Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I was unavailable to vote in the House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 58 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 59.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavailable to vote in the House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``YEA'' on rollcall No. 55, ``NAY'' on rollcall No. 56, and ``NAY'' on rollcall No. 57.

members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

Aguilar (Gomez)

Amodei (Balderson)

Babin (Duncan)

Barragan (Gomez)

Bass (Kelly (IL))

Blumenauer (Beyer)

Brown (MD) (Connolly)

Cardenas (Gomez)

Cawthorn (Boebert)

Cherfilus-McCormick (Beatty)

Correa (Gomez)

Costa (Takano)

Cuellar (Connolly)

DelBene (Kuster)

Deutch (Rice (NY))

Doyle, Michael F. (Connolly)

Dunn (Cammack)

Evans (Mfume)

Fallon (Van Duyne)

Gohmert (Boebert)

Gonzalez, Vicente (Gomez)

Gosar (Greene (GA))

Grijalva (Garcia (IL))

Hudson (Murphy (NC))

Issa (Van Duyne)

Jackson (Van Duyne)

Johnson (SD) (Armstrong)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Kahele (Takano)

Keating (Cicilline)

Kelly (PA) (Keller)

Lawson (FL) (Soto)

Letlow (Garbarino)

Lofgren (Jeffries)

Manning (Beyer)

Neal (Beyer)

Nehls (Garbarino)

Norman (Donalds)

Payne (Pallone)

Pocan (Garcia (IL))

Raskin (Cicilline)

Reschenthaler (Armstrong)

Roybal-Allard (Takano)

Rush (Jeffries)

Salazar (Cammack)

Sewell (Kelly (IL))

Sires (Pallone)

Speier (Escobar)

Strickland (Jeffries)

Suozzi (Beyer)

Swalwell (Gomez)

Tiffany (Fitzgerald)

Trone (Connolly)

Underwood (Jeffries)

Van Drew (Burgess)

Veasey (Beyer)

Wagner (Walorski)

Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)

Mr. Speaker, I was unavailable to vote in the House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 51, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 52, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 53, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 54.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Aguilar (Correa)

Amodei (Balderson)

Babin (Norman)

Barragan (Correa)

Bass (Kelly (IL))

Blumenauer (Beyer)

Brown (MD) (Connolly)

Cardenas (Gomez)

Cherfilus-McCormick (Beatty)

Cuellar (Correa)

DelBene (Kuster)

Deutch (Rice (NY))

Doggett (Beyer)

Doyle, Michael F. (Connolly)

Evans (Mfume)

Fallon (Jackson)

Gohmert (Boebert)

Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)

Gosar (Greene (GA))

Granger (Van Duyne)

Green (TN) (Timmons)

Grijalva (Garcia (IL))

Johnson (SD) (Armstrong)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Kahele (Correa)

Kelly (PA) (Keller)

Kind (Connolly)

Lawson (FL) (Soto)

Lofgren (Jeffries)

Manning (Beyer)

Payne (Pallone)

Pocan (Garcia (IL))

Raskin (Cicilline)

Roybal-Allard (Takano)

Rush (Jeffries)

Sewell (Kelly (IL))

Sires (Pallone)

Strickland (Jeffries)

Suozzi (Beyer)

Tiffany (Fitzgerald)

Trone (Connolly)

Underwood (Jeffries)

Van Drew

(Reschenthaler)

Veasey (Beyer)

Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, Congresswoman Kat Cammack from Florida, for her organization of this Special Order tonight.

Madam Speaker, I know that these Special Orders go long, and I know quite often the person who is sitting in the Speaker's chair quite often focuses on whatever is going on on their cell phones, but I really hope that you are paying attention tonight because my district is right across from yours.

Last year, two families in my district received the call that every law enforcement family just dreads--a call informing them that their loved ones will not be returning home.

On August 4, Brooklyn, Illinois, Police Officer Brian Pierce Jr. was deploying spike strips on a bridge during a car chase. He was hit and fatally injured by the fleeing vehicle. Brian was only 24 years old.

On October 26, we lost Pontoon Beach, Illinois, Police Officer Tyler Timmins. He was tragically killed while investigating a stolen vehicle at a gas station. Tyler was only 36 years old, Madam Speaker, and a 14- year veteran of the force. He left behind his wife, Linsey, whom he had just married 1 month before as well as his daughter, Chloe.

Sadly, their families are not alone in their pain. In 2021, 73 officers were killed in the line of duty--the highest number in 26 years. The liberals at the Federal law level, at the State level, and at the local level push to defund police, Madam Speaker. I want you to understand that that agenda has made our communities less safe.

Even in the State of Illinois on a lame-duck session in the middle of the night they passed the bill that made it to where we defunded police and endangered our police officers. Their rhetoric has emboldened criminals, putting our brave officers' lives in danger.

Despite it all, our police officers continue to show up and run towards the danger to protect our communities every day, even if they are being shot at.

Madam Speaker, do you know why this is so personal to me?

My son-in-law is a deputy sheriff in Jackson County, Illinois.

This issue is personal to me and my family.

Why?

Because I see the crap he sees every day. But I know that he is doing it because he cares about those who need help.

I will always stand for our men and women of law enforcement and will do all that I can to ensure they get the support that they deserve. I only wish that all of my colleagues would join in with me to do that and stop spreading the rhetoric of defunding police.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Rodney Davis for yielding time to me and for organizing this Special Order.

Tonight you are going to hear several words from our colleagues that will echo the same resounding words, and, that is, Vicki Dixon should be recognized for all that she did in her life. But most of all, she was kind. She was a friend.

When the delegation got together, she was always there to welcome newcomers to D.C. that she may have known from a time in Illinois.

She dedicated her life to serving our country, which she loved deeply. In her 30-plus years here in Washington, D.C., she worked for several Members of Congress as well as seven Cabinet Secretaries.

Vicki will be deeply missed by those of us who knew her, whether in Illinois, Washington, or Florida, where she just retired to in the fall. She left our Capitol community and our Nation better off than it was before. She was loved. She will be missed tremendously.

When the Illinois delegation got together over at the club, it was always amazing how quick she would come up to greet everyone, show friendship and kindness, give you some advice now and again on how to deal with this place, as crazy as it is at times.

Both Tracy and I send our prayers to her mother, Peggy; her sister, Kristi; and all of her many nieces and nephews; and we want to say a special thank you for how she has touched each one of our lives.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Carbondale, Illinois, resident Dwight Barr's 100th birthday. Dwight was born to parents Wes and Blanche Barr on January 21, 1922, in Akin, Illinois. He grew up playing on his family's farm with brothers Robert, Bill, and Ed. Dwight enlisted in the Army during World War II, reaching the rank of Staff Sergeant in the 63rd battalion of the 11th Armored Infantry Division. On June 6, 1956, Dwight married Maxine Chapman and the couple planted their roots in Carbondale. They had four children; David, Mary, Danny, and James. They were later blessed with six grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. Dwight currently spends his days reading, spending time with his friends at the Voyage living center, and keep up with his family. Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring Dwight Barr on his milestone 100th birthday. On behalf of Southern Illinois, I thank him for his service to our nation and happy birthday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4673, the Ensuring Veterans' Smooth Transition, or EVEST Act.

This bill would require VA to automatically enroll every eligible separating servicemember into the VA healthcare system. As a veteran, I know firsthand that the transition from military to civilian life can be hard. One of the goals is to remove barriers to care for veterans, whether they left the military decades ago or just last week.

I believe the intention of the EVEST Act is to further that goal by connecting more at-risk servicemembers with the VA as they leave the service. I support the intention. I know many other Members do as well, which is why I expect the bill to pass the House, and probably on a bipartisan basis.

However, as the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have a different perspective on this bill than many of my colleagues. I have taken a long, hard look at this legislation, and what I have seen is a bill that may be well intended but has several potential problems.

To start with, the EVEST Act enrolls separating servicemembers into the VA healthcare system without their knowledge or consent. Only after they have been enrolled does the bill require VA to inform the veterans of their enrollment, the status of their enrollment, and how to opt out by disenrolling themselves.

We shouldn't be signing veterans up for a government program they aren't asking for and may never need without at least letting them know first. And

we shouldn't be telling them that if they don't like it, they can figure out how to disenroll themselves. That is backwards.

Veterans deserve better than that. Veterans also deserve better than a bill that has been rushed through Congress without due diligence. There has never been a single hearing on the EVEST Act in this Congress.

You may hear the chairman say that there has been a hearing on this bill last Congress. That is true. But last Congress and this Congress are very different. We had a different administration last Congress; we had a different VA Secretary last Congress. I believe more than 70 Members are new this Congress. More than half of the membership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is new as well. And, regardless, VA did not provide testimony at the hearing last Congress.

We have no idea if VA can implement the bill without disrupting service to the veterans already in the VA health system, further burdening VA's already overworked staff, or increasing the strain on VA's already overfull facilities. Every Member of the House hears from veterans in our districts who are waiting too long for care they need, stuck in crowded VA facilities, and being treated by VA staff who are struggling and overwhelmed. I am concerned that this bill could make each of those things worse.

I am not the only one who thinks so. Last week, right before this bill was considered by the Rules Committee, the Biden administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy on the EVEST Act. The statement reads, ``There may be challenges implementing this bill as drafted, and the administration looks forward to working with Congress. . . .'' In other words, even the President recognizes that this bill needs more work.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1836--Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021--Rep. Levin, D-

California, and nine cosponsors

H.R. 4673--Ensuring Veterans' Smooth Transition (EVEST) Act--Rep.

Takano, D-California

The Biden-Harris Administration supports efforts that

ensure veterans receive timely access to high-quality

benefits and services that they have earned.

The Administration supports H.R. 1836, which would expand

eligibility criteria for certain education benefits. Current

law defines the term ``active duty'' as those individuals who

are on full-time duty in the active military service of the

United States, including full-time training duty, annual

training duty, and attendance, while in the active military

service, at a school designated as a service school by law or

by the Secretary of the military department concerned. H.R.

1836 would expand eligibility criteria to include those

training in full-time National Guard duty, which includes the

National Guard, the Army National Guard, and the Air National

Guard, as well as those same members when performing active

duty.

The Administration supports the EVEST Act's goal of

seamless enrollment in health care coverage. As currently

written, H.R. 4673 would require the Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) to automatically enroll new veterans into VA

health care, and notify veterans of their enrollment and

instructions on how to un-enroll, if desired. There may be

challenges implementing this bill as drafted, and the

Administration looks forward to working with Congress on how

best to operationalize its objective.

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, the Veterans' Affairs Committee had numerous opportunities in the last year to do that work that I had just discussed, and I don't know why the chairman chose not to. I have heard him say over the last week that it is okay we didn't have a hearing on the EVEST Act in this Congress because the bill has been in the public domain.

Now, I am not sure what that statement really means because there have been almost 400 bills introduced in this Congress that have been referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I guess that each of those are in the public domain. But I don't think any of them are ready for a vote here on the House floor.

It is not too much to ask that we seek the input from stakeholders before voting on a bill to become law. That is actually the least we can do. I don't think our constituents sent us here to do anything less than that.

During last week's Rules Committee, Congresswoman Torres, a member of Chairman Takano's own party, seemed to agree with me by lamenting the lack of process this bill has received this Congress. With all due respect to the Congresswoman, I doubt that we agree on much, but we do agree on this, though. Having this bill go through a much more robust process this Congress could have resulted in a much better product for our veterans.

Finally, I want to note that the bill will also cost taxpayers $3.1 billion in new discretionary spending. Not a penny of that $3.1 billion is offset.

Implementing this bill will certainly require additional funding above the nearly $100 billion already appropriated for the VA healthcare system.

We cannot keep saddling our children and grandchildren with billions of dollars more debt. We have to do better than this.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that I understand why my colleagues will likely vote for this bill. I wish I could vote for this bill, as well.

Leaving the military was not easy. It can leave new veterans feeling adrift and alone. I have been there. But that is why I supported efforts during the Trump administration to improve the Transition Assistance Program and increase the VA's outreach to separating servicemembers during their first year out of uniform.

I want separating servicemembers who need additional support to be able to get it and the help they need in a seamless manner. And I am not at all confident that this bill will accomplish that goal without harming services to other veterans and adding to the national debt. As a result, I must oppose this bill today.

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

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

In response to the EVEST Act has been in the public domain, I think it is very important to note, as I mentioned earlier, the last Congress is not the same as this Congress. We have more than 70 Members who are new Members of Congress, half of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is new, we have a different President, and we have a different secretary.

Introducing a bill is not the same as conducting a hearing. You can't get input from the stakeholders. You can't engage in meaningful debate in the public domain. This reflects zero input from the VA, meaning we have no idea whether it is flexible, whether it is workable, whether it is disruptive to the VA system. We don't know.

And even the Biden administration agrees that more work is needed before this bill should become law.

And the previous speaker, Mr. Speaker, spoke about the person that didn't know what was available to them through the VA. If you were my age as a veteran it is true that you could not know because you got a quick class and the TAP program. And I have mentioned on this floor before that that is a tap on the back and see you later.

But today's TAP program is a course that you take, and you are bound to understand separation from your active service and what VA benefits are available to you.

And not only that, the Trump administration in 2018 put an administrative order out that you are then contacted after separation at 90, 180, and 360 days out to be notified of what benefits are available to you in the VA. We are doing that.

This instead enrolls members without their consent, and then they are enrolled. And the only option they have is to be notified later how maybe they can get out of being enrolled.

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

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

In my debate and the things that I brought up here today, I never said that VSOs didn't have input. I did say the VA did not come to the committee, and we did not have the proper hearings. If the VA is in support of this bill, I would request that the VA send the documentation saying how they are in support of this bill. Their input would be vitally important.

Whether it is a Republican or Democrat administration, the VA is vitally important to make sure they provide services to our constituents and to our veterans.

No one on this floor cares more about veterans than the people who serve on this committee--I can guarantee you that--whether it is the chairman or myself.

But we have to make sure what we are providing does what it is we are trying to do. It was mentioned earlier that they believe that this would help reduce suicide among transitioning servicemembers. I care deeply about this. This is something that both I and the chairman have worked on and will continue to work on.

The majority of veterans who die of suicide have not had meaningful engagement with the VA. They may have been enrolled in the VA, but they haven't gotten the VA care that they need.

This bill would add names of eligible separating servicemembers from the VA and put them on the rolls, but it doesn't do the outreach that is necessary to possibly prevent them from that ultimate decision to end their lives.

Those are the type of things we are working on and will continue to work on. This is not the answer to that. There are a lot of other concerns that I have expressed and will continue to express.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not do our job on this bill. We did not consider this bill in a legislative hearing. We did not seek input from stakeholders or the VA. We did not make certain that automatically enrolling newly separated servicemembers into the VA healthcare system would not impede access for existing employees or cause funding crises. And those things are very, very real.

Even the Biden OMB has admitted that there are going to be challenges with implementing this bill. If you look at the numbers--and I am going to add this into what should be mentioned--19.1 million veterans is what we have; 9 million veterans are enrolled; 7 million have used access to the VA. If we start and do it this way without letting veterans make decisions on their own, it can overwhelm the VA. That is what has been mentioned by OMB.

Veterans are already facing tough challenges. So is the VA health system that they can go to. But we don't need to add any more to their plates without at least hearing how it is going to affect the services that are already being provided to our veterans.

That is why, just so you know, I am offering a motion to recommit this morning. My motion to recommit, if adopted, would send this bill back to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to consider an amendment to H.R. 4673 that would delay implementation until 30 days after the VA has certified that it can implement, without disruption, services to veterans or requiring additional funds.

Mr. Speaker, I don't see how those who support this bill, despite its problems and the Biden administration's recognition that it may cause challenges, can object to this amendment. The very least we can do for the millions of veterans who are already enrolled in VA care and counting on VA services is to ensure--before this bill goes into effect--that it won't cause undue harm to them. I have already drafted an amendment that would accomplish that goal.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the four en bloc amendments are offered by Congressman Delgado, Congresswoman Hayes, and Congresswoman Tlaib. I thank them for their work. I remain opposed to the underlying bill, and I explained why in detail over the last debate.

One of the reasons I was opposed to it is because the Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not do our job before bringing this bill to the floor. We did not hold hearings on the bill or seek input from stakeholders. And importantly, we did not get assurance from the VA that the bill could be implemented without negative impact to services.

In fact, shortly before this bill hit the Rules Committee, the Biden administration did release the statement that we talked about earlier. That statement, remember, says that there are challenges in implementing this bill.

Now, I wish we could have done that work in the VA Committee before considering the bill on the floor. If there are challenges, we need to know about them, and we need to be able to address them to make sure that no veteran is harmed by this bill.

Nevertheless, here we are. These en bloc amendments will help get some of the information we should have gotten before passing the bill. They will help us stay informed on how the bill is working and the impact it is having on veterans and on the VA healthcare system after the fact.

For example, one of Congressman Delgado's amendments would require GAO to study the best methods for VA to notify newly separated servicemembers of their enrollment status. His second amendment would require VA to consider texting newly separated servicemembers to inform them of their enrollment status and their ability to disenroll. If a veteran chooses to disenroll, Congresswoman Hayes' amendment would require VA to provide them with information on how to enroll at a later date if they change their mind down the line.

Finally, Congresswoman Tlaib's amendment would require VA to report to Congress on the implementation of this bill not later than 1 year after enactment. That would allow us to course-correct, as needed, if the bill is causing problems at least 1 year out.

Now, I feel like a broken record, but this is information we should have had already. Nevertheless, it is better late than never. That is why I will be in support of that amendment alongside the amendments for Delgado and Hayes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Escobar's amendment would expand automatic enrollment to servicemembers who left the military 90 days before this bill is enacted. There are already many existing mechanisms for separating servicemembers to connect with the VA if that is something they need and want.

As I explained during the general debate, I have a number of serious concerns with the underlying bill. The Biden administration agrees that there are challenges. I think that is an understatement. Regardless, we should not be further complicating an already difficult implementation by expanding it even more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1836, as amended, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021.

While I support the intent of this bill, I do not believe that it is the right solution for our Nation's guard and reservists at this time.

Founded in 1636, the National Guard evolved from groups of colonial militias into one of the toughest and one of the most professional fighting forces in the world.

From defeating the British during the American Revolution, to fighting in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Reserve component has served in every major conflict in the history of this Nation.

In recent years, the Guard and Reserve have been called up more often as their missions have changed.

These brave men and women are not only on the front lines overseas, but they are also deployed at home to protect the southern border and assist in the response to COVID-19, among others.

We must never forget the sacrifices the men and women in the Guard and Reserve make when the Federal Government calls on them to serve.

I agree that Congress must take a hard look at duty status reform and the potential expansion of benefits for guard and reservists. But this bill before us today would be an unwise expansion of benefits.

The higher level of sacrifice of Active-Duty servicemembers is reflected in the higher level of benefits provided by the VA. This is why the government recognizes the increased sacrifices of the Reserve component when they are called up on most Federal Active-Duty orders.

I believe that one of the biggest misunderstandings in this debate is that many of the types of Federal Active-Duty service that members of the National Guard and Reserve perform already qualify for the GI Bill eligibility.

I support the goal of ensuring that all time spent on nontraining Active Duty Federal orders should count towards GI Bill eligibility.

However, the bill before us today would go far beyond that and provide eligibility for the GI Bill for service related to annual training and drilling weekends.

Training has never counted towards eligibility, and members of the Guard and Reserve know that when they sign up. Let me say that again. Training has never counted towards eligibility with members of the Guard and Reserves. They knew it when they signed up. It is the additional call-ups to Federal Active-Duty service that members of the Guard and Reserve may not know about.

This type of service would be covered by Congressman Moore's amendment, which I believe is a better alternative.

Also, covering training is the largest cost driver of this bill, which leads to my second point.

The CBO projects that the expansion of benefits laid out in this bill would require nearly $2 billion in mandatory offsets for the first 10 years following enactment. While these costs are paid for in the current budget window, that does not tell the whole story.

CBO also estimates that this bill will cost taxpayers more than $5 billion in each of the next four decades after fiscal year 2032. This would equate to at least 20 billion extra dollars over the next 50 years.

None of these extra costs are offset, which means our children and grandchildren will be paying for them and be paying them off for many years to come.

In a tight fiscal environment, I believe that full Active-Duty benefits for training and drilling is a bridge too far. I am also concerned that the offsets that are used in this bill should be saved for higher priority issues like expanding services to toxic-exposed veterans.

Addressing the needs of toxic-exposed veterans is both my and Chairman Takano's number one priority that we are trying to deal with right now. That could require Congress to find hundreds of billions of dollars in offsets. Offsets are few and far between in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We will need every penny of them to enact these needed reforms that we were talking about earlier.

Earlier this week before the Rules Committee, Chairman Takano indicated that $2 billion is an insignificant amount compared to the potential full cost of addressing toxic exposure, and therefore, is not worthy to try to save here. I disagree.

It is silly that I even have to say this, but $2 billion is a lot of money. It is worth saving. Ask any taxpayer. And remember, the people we are talking about are taxpayers, as well.

Like me, my constituents and many Americans are concerned that Congress doles out billions of taxpayer dollars like candy. That must end. We can provide needed benefits for veterans without burdening future generations. But that requires Congress to make tough decisions and to put first things first.

Many of my concerns could have been discussed, debated, and possibly even addressed if the majority had conducted the proper level of engagement with committee members, VA, and other stakeholders on this bill.

The majority did not hold a single legislative hearing on this bill this Congress. As such, we were not able to receive views from the committee members, the administration, the mortgage industry, or veteran service organizations. Those views are a critical part of the legislative process.

Why was this bill not put on the agenda for one of the two legislative hearings the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity held this Congress?

This is no way to responsibly legislate, and I implore Chairman Takano to go back to our committee's bipartisan tradition of conducting full legislative due diligence before sending bills to the House floor.

In closing, I am supportive of reviewing and, where warranted, expanding benefits for members of the Guard and Reserve. However, we must do so in a way that is fiscally responsible, appropriate, and respects the many differences between Guard and Reserve service and Active-Duty service.

The bill before us today does not meet that standard.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just quickly before I yield time to my colleague from Ohio, I would like to remind the Members that training for members of National Guard and Reserve has never been counted towards GI Bill eligibility. Members of Guard and Reserve know that, as I said in my opening, when they sign up.

Now, the Democrat majority did not hold a legislative hearing on this bill, so to that extent, the expansion of eligibility was needed to increase recruitment and retention within the Guard and Reserve component and DOD, but DOD did not have the opportunity to testify to that before the committee because we didn't meet.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), who has actually served both in the Reserve and Active component of our military.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), a man who has truly experienced what it is to serve, the highest ranking officer that serves in this body today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just to clear up some statements that I think were made by some of the people while talking, it was brought up that we actually have already dealt with toxic exposures, and we haven't. It is vitally important to understand that.

Those costs that we are still going to be looking at, whether it is 300 or 150 or whatever it is, we haven't found that out or figured that out yet. It is vitally important to understand that it is still out there, and there is going to be a cost.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), someone from our side of the aisle who does a great job and that we trust tremendously to watch our costs and watch our spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate with many others, and so many times it is being misunderstood that the Guard and Reserve don't receive these benefits when they are called up on Federal--they actually do on many of the Federal orders. The Moore amendment would allow that to occur.

I think many of our Members are confused on what they actually are receiving time for toward their GI Bill. I want to express again what we are saying is that the overreach here that occurs is that one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year, they know when they sign up that that is the difference. It is not going to be credited.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think Members of the House need to understand because many speakers, including the previous speaker, brought up the fact that those who serve should receive these benefits who actually serve on the battlefield. When they do, they do. Under this existing system right now they receive that benefit.

What we are talking about now is an expansion to those days of reservist, the weekend a month and the 2 weeks a year. It is completely different from the fact when they are on Federal orders, and the Moore amendment would actually deal with that and take care of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

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

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

I am ready to close, but there are a few things in the closing that I want to be sure and bring up.

First off, the GI Bill cannot be included in--was not included, and those benefits would be removed if they refuse to take the vaccine. So the MTR is actually a legitimate motion that is something that we do need to deal with that was not taken care of in that bill.

And just so you know, a vitally important issue that was brought up by General Bergman, our speakers that we have had here today, they don't take this lightly. They are very serious about this. They have served themselves. They have served in these capacities. They understand the concern. And the concern of retention in the Active Forces is a serious concern.

We just received notice that the Army raised its max bonus for new recruits to $50,000 due to struggling in trying to get people to come on to Active Reserve. By offering this benefit above and beyond that has been a concern of many of those that have expressed that concern.

But let me tell you this on this debate today. I want to thank Chairman Takano and others for a thoughtful and respectful debate, which is vitally important on an issue like this.

I also want to thank Congressman Levin. His passion on these issues was truly present as well, and we understand that.

You know, I am a former marine. I am a former active marine. I am a marine because, you know, once you are a marine you are always a marine. That is vitally important to remember. And as a father of a marine and a grandfather of a marine, these issues are personal to me.

Now, I understand the sacrifices that members of our National Guard make every day. And I think some of the things that were spoken of here today confuse the fact that when they get called up to Active Duty, go over to Iraq, go to Afghanistan, those qualify towards their GI bill. It does. And I am not opposed to them receiving education benefits, nor was anybody that spoke here today.

But the Guard and Reserve is that; it is a Guard and Reserve. And whenever they are activated, yes, they should receive those benefits. That is why the Moore amendment is so vitally important that we are going to be talking on

later as well. If we adopt that, it will cover everything except that component that those Guard and Reserve members knew when they joined, that they didn't get those benefits for that 1 weekend a month and those 2 weeks a year.

And why is that? Because it is a separate standing than an Active- Duty military personnel.

This discussion--and I know we all want to respect our Guard and Reserve, but this is not the way to do it. Doing it in the right order, hearing from everyone in committee, discussing these issues, bringing them up, and getting input from those stakeholders that are involved, was the proper way to do this; not to do it here on the floor in this manner.

I think the debate has been really good. I hope that the people that are listening understand. I hope that our colleagues understand what it is; that a vote against this is not a vote against the Guard and Reserve. A vote against this is simply saying, no, there is another way that is more fiscally responsible, that will still offer benefits and reward those for their service. But this is not the right way.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, ``yes'' on the amendments that we are coming up with, but ``no'' on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Ross' amendment would require VA to share information regarding mental healthcare, community care, and other services to veterans who have recently transitioned out of the military.

Leaving the military can be a difficult and vulnerable time for many veterans. It is critical that separating servicemembers receive support as they restart their civilian lives. Part of that is ensuring that they are educated and empowered to take advantage of the benefits they earned by serving the Nation in uniform.

Now, right now, the education occurs primarily through the Transition Assistance Program, or TAP. TAP was created in 1990, and always includes information on the VA care, benefits and services that those transitioning out of the military may be eligible for.

Now, TAP is a great program, and it is vitally important because those of us who are older veterans, the only tap we got was on the shoulder and a hey, good to see you; have a great life. But now TAP actually has that opportunity.

In addition, the Trump administration began the Solid Start program in 2019. Through Solid Start, all new veterans are contacted by the VA three times during their first year out of uniform. Those contacts occur 90, 180, and 360 days after separation from service and are a priceless opportunity for newly separated servicemembers to connect with the VA.

Congresswoman Ross' amendment would require that the VA provide information to those new veterans, including information regarding the healthcare, including mental health, community care, military sexual trauma, and the Veterans Crisis Line.

As I indicated, the VA already provides new veterans with information during TAP and through the Solid Start program. This amendment simply ensures that the materials VA provides to new veterans specifically includes these subjects.

For that reason, I am in support of her amendment, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support that. I thank Congresswoman Ross and the cosponsors of this amendment for their work, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Congressman Moore's amendment to H.R. 1836, as amended, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021.

While I do not support the underlying text of the bill, I believe that Congressman Moore's amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, would make important, commonsense changes to it.

The underlying bill would make a vast and costly expansion of benefits to Guard and Reserve members to include GI Bill eligibility for every day in uniform under Federal orders. This includes GI Bill eligibility for weekend drills and training.

As I stated during the general debate earlier, I believe that this bill's $2 billion mandatory cost is using rare offsets that take away from the priorities this committee has in serving our Nation's veterans. That is why today I stand in support of Congressman Moore's amendment.

These substituted provisions would simplify current law so that any time spent on Federal Active Duty by members of the Guard and Reserve for service other than for training would count toward GI Bill eligibility. This would include service in support of protecting the southern border, federally funded missions in support of efforts to combat COVID-19, and other critical Active Duty missions.

The amendment would only require $16 million in mandatory offsets, compared to the $2 billion the underlying bill would cost.

Not only is this policy change good for our Nation's veterans, but it also does not burden our children, grandchildren, and future generations of American taxpayers with tens of billions of dollars over several decades in unfunded offset costs like the underlying bill would.

This is without question a more measurable and fiscally responsible approach to more fully honor the valuable service that these men and women of the Guard and Reserve perform.

I want to thank Congressman Moore for his hard work on the amendment. Before yielding back, I would like to say that if a person votes against this bill, it is not a vote against the Guard and Reserve. It is a vote for the taxpayers, which Guard and Reserves are also taxpayers. It is the reason why we should have had a more full debate on this bill in committee so these things could have been brought up.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate James Frank Boucher, of Murphysboro, Illinois, who celebrates his 100th birthday on January 4, 2022. Known as Frank to his friends and family, Mr. Boucher was born on January 4, 1922, in Grimsby, Illinois, to James and Lillie Boucher and grew up with his three siblings: Dorothy, Fred, and Bernie. After graduating high school, Frank entered World War II as a reconnaissance pilot in the Army Air Corps, flying a single engine Stinson L-5 in the Pacific Theater and rising to the rank of Technical Sergeant. His family's favorite story to tell regards when Tech Sergeant Boucher was MIA for 14 days. Frank landed on a sandbar and traveled by night from village to village along the river. Using his pointy-talk book, he was able to communicate with the locals, which allowed him to work his way back to Yunan to be transported to Kumming Air Base. He was back flying missions the next day. In 1946, Frank returned home and married his wife, Zidania Francis Ogden. They were blessed with three boys. After working for the United States Postal Service for over 30 years, Frank retired and spent his newfound free time teaching his sons how to hunt and fish, and the importance of church and family. Over the years, his family grew to six grandchildren, 22 great grandchildren, and two great-great grandchildren. Frank's wife of 73 years passed away 2 years ago, but he's still certain to cherish every moment shared with his family. Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring Tech Sergeant James Frank Boucher on his milestone 100th birthday. On behalf of Southern Illinois, thank you for your service to our Nation and happy birthday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5545, as amended, the REMOTE Act. I am pleased to support this bill, which is very similar to my bill, H.R. 5509, the Student Veteran COVID-19 Protection Act of 2021. This bill will help address urgent needs of student veterans who are impacted by COVID-19.

At the beginning of the pandemic, Congress worked to ensure that student veterans' GI bill housing allowance payments were not cut when in-person classes were moved online.

The current authorization for this protection expires on December 21, 2021. H.R. 5545, as amended, would extend it through June 1 of 2021. This would provide veterans and schools with the certainty that students will not see a reduction in their monthly housing checks this school year.

The bill also includes changes to ensure that GI bill students can attend foreign schools and give American schools time to comply with new consumer protection rules.

It includes a change to the VA's rounding-out policy to allow students to retain their full monthly housing allowance, even if they finish their program-required coursework early.

Finally, it also includes language sponsored by Congressman Lamb and Congressman Mann to remove the cap on the equal employment opportunity counselors at the VA. There is no place for discrimination at the VA. I am pleased that we can, once again, pass this important provision to help employees avail themselves of their right for a safe workplace.

The costs of this bill are fully paid for by extending current VA home loan funding fees for a few months into 2030. This is a bipartisan offset that has been used multiple times in previous Congresses.

This issue of whether to offset the estimated $220 million mandatory costs associated with this bill has been an issue of disagreement for many weeks, and I want to thank Chairman Takano for working with me and finding a mutually beneficial solution that is paid for and can quickly pass the Senate. This is win for the veterans, schools, and taxpayers alike.

In the vast majority of circumstances, I strongly believe that Congress should do our job and pay for this new spending. We have a responsibility to pay for our bills, just like every American does. However, that does not mean that I will not consider the use of emergency spending when it is appropriate and necessary in the future as new emergencies may arise.

Before I close, I would like to thank the dozens of higher education groups and veterans service organizations that have advocated for the passage of this needed extension and reform.

I want to especially thank the American Council on Education and the Student Veterans of America for their continued support for this fully paid for legislation. They understand that if these changes are not made soon, many schools will be forced to stop accepting students who are using the GI Bill. I agree with them that such an outcome is simply unacceptable.

While I wish we could have enacted these protections weeks ago, I am glad we are taking care of them today on a bipartisan basis that protects veterans and taxpayers alike.

I, again, want to thank Chairman Takano for working with me and others on this issue, as well as our colleagues, Senators Tester and Moran, for their support.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to let everyone know that I am very much in support of this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support it as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed one vote on December 1, 2021.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 390.

Mr. Speaker, real wages have decreased 7 out of the past 9 months. The increase in the cost of consumer goods is at a 30-year high. What do these numbers actually mean in your daily life?

You wake up in the morning and you go to make breakfast. You want scrambled eggs? They will be 11.6 percent more expensive. What about bacon? At a 20.2 percent increase on bacon, you might even take that off the menu. Don't forget your morning cup of coffee that is 5.6 percent more expensive.

You make a mad dash to get the kids ready for school and then out the door. That will be a 4.3 percent increase in the cost of their clothing and a 7.5 percent increase in the cost of their shoes. You have gotten the kids on the bus and now you can go on to work yourself.

Gas prices are now 51.3 percent higher, so it is going to cost you a lot more to drive to work. Have you been thinking about that new car? You can forget that, prices are up 9.8 percent on new cars. You want to save money and maybe get a used car? Good luck with that because they are up 26.4 percent.

You arrive at work, but you realize you left your lunch at home. The cost of a plate at a nearby diner is up 5.3 percent. On your way home, you stop to pick up your kids to take them to practice. You make sure to tell them to take it easy though and make sure they don't wear out their sports equipment because their sports equipment is up 8 percent.

Now you are home for dinner and those pork chops you are making for dinner are up 15.9 percent. The canned vegetables are up 6.6 percent.

Your long day is finally over. You made it. Time to kick back, relax, watch some TV--wait a minute, the TV last year that you bought for Christmas is up 10.4 percent, and there is no doubt that last Christmas it was down that much.

So what is the difference here? I think it is called the Biden economy. Maybe if people in the administration spent a day in the shoes of the average person, the person that goes to work every day, the person that has to pay these prices that we are talking about, maybe then they would realize that the policies that are being done right now and being put in place right now and have been put in place over the last 10 months is the cause of this, and that they would work with us to get it fixed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Du Quoin High School's Family Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) club for their generosity on World Kindness Day. After a good fundraising year, the students used their leftover club funds to purchase gift cards to distribute to community members outside their local grocery store. This act of kindness helped ensure that several local families were able to put food on the dinner table that evening. World Kindness Day is a wonderful opportunity to take a moment to give back to our communities. It serves as a reminder that even a gesture as simple as a smile or a helping hand can make someone's day. I am proud of each member and leader of Du Quoin High School's Family Career and Community Leaders of America club for their hard work and generosity during a time when many are struggling to make ends meet. On behalf of southern Illinois, thank you for giving back to our Du Quoin community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Build Back Better plan is a big, bloated joke. The problem is it is not funny.

At a time when inflation is skyrocketing, House Democrats are doubling down on their socialist wish list.

Is your family struggling financially after endless COVID shutdowns?

Don't worry. The Democrats have a plan. They are going to be giving $80 billion to the IRS to double the number of agents who can track your spending habits.

Worried about whether you can afford to put gas in your car or heat your home this year?

Well, House Democrats have a plan for that too: huge tax hikes on natural gas, kneecapping American-made energy products to pour billions into the Green New Deal.

Are you concerned about the security on our borders and keeping communities safe?

House Democrats are providing amnesty for 8 million illegal immigrants.

And we still don't know what the cost of this bill is going to be. There is no report here yet.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be voting on this monstrosity, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4591, as amended, the VA Electronic Health Record Transparency Act.

Since the very beginning of the Electronic Health Record Modernization, or the EHRM, program, this committee has been requesting accurate and up-to-date lifecycle cost estimates from VA. Despite our requests, VA has never provided a credible lifecycle cost estimate. VA's cost estimates could not withstand even the most basic scrutiny.

This bill would require quarterly reports on the costs of the EHRM program. It would also capture the roughly $5 billion of costs the Inspector General found were unaccounted for and any other costs that VA has not been including.

Of course, cost is not everything. The electronic health record program needs to help the VA medical staff better care for veterans. That is why this bill would also require VA to report on performance and safety metrics. These data points will allow us to evaluate the program and determine whether it is making VA medical centers safer, faster, and better.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the bipartisan work of the Technology Modernization Subcommittee, and I am also pleased to be the original cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4591, as amended, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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