Rural Opioid Abuse Prevention Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2796) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for the eligibility of rural community response pilot programs for funding under the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 2796.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge that this legislation is from Senator Jon Ossoff. I know how important these issues are to him. At the very beginning, I thank him for his leadership. We have worked together as members of the Judiciary Committee, he in the Senate and myself in the House. I applaud him and look forward to more work on this constructive approach to drug use.

S. 2796, the Rural Opioid Abuse Prevention Act of 2022, is bipartisan legislation that would establish a pilot program for rural communities within the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program.

The pilot program would make grants to rural areas to implement community response programs in order to reduce opioid overdose deaths. These community response programs would involve collaborations between public safety, public health, and behavioral health systems. The program will seek to identify gaps in current treatment availability and establish treatment programs to reduce opioid overdoses in rural areas.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics indicates that in 2021 there were an estimated 107,622 drug overdose deaths. The data also shows overdose deaths, including opioids, increased from an estimated 70,029 in 2020 to 80,816 in 2021.

Mr. Speaker, what compounds this, as I proceed in my debate here today, is that, just this morning, I read an article that says Texas rural hospitals are closing by the dozens, impacted by the pandemic and lack of personnel. We have an emerging, surging, if you will, synergism of default: individuals who need care, can't get care, and hospitals in rural communities that are closing.

With more than 200 Americans still dying of drug overdoses each day, it is even more important that we pass this critical legislation to get in the way, if you will.

In my hometown of Houston, overdose deaths have been exacerbated by strained access to treatment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Opioid overdose deaths have increased throughout the State of Texas, rising from 4,154 deaths in 2020 to 4,831 deaths in 2021.

When we wanted to get the antidote to opioid, unfortunately, we couldn't get State funding. Police officers and recovery entities, they just couldn't get it because there was a philosophical disbelief that that had anything to do with some of the dangerous drugs out there to be able to help some of those who are in need.

S. 2796 would enable local communities and community organizations to develop and expand initiatives targeting rural and low-resource communities. Eligible applicants of the grant program would be required to have a documented history of providing services in rural communities or regions highly impacted by substance use disorder.

The programs supported by this legislation would be able to identify gaps in treatment access for rural communities, leverage Federal resources to expand treatment options, and ensure rural and remote communities are not forgotten in our effort to address the ongoing impact of opioid abuse disorder across the country. The point that should be made is that rural communities are north, south, east, and west.

Building on the successful Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program, this bipartisan bill would expand it to include a pilot program targeting rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Lamb and Senator Ossoff for introducing this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me, first of all, again acknowledge Senator Ossoff and Congressman Lamb. This is an important piece of legislation, but my good friend knows that I am going to have to add to this discussion by saying that, again, the question of fentanyl, no one wants to see that proliferated and causing the disastrous conditions that we have.

But listen to the story of Ms. Alfaro, who was 19 years old. She lived in Appleton, Wisconsin, and ``was a recent high school graduate raising a toddler and considering joining the Army when she and a friend bought what they thought was the antianxiety drug Xanax in December 2020.''

The pills were fake and contained fentanyl, an opioid that can be 50 times more powerful.

One of the things that we should understand is fentanyl is everywhere, and it has been determined that most of the fentanyl that comes across the border is brought over by U.S. citizens.

The other aspect that is very important that doesn't specifically cover this bill, but at least this bill provides what the mother indicated, she didn't know anything about these drugs. She wished she could have helped her daughter. Yes, her daughter did lose her life.

The point this legislation is making is let's provide information to these rural communities, but also let's understand some of the techniques that some States and local communities were not providing law enforcement or anyone else. Certainly, that is the fentanyl test strips and Narcan. That

certainly was a problem and continues to be a problem in the State of Texas.

We have to look at this holistically, and I think this legislation focuses, certainly, on getting families information, particularly in the rural areas. This was Appleton, Wisconsin. At least, minimally, there would have been information about this, maybe in a broader way, because the mother of the 19-year-old said, ``Two years ago, I knew nothing about this.''

We have to do a better job of telling the facts about fentanyl that we all want to see be extinguished from causing the loss of life.

I think this legislation for rural communities is a very good start, but we need to make sure that our facts are accurate as we talk about this deadly drug, which we want to get off the streets of this Nation. We need to find ways that can be very effective, and we need to keep working.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a number of articles that speak to the importance of this legislation. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for his comments in support, and I know that the gentleman from Ohio will likewise, hopefully, join us.

It is important to speak the obvious. U.S. overdose deaths in 2021 increased half as much as in 2020 but are still up. We know that we need legislation specifically in communities in rural areas that would close or identify the gaps in prevention, treatment, and recovery services for individuals who interact with the criminal justice system in rural areas and create new efforts to address the opioid crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics.

[From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 11, 2022]

U.S. Overdose Deaths in 2021 Increased Half as Much as in 2020--But Are

Still Up 15 Percent

Provisional data from CDC's National Center for Health

Statistics indicate there were an estimated 107,622 drug

overdose deaths in the United States during 2021, an increase

of nearly 15 percent from the 93,655 deaths estimated in

2020. The 2021 increase was half of what it was a year ago,

when overdose deaths rose 30 percent from 2019 to 2020.

The data is featured in an interactive web data

visualization. The 2021 data presented in this visualization

are provisional--they are incomplete and subject to change.

The new data show overdose deaths involving opioids

increased from an estimated 70,029 in 2020 to 80,816 in 2021.

Overdose deaths from synthetic opioids (primarily fentanyl),

psychostimulants such as methamphetamine, and cocaine also

continued to increase in 2021 compared to 2020.

The biggest percentage increase in overdose deaths in 2021

occurred in Alaska, where deaths were up 75.3 percent, while

overdose deaths in Wyoming did not increase at all in 2021

and deaths in Hawaii declined 1.8 percent from the same point

in 2020. The visualization includes:

Reported and predicted (estimated) provisional counts of

deaths due to drug overdose occurring nationally and in each

jurisdiction.

U.S. map of the percentage changes in provisional drug

overdose deaths for the 12-month period ending in December

2021 compared with the 12-month period ending in December

2020, by jurisdiction.

Reported and predicted provisional counts of drug overdose

deaths involving specific drugs or drug classes occurring

nationally and in selected jurisdictions.

NCHS releases both reported and predicted provisional drug

overdose death counts each month. They represent the numbers

of these deaths due to drug overdose occurring in the 12-

month periods ending in the month indicated. These counts

include all seasons of the year and are insensitive to

variations by seasonality. Deaths are reported by the

jurisdiction in which the death occurred.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to emphasize that, really, treatment works, and this is an example. ``Thomas Gooch has spent more than 30 years struggling with illegal drugs. The 52- year-old Nashville, Tennessee, native grew up in extreme poverty. He was first incarcerated in 1988 and spent the next 15 years in and out of jail for using and selling narcotics. `Until 2003,' Gooch says. `That was the first time I went to treatment and the last time I used.'''

This has to also be a component, which is the treatment of individuals whose conditions put them in this way.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record ``The Opioid Epidemic Is Surging Among Black People Because of Unequal Access to Treatment.''

[From Scientific American, Dec. 1, 2022]

The Opioid Epidemic Is Surging Among Black People Because of Unequal

Access to Treatment

(By Melba Newsome and Gioncarlo Valentine)

In one way or another, Thomas Gooch has spent more than 30

years struggling with illegal drugs. The 52-year-old

Nashville, Tenn., native grew up in extreme poverty. He was

first incarcerated in 1988 and spent the next 15 years in and

out of jail for using and selling narcotics. ``Until 2003,''

Gooch says. ``That was the first time I went to treatment and

the last time I used.'' Since then, for most of 19 years,

Gooch has been trying to get others into recovery or just

keep them alive. He handed out clean needles and injection-

drug equipment--which reduce injuries, infections and

overdose deaths--in Nashville's hardest-hit communities. In

2014 he founded My Father's House, a transitional recovery

facility for fathers struggling with substance use disorder.

But despite Gooch's long experience, the opioid epidemic

recently has brought a level of devastation to the Black

community that has shocked him. ``I had never seen death the

way I've seen death when it comes to opioid addiction,'' he

says. ``There's been so many funerals, it doesn't even make

sense. I personally know at least 50 to 60 individuals who

died from overdoses in the last 10 years.'' That staggering

body count includes Gooch's recently estranged wife in 2020

and a former partner in 2019.

A million people in the U.S. have died of opioid overdoses

since the 1990s. But the face--and race--of the opioid

epidemic has changed in the past decade. Originally white and

middle class, victims are now Black and brown people

struggling with long-term addictions and too few resources.

During 10 brutal years, opioid and stimulant deaths have

increased 575 percent among Black Americans. In 2019 the

overall drug overdose death rate among Black people exceeded

that of whites for the first time: 36.8 versus 31.6 per

100,000. And with the addition of fentanyl, the synthetic

opioid that's 50 to 100 times more powerful than morphine,

Black men older than 55 who survived for decades with a

heroin addiction are dying at rates four times greater than

people of other races in that age group.

The reasons for this dramatic change come down to racial

inequities. Research shows that Black people have a harder

time getting into treatment programs than white people do,

and Black people are less likely to be prescribed the gold

standard medications for substance use therapy. ``If you are

a Black person and have an opioid use disorder, you are

likely to receive treatment five years later than if you're a

white person,'' says Nora D. Volkow, director of the National

Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health.

``Treatments are extraordinarily useful in terms of

preventing overdose death so you can actually recover. Five

years can make the difference between being alive or not.''

Black people with substance use problems are afraid of being

caught up in a punitive criminal justice system and are less

likely to have insurance good enough to allow them to seek

help on their own. And the COVID pandemic disrupted many

recovery and harm-reduction services, particularly for people

of color.

Gooch blames straight-out racial discrimination in the

health-care system, too. ``When we call different places to

try to get people into treatment, the question they ask is

`What drug do they use?' '' he recounts with

exasperation. ``If you say `crack,' all of a sudden they

ain't got no bed available. If you say opioids and heroin,

they will find a bed because that's the demographic they

want. A couple of times I told patients that the only way

they're going to get help is to get drunk and turn themselves

into Vanderbilt Hospital because Vanderbilt will hold them

for five days, and that'll get them into treatment.''

Gooch is one of the people trying to improve access to

therapies for addiction and change the overall dysfunctional

dynamic. Other groups are bringing more effective addiction

treatments within prison walls, reducing the chances of

recidivism on release. A proposed federal law would make

therapy with the commonly used addiction medication methadone

less onerous for an impoverished population, as well as less

stigmatizing. And Volkow is using her platform at the NIH to

highlight the overwhelming research-based evidence for better

ways to understand and treat addiction.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record the article regarding the tragic young lady who died in Appleton, Wisconsin, and even now give sympathy to that family and make sure that we have the basic facts.

``Advocates warn that some of the alarms being sounded by politicians and officials are wrong and potentially dangerous. Among those ideas: that tightening control of the U.S.-Mexico border would stop the flow of the drugs, though experts say the key to reining in the crisis is reducing drug demand.''

She was looking for Xanax. Someone made phony Xanax, and then fentanyl was in it. That is just heartbreaking. It is tragic. We have to know where to spend our resources.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this article: ``Myths about fentanyl persist as opioid continues to cause overdose deaths.''

[From the PBS News Hour, Oct. 28, 2022]

Myths About Fentanyl Persist as Opioid Continues To Cause Overdose

Deaths

Lillianna Alfaro was a recent high school graduate raising

a toddler and considering joining the Army when she and a

friend bought what they thought was the anti-anxiety drug

Xanax in December 2020.

The pills were fake and contained fentanyl, an opioid that

can be 50 times as powerful as the same amount of heroin. It

killed them both.

``Two years ago, I knew nothing about this,'' said Holly

Groelle, the mother of 19-year-old Alfaro, who lived in

Appleton, Wisconsin. ``I felt bad because it was something I

could not have warned her about because I didn't know.''

The drug that killed her daughter was rare a decade ago,

but fentanyl and other lab-produced synthetic opioids now are

driving an overdose crisis deadlier than any the U.S. has

ever seen. Last year, overdoses from all drugs claimed more

than 100,000 lives for the first time, and the deaths this

year have remained at nearly the same level--more than gun

and auto deaths combined.

The federal government counted more accidental overdose

deaths in 2021 alone than it did in the 20-year period from

1979 through 1998. Overdoses in recent years have been many

times more frequent than they were during the black tar

heroin epidemic that led President Richard Nixon to launch

his War on Drugs or during the cocaine crisis in the 1980s.

As fentanyl gains attention, mistaken beliefs persist about

the drug, how it is trafficked and why so many people are

dying.

Experts believe deaths surged not only because the drugs

are so powerful, but also because fentanyl is laced into so

many other illicit drugs, and not because of changes in how

many people are using. In the late 2010s--the most recent

period for which federal data is available--deaths were

skyrocketing even as the number of people using opioids was

dropping.

Advocates warn that some of the alarms being sounded by

politicians and officials are wrong and potentially

dangerous. Among those ideas: that tightening control of the

U.S.-Mexico border would stop the flow of the drugs, though

experts say the key to reining in the crisis is reducing drug

demand; that fentanyl might turn up in kids' trick-or-treat

baskets this Halloween; and that merely touching the drug

briefly can be fatal--something that researchers found untrue

and that advocates worry can make first responders hesitate

about giving lifesaving treatment.

All three ideas were brought up this month in an online

video billed as a pre-Halloween public service announcement

from a dozen Republican U.S. senators.

A report this year from a bipartisan federal commission

found that fentanyl and similar drugs are being made mostly

in labs in Mexico from chemicals shipped primarily from

China.

In New England, fentanyl has largely replaced the supply of

heroin. Across the country, it's being laced into drugs such

as cocaine and methamphetamine, sometimes with deadly

results. And in cases like Alfaro's, it's being mixed in

Mexico or the U.S. with other substances and pressed into

pills meant to look like other drugs.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has warned that fentanyl

is being sold in multicolored pills and powders--sometimes

referred to as ``rainbow fentanyl''--marketed on social media

to teens and young adults.

Jon DeLena, the agency's associate special agent in charge,

said at the National Crime Prevention Council summit on

fentanyl in Washington this month that there's ``no direct

information that Halloween is specifically being targeted or

young people are being targeted for Halloween,'' but that

hasn't kept that idea from spreading.

Joel Best, an emeritus sociology professor at the

University of Delaware, said that idea falls in with a long

line of Halloween-related scares. He has examined cases since

1958 and has not found a single instance of a child dying

because of something foreign put into Halloween candy--and

few instances of that being done at all.

``If you give a dose of fentanyl to kids in elementary

school, you have an excellent chance of killing them,'' he

said. ``If you do addict them, what are you going to do, try

to take their lunch money? No one is trying to addict little

kids to fentanyl.''

In midterm election campaigns, fentanyl is not getting as

much attention as issues such as inflation and abortion. But

Republicans running for offices including governor and U.S.

Senate in Arkansas, New Mexico and Pennsylvania have framed

the fentanyl crisis as a result of Democrats being lax about

securing the Mexican border or soft on crime as part of a

broader campaign assertion that Democrats foster lawlessness.

And when Democrats highlight the overdose crisis in

campaigns this year, it has often been to tout their roles in

forging settlements to hold drugmakers and distributors

responsible.

Relying heavily on catching fentanyl at the border would be

futile, experts say, because it's easy to move in small,

hard-to-detect quantities.

``I don't think that reducing the supply is going to be the

answer because it's so easy to mail,'' said Adam Wandt, an

assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Still, some more efforts are planned on the U.S.-Mexico

border, including increasing funding to search more vehicles

crossing ports of entry. The bipartisan commission found

those crossings are where most fentanyl arrives in the

country.

The commission is calling for many of the measures that

other advocates want to see, including better coordination of

the federal response, targeted enforcement, and measures to

prevent overdoses for those who use drugs.

The federal government has been funding efforts along those

lines. It also publicizes big fentanyl seizures by law

enforcement, though it's believed that even the largest busts

make small dents in the national drug supply.

The commission stopped short of calling for increased

penalties for selling fentanyl. Bryce Pardo, associate

director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center and a

commission staff member, said such a measure would not likely

deter the drug trade. But, he said, dealers who sell the

products most likely to cause death--such as mixing

fentanyl into cocaine or pressing it into fake Xanax could be

targeted effectively.

One California father who lost his 20-year-old daughter is

pushing for prosecutors to file murder charges against those

who supply fatal doses. Matt Capelouto's daughter Alexandra

died from half a pill she bought from a dealer she found on

social media in 2019, while home in Temecula, California,

during a college break. She was told the pill was oxycodone,

Capelouto said, but it contained fentanyl.

The dealer was charged with distributing fentanyl resulting

in death, but he reached a plea deal on a lesser drug charge

and will face up to 20 years in prison.

``It's not that arresting and convicting and putting these

guys behind bars doesn't work,'' Capelouto said. ``The fact

is we don't do it enough to make a difference.''

While some people killed by fentanyl have no idea they're

taking it, others, particularly those with opioid use

disorder, know it is or could be in the mix. But they may not

know how much is in their drugs.

That was the case for Susan Ousterman's son Tyler Cordiero,

who died at 24 in 2020 from a mixture that included fentanyl

after years of using heroin and other opioids.

For nearly two years, Ousterman avoided going by the gas

station near their home in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, where her

son fatally overdosed. But in August, she went to leave two

things there: naloxone, a drug used to reverse overdoses, and

a poster advertising a hotline for people using drugs to call

so the operator could call for help if they become

unresponsive.

Ousterman is funneling her anger and sorrow into preventing

other overdoses.

``Fentanyl is everywhere,'' she said. ``You don't know

what's in an unregulated drug supply. You don't know what

you're taking. You're always taking the chance of dying every

time.''

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

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his work on this bill and indicate that we are pleased to, likewise, support and thank Congressman Lamb and the gentleman from Georgia, Senator Ossoff, for introducing this legislation.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, as well, and to ensure that we provide really deep collaboration in our rural communities to help people who don't have access either to this kind of treatment, knowledge or prevention, and then, as I indicated, to medical care because hospitals are closing.

This is an important legislative initiative. I am hoping that we will support the Rural Opioid Abuse Prevention Act because it is bipartisan legislation. It is time for our Nation to face the increased overall overdoses and deaths in everyday communities large and small.

With more than 200 Americans dying of drug overdoses each day, Congress must act to support small and rural communities in addressing this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, S. 2796, the ``Rural Opioid Abuse Prevention Act of 2022,'' is bipartisan legislation that would establish a pilot program for rural communities within the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program.

The pilot program would make grants to rural areas to implement community response programs in order to reduce opioid overdose deaths. These community response programs would involve collaborations between public safety, public health, and behavioral health systems. The pilot programs would seek to identify gaps in current treatment availability and establish treatment programs to reduce opioid overdoses in rural areas.

Data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics indicates that in 2021 there were an estimated 107,622 drug overdose deaths. The data also shows overdose deaths involving opioids increased from an estimated 70,029 in 2020 to 80,816 in 2021.

With more than 200 Americans still dying of drug overdoses each day, it is even more important that we pass this critical legislation. In my hometown of Houston, overdose deaths have been exacerbated by strained access to treatment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Opioid overdose deaths have increased throughout the state of Texas, rising from 4,154 deaths in 2020 to 4,831 deaths in 2021.

S. 2796 would enable local governments and community organizations to develop and expand initiatives targeting rural and low resourced communities. Eligible applicants of the grant program would be required to have a documented history of providing services to rural communities or regions highly impacted by substance use disorder. The programs supported by this legislation would be able to identify gaps in treatment access for rural communities, leverage federal resources to expand treatment options, and ensure rural and remote communities are not forgotten in our efforts to address the ongoing impact of opioid abuse disorder across the country.

Building on the successful Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program, this bipartisan bill would expand it to include a pilot program targeting rural communities.

I want to thank Congressman Lamb and Senator Ossoff for introducing this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, DHS Secretary Ali Mayorkas has repeatedly asserted, including in sworn testimony to multiple committees of this House, that the southern border is secure. This, of course, is a lie, and not even a subtle one.

We know the numbers--a stunning 4.1 million encounters since inauguration day, when Joe Biden reversed the Trump administration's enforcement measures. In the same period, another 1 million known got- aways have entered the country while the border patrol has been overwhelmed changing diapers and arranging for transportation for thousands of illegal crossings each day.

So how do our Democratic colleagues react to this unprecedented illegal immigration they have unleashed?

Do they call on the Biden administration to stop the releases?

Do they call on the President to actually enforce U.S. immigration law or at least stop incentivizing this mass illegal immigration?

No. Instead, they produce this bill, that readmits immigrant veterans who were later deported, mainly for committing criminal offenses.

This needs to be clearly understood. A noncitizen who joins the military promising to defend our country, and instead commits crimes against the citizens of our country is subject to deportation, and rightly so.

This bill adds a political advisory committee, handpicked by Mr. Mayorkas that, in effect, can override our deportation laws, and it invites criminal offenders who have already been deported back into our country. It presumes they are of good moral character despite their criminal offenses simply by producing a green card. This is astonishing.

Let's be very clear, that the vast majority of legal immigrants who enlist in our military do so because of patriotism toward our country, and they are exemplary citizens and exemplary members of our Armed Forces. In recognition of their service, we offer them special avenues for naturalization under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

That is as it should be. About 3 percent of U.S. veterans today are foreign-born, and many of them have chosen to become U.S. citizens. But that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about the bad apples who have been ordered deported for breaking our laws.

Since its creation in 2002, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has naturalized over 148,000 members of the U.S. military.

If an alien servicemember or veteran is removed from this country, it is only after that alien has had their due process in immigration court and an immigration judge has issued a final order of removal.

Alien servicemembers and veterans are also afforded a special process upon encounter by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, under which, through a totality of the circumstances approach, ICE agents determine whether arrest and placement in removal proceedings are the appropriate actions to take.

However, in this bill, the Democrats have decided that an advisory committee of people chosen by Secretary Mayorkas is better equipped to determine whether an alien's actions warrant removal than a trained ICE official.

Yesterday in the Committee on Rules, the chair of the subcommittee even indicated that these random people chosen by the Secretary would be better than a trained immigration judge at determining whether an alien should be able to stay in the U.S.

During the Committee on the Judiciary markup, my Republican colleagues offered an array of amendments aimed at ensuring alien servicemembers, veterans, and their family members who committed serious crimes would not be able to benefit from the provisions in this bill that prevent removal and allow green cards to be issued.

We tried to prevent individuals with convictions for things like drug trafficking, firearms trafficking, explosives trafficking, perjury, domestic violence, obstruction of justice, and even illegal voting from being able to benefit from the bill's provisions, but the Democrats rejected nearly all such amendments.

They did reluctantly agree to exclude murderers, rapists, and child sex abusers as beneficiaries of this bill. I suppose we can claim some progress.

They couldn't even bring themselves to accept an amendment to preclude aliens who have DUI convictions from benefiting from this bill. They decided that five DUIs were too many. So, ridiculously, the bill allows aliens to have four DUI convictions and still benefit from this bill.

Democrats in committee also opposed an amendment to ensure that alien veterans who benefit from the bill were honorably discharged from the military. Right now, as the bill stands, it only requires that the alien have been discharged under other than honorable conditions.

Democrats also rejected a Republican amendment that would have given the victims of a crime committed by the alien servicemember a say in whether or not the alien should face immigration consequences.

This bill once again lays bare the true objectives of the Democrats. First, ignore the 4.1 million illegal aliens encountered by Border Patrol and the 1 million got-aways as well, blurring the distinction between legal immigrants who obey our laws and the millions of illegal immigrants that the Democrats are now happily allowing to stream into our country. Then, they introduce bills like this that blur the distinction between the many legal immigrants who have honorably served in our Nation's Armed Forces and the handful of bad apples who have broken our laws and have been ordered deported for doing so.

This is the woke insanity that grips the Democratic Party today. Thank God the voters have just broken their grip on the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct that the legislation emanating from the Judiciary Committee doesn't have anything to do with the border because the Democrats, having created this monumental crisis, refused to do anything to address it.

Instead, we are left with bills like this that set distractions on the most important question facing America today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we can now plainly see the effect of the Democrats' open border policies on communities across our Nation; the strain on our schools, our hospitals, our public safety, working class wages and opportunities, and social services.

No civilization has ever survived the magnitude of illegal mass migration that the Democrats have unleashed upon our country in the span of just 23 months; and Gallup warns us there are another 42 million people living in poverty just in Latin America and the Caribbean who intend to come here now that they can.

When Secretary Mayorkas appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, he couldn't tell us how it benefits the American people to have their classrooms packed with non-English-speaking students, their emergency rooms flooded with illegals demanding basic care, how their families will be safer with increased gang activity and fentanyl inundating communities, or how working families will be made better off by flooding the labor market with cheap illegal labor, or how taxpayers are served by footing the bill for supporting a largely unskilled, uneducated, and dependent population.

Now, where is this bill taking us? Well, we already know because we have already had a taste of it. For a while, we allowed aliens on temporary visas and even illegal immigrants here under DACA to enlist so that they could claim a fast track to citizenship. It was called the MAVNI program.

One MAVNI enlistment, Ji Chaoqun, was found to be a Chinese spy. A number of foreign nationals who enlisted in our military were subsequently deported for committing crimes. That program was such a debacle that the Obama administration, the architects of DACA, had to suspend it in 2016 because of the danger it posed to national security.

Now, foreign nationals who come to America legally, who obey our laws and seek to serve our country because of a love of it and of the principles upon which it is founded, are one of our greatest strengths.

Eleven years ago, I spoke at the funeral of Corporal Gurpreet Singh, whose family had emigrated from India legally 11 years before.

Let me tell you a little bit about Gurpreet Singh. His father described him this way. He said Gurpreet ``was always a very patriotic man for the U.S. From the time he was a little boy, he knew he wanted to serve in the U.S. military. Gurpreet was very proud of his service with the Marines.''

Corporal Singh was wounded in combat, chose to return, overstayed his assignment in order to relieve a friend, and was killed in action in Helmond Province, June 22, 2011.

Yet, the Democrats are either unable or unwilling to tell the difference between a Chinese spy like Ji Chaoqun and an American hero like Gurpreet Singh. It appears the Democrats are attempting to equate the heroism, devotion, and fidelity of heroes like Gurpreet Singh with the convicted criminals that a court has ordered to be deported from our country, or the lawless, illegal mass migration the Democrats are not only ignoring, but actively aiding and abetting with their policies.

Now, even if every convicted criminal the Democrats are trying to benefit with this bill were meritorious, wrongly convicted of crimes and exemplary in every way, we are still talking about an infinitesimal fraction of those who are being allowed into our country every day by the dangerous policies of this administration. That includes 120 known terrorists we have intercepted, and God only knows how many more among the 1 million got-aways who have entered our country on Joe Biden's watch.

The Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee has done nothing to address this crisis; the Judiciary Committee has done nothing to address this crisis; and the House has done nothing to address this crisis, a crisis that literally began on Inauguration Day when Biden reversed the policies of the Trump administration that had finally secured our borders.

I can assure the American people that 28 days from today, all of that is going to change.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend that every alien who serves in our military has the right to naturalize; but that does not give them a right to commit crimes against our country, and that is what this bill does.

This amendment sets 90 days as the deadline for promulgating regulations to implement this bill, a bill that overrides the laws governing deportation of aliens who commit crimes in our country if they have enlisted in the Armed Forces. It raises some disturbing questions.

Why is it that the bill surrenders legislative prerogatives to the executive? If you are going to write the law, then write it in its entirety in the open.

Yes, we have been granting these powers to the executive branch for a very long time. The point is that 10 times more laws are written by the bureaucracies than by the body solely vested with lawmaking authority, but we will save that discussion for another day.

Ninety days is an absurdly short period of time to write the regulations, publish the regulations, allow for full public input for the regulations, rewrite the regulations in light of public comments, and publish the final version. It begs the question: Why?

Is it possible that the supporters of this law know exactly what they want to do and have no interest in listening to the public? That has been the history of the left's approach to defending the public safety and the Nation's sovereignty, so it would not much surprise me if this is the case.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that it is clear that the supporters of the amendment are simply trying to rush a bad bill into implementation without the public having any opportunity to see the ramifications of this bill's provisions.

As I said earlier, we tried to get into the bill a provision that would allow the victims of these criminal aliens to testify as to the impact of the crimes on their lives, and the Democrats rejected it.

Notice and comment periods themselves require 30 to 60 days after the notice of proposed rulemaking is published for the public to submit comments about the proposed rule. After that, the agency has to comb through and respond to all of the submitted comments. There is simply no way to comply with Executive Order 12866's economic analysis requirement for a significant rule, and that is certainly what this is, within a 90-day period of enactment.

It is apparent that the Democrats are trying to rush out an interim final rule on this bill before the American public has any opportunity to see what they are doing. We can only conclude that the Democrats know that the American people are not going to like what they see.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1508, I call up the bill (H.R. 7946) to provide benefits for noncitizen members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 7946.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, this House will pass H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act 2022. This is a bill that recognizes and honors the commitment and sacrifices of our noncitizen servicemembers and veterans.

Noncitizens have served in our military in every conflict since the Revolutionary War. In tribute to their patriotism, our laws offer noncitizen servicemembers an expedited pathway to citizenship.

Unfortunately, this expedited path is not always known to the servicemembers themselves; sometimes there is confusion or lack of information. Not every legal permanent resident who could avail themselves of this opportunity has, in fact, done so; and we have found instances where servicemembers believed that just by serving they had become a United States citizen. Our bill does have some measures to make sure that that information is better communicated in the future and there is less confusion.

However--and unfortunately--the complexity of the current immigration system puts some unnecessary roadblocks to naturalization but also can have a terrible impact on veterans who have not availed themselves of the opportunity.

The traumas of war can have terrible effects on our veterans. Individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are far more likely to become entangled with the criminal justice system. When that happens, citizens merely avail themselves of the criminal justice system. For example, if they are arrested for drug possession, they might serve time in the county jail, and when they are released, they have paid their debt to society. But noncitizens who are in the same situation--people who fought for our country--might serve their jail time for drug possession, but then they also face immigration court because a crime that might lead to relatively minor consequences for a U.S. citizen could lead to deportation of a noncitizen veteran.

Now, noncitizen veterans' service records are meant to be considered during removal proceedings, but such consideration rarely occurs. Consequently, veterans who earned the right to citizenship decades ago have been deported.

H.R. 7946 corrects this problem by giving deported veterans the opportunity to apply for a second chance and obtain lawful permanent residency. Relief under this bill is discretionary--available only to those veterans whose return is in the public interest.

Additionally, the bill creates a review process for servicemembers in removal proceedings to ensure that their service records are taken into account by immigration judges. It has an advisory council to examine at length the veteran's record to see whether or not he or she was suffering from PTSD and the like. The information can then be given to the immigration judge, but the immigration judge retains the authority to make the decision.

The legislation, as I mentioned earlier, makes needed changes to current laws to allow servicemembers to naturalize as early as possible, and we believe these changes will ensure that future veterans will not be at risk of deportation.

Finally, H.R. 7946 codifies the current Parole in Place for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizen servicemembers and veterans, making permanent an administrative program that began in 2007 under then- President George W. Bush. At the time, we had come across instances where an American soldier was killed in action, but his mother was subject to deportation, and that mother who was sent outside of the country could not even visit the grave of her deceased military son.

George Bush sought to change that. We have kept that change in place ever since, and this would codify it.

This bill is supported by numerous advocacy, labor, and veterans' groups, including The American Legion, the Nation's largest veterans service organization. We made a commitment to our noncitizen servicemembers when they joined our Armed Forces, and our laws really should reflect that commitment.

I am proud to have worked alongside my colleagues, Chairman Nadler, as well as Chairman Takano, and I would like to mention specifically other members of our caucus who introduced bills on this subject--they were all collected into this final product--including Congressman Correa, Congressman Ruiz, Congressman Vargas, Congressman Grijalva, and several others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will note that the exclusion of those serious offenses was in the base bill. We didn't have to be convinced of that. We used the definition of ``veterans'' in the veterans code, and veterans who have an honorable or a general discharge are eligible for benefits, so that is what we used. Dishonorable discharges are not included.

I will just say this: These are discretionary matters. If you have multiple DUIs--let's say you have three DUIs, but they are 25 years ago, and you have a completely clean record. You might be able to seek administrative review of that matter. That is all this does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee who has played such a key role in this, noting also that the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are supporting this bill and supporting Mr. Takano.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note, once again, that those with dishonorable discharges are not eligible under the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), who has served on the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee. He served in this Congress. He is the author of one of the bills that was included in this bill and has visited with deported veterans across the border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), who has played such a useful role in the crafting of these measures.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is a proud member of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee and a long-serving member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

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

This bill is an important step forward to making sure that those who served our country in the military are given every consideration. We know from the reports we receive from our vets how tough it can be.

I think it is important to note that Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are supporting this bill. They know better than I do the kind of trauma that can be experienced in these theaters and have been experienced by our brave men and women in the military. They also know that sometimes those traumatic experiences can lead to a path that is destructive for the veteran, a veteran who is suffering from PTSD.

Now, if a military member, a vet, was born in California and they use drugs because of PTSD, they might spend some time in jail, but then they would have paid their debt to society.

If, instead, their fellow soldier was a legal permanent resident of the United States, born in another country, but volunteered to fight for our country, after they pay their debt to society for the exact same circumstances, then they are booted out of the country.

That is why The American Legion is saying they support this bill, because we owe some kind of honor and stature to those who step forward to volunteer to fight for our country. That is what we owe them.

I will just close with this. I am going to represent a town called Salinas, California. I was there last month, and they have put up on every light pole on the downtown street pictures of people from Salinas who served in the military. It is so inspiring.

They had a little ceremony to unveil these photographs of the Salinas heroes. After that, one of the veterans organizers said to me, the worst experience of his life was driving his sergeant to the border to be kicked out of the country he fought for. It is not right.

This bill will change that, and I hope that we will all vote in favor.

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

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas

Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor and proponents of this legislation. It is so startling, stunning, shocking, absurd to even be standing here discussing the deportation of men and women who have worn the uniform and have offered to sacrifice their lives for the oldest democracy in the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is clearly an effort that is long overdue, and I am stunned by my friends on the other side of the aisle--I have said that word, stunned and shocked, that there would be any opposition to this. We know that immigrants have served in the United States Armed Forces in every major conflict, and there are now 45,000 immigrants serving in the armed forces in this country.

It is important that we fix the gap, the loophole, the calls that are gotten when immigrants are deported. This legislation, I am very grateful to say, is about fixing this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 7946, that would require or would have DHS create and enforce a system for identifying noncitizen veterans and require their status as a veteran to be brought into consideration in the case of removal proceedings. Their service record will also be brought into it. Any of us can believe it, they could be heroic, and that doesn't even count in today's scheme.

It would also require DHS to provide the opportunity for eligible noncitizen veterans to be granted lawful permanent residence. Identification of their veteran status would halt any removal proceedings, and there would be a final administrative decision on the veterans' eligibility.

What I like also about it is that when you come into basic training, we can then naturalize these individuals, these servants who have offered themselves for training and to be part of this government by fighting, by wearing the uniform, by fighting for democracy to become citizens.

The Veteran Service Recognition Act is offered in response to DHS' and the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement's failure to consistently follow its own policies regarding deportation of those.

That means that we say on the floor of the House with great embarrassment that we have deported men and women who have served in uniform; and, yes, we have had challenges with the same kind of--how should I say it--detoured roads that our own veterans have had to fall to, substance abuse, or other incidences; but they have still worn the uniform.

Our veterans can get into the Veterans Court or get into services; but the other veterans, who have the same defaults, if you will, because of the conditions of war, have to be deported. That doesn't make sense.

More than 760,000 noncitizens have enlisted over the past century, with peaks in world wars and 9/11. There are approximately 45,000 immigrants, as I said, in active service.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my county knows that there are 179,000 veterans who live in Harris County, and 1,567,000 veterans who live in Texas. Some of those are our immigrant veterans, and some are not citizens.

So my point is, here today, that we must find every available way to treat them as they treated this Nation: I am willing to die for America and America's values.

Mr. Speaker, I must raise this. Languishing in a Russian prison is a veteran, Paul Whelan, with bogus charges, a hostage. Alongside of him is Brittney Griner, and it has been determined that the conditions she is living in are just atrocious.

My point is, that any time an American needs America to fix the problem, as a democratic nation, we must stand with those who have stood with us; those who are citizens and those who are immigrants who fought for us.

I ask my friends and colleagues to support H.R. 7946.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act of 2022 that would address immigration-related issues pertaining to noncitizen military veterans.

By enacting H.R. 7946, the Department of Homeland Security would be required to create and enforce a system for identifying noncitizen veterans and require their status as a veteran to be brought into consideration in the case of removal proceedings.

H.R. 7946 will also require the DHS to provide the opportunity for eligible noncitizen veterans to be granted lawful permanent resident status.

Identification of their veteran status would halt any removal proceedings until there is a final administrative decision on the veteran's eligibility.

The Veteran Service Recognition Act is offered in response to the DHS's and the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement's failure to consistently follow its own policies regarding deportation of those who served in our armed forces.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement already has policies that provides special consideration to veterans in light of their service, but has recklessly failed to follow them.

The Government Accountability Office reported that between 2013 and 2018, ICE did not consistently follow its own policies or maintain electronic data on the number of veterans placed in removal proceedings.

Investigators also found that a staggering 70 percent of cases involving the deportation of noncitizen veterans did not receive a review as required.

This means that veterans were not granted their right to due process. As a result, we do not even have an accurate measure of the number of veterans who have been unjustly deported.

As a nation, we should be ashamed and alarmed by this lack of information which reflects a lack of concern for treating them fairly.

More than 760,000 noncitizens have enlisted over the past century, with peaks during the World Wars and 9/11 attacks. Today, there are approximately 45,000 immigrants in active service.

This issue is important to me because many of our nation's veterans who are not US citizens are among the 29,000 veterans who live in my district, the 179,000 who live in Harris County, and the 1,567,000 who live in Texas, the second most of any state.

The promise of naturalization is sometimes a military recruitment strategy that targets immigrant communities. Military service is supposed to qualify veterans for naturalization as U.S. citizens because honorable service satisfies the ``good moral character'' requirements, according to the 1940 Nationality Act.

But then, in 2017, a Trump administration policy restricted access to the expedited citizenship that was promised to veterans after 9/11.

This policy exacerbated the persistent problem of immigrant veterans not being given the proper guidance on how to complete the naturalization process.

In turn, this systemic failure leads to more than half of the eligible noncitizen veterans not completing their naturalization process, leaving them in a permanent limbo.

When we needed them the most, hundreds of thousands of noncitizens stepped up to fight for our wars.

And now when they needed us, our nation failed to even recognize them, let alone protect them.

``Leave no one behind'' is a common mantra followed by the United States Armed Forces. We must abide by that principle in support of our noncitizen veterans who served our country honorably, and make sure that they, too, are never left behind again.

We must do more to help our foreign-born veterans navigate the naturalization process. It is up to Congress to act.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Veteran's Recognition Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her leadership and Chairman Nadler for his staunch support to move my bill, the Veteran Service Recognition Act, through committee and to bring it to the floor.

As chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, one of my top priorities has been the prevention of undue noncitizen veteran deportations.

Most Americans would be shocked and in disbelief that we have deported people who have served in our military, have served in uniform, have even been in combat. They would be shocked to learn that we have done this, but it is true. We have actually taken American heroes who have served in our military and deported them.

While many would be shocked to learn that veterans who have served our country are being subjected to deportations, the number of these individuals is unknown because we have not kept adequate records on who these people are.

In 2019, Representative Vargas and I requested that the Government Accountability Office evaluate the scope of servicemember and veteran deportations and determine the state of and adherence to DHS policies on such deportations, DHS' own policies.

What the GAO found was significant gaps not only in the Federal approach to processing potentially removable veterans but also in how the government facilitated the naturalization of noncitizen servicemembers and veterans.

I was further dismayed by the additional findings that the number of these veterans was not being tracked; deportation often prevented these individuals from accessing their VA benefits and services or attending hearings to appeal VA decisions; and ICE did not consistently adhere to its own policies on removal proceedings involving veterans.

The GAO report made it abundantly clear that reforms are desperately needed across the Federal Government, and that is precisely what my bill endeavors to do today.

Despite being born in a different country, these veterans served in the United States for the promise of a better future. They put their lives on the line to promote our ideals and values because they believe in the American experience.

Often, these individuals, like many veterans, leave service with traumas or

ailments that impact their physical and mental health. This can lead to drug addiction, self-harm, or PTSD, which also can serve as a precursor to violence or criminal activity.

We must recognize these struggles that our veterans face and show greater compassion toward those who may have made a mistake, including those noncitizen veterans who are facing deportation due to their actions.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone who deserves a second chance in our country, it is people who have worn the uniform of the United States of America.

The Veteran Service Recognition Act creates a pathway for us to recognize their service and prevent the undue deportation of servicemembers and veterans. The bill achieves this by making the naturalization process easier for Active-Duty servicemembers at basic training and establishing a military family immigration advisory committee to review the record of an individual being considered for deportation. This is not an automatic thing. This is about weighing the servicemember's record as part of those proceedings.

What American would deny that we should treat noncitizen veterans with fairness and compassion? We want veterans to be able to apply for green cards to return home, excluding the most egregious cases, and codify an administrative program for immediate family members of veterans to also obtain green cards consistent with existing administrative policy.

The number of eligible individuals under this legislation remains a very small subset of the veteran population. In fact, estimates are in the couple of hundreds.

Mr. Speaker, for my friends across the aisle, this is an opportunity to honor our brave veterans for their heroism, regardless of the country they were born in.

We commemorated Veterans Day last month, and I can think of no better way to honor our veterans than voting ``yes'' on the underlying legislation. We can and must do better by our immigrant veterans.