Return Home to Housing Act

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to try and speak something called commonsense speak, and that is for my colleagues to understand that Americans reject confusion and chaos.

According to The New York Times, ``An abrupt end to the emergency declarations would create wide-ranging chaos and uncertainty throughout the healthcare system--for States, for hospitals and doctors' offices, and, most importantly, for the tens of millions of Americans,'' as evidenced.

This is on the data from the White House, which by the way, under President Joe Biden, crafted a White House COVID task force that began to calm the uncalm waters that we suffered in the last administration.

Does anyone remember, ``maybe we should drink disinfectant'' in the midst of COVID-19?

Well, let me tell you, in Houston, Texas, we remember it. We also know that 6,812,798 persons died around the world from COVID; 1.1 million died in the United States.

It was only after an overwhelming effort by the Biden administration that we began to see the clock move on individuals willing to get their first, second, and third shots; their booster shots. That is why we are living, because we were vaccinated, because we overcame the stigma and the wrongheaded information that was scaring people about vaccines.

We didn't lose 1 million people on vaccines. We lost 1 million people due to not having that vaccination timely. I am struck by this legislation. The pandemic is not over.

Mr. Speaker, 500 people a day die, right now as I am standing here, from COVID. That is a reasonable amount. I know there are other infectious diseases, but doesn't it make sense that if we can have a vaccine and a protocol that allows people, our children, and those with preexisting conditions to live that we want them to do so?

The Biden administration has announced that they intend to reduce this national emergency declaration in May. It will allow our health facilities to get themselves organized for the possible onslaught. It will also deprive impoverished persons from the ability to get free vaccinations, including possibly flu shots, like we are doing in Houston, Texas.

I remember over 70 testing sites that I put in my district with healthcare providers week after week after week so that people could be tested and so we could bring down COVID in Houston, Texas.

I remember vaccination sites where people stood in line, a thousand at a time, to get vaccinated for free. Are we jumping for joy to condemn and now undermine the emergency pandemic that was utilized?

All I can say is that health professionals by and large in hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices will say no. They need their patients healthy. As many people that can get vaccinated with information should get vaccinated and, of course, guided by your healthcare provider.

I don't think it makes any good sense to be able to talk about how you never got tested, how you never got vaccinated. That is all well and good. I applaud an individual who is able to survive not getting tested, not getting vaccinated, but I know of so many of my close friends who died because there was not a vaccination, there was not good healthcare. They came to the end stages of COVID and COVID killed them.

So I don't make a mockery of the hard work of President Biden. I truly believe that his time frame--I might think it is a little too quick, but I adhere to the President's time frame of May 2023. Let us organize so that we can save lives.

Mr. Speaker, at any moment we can have a surge of COVID-19. We saw that at the beginning of the convergence of the flu, which was high this year, and COVID.

So I don't celebrate this legislation. I don't take angst or anger with the individual who thinks this is the right way, but I know that I am on the right side. I am on the dominant side of truth that 6 million-plus died, 1.1 million died here in the United States and 500 are dying every day.

This is not a time to precipitously end the emergency declaration. We should also make sure that we are not creating chaos and confusion.

Mr. Speaker, I again emphasize that we need not have chaos and confusion. Unfortunately, I see no purpose in this bill and will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 382--the Pandemic is Over Act, which would terminate the COVID-19 public health emergency that was declared on January 31, 2020, on the date of the bill's enactment.

Yesterday President Biden announced that the Public Health Emergency would officially end on May 11, 2023.

The purpose of doing this would be to allow hospitals, health care workers, and health officials the ability to manage changes that will come with ending the public health emergency declaration.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, a Public Health Emergency declaration occurs when the Secretary of HHS determines that a disease or disorder presents a public health emergency (PHE) or that a public health emergency exists.

Secretary Becerra and the Biden administration have repeatedly said that the decision to terminate the public health emergency would be based on the best available data and science.

Through mass testing and vaccination campaigns, the public health emergency declaration has helped the American public contain the COVID virus, while also keeping the cost low for those seeking treatment.

The public health emergency has required that group health plans and insurers provide patients with COVID vaccines, testing, and treatment; expanded telehealth services, and extended health coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries.

Abruptly ending these pandemic declarations without a transition period would be extremely irresponsible because it would create uncertainty in health care systems; it would end Medicaid programs that have operated under special rules, telehealth would be impacted, and group health insurance plans could potentially change frequency of testing, vaccination, and treatment for patients.

These programs have been incredibly helpful at slowing the spread of COVID, so we must be thoughtful and practical about how we dissolve the public health emergency, which is why we need a transition period as proposed by the President just yesterday.

We must provide stakeholders with time to adjust to the changes that will come from ending the public health emergency.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to legislation that would end the pandemic far too early and would upend some of the flexibilities that we all have benefited from since the start of the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times article, ``U.S. Plans to End Public Health Emergency for COVID in May.''

[From the New York Times, Jan. 30, 2023]

U.S. Plans To End Public Health Emergency for Covid in May

The end of the emergency, planned for May 11, will bring

about a complex set of policy changes and signals a new

chapter in the government's pandemic response.

Washington--The Biden administration plans to let the

coronavirus public health emergency expire in May, the White

House said on Monday, a sign that federal officials believe

the pandemic has moved into a new, less dire phase.

The move carries both symbolic weight and real-world

consequences. Millions of Americans have received free Covid

tests, treatments and vaccines during the pandemic, and not

all of that will continue to be free once the emergency is

over. The White House wants to keep the emergency in place

for several more months so hospitals, health care providers

and health officials can prepare for a host of changes when

it ends, officials said.

An average of more than 500 people in the United States are

still dying from Covid-19 each day, about twice the number of

deaths per day during a bad flu season. But at the three-year

mark, the coronavirus is no longer upending everyday life to

the extent it once did, partly because much of the population

has at least some protection against the virus from

vaccinations and prior infections.

Still, the White House said on Monday that the nation

needed an orderly transition out of the public health

emergency. The administration said it also intended to allow

a separate declaration of a national emergency to expire on

the same day, May 11.

``An abrupt end to the emergency declarations would create

wide-ranging chaos and uncertainty throughout the health care

system--for states, for hospitals and doctors' offices, and,

most importantly, for tens of millions of Americans,'' the

White House said in a statement.

The announcement came on the eve of a scheduled vote in the

House on a bill that would immediately end the public health

emergency. The bill, called the Pandemic Is Over Act, is one

of several pandemic-related measures that the Republican-

controlled chamber is scheduled to consider this week. The

White House issued its statement as the administration's

response to that bill and another measure that would end the

national emergency.

The back and forth signaled what is likely to be a

protracted political battle between House Republicans and the

White House over its handling of the pandemic. Republican

lawmakers hope to put the Biden administration on the

defensive, claiming it spent extravagantly in the name of

battling the coronavirus.

``Rather than waiting until May 11, the Biden

administration should Join us now in immediately ending this

declaration,'' Representative Steve Scalise, Republican of

Louisiana and the majority leader, said in a statement. ``The

days of the Biden administration being able to hide behind

Covid to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on their

unrelated, radical agenda are over.''

The White House argues that it is only because of federal

Covid policies mandating free tests, treatments and vaccines

that the pandemic is now under better control. Covid was the

third-leading cause of death from 2020 through mid-2022; now

it is no longer among the top five killers, federal officials

said.

The public health emergency was first declared by the Trump

administration in January 2020, and it has been renewed every

90 days since then. The Biden administration had pledged to

alert states 60 days before ending it. The emergency was last

renewed earlier in January, and many state health officials

expected it would be allowed to expire in mid-April.

Ending the emergency will prompt complex changes in the

cost of Covid tests and treatments that Americans are

accustomed to getting for free. Any charges they face will

vary depending on whether they have private insurance,

Medicare coverage, Medicaid coverage or no health insurance.

What state they live in could also be a factor.

Still, the consequences may not be quite as dramatic as

public health experts once feared. Medicaid enrollment

expanded greatly during the pandemic because low-income

Americans were kept in the program for as long as the public

health emergency was active.

But a congressional spending package enacted in December

effectively broke that link, instead setting an April

deadline when states will begin losing additional funding for

Medicaid coverage. State officials are likely to gradually

remove Americans from Medicaid rolls this year beginning

then. That transition avoids a more sudden removal of

millions of poor Americans from their health coverage.

By reconfiguring that expensive policy, Congress was able

to use the projected savings to pay for expanded Medicaid

benefits for children, postpartum mothers and residents of

U.S. territories.

The December legislation also extended coverage for

telehealth visits for Medicare recipients through 2024.

Telemedicine proved a lifeline for many during the pandemic,

and that coverage would have ended when the emergency was

lifted.

Still, other services might prove more costly to Americans,

particularly those with no insurance. People with private

health insurance or Medicare coverage have been eligible for

eight free coronavirus tests each month. Insurers were

required to cover tests, even if they were administered by

providers that were not part of their networks. Once the

emergency ends, some Americans will end up paying out of

pocket for those tests.

And while vaccines will continue to be covered for people

with private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid coverage, the

end of the emergency will mean that some Americans may have

to pay out of pocket for Covid treatments, such as Paxlovid,

an antiviral pill. Hospitals will also no longer receive

higher Medicare payment rates for treating Covid patients.

Jennifer Kates, a senior vice president at the Kaiser

Family Foundation, said the emergency declaration had

provided an important reprieve from the American health care

system's typically fractured way of covering the costs of

care, giving more people access to services that might

otherwise not have been covered by insurance.

The White House's decision, she added, could send the wrong

message about how relaxed Americans should be about the

virus.

``To the extent that it might let people let their guard

down from one day to the next, that could raise some

challenges,'' she said.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 75, I call up the bill (H.R. 382) to terminate the public health emergency declared with respect to COVID-19, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 382.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to push for immediate and overwhelming passage of my legislation, H.R. 382, the Pandemic is Over Act.

President Biden and I both agree that the COVID-19 pandemic is over. In fact, on the eve of the Pandemic is Over Act going on the House floor, President Biden finally announced that he is going to end the COVID-19 emergency declarations. I am glad that my bill finally forced the Biden administration to act.

However, President Biden has taken too long to act on his statement last September that the pandemic is over, which is why I am moving forward with my bill to end the COVID-19 public health emergency and finally restore checks and balances between Congress and the executive branch.

There was a time and place for the COVID-19 public health emergency. On this day 3 years ago, then-Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Azar first invoked the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The COVID-19 public health emergency was used at the beginning of the pandemic to establish Operation Warp Speed and provide for CMS waivers that led to millions of seniors receiving critical healthcare services through mediums such as telehealth and removing various forms of red tape getting in the way of healthcare providers' ability to care for their patients.

Now, exactly 3 years later to the day of the original disaster public health emergency declaration, we are in a much better position to address COVID-19. We have proven therapeutics in addition to 95 percent of the population either being previously infected with COVID-19 or vaccinated. A senior administration official even stated, ``We are in a pretty good place in the pandemic. . . . Cases are down dramatically from where they were the past two winters,'' according to Politico reporting.

It is long overdue for President Biden to unwind the public health emergency. Despite overwhelming evidence that COVID-19 is now endemic and that

the pandemic is over, Secretary Becerra just renewed the public health emergency for a twelfth time.

The Pandemic is Over Act sends a loud and clear message to President Biden: The American people are tired of living in a perpetual state of emergency, and it is long overdue for Congress to take back the authorities granted under Article I of the Constitution.

The Pandemic is Over Act would immediately terminate the COVID-19 public health emergency. Nothing in my bill ends title 42, despite the administration stating that it will. Let me repeat: Nothing in this bill ends title 42.

The Biden administration alone controls title 42. That statute was written in 1944 before the authority of the public health emergency even existed. If the Biden administration chooses to end title 42 when the public health emergency ends without working with us to secure the border, then that is just another one of his failures to add to the list.

To be clear, we support the ability to declare a public health emergency to address clear and serious public health threats. Maintaining these regulatory flexibilities during a public health emergency is crucial, but these authorities should only be used for limited periods of time based upon the particular circumstances and prevalence or immediacy of the public health threat.

Now, it is time to rescind the President's emergency powers, and Congress can address the present and future needs that may arise with

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for a year for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to start showing us a plan for unwinding the pandemic public health emergency.

Now that we are here doing this today, it seems like we are starting to move in that direction. Unfortunately, we didn't have any hearings last Congress to deal with that, but we are going to begin that, working together today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are ending the emergency powers of the President. We are not conceding that COVID-19 is over in this country, and it is not. People have to take mitigation. We certainly don't want it coming across our southern border, so we support keeping title 42 in place.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I just point out that the omni gave the States clarity in how to deal with the Medicaid situation moving forward. We also extended telehealth, so a lot of things we have been trying to do, we have been asking the administration for a year to address some of the things that my friend from Oregon just brought up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to end the emergency powers of the President during the pandemic. We recognize COVID is still an issue that people have to deal with. We absolutely know that we are going to be working together over the next few weeks and months to make sure we have in place the proper protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Michigan that we absolutely have to look at putting things in place and keeping things in place that protect our citizens from COVID-19. We are not dismissing that.

What I am saying, or what we are saying, is it should be a legislative branch-wide issue, that we believe that if things are going to stay in place or be put in place, it should be by an act of Congress, signed by the President, as the Constitution says, instead of just the President making decisions for almost 3 years now--two administrations, almost 3 years now.

That is what we are saying. We look forward to working together to solve these issues and moving forward.

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

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

I think I did use the word ``cut,'' and I think I corrected myself. We are spending less money in Medicare, so you are taking money out of Medicare under the Inflation Reduction Act, but that money wasn't really put back in to shore up Medicare. It was spent in other programs, so there is $288 billion less being spent in Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. As we stated today in our organizational session, she is the first chairwoman in the history of the oldest committee in Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the points that my friend from California just brought up--we have this 3-year running telehealth that is moving forward. We all know that we can't put the genie back in the bottle. We have to work on telehealth, but we know for a fact there have been diversions of controlled substances through telehealth. We know that. So why don't we take back our authority? Let's negotiate moving forward.

Let's think about where this has gone. Three years ago today, Secretary Azar--two administrations--declares a public health emergency. It started doing a lot of things. One is that it allowed emergency use authorization, so we had therapeutics and had all these things come forward.

Also the status--not necessarily every statute under Health and Human Services, but because you have the status of a public health emergency, you can invoke other statutes: the Defense Production Act by President Trump to get respirators and moving a ship outside of New York so the people in New York and New Jersey could have an extra hospital, a mobile hospital.

I mean, all of those things happened. When we delegate our authority, those are the things that we move forward.

On January 20, 2021, almost a million people were being vaccinated. President Biden came in to continue the vaccination process. Then, a year into his administration, we, on our side of the aisle, sent a letter to the Health and Human Services Secretary saying that this needs to end. We can't continue to operate under emergency authority. Let's have a plan.

Everything that they have talked about today, every speaker they have

had: Let's have a plan to end this emergency, and let's do it in a way that we can address the issues that need to be addressed.

We have learned a lot during the pandemic about things that worked. Let's do things that work. Let's fix things that don't work, like the telehealth diversion of controlled substances.

Some of those are the things--we have been a year in, since February 1 tomorrow, almost a year since then, and we haven't seen a plan. We haven't seen anything.

There was some stuff done, I know, in the omnibus with telehealth. That is what we are saying. We don't need to continue to operate the country in an emergency status. We need to end it.

So why bring the bill up? They say this is irresponsible, the bill moving forward. The bill was in Rules last night. We have had no word from anybody in the executive branch that they are going to deal with this.

While the bill was being considered in Rules, they come out that it is going to end on May 11?

So this bill is needed. It is needed because it is moving us forward.

What we can do now, as the bill makes its way to the Senate--I don't know if the Senate is going to take it up or not, but what I will pledge to my friend from New Jersey and my friend from California, who is the ranking Democrat on the Health Subcommittee, is that we will work to make sure we find the areas that we need to continue the lessons that we learned, that we need to put into place, into statute, and to take care of things that need to be taken care of.

What we don't need to do is allow the carte blanche, 3-year open emergency pandemic that we know has had issues, as well. I mean, we always talk about the things we want to keep. We can talk about those and work on them.

The things that we need to address, using telehealth to divert controlled substances, we know that that has taken place. There are examples of that. We absolutely need to address that.

I will pledge that we will work, on our side of the aisle, with our friends on the other side of the aisle to find things to make sure that we continue to address the fact that we still have COVID-19.

One thing to note is we are still going to have COVID-19, and we don't need it coming across our borders. Because we are doing this, we also still need to keep title 42 in place.

I look forward to working together. This is necessary. It has moved this administration, hopefully, forward. We can say that, May 11, we move forward on this. I am proud to be the sponsor of it, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 593, a bill to rename the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Hinesville, Georgia, as the John Gibson, Dan James, William Sapp, and Frankie Smiley VA Clinic.

I thank Representative Carter for introducing it and the Georgia delegation for its support.

These individuals, all hailing from Liberty County, Georgia, were killed in action during the Vietnam war. Four young men who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Private First Class John Gibson, a marine, was killed by small arms fire in the Tet Offensive on February 7, 1968. He was 21 years old.

Specialist Dan James served in the Army's 25th Infantry Division and was killed on December 29, 1968. He was 20 years old.

Specialist William Sapp served in the Army's 4th Infantry Division. He was killed on June 7, 1968. He was 25 years old.

Marine Lance Corporal Frankie Smiley served in the 1st Marine Division. He was killed on August 25, 1968. He was 24 years old.

These are four names out of the 58,000 who died in the Vietnam war that we honor for their service and sacrifice. These four names will continue to be honored at the VA clinic in Liberty County as it carries on its mission to serve veterans.

The sacrifices of those who served in Vietnam and in other wars and conflicts is particularly salient as we just commemorated Veterans Day, and as we had the opportunity to reflect on the sacred obligation we owe to veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do believe it is important to remember the service and sacrifice of servicemembers and veterans because we must keep close to mind our duty to repay that service and uphold the promises we have made to those who swore an oath to our country to protect and defend it. However, I fear that we have fallen short this year. While I do urge support for this naming bill, I am extremely disappointed that during National Veterans and Military Families Month and Warrior Care Month, and 2 days after Veterans Day, that this is the only veterans legislation the Republican majority has brought to the floor for us to consider.

These young men who lost their lives in the Vietnam war sacrificed everything they had for our country. If we really wanted to honor them and the millions of Americans who have risked their life and limb in service, we should be doing even more.

In this Congress so far, our committee has only originated three bills that have been signed into law. By comparison, in the last two Congresses, under Democratic leadership, we passed more than 70 bills to expand access to care and benefits that are now law. This inaction is unconscionable when there is such an acute need for assistance among veterans and survivors.

It is not for a lack of good ideas. There are several worthwhile bills that are ready to be voted on right now, bills that would change and improve the lives of veterans and their families across the country.

For example, H.R. 3848, the bipartisan Housing Our Military Veterans Effectively, or HOME, Act of 2023, sponsored by Republican Representative Chavez-DeRemer, would restore authorities that were essential to ensuring America's most vulnerable veterans found or stayed in housing during the pandemic.

For the period of the public health emergency, the Department of Veterans Affairs was able to provide food, clothing, bedding, hygiene items, shelter, transportation services, and communication devices to veterans experiencing homelessness. VA also had temporary authority to increase reimbursements to grant and per diem providers which ensured veterans in transitional housing received the care and services they needed. Unfortunately, these authorities and funding expired with the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration in May 2023, and there has been since no congressional action to restore them.

To aid in this effort, Representative Nikema Williams introduced H.R. 491, the Return Home to Housing Act, and Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick introduced H.R. 645, the Healthy Foundations for Homeless Veterans Act. These bills are both included in the HOME Act, which was reported out of our committee by voice vote on July 26, 2023. That is right, a bill with strong unanimous support has been languishing for months for no clear reason.

Earlier this year, Chairman Bost and I were standing in these exact spots, and he made a promise to me that we would pass this legislation. I understand from staff conversations that Chairman Bost has been imploring the Speaker to schedule that bill for a vote. I, too, sent a letter to the newly elected Speaker imploring him to bring this bill to the floor.

In the book of Matthew 25:35 it says: ``For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me . . . Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go visit you?' ''

Do we not take these words as a call to action? There are homeless veterans suffering as we speak. It is our responsibility to take care of the most vulnerable veterans. Every night a veteran spends on the street is a night this Congress could have acted to shelter them. You can feel the cold setting in here in Washington, D.C.

The HOME act would fill the basic needs of veterans experiencing homelessness to help get them on a path to stable housing. Whether it be emergency shelter to escape the cold, a warm meal, or clothes to wear and a ride to a job interview, this bill allows VA to help homeless veterans in the most fundamental ways.

Veterans service organizations and advocates have called on Congress to pass legislation to continue the flexible funding and authorities for critical VA homelessness programs. These authorities resulted in a reduction in veteran homelessness by over 11 percent over the last 2 years during the pandemic. This was an amazing feat during one of the most difficult times in our recent history, and yet this House has not seen fit to bring this bill to the floor.

If the House fails to act or continues to delay action, I fear that veteran homelessness will undoubtedly increase and critical gains made during the pandemic will be lost. We are about to enter the winter months. Will this Congress allow veterans to remain on the streets or lacking access to basic necessities?

The other bill I have urged the Speaker to bring to the floor is H.R. 542, the Elizabeth Dole Home Care Act. This bill, introduced by Representatives Brownley and Bergman, was also reported out of committee with unanimous support in July. It would require VA to provide access to all home and community-based services, such as home health aides, home-based primary care, and respite care to all veterans and caregivers who need them. Currently, elderly and disabled veterans only have access if their VA medical centers have chosen to offer these services.

This legislation will enable veterans to remain at home, safely age in place, and avoid or delay admission to nursing homes and other costly institutional settings of care. It will also help connect veterans' caregivers to respite

care and other supportive services that help them care for veterans at home and improve VA's coordination with other Federal long-term care programs that promote aging at home.

Finally, the Elizabeth Dole Home Care Act will require VA to create a website where veterans and their families can more easily obtain information about VA's home- and community-based services programs and assess whether any of these programs may be right for them.

Nearly every veteran will, at some point, face the need for additional care at home or, if they can't get it, spend their last years in a nursing home setting. This legislation is an investment in care for millions of veterans and current servicemembers who need this help now or may in the future. We can afford to do this. We must do this.

Senator Elizabeth Dole, alongside all other major veterans service organizations, has spoken to several committee members and its chairman about the urgency of passing this bill this year. The health and well- being of thousands of veterans depends on it. I have heard that certain Republican Members object to the Dole act. I would ask those Members with concerns to speak to me or the bill's sponsors so that we can try to address those concerns. That would be the fair and honest thing to do, so that we can tell the advocates for this bill what the actual holdup is.

The Elizabeth Dole Home Care Act has the support of every major veterans service organization, including Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Wounded Warrior Project, and the Military Officers Association of America. It is also supported by AARP, the National Association of Counties, the National PACE Association, and the Elizabeth Dole Foundation.

Democrats on the committee remain ready to help pass both of these bills and many others that have passed out of the committee with broad bipartisan support.

Weeks were spent waiting for the Republican Conference to select a new Speaker, and significant time has been wasted on partisan appropriations bills that have no chance of being signed by the President. We are here using precious floor time on poison pill amendments at worst or symbolic gestures at best, but none of these things will actually help veterans get the care and benefits they deserve.

Last year, we came together to pass the largest expansion of veterans benefits in a generation, my Honoring our PACT Act, but we cannot and should not stop there.

Every bill brought to the House floor represents a choice and makes a statement about priorities. From my experience, whenever I had a veterans bill that was ready or timely, Speaker Emerita Pelosi made way for it because for her veterans issues are sacred. They are not fodder for negotiation or collateral. I hope our current Speaker comes to that same understanding. There is always time for veterans legislation.

We ask servicemembers to leave their families to protect our country, and we have a responsibility to honor our pact with them, that we will take care of them when they come home. That includes our most vulnerable veterans, such as homeless, elderly, and disabled veterans.

We must get these bills passed and honor our commitment to veterans. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 593. I ask my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley), my friend, and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8371, as amended, the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act.

This omnibus package of veterans' legislation isn't perfect; such packages rarely are. However, it achieves progress on many of the goals we set out to accomplish at the beginning of the 118th Congress.

The backbone of this bill is legislation that was originally introduced by my colleague, Julia Brownley, the ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health.

Representative Brownley has worked tirelessly for nearly 3 years to pass the Elizabeth Dole Home Care Act, H.R. 542. This bill will enable veterans to remain at home, safely age in place, and avoid or delay admission to nursing homes and other costly institutional settings of care by expanding veterans' access to home- and community-based services such as home health aides.

This legislation will also help connect veterans' caregivers to respite care and other support services that help them care for veterans at home. Further, it will help improve VA's coordination with other Federal long-term care programs that promote aging at home.

I am very thankful to my colleague Julia Brownley for her important work, but I know she worked very closely with Senator Elizabeth Dole, and Senator Dole has risen to an amazing stature in our country. I am so proud that she is also here in this Chamber with us today as the chairman mentioned. I hope someone will get her a blanket because it is so dang cold in this Chamber that I don't want her to freeze up there.

This legislation is an investment in care for millions of veterans and current servicemembers who need this help now and in the future.

Despite the great need for this bill, it has been an uphill battle to get it passed. This Chamber had an opportunity almost a year ago to pass the Elizabeth Dole Home Care Act as a stand-alone bill. Unfortunately, House Republicans decided to bring a version to the floor they knew the Senate wouldn't pass.

Why would they do that you may ask? Well, because they decided to hold the Elizabeth Dole Home Care Act and other bipartisan policy priorities hostage, attempting to use them as leverage to achieve their goal of outsourcing more VA care to for-profit healthcare providers. The Democratic Caucus stood firmly against these efforts.

It can be difficult and isolating to stand on policy principles, but I will always do so when the future of veterans' healthcare is on the line, and it is. The system is already straining, and if we don't take real and serious action, it will break.

House Republicans attempted nearly for a year to use H.R. 8371 to advance harmful provisions that would have undermined healthcare directly provided by VA, driving veterans to for-profit, lower-quality care from contracted providers. We want VA to remain a strong provider of care instead of diminishing it to nothing more than an insurance company where profits are prioritized over outcomes for veterans.

Madam Speaker, if we have learned anything during the 118th Congress, it is that anything meaningful that we have accomplished has been done on a bipartisan basis with Democratic votes.

It should never have taken this long to get here, but last week, we successfully negotiated a compromise on the most objectionable provision of H.R. 8371, which will preserve VA healthcare for current and future generations of veterans.

Unfortunately, in the year it took to get to this point, House Republicans also held hostage critical legislation to help homeless veterans. In December 2023, my colleagues in the majority knowingly and intentionally took a flawed version of the HOME Act, which includes two Democratic-led bills to the House floor to use these provisions as leverage in negotiations for this package. They used homeless veterans as political pawns in the same way that they did with elderly and disabled veterans and their caregivers.

Meanwhile, VA and its community partners continued doing the hard work to help veterans experiencing homelessness. On Veterans Day, the VA announced that veteran homelessness dropped to its lowest level on record, and that VA had helped place nearly 48,000 veterans into permanent housing in 2024.

While I celebrate VA's success in addressing this issue, there are still nearly 300,000 veterans who interact with VA's homelessness programs each year. We must continue investing resources into these programs and into our communities to ensure that every veteran has a stable place to call home. We hope the next administration will continue this work and adhere to the models that have proven effective like Housing First.

Therefore, the second pillar of this legislation supports our shared goal of ending veteran homelessness. H.R. 8371 includes provisions from Congresswoman Williams' H.R. 491, the Return Home to Housing Act and Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick's H.R. 645, the Healthy Foundations for Homeless Veterans Act. These provisions will provide direct investments in communities across the country as they move veterans from the streets into stable housing.

During the pandemic, VA used authorities contained in Representative Williams' bill to enhance the services that traditional housing providers could offer to veterans through an increased per diem reimbursement rate. It used the flexible authorities in Representative Cherfilus-McCormick's bill to save lives by bringing veterans out of unsafe living conditions into stable, permanent housing and meeting their basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing.

It also ensured homeless veterans had the transportation needed to get to and from medical appointments and job interviews.

These long overdue reauthorizations will ensure VA and its community partners can continue to address the veteran homelessness crisis in this country with the urgency and focus it deserves.

There is still more work to do to get every veteran into housing, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to provide VA, HUD, and communities across the country the support they need to end veteran homelessness.

Madam Speaker, I will also acknowledge several Democratic Members who have contributed to the drafting of this package. Representatives Mike Levin, Don Davis, Elissa Slotkin, Frank Mrvan, Dean Phillips, Morgan McGarvey, Chris Pappas, and Lauren Underwood all have provisions in their own bills included in this package. Many of them are or have been members of our committee, and their commitment to serving veterans continues with our work here today.

Among other things, these provisions will increase outreach to veterans about their eligibility for benefits, mandate training for VA employees on reporting wrongdoing to the inspector general, and remove statutory restrictions on the qualifications of senior leaders within the Veterans Health Administration.

Madam Speaker, that does not mean this bill is perfect, and I will stress my objection, once again, to the backward practice of the majority to offset discretionary spending along with mandatory spending in every bill. This means taxpayers will be paying for these programs twice and many remaining legislative priorities from the VSOs who are with us here today are at risk of being left undone next Congress when we must unnecessarily waste our limited offsets in order to advance this legislation.

Also missing from this package is a strong piece of bipartisan, bicameral, good-government legislation that would have installed much- needed guardrails on VA's electronic health record modernization project.

It is no secret that the Oracle-driven modernization effort has struggled at VA. The program is woefully behind schedule and is only operational at 6 of 172 medical centers. I am not convinced the system is fully functional. The EHR Program RESET Act would have required minimum operational criteria to be met before Oracle could be deployed to any further facilities, which would have prevented many of the current problems.

Further, this key legislation would have improved coordination with the Department of Defense and instituted major contracting and acquisition reforms over VA's IT modernization efforts that are long overdue.

Unfortunately, RESET was stripped from the package, which is not surprising given the army of lobbyists that Oracle unleashed to kill it.

That said, I thank the Veterans Service Organization community and other stakeholders whose tireless efforts and refusal to compromise their values proved critical in finally getting our Republican majority back to the negotiating table to reach a compromise on H.R. 8371 last week.

As we saw with the passage of the PACT Act, we know good things can be accomplished when VSOs are unified and committed to doing the right thing. I am glad that House Democrats also held firm to our values in negotiations and fought to preserve VA healthcare for current and future generations of veterans.

This package has taken more than a year to get to the finish line, but I am pleased that we as a caucus will be able to support passage on this compromise today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley), my good friend and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Davis), a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Agriculture and a veteran himself.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I have said as much as I can about this important piece of legislation. What I will finally say is I am very glad that we got here, and I thank the chairman. We spent all this time, and we have reached a compromise. That is what we have to do in Congress, put our veterans and the people first. I think the American people want to see more of this sort of thing happening.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we could get this done before the Thanksgiving weekend.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 8371, the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 382, which would abruptly and irresponsibly end the COVID-19 public health emergency virtually overnight. It would require this action immediately without providing patients, hospitals, providers, and States sufficient notice to safely unwind numerous authorities, programs, and flexibilities that have been essential to protecting Americans throughout the pandemic.

Last night, the Biden administration announced that the COVID-19 public health emergency is planned to be ended on May 11, 2023. This timeline provides healthcare providers and patients with the certainty and predictability needed to responsibly wind down the COVID-19 response programs.

As a result of these successful programs, as well as the historic investments made by Congress, millions of Americans have received free vaccines and tests, safe access to their doctors through telehealth appointments, and continuous healthcare coverage through programs such as Medicaid and CHIP.

Unfortunately, Republicans are needlessly rushing forward today with a reckless plan that would jeopardize the health of millions of Americans by immediately ceasing these important response programs without advanced preparations.

Mr. Speaker, a pandemic of this magnitude cannot be unwound overnight. We cannot flip a switch and make COVID-19 end with the snap of a finger. If H.R. 382 becomes law, it would have disastrous consequences. It would disrupt insurance coverage for millions of vulnerable Americans by allowing States to immediately start kicking vulnerable Americans off their healthcare coverage without any protections. This is deeply irresponsible and dangerous.

Americans would also immediately begin paying out of pocket for the COVID-19 testing, and hospitals would see an immediate payment cut of 20 percent for Medicare patients with COVID-19. In addition, important waivers and flexibilities, including certain telemedicine flexibilities that providers and patients have relied on for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, would be terminated immediately, as well.

This legislation would also result in the elimination of vital tools for tracking COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes and other residential facilities.

It also impacts our veterans, ending VA clinicians' ability to prescribe controlled substances via telehealth. This would severely impact many veterans' access to medications that they need to manage chronic pain, complex mental health conditions, and substance use disorder. The legislation also threatens the progress the VA has made in ending veterans' homelessness.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it would abruptly end flexibilities for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, that would impact many Americans struggling to put food on their tables, particularly for those having trouble finding work and low-income college students.

The Republicans began their House majority with chaos and confusion earlier this month, and this bill continues that chaos and confusion, but this time it will hurt millions of Americans directly, and that is simply not right.

Responsibly transitioning to the post-emergency future requires careful planning and coordination with public health officials and policymakers. I applaud the Biden administration for properly guiding the Nation to a safe transition as we unwind these programs without endangering access to care and treatment for Americans.

Unfortunately, Republicans are rushing to recklessly and dangerously eliminate all these protections immediately and without warning. I just think it is the height of irresponsibility. For that reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, my colleague, for everything that she just said.

I remember so many times during the first year of the COVID pandemic when she was calling me and trying to get testing sites, trying to make sure that a lot of her constituents were tested and had received the vaccine.

It is very easy for our colleagues on the other side now to say, well, this is over. It is time to move on. But the bottom line is that we never know for sure exactly what is going to manifest itself. Even when the President said yesterday that he is planning on ending this public health emergency on May 11, notice he said ``plan'' because we are not sure that that is possible.

In any case, it makes no sense to just say that we are going to do this immediately upon enactment of this bill--which is not going to be enacted, but nonetheless--because we need to do a lot of preparation and planning. We did some of that even in the omnibus that passed at the end of the last session with continuous eligibility for Medicaid, for example.

My understanding is the way this bill is worded, that would end if this passed immediately, as well.

Mr. Speaker, so our point is that this is a pandemic that we just have to be very careful about what we do. We have to do adequate preparation.

The President has said May 11 is the likely date. That is fine. But it has to be based on science. We shouldn't be

getting up here and say, ``end it immediately.''

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Florida (Mr. Moskowitz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

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

I listened to my colleague from Kentucky, but as much as I respect him, I totally disagree with what he has been saying here.

Under the public law right now, the emergency--when it starts, when it ends--is done by the administration. Specifically, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, I guess, recommends to the President. There is a reason for that, and that is because he gets all this information from various sources about the science, about when we should be doing this.

I disagree to say that we, as the Congress, should be the ones that make that determination either to begin or end.

In addition to that, the gentleman from Kentucky mentioned in response to one of my Democratic colleagues the provision that we passed in the last Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act to negotiate prices for prescription drugs under Medicare. The fact of the matter is that wasn't a cut to Medicare. That was a way of trying to make drug prices more affordable for our seniors.

To suggest that somehow that is a cut I don't think is accurate. I mean, this is a major savings to seniors out of pocket once this program goes into effect.

By way of background, again, some of my Democratic colleagues have stressed that we hear constantly from the other side of the aisle this idea that the Republicans are going to refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless they can cut Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid and other vital programs. They seem so determined to cut Americans' healthcare that they are willing to recklessly risk defaulting on the national debt and wreaking havoc on the economy.

Again, it is the same thing here. What we are saying is if you cut off this public health emergency earlier than what the President is suggesting, under this bill, you end a lot of programs that are very important: continuous eligibility for Medicaid, a 20 percent cut in hospital payments, free testing, free vaccines.

I mean, all this ends, and it makes no sense, in my opinion. We should be trying to do what we can to help American families and make the right decisions based on the science.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this in closing. We do have one more speaker, though.

I think that this legislation that is before us today is totally unnecessary and creates all kinds of problems. In other words, the President has indicated his plan is to end the emergency on, I believe he said, May 12. We estimated it would probably end sometime in April of this year when we were working on the omnibus at the end of last year. We put in the omnibus a lot of protections and guardrails for when the public health emergency would end, but there is still more that needs to be done.

My concern is that the way this bill is written, it basically eliminates a lot of those guardrails, a lot of those protections, like the continuous eligibility for Medicaid.

At the same time, it doesn't allow, because it says immediately upon enactment, us to wind this down in an effective way so that we don't have problems like the 20 percent cut for hospitals, eliminating continuous eligibility, free testing, free vaccines.

There are so many things here that the public relies on--I didn't even mention the veterans, the nursing homes, the SNAP program--that, to me, it is reckless to say we are just going to end it immediately.

Let's shelve this legislation. I suggest a ``no'' vote. Let the President and this administration wind this process down in an effective way to protect Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is the ranking member on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill. As Mr. Takano said, so many things will immediately end needlessly from this legislation.

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

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