Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank everyone here for giving serious consideration to amendment No. 24 to H.R. 4502.

Madam Speaker, I speak today with my colleagues to support an expansion that was done under the last administration that has had a profound and positive effect on apprenticeships.

The amendment would simply allow funding to be available for the implementation of the Department of Labor's Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, otherwise known as IRAP.

In 2017, former President Trump acted to enhance the skills and training options for all Americans so they may compete in today's jobs. IRAP expanded high-quality apprenticeship programs with a focus on rapidly growing industries like healthcare and STEM-based positions.

IRAP apprenticeships were unique from the traditional government programs in that they were designed to be more nimble and responsive to the changing workforce that we find ourselves in today. Engaging in learning with new programs doesn't fit the old model, and the IRAP expansion is extremely important for the following reason. I support the apprenticeship programs that all of us are familiar with, the skilled trades and the like; but, in fact, today there are new skills that are being developed in which the curriculum must be nimble and must change.

In just 4 months of operation, the program had 131 new offerings in the healthcare field alone.

What better time than in the middle of a pandemic would there be to try to enhance nursing and nursing-like skills to be advanced?

This is a time in which we are critically short in these areas, and with the return of a new variant of coronavirus we could well find ourselves in desperate need of a quick turnaround of new apprentices. If we permit this program to continue, it will eventually support 2 million new apprenticeships.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to look at this in the most open and positive way, nothing could be more important today--particularly to the healthcare community--than, in fact, to expand flexible apprenticeships.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of our former colleague, Congressman Jerry Lewis. Throughout his career, Mr. Lewis was respected for his hard work, his in-depth policy knowledge, his commitment to his constituents and to his home state, as well as to his colleagues and the institution of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Lewis was best known for his commitment to the active work of the Appropriations Committee, where he served as Chairman--and he was equally well known for his friendship on both sides of the aisle in his role as the Dean of the California Delegation.

He played a leading role as Chairman of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee--supporting research, development and scientific endeavors including the space and aerospace sectors that for so long were major hubs of economic activity and cutting-edge technology in our home state.

Mr. Lewis was a believer in investment in education and in research institutions like the University of California system and in resources like the San Bernardino National Forest, which is located in one of the beautiful and distinctive snow-capped mountain ranges that backdrop the unique and well-known Los Angeles basin landscape.

A longtime resident of the San Bernardino area, including San Bernardino and Redlands, cities at the center of his congressional district in the diverse and vast Inland Empire, he was the product of public schools, graduating from San Bernardino High School and later UCLA. After college he served briefly on the staff of former Congressman Jerry Pettis, as a member of his local school board, and later operated a small business.

From 1969 to 1978 like many in this body, he served in Sacramento as a member of the state legislature where he helped establish a committee dedicated to addressing air quality, a major concern in Inland Southern California in the 1970's.

In 1978 he was elected to this body, serving as Chairman of the House Republican Conference in the late 1980's, before ascending to leadership positions on the Appropriations Committee.

I am honored to have known him as a mentor, as a fellow legislator and as a friend. I am grateful for his contributions and leadership in our delegation, for his unending belief in cooperation between parties and branches of government, and his faith in the leadership role of America in the world.

Mr. Lewis gave much of his life to serving our state, working to improve our nation, and to serving with distinction his hometown and home district--his legacy is an inspiration to all of us who have followed in his footsteps and proudly serve the state he loved, in the institution he revered.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the centennial of the Grossmont Union High School District, a family of 17 high schools and programs serving more than 20,000 of my constituents in California's 50th Congressional District.

In 1832, Abraham Lincoln said of education: ``I can only say that I view it as the most important subject which we as a people can be engaged in.''

Four score and nine years later, a school district was established in El Cajon, California, with construction on its first school beginning in 1921. This same building is now the Grossmont Union High School District's central office, which serves as an enduring symbol of East San Diego County's commitment to the centrality of education and advancement of every student.

The Grossmont Union High School District takes special and deserved pride in its rich history--now made modern with safe and cutting-edge campuses that support world-class academics. These schools meet the most fundamental mission: Empowering students to take their place as the leaders of tomorrow.

I congratulate Trustees Rob Shield, Elva Salinas, Gary Woods, Jim Kelly, and Christopher Fite, as well as Superintendent Theresa Kemper and the thousands of dedicated educators and workforce that have engaged this most important subject for the past 100 years.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and celebrate the life and accomplishments of Thomas B. Day, who passed away on June 15, 2021.

Day dedicated over 30 years of his abundant life to higher education and paved the way for thousands of students to achieve their academic and professional goals. Among Day's numerous accomplishments in academia, public service, and science include appointments to the National Science Board by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and receipt of the Senior Fellow and Fellow titles, respectively, from the California Council on Science and Technology and the American Physical Society. Serving as President of San Diego State University (SDSU) from 1978/ 1996, Day oversaw the creation of six doctoral programs and a strategic shift that emphasized faculty-intensive research.

Referred to as one of the most transformative presidents in the history of SDSU, under his guidance, the SDSU campus significantly expanded, as he created a path for what is now California State University San Marcos, the SDSU School of Public Health, and the SDSU School of Communication. A credit to Day's vision, SDSU School of Public Health now produces 75 percent of the public health work force in San Diego.

Day's legacy continues to be recognized. In 2018, SDSU named the school's engineering and interdisciplinary sciences complex the ``Thomas B. and Anne K. Day Quad'' in his honor.

Additionally, SDSU's freshman success programs are now called the ``Thomas B. Day Student Success Programs'' to reflect Day's advocacy for ensuring that students had access to services that could support and enrich their learning opportunities.

These accolades reflect Day's strong dedication to SDSU and his deep hope for the continuous betterment of our community.

While we mourn the loss of an extraordinary leader in our community, we can find joy in the fact that Day's legacy will continue to enrich the lives of generations of Californians to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the homecoming of United States Marine Corps Private First Class John Franklin Middleswart, who was previously pronounced deceased and unaccounted for after the attack on Pearl Harbor. On June 8, 2021, PFC Middleswart will be laid to rest in eternal peace at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in San Diego, California, witnessed by living relatives.

Born in Peoria, Illinois on April 10, 1921, John F. Middleswart enlisted with the Marine Corps at age 19. After finishing boot camp in San Diego, he attended Sea School and was assigned to the Marine detachment aboard the USS Oklahoma stationed in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. In October 1941, he was promoted to Private First Class.

Moored on Battleship Row, the vessel was struck by multiple torpedoes from Japanese aircraft during the assault on the morning of December 7, 1941. When the ship capsized, PFC Middleswart and hundreds of his fellow crewmen were reported missing and later declared dead. For decades, they were memorialized at the Court of the Missing at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii.

On January 28, 2021, PFC Middleswart was the 300th identification made by the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) in the USS Oklahoma Project. The DPAA works to identify all servicemembers lost during World War II and other conflicts. Specifically, the USS Oklahoma Project seeks to identify the remaining unaccounted-for crewmen of the vessel and is on track to identify 90 percent of the exhumed remains by the end of this year.

The final burial of PFC Middleswart is made possible by the dedication and fortitude of the men and women of DPAA and the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System team of scientists. DPAA's noble mission to identify all fallen servicemembers is not yet complete, but each identification is a step closer. And, while we mourn this life that was cut short, we rejoice the reunification of the Middleswart family. Welcome home, PFC Middleswart. Semper Fidelis.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1573 provides access to counsel for individuals referred to the secondary inspection station, but there are over 328 ports of entry to the United States. Those field executives, if this is enacted, would, in fact, be handling over 17 million people who might seek assistance.

In the upcoming motion to recommit, we will offer that, in fact, the claim by this bill that there will be no cost for attorneys' fees is, in fact, likely to not be true.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $828 million to implement this legislation if enacted, and that would be without the right to free counsel. We need to ensure that these costs aren't even higher.

The Democrats have stated that H.R. 1573 will not require the American people to pay for attorneys accessed during this administrative stop. And, again, Madam Speaker, this is an administrative procedure. If, for any reason, somebody is charged with a crime,

they immediately do get access to counsel. This is for those 17 million people who will go through secondary inspection and likely then be allowed to move forward.

However, you need to look no further in this act than the comprehensive immigration reform bill of the U.S. Citizenship Act for evidence that Democrats want us to pay for counsel to foreign nationals. This bill specifically removes the current prohibition on government-paid counsel. And yet, in the markup my colleagues insisted that this had no right to counsel. If you want more evidence than this, the American people deserve an assurance in this bill. We will ask in the motion to recommit that we add that specific prohibition in this bill.

Madam Speaker, in the language of the motion to recommit H.R. 1573, no one will doubt that Congress either does or does not have the intent to make sure that the voters and our taxpayers are protected. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 1573 to ensure that no taxpayer funds are used.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

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

Madam Speaker, this pandemic, everyone knows, has uprooted lives and caused untold destruction to families, to workers, and to small businesses. And many see the partisan behavior as destructive during this time, and they often do not see the bipartisan behavior.

Today's extension, H.R. 1651, is an example of bipartisan behavior on behalf of the American people. Repeated and lengthy government shutdowns in response to the pandemic have devastated the ability of millions to work, pay bills, and support their families, and keep their small businesses afloat.

In my home State of California, the restaurant industry has seen more than one out of four restaurants shutter their doors forever.

In 2020, Congress passed five bipartisan COVID relief packages. The CARES Act allowed a variety of temporary relief measures for families and small businesses. When it was passed, we believed that, in fact, once the vaccine was available, that we would be able to put this behind us. But today, when over 10 percent of Americans have received a vaccine, we now know that the road to full recovery is longer ahead of us even after we begin going to work.

So allowing small businesses to file chapter 11 bankruptcy by increasing the maximum debt ceiling, excluding Federal COVID relief payments from income calculations, and allowing debtors to file chapter 13 to modify their payment plans are only some of the critical items that the CARES Act did. Today we are making sure these will continue until March of 2022.

This bill also extends through 2022 bankruptcy relief provisions included in the December 2020 COVID relief package. This extension will provide

individuals and businesses with certainty and simplicity as they look at an economic recovery that, although it is underway, may be long.

Enacting this bill will assist debtors and businesses of all sorts, as Americans and their firms continue to address economic realities. This bill is bipartisan, and the bill recognizes that even businesses which have remained up and running often find themselves in a ripple effect of other bankruptcies or failures by companies that have been shut down.

Madam Speaker, I strongly recommend the passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), one of the coauthors of this bill.

Madam Speaker, both sides of the aisle are united behind this good, sensible extension of law.

Madam Speaker, I strongly recommend that all of our Members vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, so often, we hear criminals should pay for what they have done wrong. This is exactly what the Victims of Crime Act has done.

Since 1984, it has provided the ability to collect fines and fees against those very perpetrators and apply it toward the solution and, in fact, the remediation of the damage they have done. No amount of money makes up for the crimes they have committed, but certainly, this goes a long way.

Today, we are dealing with the tendency within Article II, within the executive branch, that when money is available, to see if they can't move it to where they would like to spend it rather than the clear intent of Congress.

I would like to thank Chairman Nadler and Congresswoman Wagner for their work on making sure that this bill does just that. It puts the money back where it was originally intended.

For instance, VOCA supports shelters for victims of domestic violence, which affects more than 12 million adults each year. VOCA funding is also used to support services for victims of child abuse and sexual assaults.

In all, more than 6,000 organizations nationwide are funded through this act. However, because funding has fluctuated and at times has been diverted by the Department of Justice, this, in fact, will both increase and stabilize those funds.

Over the years, Congress has adjusted funding flowing in and out of this account in an attempt to create certainty for support for these programs. Unfortunately, we haven't always succeeded, and I am not without some recognition that today will not be the last time we come back to say that Congress, on a completely nonpartisan basis, really means it: These penalties and fines need to get to the organizations that deal with the victims.

Today's bill will do just that. We stand, on a bipartisan basis, ready to ensure that we do that again.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman, Congresswoman Wagner, and all the others who worked so diligently on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who has done so much on this bill.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge passage of this bill, I recommend that all Members vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I find myself sort of the oldest freshman in my class returning after just a 2-year hiatus and finding a House that I am having a hard time understanding how it got so bad in such a short period of time.

As my colleague on the other side of the aisle aptly said, we have had to remove people for cause in this body. When I was a freshman some 20 years ago, we removed Jim Traficant because he had been tried and convicted and still wouldn't resign.

We have stripped people of their committees when they have been indicted and ensured that they left this body when they were convicted.

But we have not and should not, in fact, hold people responsible for actions before the people of their home State elected them and their Secretary of State certified them, and they came here. In so doing, we could pick a plethora of people not to seat or not to give committees to.

On the other side of the aisle, there is a gentleman who I respect whom I have served with for my entire time in Congress who was impeached and removed from office by this very body and, yet, has served honorably here for more than two decades and sits at a high position on many committees.

After the Civil War, in time, there were people who had been Confederate soldiers who came here as Congressmen. In fact, the famous Senator Byrd was a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan before he was a member of these bodies.

We cannot and should not judge people by what they have done before they arrive, and we should not tell the minority who they can seat. You may shame us, you may disparage us if we give somebody a committee assignment, but that is part of free speech.

In closing, if we do this, it will be no different than when John Adams allowed for a Member----

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has

expired.

Madam Speaker, when a member of this body was incarcerated for something that John Adams felt was injurious to him under the Sedition Act, it was retroactive. He had written it before the act was passed and the act was, in fact, not in keeping with our free speech.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 335 because there is a consistency 4 years ago when I rose in support of a previous general. But when I look at General Lloyd Austin, I see a qualified individual, in my opinion, and I see somebody worthy of the Senate considering. But I also see that, in fact, we are setting a precedent. Sixty-seven years, we didn't. Two administrations in a row, we have.

I strongly recommend today that the Armed Services Committees in both bodies begin the process of looking at what the true length of time should be and what exceptions and exemptions need to be there.

Although General Austin is a very qualified individual, he still will have subordinates whom he helped promote. He still will have people whom he is extremely close to. And that creates a question of civilian leadership.

So although I am not here today to speak in any way against the general or any way against his predecessor, General Mattis, I am saying that it is time for this body, after this vote, to move to a deliberative process and regular order and begin asking: Is 10 years right? Is 7 years right?

If 1 year is right, what will be the requirements for that individual before we again face that with some future highly qualified former military person?

Madam Speaker, the last speaker said that for 4 years the President did all these terrible, inciteful things, including anti- Semitism. I take exception with that.

But I think it is important that we embrace one thing that was said. Yes, the President has been consistent for the last 4 years. During his campaign, I even, while representing another candidate, said that the President had political Tourette's; he said what was on his mind without a filter.

I don't think that is being debated here today. We all know that is true. What is being debated is whether, with 167 hours left until he leaves office, he is a clear and present danger. He clearly isn't.

The President has acted substantially the same for 4 years. He has rallied his base, and he has, in fact, called for peaceful protest, as he did just a few days ago.

The fact is, today, we are trying to punish the President--at least some are--for 4 years of what he did, not for what happened last week. What happened last week was the result of anarchists who came loaded, prepared, and with weapons.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Energy and Commerce Committee for giving me an opportunity to, one, speak in support of this bill; and, two, take just a couple of minutes to say what is wrong with this body on one bill that you won't see here today.

Back in January, 2 years ago, H.R. 170, one of the first bills to be dropped, was put into the hopper. It was a bipartisan bill that came from the previous Congress and was dropped on the first day.

H.R. 170 would reform, after more than two decades, the H1B immigration system, which is broken. Today, more people come in under H1B who are not necessary, not qualified, and not, in fact, in short supply any more than any other nanny, housekeeper, or person just to do basic work. The system has been hijacked because it has not been reformed. More than two decades ago, exemptions were placed in if you paid $60,000.

Mr. Speaker, $60,000 was a lot of money in the 1990s, probably not enough for the highest high-tech worker, but pretty good for a brand- new graduate with a master's degree in the STEM field.

Today, we find ourselves, again and again and again, seeing stories about organizations like the University of California-San Francisco, Abbott Labs, and Southern California Edison that hire people who come from other countries, almost exclusively from India, and take away American jobs.

We see time and time again the Americans having to train them, because they don't actually know how to do the jobs. And, yes, they are making $60,001.

This needed to be fixed, and I commend the members of the Judiciary Committee, both majority and minority, because we worked together on a bipartisan bill and passed it unanimously nearly a year ago. And for a year, we asked for a suspension vote.

In these last days, perhaps the last day that I will stand on the floor, I have watched more than 20 bills come across. Some of them are pretty important and noncontroversial; some of them are postal namings and room namings.

The fact is that House leadership on my side of the aisle is responsible for holding back a bill that was needed, that the President would have gladly signed, that he even spoke about to the tech community while he was running for office, that was worked out in a situation in which many companies weren't thrilled with the reform, but they knew it was needed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to vote for the bill that is before us, but H.R. 170 will not see the light of day from my Republican colleagues. Rather, I will call on the new Democratic majority to do what Republicans were not allowed to do. Let there be no doubt: It would have passed overwhelmingly, perhaps unanimously, on the floor.

But if it is not brought up by a new Member and brought to the floor in the first few days, we as a body will be further diminished for having something we know is needed, having something we know was desired and worked out, and, because of some silent force, my own House majority, some Member or Members of the leadership, managed to spike it.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, as my last words on the House floor, to be told by each and every member of the leadership, including the whip, the leader, and the Speaker, that they have no problem with this bill, and they know of no reason not to bring it up, to watch it not be brought up and each week be told maybe it will be there next week under suspension, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is what I will remember as our least fine hour, an example of why Americans don't trust Congress. Because, even when we agree on something, virtually unanimously, often a silent force manages to keep something that is noncontroversial from happening.

Mr. Speaker, as I yield back for the last time in my time on the Hill, I want to tell you that it has been a great honor to serve here. It has been the greatest honor of my life.

I wish I could go out not saying to my Democratic colleagues, the new majority: Do in the next Congress H1-B reform, that which you agreed to and which my side failed to do.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I thank the leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Alexander Gus Spanos, who passed away at the age of 95 this week.

A native Californian, Alex was well known for his skillful business acumen and his generous philanthropy. He is perhaps best known for founding one of the largest apartment developers in the United States, A.G. Spanos Companies, as well as serving as the owner of the Chargers NFL Franchise.

Born the son of Greek immigrants in Stockton, California in 1923, Alex's tireless work ethic and boldness was instilled in him at a very young age, when he began working in his father's bakery at the age of eight. A tough upbringing coupled with the unshakeable belief that he could accomplish anything he set his mind to continuously drove Alex to succeed and overcome countless obstacles.

Alex was a proud American who truly lived the American Dream and loved the country that enabled him to live it. When World War II broke out, Alex left college to join the U.S. Army Air Corps, where he served as a B-29 tail gunner. After the war, Alex returned to school and earned varsity letters in both swimming and diving at the College of the Pacific in Stockton.

In 1951, Alex started a small business selling sandwiches to migrant workers in the San Joaquin Valley. Four years after starting this business, Alex made his first million dollars and began investing his earnings in real estate and started to build apartments. In 1960, he founded A.G. Spanos Companies that, within the following two decades, became the largest apartment builder in the United States.

Always an enthusiast for sports and athletic activity, Alex fulfilled one of his lifelong goals in 1984, when he purchased the San Diego Chargers. One his most memorable moments as the owner of the Chargers was watching them defeat the Pittsburgh Steelers to play in Super Bowl XXIX in 1995.

Being equally passionate about the Chargers franchise's impact off the field, Alex created and funded community outreach programs like the Chargers Community Foundation, that continues to exist, supporting numerous critical causes, individuals in need, and organizations that benefit the Southern California community.

Alex was a creative entrepreneur, who also knew how to conduct business the right way, firmly establishing an honest and forthright reputation in both his personal and professional relationships. For many years, I had the honor and privilege of knowing Alex and his beloved wife Faye, who also passed away earlier this year. He was always the consummate gentleman, who consistently worked to give back to the country that had given him so much and I was always grateful for his counsel and friendship.

Alex Spanos was a beloved pillar of our California community and will be greatly missed, but his legacy will undoubtedly live on for many generations to come. With his passing, Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the legacy of this exemplary citizen and proud patriot, who lived a life that should serve as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and celebrate the life and accomplishments of Dr. Asahel ``Ash'' E. Hayes, who passed away in California on July 10, 2018.

Ash dedicated 60 years of his abundant life to the fitness industry and inspired many others to develop a love and appreciation for exercise.

He was appointed to the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports by presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Ash served as a member of the Board of Directors of the American Council on Exercise since its inception, and continued on the Board serving as emeritus historian.

For decades, Ash served in leadership roles on local boards and committees, including the U.S. Olympics Committee, the San Diego Unified School District, the IDEA Foundation, and at his alma mater, the University of California, Los Angeles.

His lifelong advocacy of physical fitness and health continued to be recognized throughout his life. In 2007, Ash was honored with the San Diego State Alumni Association's Distinguished Alumni Service Award. And in 2009, he received the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Lifetime Achievement Award. These accolades reflect Ash's strong dedication to the bettering of our community. He was a wise mentor, a supportive teacher, and most importantly, he instilled others with passion.

My deepest sympathies and prayers go to his wife Juanita and their family. While we mourn the loss of a great husband, father, mentor, and much more, we can find joy in the fact that Ash's legacy will continue to enrich the lives of generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight two important pieces of legislation that address the care of our nation's veterans. Earlier this week, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks, or VA MISSION Act, into law, enacting key reforms at the Department of Veterans Affairs. This bill will help us fulfill our nation's promise to veterans by increasing access to quality, timely care and benefits, while increasing accountability and transparency at the agency.

Today, the House passed an appropriations package that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs for Fiscal Year 2019, including the new VA MISSION Act. Specifically, I would like to highlight a provision included in the bill that ensures the newly created Center for Innovation for Care and Payment has the resources it needs to improve quality and access to care for our vets, while finding cost savings at the VA by cutting through bureaucratic red tape and establishing common-sense partnerships with sister agencies in the federal government.

One such partnership I hope the Center will consider exploring is the opportunity for VA Medical Centers to integrate care with Federal Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs. Many veterans, especially those who live in rural communities, face challenges accessing care through the traditional VA system, and partnering with FQHCs that already provide quality care in local communities could be the most effective alternative for veterans facing transportation, mobility, or additional concerns with traveling to the nearest VA hospital.

With over 10,000 FQHC service sites located across the U.S., a pilot program examining the opportunity for FQHCs to work with VA Medical Centers could demonstrate the viability of this program on a larger scale. Under the VA MISSION Act, FQHCs are already designated as eligible providers, just as they have been under current law for years. The Innovation Center has the authority to conduct pilot programs studying the best way to connect veterans to the high-quality care they deserve, and measuring the impact of a potential VA-FQHC partnership will generate the critical data necessary to determine how to achieve the missions of Veterans' Choice while cutting costs at the VA.