recover more than half of the demanded sum.

I am also proud to recognize that the FBI conducted 800 arrests in 16 countries thanks to an encrypted messaging app it developed as part of a 3-year digital sting operation on international crime.

Just as encrypted, untraceable communications have become pervasive in how criminal enterprise operates on a global scale, ransomware attacks have been on the rise as they prey on the digital vulnerability of our businesses and infrastructure, often with little hope of recovery or justice.

I applaud the vigilance and ingenious methods of the investigating agents and encourage their continued efforts to ensure safety in our digital age.

Reintroducing Coptic Christian Resolution

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my resolution, H. Res. 117, which calls on the Egyptian Government to end the culture of impunity for attacks on Christians and to undertake the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of individuals who carry out attacks on Copts and other Christians in Egypt.

I was the lead on a nearly identical resolution in previous Congresses. I truly appreciate the support I received from my original cosponsor, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), and nearly 50 of my House colleagues who have cosponsored the resolution in this Congress.

Madam Speaker, Egypt and the United States are important partners in the fight against terrorism. Egypt's role at Camp David has led to some of the closest ties between the United States, Egypt, and Israel in their history, and we are grateful for their most recent engagement between the terror group Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the Government of Israel.

Madam Speaker, I respect President el-Sisi and his good relationship with the Coptic Pope. He has attended Mass on multiple occasions. He has had some churches reconstructed, and he has constructed the largest Christian cathedral in the Middle East in the new administrative center in Egypt. And President el-Sisi is relentless in holding terrorists accountable for their atrocities.

People all around the world, regardless of their religious affiliation deserve the same freedom to practice their chosen religion like we have enjoyed here in the United States for more than 200 years.

The respect for human rights and religious freedom is a fundamental tenet of American foreign policy. I will continue to advocate for the Coptic Christians and all Egyptians, be they Christian or Muslim, who together take their water from the Nile.

Arkansans Should Check the Status of Their Passports

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge all Arkansans to check the status of their passports well before traveling.

Due to backlogs in the State Department, passport renewals by mail are taking longer than usual. There is a backlog of up to 10 weeks for their expedited service and 18 weeks for their regular service.

This lag in service at the State Department is affecting Arkansans wanting to travel for mission trips, study abroad, or take a family trip in the aftermath of the pandemic.

So far, my office has helped 70 people this year receive their passports, and we have opened more than 90 cases in the past 6 months. And this compares to opening cases and receiving passports of only about 200 in the 5 previous years

So, to my friends in Arkansas, check your passport prior to your trip, and if it is expired, get it renewed as soon as possible

I encourage everyone to stay up to date on passport services and travel advisories and to check COVID-19 protocols, masks, testing, and quarantine issues before you travel.

Arkansans Must Get Vaccinated

Madam Speaker, I rise today to encourage all Arkansans who are not currently vaccinated for COVID-19 to consult with their doctor about getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

The best way to combat the spread of these COVID variants is by receiving the vaccine. As more information and research develops around the delta variant of the coronavirus, I want to ensure that all Arkansans stay safe and remain healthy as we prepare for this spread.

The only way that we can fully reopen our economy and get truly back on our feet is with more people being vaccinated for COVID-19.

Each FDA conditionally approved vaccine is backed by science and doctors who have worked hard over the past year to develop, manufacture, and distribute these critical vaccines.

So work with your physician. Help protect your family and the Arkansas community by getting a vaccine shot soon.

Recognizing Great Outdoors Month

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize that June is Great Outdoors Month and recognize the great conservation work of my colleagues in Arkansas in the Governor's office and at the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism.

As a lifelong outdoorsman living in The Natural State, I have a lot of pride in recognizing June as Great Outdoors Month. For 9 generations, my family has lived in Arkansas and enjoyed the extraordinary natural beauty throughout our State.

I agree with many of the earliest conservationists in protecting our wildlife and our wild places and that can be done through reasonable and realistic means, and I am proud to continue my work in central Arkansas.

Just last week, I joined Governor Asa Hutchinson and Secretary of Parks and Tourism Stacy Hurst in announcing the new Office of Outdoor Recreation and the addition of a great new wild place in central Arkansas: Blue Mountain just west of Pinnacle Mountain. Just west of Rattlesnake Ridge, Blue Mountain will be a new opportunity for hiking, mountain biking, and enjoying the extraordinary view of Lake Maumelle from the Nature Conservancy and the Arkansas Department of Heritage's latest partnership to expand outdoor recreation.

In the same announcement, the Governor announced that our parks and tourism department would work with the Ouachita National Forest and open up Lake Sylvia Recreation Area and the old Camp Ouachita to year- round participation by Arkansans. This is a great partnership between the Federal Government and the State government to offer more outdoor recreation opportunities for our families to enjoy in The Natural State.

The National Personnel Records Center Must Go Digital

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring awareness to the difficulty for many to obtain a critical document for our veterans: That is their form DD-214.

You can't do anything as a veteran without a copy of your DD-214. This paperwork is required to verify for our servicemembers their benefits, how to obtain a disability claim, funeral service, research about lost medals. We need a copy of your DD-214.

Well, the pandemic has not been good for this need for the millions of veterans in our country. The National Personnel Records Center shut down, and as we come out of the pandemic when our veterans need these resources, they are still terribly behind, despite Congress appropriating more money.

It is critical that the National Personnel Records Center go digital so that we can properly verify these servicemembers and give better service for those who have served their country in such a valuable way.

It should not be difficult for our veterans to get their DD-214 to pursue their benefits or claim healthcare at our Veterans Administration. It shouldn't be a burden to a spouse, to a family of a fallen veteran to have the proper paperwork to have a proper funeral.

So I urge my colleagues to join me and continue to press the National Archives to improve their service for the bravest men and women and their families.

Recognizing Steve Wells

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments and retirement of Catholic High School teacher and longtime friend Mr. Steve Wells.

Mr. Wells has been teaching at Catholic High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, for 38 years. His decision to end his long service at the school, having graduated there in 1973, is recognized by many as the end of an era at CHS.

Steve's a native of north Little Rock and came back to the school as a substitute English teacher in 1983. The teacher for which he was substituting never returned, and Steve Wells has been teaching there ever since.

When you walk into our beloved Catholic High there is a quote that is above the front door. It says: ``Come boys, so that you may become men.''

Mr. Wells did exactly that. And he served as a teacher and a role model for generations of students throughout the years.

I congratulate my friend, Steve Wells, on a dedicated career of helping boys become men and wish him the very best in his retirement.

Recognizing Arkansas' Women Veterans

Madam Speaker, today I rise in honor of Women's Armed Services Integration Act. I am proud to recognize the more than 20,000 women veterans in Arkansas.

Women have been serving in the military in different capacities for more than a century. Women like Deborah Sampson, who fought in the Revolutionary War, and Loretta Walsh, America's first official enlisted woman of any service.

They pioneered the way for women to serve in the United States Armed Forces. And with more women serving now than ever before at any time in our history, action is being taken to continue and build a positive environment for women in the armed services. Further, our Veterans Administration continues its efforts to enhance families, facilities, and services for our growing number of female veterans in Arkansas.

I thank the women of our armed services for their dedication and service to our country.

Recognizing Gracie Lee, Alyssa Huie, Randilynn Stripling, and Catherine

Mills

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize four incredible young women on the Clinton Arkansas Future Farmers of America team.

Together, Gracie Lee, Alyssa Huie, Randilynn Stripling, and Catherine Mills made history by being the first all-female team to win not one, but two State competitions in electricity.

Due to the pandemic, the team was allowed to compete in the State contest a second time, making them back-to-back State champions in electricity.

This team serves as a great example to all the young Arkansans that are committed to working hard and being pioneers in their fields. I applaud them for their diligence and determination.

This team demonstrated great dedication, and I am incredibly proud to represent these history-making young women and all young Arkansans in central Arkansas.

Recognizing Melvin Williams

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the determination of Little Rock native, Melvin Williams. A terrible and unfortunate injury in high school ended his football dreams. His grades slipped, and Melvin dropped out of school.

Years later, Melvin had earned his high school diploma at a program at Goodwill Industries. The Excel Center at Goodwill is a fully accredited and cost-free public high school in Little Rock for adults 19 and older.

Not only is Mr. Williams now working toward a business degree at the University of Arkansas Pulaski Tech, he is one of Goodwill's newest employees. He is in charge of recruitment and retention at Goodwill.

Goodwill Industries of Arkansas CEO Brian Marsh says, ``Melvin is exactly who we need for this role.''

I congratulate Melvin on his accomplishments and for being a wonderful representative for Goodwill Industries.

Congratulating Ellis Freel

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Miss Ellis Freel on being a recipient of the Congressional Award Gold Medal.

The Congressional Award Gold Medal requires the recipient to complete a minimum of 400 hours of volunteer service, 200 hours of personal development, and 200 hours of physical fitness and 5 days of exploration or expedition.

Miss Freel cites the most challenging obstacle in completing the requirements of being a gold medalist as her 5-day wilderness expedition. Due to restrictions from the pandemic, Ellis had to make adjustments that taught her patience and flexibility.

Miss Freel serves as a wonderful asset to her hometown of Bryant, Arkansas, her college campus at the University of Arkansas and to Arkansas' Second Congressional District.

Recognizing Finalists of the Arkansas State Coding Competition

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the finalists from central Arkansas in the fifth annual Arkansas State Coding competition and a finalist for the Arkansas Computer Science Educator of the Year Award.

The team taking third place at the State coding competition this year was from eStem High School in my hometown of Little Rock. The three- person team included Elijah Keen, Spencer Knight, and Sergio Markin. Each student received a 529 college savings plan worth $500, in addition to winning $4000 for their school.

Also, a special congratulations to Kimberly Raup for being a finalist in the 2021 Computer Science Educator of the Year Award. She teaches at Conway High School, and she received a $2,500 award for being named a finalist.

Congratulations to these students and to Ms. Raup on their awards, and a special thank you to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock for hosting this event.

It is events like this that allow our central Arkansas students to showcase their coding and STEM talents to show the importance of computer science for our youth.

Happy Birthday America

Madam Speaker, I bring birthday greetings to our beloved Nation. I rise today to celebrate freedom and independence and democracy right here in the United States.

Madam Speaker, 245 years ago, our brave Founding Fathers gathered together in Philadelphia to sign the Declaration of Independence. And on that hot July, in that stuffy room in Philadelphia, they came together to change world history, to change history here in the United States, and to open up a lifetime of opportunity for generations of Americans yet unborn.

Madam Speaker, what amazes me about that time is that small committee of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, thinking through of how would we break with Great Britain, how would America leave Great Britain.

Madam Speaker, Jefferson was concerned. In his rough draft, he said of Great Britain and the United States: ``We might have been a free and great people together.''

Those words are not placed in the final copy of the Declaration of Independence, but it shows the struggle that the Founding Fathers had and Thomas Jefferson had as a principal author of how to make that break with a people they had respect for, and a king and a king's policies they despised.

``We might have been a free and great people together.''

But think of the momentous feelings they had, the prayers they had every day on their knees for strength to take on the most powerful country in the world, with the most powerful Navy and military in the world.

As Jefferson said: `` . . . it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . . '' To pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Jefferson, while he didn't include that statement about being partners as a free people going forward, he argued, ``we have appealed to their''--the British--``native justice and magnanimity.'' And they were rejected.

Madam Speaker, think of the bravery there. As the signers of the Declaration, those Founders came together and said in the final closing words of the Declaration of Independence: ``And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.''

And they did that for those generations of Americans unborn in this great land.

So 245 years later, we have proven our resilience and our strength once again in coming through the pandemic, defeating COVID-19. And I am optimistic about the future of our beloved country. While it has been challenging over the last year and a few months, but compared to the challenges those Founders faced, compared to the challenges this country has faced many, many times before, we show our strength, we show our true mettle, we pull through as one Nation under God many times before.

So on this Fourth of July, I invite all Americans to celebrate our country's birthday with their friends and family. Honor our cherished freedoms. And may we never forget the sacrifices of those generations before us in public service, in uniform, on the battlefield, who have sacrificed so much so that we may enjoy those freedoms that we have today. God bless each of you and God bless our great country.

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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of issues with this amendment, not the least of which is that my colleague is the subcommittee chairman on the committee of jurisdiction for this amendment, yet we are not taking it up in that committee because I suppose we don't want the debate.

While we are talking about national security in the National Defense Authorization Act, this amendment adds to the already excessive bureaucracy at the State Department, not at the Pentagon.

It has nothing to do with national security. This is about political ideology and using the National Defense Authorization Act for more bureaucracy, a climate change officer at embassies, consulates, diplomatic missions, et cetera.

It is alleged to provide expertise on climate change in the State Department, and it stipulates that this must be done in an equitable, inclusive, and just manner.

Do you know what is not equitable or just? Sending State Department officials around the globe to tell other countries trying to emerge in their world, in their economies, by adopting ineffective, destabilizing green energy just so that John Kerry can fly around in his private jet and rub elbows with billionaires in Davos.

It is certainly not equitable or just to tell other countries they must transition to electrical systems built on the horrific, forced slave labor and child labor facilitated by the Communist Party of China. That doesn't seem equitable, doesn't seem just, doesn't seem fair.

This amendment also contains the sense of Congress that would affirm climate change as one of the core tenets of foreign policy priorities.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the National Defense Authorization Act. This is not the State and Foreign Ops reauthorization. This doesn't belong here. This has nothing to do with this.

Everybody here knows, or should know, that we face enormous challenges around the globe for a national security policy. But if we want to talk about State and Foreign Ops, we can talk about Sri Lanka.

They have an ESG score of like 99 or something like that. They just overthrew their government because they

can't eat because of these policies, these policies imposed on them by the United States of America in the accolades of this Green New Deal garbage.

Ghana is the same thing, moving up in the world, electrifying their country so everybody could afford electricity in a Third World country. Now it is dark at night in their homes because there is no electricity because of this kind of stuff.

This doesn't belong here, Madam Speaker. Actually, it doesn't belong anywhere, but it certainly doesn't belong as an amendment to this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just offer this to my colleague, my friend. I have served in uniform, and I know what the existential threats are.

Madam Speaker, I know, having served long in both the enlisted ranks and the officer ranks, the troubles that national security pose to this Nation.

While you might find woke officers and enlisted members infiltrate the Pentagon to destroy the military with this tripe, I am not one of them. I am not going to fall for it. Neither should anybody here.

We need to focus. Our military, our national defense, needs to focus on real enemies, enemies like China, Iran, terrorism, and potentially Russia, but not in a proxy war in Ukraine. These are real enemies.

Climate change can be handled by other agencies and should be handled by other agencies. DOD and men and women in uniform need to focus on defending our country from our enemies, not this, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment, as has been stated, establishes an office of climate resilience in the White House and a climate resilience equity advisory board, including outside stakeholders, to develop a national climate resilience action plan.

What does ``outside stakeholders'' mean? I mean, to me, what I hear is people who do what a lot of people do in Washington. They grift. They are making money. They are making policy that makes their friends money. That is what that means. The stakeholders should be the American people, outside stakeholders developing a national climate resilience action plan.

Now, quite honestly, this is, again, the National Defense Authorization Act. How this amendment made it to the floor under this bill is, quite honestly, beyond comprehension. It is just another level of Federal bureaucracy in the name of climate that does nothing to improve the readiness of our military or support the warfighter.

That is what we should be discussing this evening. That is what the underlying bill is about, the National Defense Authorization Act. This has nothing to do, again, with supporting the warfighter, nothing to do with increasing readiness.

I remember filling out officer evaluation reports with all kinds of requirements. I had a paragraph I had to fill out on every officer, all kinds of requirements that I had to put a statement in about this or that. It left me about one sentence to talk about their warfighting capability, each officer, about one sentence left in all the space of the requirements that I had to complete that had absolutely nothing to do with the servicemember's ability to do their job in combat. So, here we are going to add some more because we don't have enough of that.

The folks responsible for developing a nationwide resiliency plan would be those with emergency management experience if they were going to do it, but that is not required. Again, we have outside stakeholders.

I mean, it doesn't even belong in this bill, but even if it did, it doesn't get anything right here because we are not going to protect anybody. This is just another bureaucracy for activists on the left to impose these things on United States citizens.

I mean, we have real problems. It would be great if we had a task force in the White House, since apparently the President can't handle it, to deal with the record inflation that we have.

It would be great if we had somebody in the White House, maybe a task force, to deal with fuel prices. I mean, we have our national leaders traveling all around the globe, thousands of miles away, to try to get other countries to pump more oil, refine more oil. We won't do it in the United States of America.

It would be great to have that task force. Maybe that would help national security so we wouldn't have to go fight these foreign wars. But I guess we are going to do this social justice climate fearmongering.

It just creates another activist entity within the Federal Government and fails to protect folks from disasters or actually protect the taxpayers. It will actually undermine resiliency efforts by focusing on socialist ideas that are failing. They are failing in this country right now.

What we are seeing happening in our economy is the result of these types of things. We don't let the market work. We don't want the market. We are going to impose our will on the American people and say, ``You are not going to drive that kind of car, you are not going to use that kind of fuel, you are not going to buy that kind of electricity. We know better than you do. We are Washington, D.C.''

Most of us have no experience in these industries that we are forcing on the American people. It undermines America's prosperity and promotes technologies that enrich our enemies, like China, rather than supporting the military, which is what this bill is supposed to be about.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which passed the House last year by a unanimous voice vote. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 currently prohibits the Army and Air Force from enforcing U.S. laws without authorization by the Constitution or Congress. Today, I offer an amendment to strengthen that existing law to include the Marines, the Navy, and the federalized National Guard and Reserve components.

My amendment would also prohibit the use of evidence unlawfully obtained by or with the assistance of the military in a court of law or other legal proceedings.

Put plainly, it would prevent any President of either party from unlawfully using the military as a domestic police force, and it would ensure that evidence obtained because of unlawful acts isn't used against any American. I would hope that this is a proposition that both parties can support.

Last year, as I said, this amendment passed by voice vote and with broad support. However, this year, conspiracy theorists, including some who served in this body when this amendment was passed previously, have announced their opposition. I guess it is fair to say that they were for it before they were against it.

You may hear some of these conspiracy theories this evening, so let me be very clear. This amendment has one goal: to prevent any President from unlawfully using our Nation's Armed Forces against Americans exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

Last year, my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't want evidence obtained illegally by the military to be used against people. This year, well, we will see.

This amendment will ensure the government cannot use evidence obtained by the military if acting unlawfully and allow us to better protect the fundamental freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. Surely, we can all agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

First of all, my colleague says that we already have laws against the military unlawfully engaging in the enforcement of domestic policy. We only have laws against certain branches of the military doing that. This bill would expand that to any branch of the military. So, this is not covered by existing law.

I am rather struck by the argument I hear against this amendment that if the military engages in unlawful activity, it appears they are okay with using that unlawfully obtained evidence in a court of law. That wouldn't be allowed in any criminal proceeding if law enforcement obtained evidence unlawfully. It shouldn't be allowed if the military obtains evidence unlawfully.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that has changed from last year when this passed on a unanimous voice vote to this year is, apparently, this year, some of my colleagues are willing to have the military enforce domestic policy in violation of the law and use the fruits of that illegal action against American citizens. I don't think that is right.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer amendment 451 as the designee of Mr. Malinowski.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of amendment No. 451 for my colleague, Congressman Malinowski.

Before I do, though, I am glad that I have the opportunity to respond on my previous amendment regarding the Posse Comitatus law. My colleague in opposition made the claim: Well, what if evidence is obtained by the military lawfully? Would the amendment exclude that? I sought recognition to answer his question, but he did not want to recognize me, and I understand why, because the answer is quite simple from the text of the amendment.

The amendment reads: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any information obtained by or with the assistance of a member of the Armed Forces in violation of section 1385 of title 18, shall not be received in evidence,'' and that is the pertinent part of that provision.

So the simple answer to my friend's question, what about evidence gathered lawfully? Well, obviously that is not impacted. It is only in the case that the military is used unlawfully, and evidence is gained unlawfully that it would be excluded, much as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine that my colleague recognized. If that is true in criminal court, it ought to be true when the military acts in violation of the law.

Let me now turn to amendment No. 451 for my colleague, Tom Malinowski.

This is a simple and straightforward proposition. It requires a review of any actions by the military in Brazil to

interfere with their upcoming elections. This is not coming out of the blue, but responds to clear and concerning signals including:

Number 1, in April, President Bolsonaro repeated a falsehood that officials count votes in a secret room. He then suggested that voting data should be fed to a room ``where the Armed Forces also have a computer to count the votes.''

Number 2, senior generals have already begun to publicly question the integrity of the election.

Number 3, the Minister of Defense sent a preemptive and unfounded formal complaint to electoral authorities expressing ``concerns'' about the election, and generals are getting involved in digging up electoral fraud stories.

Number 4, thousands of military officers have been appointed to run the Brazilian Government, more than under the military dictatorship. Eleven officers in the Cabinet and military officers atop the national oil company indicating that they are already well positioned to maintain and expand the military's power and influence.

Number 5, senior officials are advocating the reintroduction of military laws from the dictatorship that would eliminate constitutional protections, furthering concerns about the health of Brazil's democracy.

These are concerning signs, and we must be vigilant to advocate for democracy, particularly in the largest country in Latin America with a population larger than Russia and also a country that is a major non- NATO ally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to just say that I am in complete agreement with my colleague about the cold, but I am not in agreement about the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, there is a profound concern that we all ought to share that President Bolsonaro may be preparing his own big lie about the Brazilian elections and that he may bring the military in to help propagate a big lie about fraud in the elections in Brazil. He seems to be laying the foundation for making such a claim.

It would be a compounding of the tragedy we have experienced in this country if America's chief export to Brazil turned out to be a big lie in how to undermine integrity and faith in our elections and institutions.

This is a simple reporting requirement of a list of possible actions by military officials in Brazil surrounding the elections. It is a sense of Congress that whatever findings are made about military intervention in the elections ought to be assessed in terms of whether the coup clause has been triggered; that is, of course, the annual appropriations clause that prohibits U.S. assistance to countries where a coup has taken place.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the warning signs in Brazil, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.