[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H50-H64]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GUARD AND RESERVE GI BILL PARITY ACT OF 2021
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 860, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1836) to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure
that the time during which members of the Armed Forces serve on active
duty for training qualifies for educational assistance under the Post-
9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 860, in lieu of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, printed in the bill, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 117-25 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1836
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Guard and Reserve GI Bill
Parity Act of 2021''.
SEC. 2. POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN RESERVE
AND NATIONAL GUARD DUTY.
(a) Other Qualifying Duty.--Section 3311(b) of title 38,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(including'' each place it appears and
inserting ``(including other qualifying duty and'';
(2) by striking ``(excluding'' each place it appears and
inserting ``(including other qualifying duty but excluding'';
and
(3) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or other qualifying
duty'' after ``active duty'' both places it appears.
(b) Other Qualifying Duty Defined.--Section 3301 of such
title is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) The term `other qualifying duty' means the following:
``(A) During the period beginning on August 1, 2025, and
ending on July 31, 2032, active duty for training performed
by a member of the Armed Forces--
``(i) on or after August 1, 2025; or
``(ii) before August 1, 2025, if such individual is a
member of the Armed Forces on or after such date.
``(B) On or after August 1, 2032, duty performed before,
on, or after such date that is--
``(i) active duty for training performed by a member of the
Armed Forces; or
``(ii) inactive duty training performed by a member of the
Armed Forces.''.
(c) Time Limitation for Use of Entitlement for Other
Qualifying Duty.--Section 3321 of such title is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) in the case of an individual whose entitlement is
based on other qualifying duty performed--
``(A) before August 1, 2025, expires on the latter of--
``(i) the end of the 15-year period beginning on the date
of the discharge or release of such individual from the Armed
Forces; or
``(ii) August 1, 2040; or
``(B) on or after August 1, 2025, shall not expire.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(6) Individuals subject to two periods.--In the case of
an individual subject to periods under paragraphs (1) and
(3)(A) of subsection (a), the period under such paragraph
(3)(A) shall apply to such individual's entitlement.''.
SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN HOUSING LOAN FEES.
(a) Extension.--The loan fee table in section 3729(b)(2) of
title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking
``January 14, 2031'' each place it appears and inserting
``October 1, 2031''.
(b) IRRRL Rate.--The item in subparagraph (E) of the loan
fee table under such section is amended to read as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(E)(i) Interest rate reduction refinancing 0.85 0.85 NA
loan (closed on or after July 1, 2022, and
before October 1, 2030)........................
(ii) Interest rate reduction refinancing loan 0.50 0.50 NA''.
(closed during a period not covered by clause
(i))...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is debatable for 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Bost) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on H.R. 1836, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1836, as amended,
Representative Levin's Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021.
This bill is a long-needed fix to the unequal treatment of members of
the Guard and Reserve for GI Bill purposes. Under current law, guard
and reservists do not accrue education benefits the same as their
Active-Duty counterparts, even when they are carrying out the same
duties and taking on the same risks.
We live in a new age of national defense where we utilize the total
force concept with an operational reserve, not a Strategic Reserve. We
rely each day on guard and reservists to protect and defend our
country. As we observed the anniversary of the January 6 attack on the
Capitol, we were reminded of the brave Guard and Reserve troops who
deployed to protect Congress, our staffs, and the foundation of our
democracy.
We continue to rely on our Reserve components throughout the COVID-19
pandemic to activate and support public health response efforts across
the country. The National Guard has been utilized at unprecedented
levels in recent years.
Over the past 2 years, our Reserve components have fought wildfires,
responded to protests, assisted with the withdrawal from Afghanistan,
and even helped Afghan refugees settle in the United States.
It is time the Guard and Reserve benefits reflect the key work they
are doing and the need for equity across the total force. It is time
for every day in uniform to count.
The cadence of activations for guard and reservists has increased
significantly over the last 5 years, and with that comes the need to
meet mission readiness standards.
To prepare for the critical role they fulfill in our national
defense, guard and reservists must frequently train, which means more
days in uniform, more days away from their civilian life, and more days
away from their families.
{time} 1245
The GI Bill is both a recruitment and transition benefit to help
servicemembers transition into civilian life and close the opportunity
gap with their civilian peers.
Now, the Guard and Reserves need this more than ever as they are
constantly transitioning between military, civilian employment, and
family life, facing continuous disruptions.
This legislation rectifies the disparity and ensures that members of
our Reserve forces know that every day they commit to our Nation
counts, and that they will have the education benefits waiting for them
when they fulfill their commitment.
In both this and the 116th Congress, we reformed and updated the
Post-9/11 GI Bill to ensure students who are eligible have easy access
to a high-quality education.
We have implemented strong student protections and we are holding bad
acting institutions accountable when they fail to meet standards we set
for veteran education.
Now, if servicemembers can step up and do their part day in and day
out
[[Page H51]]
while holding down civilian jobs and squeezing in time to take care of
their families, then the least we can do here in Congress is to get out
of the way of the solution.
Now, there are troubling reports of upticks in suicide among our
guard and reservists.
One of the best ways we can address veteran health, mental health,
and ultimate veteran suicide is by providing veterans with support and
a pathway to a successful civilian life.
H.R. 1836, as amended, will give guard and reservists access to the
opportunities that post-secondary education and training provide and
improve their reintegration into civilian life.
This legislation is fully paid for and uses loan fee provisions that
this Congress and prior Congresses have supported. In addition, even
the Republican substitute uses the same offsets.
Besides just being the right thing to do, investing in equitable GI
Bill benefits for guard and reservists will provide more than a tenfold
return to our country.
Who are we to stand in the way of an educational benefit that will
not only make our country stronger, but will benefit our military by
having military servicemembers and our guard and reservists who are
even more able to do their jobs on behalf of our national defense? I
can't wait to see what our servicemembers will do with this
opportunity, and I know it will make our country a better country.
This legislation is endorsed by numerous VSOs, including the American
Legion, the VFW, the Student Veterans of America, the National Guard
Association of the United States, Enlisted Association of the National
Guard of the United States, and Reserve Officers of America.
Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record letters of support and statements
from the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National
Guard Association of the United States, Military-Veterans Advocacy, and
the Reserve Officers of America.
The American Legion,
Washington, DC.
Tomorrow we are expecting the House to take votes on H.R.
1836, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act. The American
Legion supports this bill as our signature education priority
for 2022, and we strongly urge Representative Valadao to
stand for DC's National Guard troops and support its passage.
All 50 states have activated components of their National
Guard in response to unforeseen challenges over the past two
years. From protecting borders to delivering pandemic aid and
supporting local law enforcement our National Guard and
Reserve troops have responded to new challenges like never
before. Often, they are leaving both their families and
civilian employers for an extended amount of time sometimes
taking a sizeable pay cut with them. Yet despite all we ask
of them, too often they are denied a cornerstone benefit for
our nation's veterans: the GI Bill.
This is because servicemembers are activated under non-DNE
title 32 orders which VA statutes currently don't recognize
as valid ``active duty'' time. H.R. 1836 would fix this
disparity by expanding access to the Post-9/11 GI Bill for
servicemembers activated under Title 32 orders towards
benefits eligibility.
The American Legion urges support for H.R. 1836.
Thank you and happy to answer any questions.
John Kamin,
Legislative Associate, Legislative Division.
____
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Do the Right Thing for Guard and Reserve Members
Now is the time for Congress to pass legislation to allow
National Guard and Reserve members to rightfully earn GI Bill
benefits for their time served. National Guard and Reserve
members serve alongside active duty service members and
consistently make sacrifices without always earning VA
education benefits. Congress must act to expand eligibility
to allow the increasingly frequent activations of these
service members to count toward Post-9/11 GI Bill
eligibility.
The VFW strongly supports H.R. 1836, Guard and Reserve GI
Bill Parity Act of 2021, to ensure equity of benefits for
Reserve component service members. This bill would allow any
day in uniform receiving military pay to count toward Post-9/
11 GI Bill eligibility, allowing activated National Guard and
Reserve members to earn this education benefit and achieve
upward mobility. For years, the sacrifices of these service
members have been overlooked in achieving GI Bill
eligibility. These inequities have been further highlighted
through the COVID-19 pandemic as National Guard and Reserve
members stood on the front lines administering relief and
health services. The time is now for parity with all the
armed forces in earning their VA education benefits.
Contact your representatives today and tell them to support
the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021. Congress
must pass this crucially needed legislation now. National
Guard and Reserve members have been waiting long enough!
____
National Guard Association
of the United States,
Washington, DC.
Good Morning, I am writing to express the National Guard
Association's strong support for H.R. 1836--the bipartisan
Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, that will be considered
this week on the House floor. This bill caps a years-long
effort to recognize the service and sacrifice of our National
Guard. In addition to acknowledging the service of our Guard
Soldiers and Airmen, this bill will prove a hugely
significant recruiting and retention tool as we continually
deploy Guard units to contingencies both at home and abroad.
While we understand the concerns relating to costs in the
out years, we ask that you vote NO on the Substitute
amendment (H.R. 2047). While this amendment would reduce long
term costs, it significantly reduces the reach and impact of
the legislative change and eliminates the central goal of
parity in benefit as it relates to training H.R. 1836 is
trying to accomplish.
The bipartisan H.R. 1836 will prove to be the most
significant Post-9/11 G.I. Bill change specifically for the
Reserve Component since the creation of the program itself
and we are excited for the prospect of this bill passing the
House of Representatives. Additionally, we look forward to
continued bipartisan discussions with your Senate colleagues
as we work towards final language on this critical issue to
your National Guard servicemembers.
Thanks for your consideration, please feel free to reach
out for any additional information.
Best,
Julian Cardinale,
Joint Legislative Affairs Manager.
____
Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc.,
Slidell, Louisiana, January 10, 2022.
Hon. Mike Levin,
Member of Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Levin, On behalf of Military-Veterans
Advocacy (MVATM), we would like to pledge our
support for HR 1836.
This bill will ensure that the time during which members of
the Armed Forces serve on active duty for training qualifies
for educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational
Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Specifically, the bill adjusts the type of service that
entitles a member of the Armed Forces, reserves, or National
Guard to such assistance. Under the bill, service by a
reservist or National Guard member that is entitled to pay
counts toward benefit eligibility. Such service includes
training, active military service, inactive training, and
general duty for which basic pay is warranted.
You may use this letter as evidence of our support for this
bill. Feel free to use it in Committee or in press releases.
Sincerely,
John B. Wells,
Chairman of the Board.
____
ROA
Reserve Strength Reserve Life
Action Center--Vote for HR 1836, GI Bill Parity Act
Floor vote today on H.R. 1836! This bill expands
eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance to
include all paid points days for National Guard and Reserve
service members. This means that service members can earn GI
Bill eligibility days for training, active military service,
inactive training, and general duty for which basic pay is
warranted. Active duty earns benefits when training, and this
bill would allow the Guard and Reserve to earn the same
benefit.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader
Steny Hoyer for considering this legislation today, and I urge the rest
of my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure every day a
guard or reservist spends in uniform counts toward earning vital GI
Bill benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. 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.
[[Page H52]]
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. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I yield to my distinguished colleague, I am going to make a
few remarks in reference to what the ranking member said.
I will first say that the bill has been in the public for more than 2
years. In fact, the committee held a Guard-and-Reserve-only benefits
hearing just over a year ago to review the disparity in these benefits,
and we have worked closely with the stakeholders, as evidenced by the
numerous numbers of VSOs whose support letters I entered into the
Record earlier. And we also worked with the minority to ensure that
this bill achieves the aims that we intend.
We have also worked closely with the Department of Defense and VA to
ensure all Guard and Reserve members are covered.
The VSOs have been asking for this reform, and that is why we stand
with them in support of H.R. 1836.
Now, moreover, it is not accurate to say that before the Rules
Committee yesterday I characterized the $2 billion cost of this bill,
which is paid for, as insignificant. I merely compared it to the idea
that we should use this bill as part of an offset for the $300 billion
or so that we are going to need for toxic exposure. And I thank the
ranking member for joining together in trying to find a solution for
our toxic-exposed veterans.
However, that $300 billion, I know we are going to figure out how to
take care of that. It is really not a choice; it is a moral obligation
we have to those veterans that were exposed to burn pits. It is not a
choice. It is a cost of war, and we have got to rise together as a
body. We found $30 billion willy-nilly to add to the National Defense
Authorization Act. We will find the $300 billion. We don't need to be
nickel and diming our reservists and our Guard units and deny them the
days that should count toward their GI Bill benefits because they are
doing every bit the same sort of readiness training that our Active-
Duty servicemembers are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Levin), my good friend and chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity who is also the author of this very impressive bill.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Takano for
yielding and for his support and partnership on this legislation and
all the work that he does leading our committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Guard and Reserve GI Bill
Parity Act, bipartisan legislation I introduced to deliver some basic
fairness in the way we provide GI Bill benefits for the men and women
who serve our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, the GI Bill has allowed millions of veterans to pursue
higher education and find rewarding career paths.
{time} 1300
Servicemembers consistently cite GI Bill benefits as one of the top
reasons
[[Page H53]]
they choose to serve in our Armed Forces because of the opportunities
those benefits provide for them and their families. However, the way
that we allow servicemembers to accrue GI benefits is inherently
unfair. While Active-Duty servicemembers receive credit for GI Bill
benefits every day that they are in the service, Guard and Reserve
members only accrue those benefits in very limited circumstances.
That disparity continues to exist despite the fact that Guard and
Reserve members are increasingly taking on the same risks and doing the
same jobs as their Active-Duty counterparts. We have seen this trend
for decades but it has become especially pronounced over the last 2
years.
In response to the attack on our Capitol on January 6 of last year,
25,000 National Guard members mobilized from 54 States and territories
to protect this institution. For a time, they slept on the cold, hard
floors of this building. National Guard members have also deployed
across our country to support the COVID-19 response, including Guard
members who deployed from Ohio, Maryland, Delaware, and Georgia to
assist healthcare operations this month.
In 2020, 1,300 soldiers and airmen from five different States were
mobilized to fight wildfires in my State of California and throughout
the West Coast. Not only are these National Guard and Reserve members
risking their lives to serve our country, but they are also forced to
put their civilian lives on hold when they are called up, leaving
behind their families and interrupting civilian careers. Similarly,
they are forced to put their lives on hold every time they are called
up for training. In some of those settings they are serving side by
side with Active Duty members doing similar jobs and facing similar
risks, but they are not earning the same GI Bill benefits as their
peers. That is unacceptable and it is shameful that we have asked Guard
and Reserve members to step up in response to natural disasters, the
pandemic, and an attack on our democracy without providing them with
this fundamental benefit.
Clearly, it is long past time that we provide some basic fairness in
the way that we allow Guard and Reserve members to accrue these
benefits. The legislation that we are considering today will do exactly
that, with a simple fix to ensure that every day they spend in uniform
counts towards their GI Bill benefits.
Now, I know my friends on the other side of the aisle might raise
concerns about the costs of expanding eligibility for these benefits,
and I would note that this bill includes provisions my Republican
colleagues have supported in the past to help defray the cost of
veterans' benefits. And to my colleagues who still are not willing to
pay for these benefits, I would ask them to share their concerns
directly with Guard and Reserve members the next time they are deployed
in response to a natural disaster or other emergency in the community
that they represent.
So I think we all want the same thing. My friends across the aisle,
us on this side of the aisle, we all want the same thing. We all want
to provide benefits to those who have served our country. I believe
that in good faith. I do think that we have to not pay lip service,
though. We have to make sure that we support servicemembers and not
just when it is politically convenient. We don't need half measures. We
don't need things that shortchange our servicemembers. So I think it is
time for us to step up. It is time to give them the benefits they have
earned for protecting the American people in a way now that they are
doing unlike before. And that is what this bill aims to do.
As the chairman mentioned, it has support from a wide range of
veteran service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
the Student Veterans of America, the National Guard Association of the
United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
United States, and Reserve Officers Association. They are asking us to
pass this bill, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, today because
they agree that it is past time to provide some basic fairness in the
way that we provide GI Bill benefits to Guard and Reserve members.
Mr. Speaker, passing this bipartisan bill is the right thing to do
for all the men and women who serve and protect our Nation, and I urge
my colleagues to vote ``aye.''
Mr. BOST. 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. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 1836, the
Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act.
As a member of the Army Reserve, I know the critical role that
reservists and members of the National Guard play in defending our
great Nation. Unfortunately, I also know firsthand that sometimes
unique skills and experiences the guardsmen and reservists bring to the
table have been discounted or underutilized. That has always bothered
me, as I personally know of the expertise that exists in our Guard and
Reserve and their capabilities.
Great strides have been made to value the Reserve and Guard like we
value Active Duty, and we have come a long way and we need to continue
that work. At the same time, I also know that Active Duty requires a
level of commitment that does differ from the Guard and Reserve.
Unfortunately, this bill has significant problems that prevent me from
supporting it, which could have been worked out in the committee
process had there been a full legislative hearing on it. And that is
why I say I stand to discuss this bill because this is the first
opportunity I have really had to discuss it.
H.R. 1836 would provide guard and reservists with Active-Duty service
credit towards GI Bill eligibility for every day they are in uniform,
on Federal orders, including training. So this is a status that has
never been counted towards educational benefits.
Now, as cochair of the Congressional Bipartisan Burn Pits Caucus, the
committee's highest priority this Congress has been working to address
the health effects that toxic exposures in the military, including from
burn pits. I am very concerned that the substantial spending in this
bill could pull away from those efforts to address toxic exposure in
this tight fiscal environment.
I also have concerns that this legislation might continue a slow
creep of a permanent Federalizing of the National Guard, which was
never the intent. We must be mindful not to usurp State authority of
the Guard. What I do believe would be appropriate, however, would be to
allow guardsmen and reservists to accrue GI Bill eligibility for any
time spent on Federal Active-Duty service other than training, as many
in this body that serve here in Congress have done as Guard and
Reserve.
I was called to Active Duty for 15 months; 12 months in Iraq. That
should count. And that is a discussion we should have had, and what
actually should maybe count and what should not because I think there
is common ground. But we haven't had a chance to discuss it. There is
just the bill. Representative Moore has offered a substitute amendment
which would do exactly that, and I hope my colleagues will support that
amendment, like I do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill as offered and
to instead support Representative Moore's substitute amendment.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of instances where training
time and readiness training has counted towards the GI Bill. We talk
about the basic training that reservists and Guard unit members go
through. That has counted toward the GI Bill. And if there is a worry
about the Federalization, Federal dollars already pay for the training
days that we are seeking for the Guard unit members and the reservists
to get credit for.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Mrvan),
[[Page H54]]
my good friend, member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and
the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and Modernization.
Mr. MRVAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to rise in support of
H.R. 1836, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act. I am so grateful
for the sacrifices and the services of all our National Guard and
Reserve members. They stand ready at a moment's notice to protect our
Nation, our democracy, and the health of our communities.
Two instances jump out at me when I think of the heroism of the
Indiana National Guard members from this past year. The first was being
able to spend time with our brave National Guard members last year in
the cafeteria of the Department of Labor on the other side of the
Capitol complex when they bravely rushed to our Nation's Capitol to
defend our Constitution and to protect our democracy.
The second was when I was able to stand side by side with them in the
city of Gary when they operated a Federal COVID-19 vaccine site, which
provided over 60,000 vaccines in Northwest Indiana at a critical time
during our pandemic.
The First District is also home to the proud Slovak community. And I
am particularly appreciative that the Indiana National Guard has a
flourishing military partnership with our strong ally, the country of
Slovakia. We also have the 113th Engineering National Guard, which I
have shared time with, who the men and women have sacrificed their
time, dedication, and efforts to go over to Afghanistan. What this bill
does is it gives us the opportunity to have equitable training and
equitable educational opportunity for our National Guardsmen.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation today has the opportunity to treat their
Active Duty service on par with all branches of the military and ensure
that every day the National Guard Reserve member serves our Nation in
uniform is a day that counts toward their GI Bill benefits.
Thank you to the leadership of Congressman Mike Levin, Chairman
Takano, and all of my fellow members of the Committee on Veteran
Affairs for your commitment to our Guard and Reserve members and for
bringing this measure to the floor today.
I also thank Chairman Takano on his leadership to protect the
National Guardsmen on the burn pits and the toxic fumes that we have
passed and how we are providing benefits and making sure that that is
distributed fairly and equitably and making sure they receive the
benefits necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. BOST. 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. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Bost for yielding me the time.
I am always proud to stand on this floor and talk about the men and
women who serve our country. And it is our country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to H.R. 1836, the Guard and
Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021. And it kind of saddens me that I
have to rise in opposition because while this bill, well-intentioned,
is unfortunately potentially prone to unintended consequences on the
overall readiness of our Armed Forces, Active Reserve and Guard. But
first I must note that these issues could have been brought to light
earlier had this piece of legislation gone through regular order,
received proper consideration across all the normal things that we
historically have done. It received no legislative hearings, foregoing
the opportunity to receive input from key stakeholders, veteran service
organizations, new committee members on both sides of the aisle, and
even the Biden administration.
Without that engagement, we are just left with a bill that in its
current form, which would count guard and reservists Federal Active-
Duty service days towards GI eligibility, including for training. And
there is a very subtle difference. In fact, it is a very exact
difference in law between Active Duty for training and Active Duty.
I spent much of my 40-year Marine Corps career in the Reserve
component. And in fact, a little known part of my bio, my first 2 years
off of Active Duty in the Marine Corps, I spent 2 years as a member of
the Rhode Island National Guard. So not only Active component, Reserve
component, but also a guardsman as well.
And my final assignment for 4\1/2\ years, I had the blessing and the
opportunity to command the Marine Corps Reserve, roughly 100,000 folks
in 183 sites across the country at a time when we are deploying them at
never-before-seen rates.
I will always stand by the unwavering service and sacrifice given by
the men and women in the Reserve component and the National Guard.
{time} 1315
This bill, however, may unintentionally become an obstacle to the
recruitment and retention efforts of our Active component military. We
are in a time, and have been for over 40 years, of an all-recruited
force on all levels.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, even as Governors offer non-GI Bill
education benefits to their Guard, the parity with Active-Duty Forces
that this bill is seeking for the Guard and Reserves, again, could
impact our Active-Duty military, which we need to be ready at all
times, considering today's global threats.
Today, more than 4 years after my colleagues and I passed into law an
unprecedented GI Bill expansion to allow any veteran to use these GI
Bill benefits without restriction of time, so they are good to go for
as long as they live, I still believe there are many ways we can work
responsibly to expand these benefits.
For these reasons, I will be voting in favor of my friend and
colleague Mr. Moore's benefit expansion amendment to ensure guard and
reservists accrue GI Bill eligibility during any and all Federal
Active-Duty days that are not training days.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and support the
Moore amendment.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois has 14 minutes
remaining.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a member of the committee who also serves as the
chair of our Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related
Agencies in Appropriations.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1836, the
Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act. I thank Chairman Takano and
Representative Levin for their important work on this legislation that
finally acknowledges the undervalued service of our guard and
reservists. The sponsors' sentiments ring true: Every day in uniform
counts. At least it should count. It should count more.
In Ohio, there are over 11,400 National Guard members performing
strategic and operational duties to whom we owe enormous gratitude.
Our National Guard protects our homeland and supports the mission of
our troops abroad. It provides critical support to people in times of
urgent need, from natural disasters to the public health COVID
emergency we are in right now.
The National Guard and Reserves have been an invaluable readiness
resource throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and are continuing to fill
critical roles in response to the pandemic.
In my home State of Ohio, the Ohio National Guard has helped Ohio
food banks distribute over 56 million pounds of food at 14 food banks
and warehouses, including the Toledo Northwestern Ohio Food Bank. They
have provided food banks the support they needed to keep children,
seniors, veterans, and families fed during these very trying times.
They set up COVID-19 testing clinics and traveled the State to keep
our communities safe. They are currently stationed at 12 testing
locations across Ohio.
Thanks to President Biden's executive actions, 2,300 Guard members
have been activated across Ohio to help hospitals and public health
experts care for those most in need so all the omicron variant patients
that are flooding
[[Page H55]]
our hospitals have some hope of survival.
The service and dedication of our National Guard and Reserves require
that we appropriately recognize and appreciate their sacrifices. While
the debt we owe them cannot be fully repaid, the legislation before us
ensures that these honorable men and women will receive the proper
access to the educational benefits they so rightly deserve.
Providing these important GI Bill benefits will undoubtedly aid the
recruitment and retention of National Guard units at home and abroad
while further investing in our servicemembers' futures.
With six National Guard sites in my own congressional district and
several Reserve units nearby, I know that this legislation will have a
deep and lasting impact on our State's residents and those who answer
the call to serve.
It is certainly my privilege to represent these guard and reservists
in Congress, and I am proud to support enhancing the benefits that they
can have access to and deserve for their service. May God be with all
our men and women in uniform.
Mr. BOST. 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. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member from
Illinois for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, before we vote on new legislation, it is very important
that we have an honest look at the price tag. As Republican leader of
the House Budget Committee, it is my responsibility to track how new
spending impacts our Nation's bottom line.
Every time Washington passes unpaid-for legislation that adds a new
benefit or program, or expands an existing one, our fiscal problems get
much worse. At each one of these moments, we take another step toward
either raising taxes on middle- and low-income working-class Americans
or asking China for another IOU.
Look no further than the $2 trillion Biden bailout bill that was
passed back in March. It added trillions to our Nation's debt.
Also, the $5 trillion BBB that was passed out of this House would add
trillions to our debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
which is the official scorekeeper for Congress, the true cost of the
bill before us is hidden. The true cost before us is hidden. Why?
On paper, the bill appears paid for. However, the new spending does
not begin until 2025, and then the expansion of benefits does not go
into effect until after the budget window in 2032. Meanwhile, the pay-
fors all go away within the 10-year window. This is a creative way for
Democrats to use budget gimmicks and delay program start dates to push
through billions in unpaid-for spending.
These types of budget gimmicks are exactly what Democrats have been
doing with the $5 trillion spending bill that was called out and why
Senators on the other side of the building will not support the
legislation.
Congress must stop kidding itself with fanciful accounting. Stop
pretending that creating and expanding government programs, especially
mandatory spending programs, won't come with a real fiscal impact.
Start being honest with the American people about the true price tag
and the consequences of their reckless actions.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, there has been an honest reckoning and an
honest assessment by the CBO, and this bill is paid for according to
the rules, the same rules that my Republican counterparts observe.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green), a member of the Financial Services Committee, where he is
chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today in
support of this legislation because the Guard and Reserve deserve
parity. They have been there for us, and we must be there for them.
When natural disasters beset the land and there are wildfires on the
West Coast, they are there. When hurricanes ravage the Gulf Coast, they
are there. When tornadic activities are within all the midsection of
the country, they are there. They have been there for us, and we must
be there for them.
They do leave their families, just as the Active-Duty servicepersons
do. Yes, they leave their children. They leave their wives. They leave
newborns. They come to severe and protect us, just as they did after
the assault on the Capitol.
They were here to prevent democracy from being eroded. They were here
to protect the President and the Vice President. They have been here
for us, and we must be there for them.
They have been there when many of us had no other hope other than to
have them show up to defend us.
I remember Katrina. I remember what was happening in New Orleans. I
went down there. I saw the National Guard come in. I saw them protect
and defend.
We have a duty and an obligation to them, and this is our opportunity
to fulfill it.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for what you are doing today for a
multiplicity of reasons, one being that I don't want to see what
happened to the Merchant Marine happen to the National Guard and the
Reserve. It took them 44 years to get GI benefits. We cannot allow this
to happen.
Mr. Speaker, I am there, I am here, and I will be there for them.
Mr. BOST. 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. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bowman), my good friend who serves on the Education and Labor
Committee with myself and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to ensure that our
veterans have the resources they need to access care after serving.
Every year, brave men and women enlist in the military, seeking to
serve their country, pursue a better life, and obtain benefits and
security for their future. This means being able to afford college and
having access to housing, healthcare, and other opportunities.
Our troops are deployed into active war zones that too often leave
veterans with PTSD, suicidal ideation, anxiety, addiction, depression,
and other mental health challenges.
Regardless of what congressional district you live in, you will
always take what happens in your service back home with you.
{time} 1330
But when they return, our government has failed to provide them with
the care and support they deserve.
The outcome is a veterans suicide crisis. The suicide rate for
veterans is 1.5 times higher than the rate of nonveteran adults, and I
see this in my district. I have had veterans call my office as a last
resort after not being able to access the healthcare they need at the
VA. My constituent services team has had multiple cases of veterans
struggling with suicidal ideation and other mental health challenges
who have expressed an immense frustration that no
[[Page H56]]
one in our government seems to care about their well-being. Our
veterans deserve better, and we must do better.
I am grateful for incredible organizations in my district like Black
Veterans for Social Justice, Veterans for Peace, and The American
Legion who are leading with care, working to support our veterans'
mental health by destigmatizing mental health care and connecting
veterans to mental health professionals. They regularly host support
groups for veterans with mental health challenges, advocate for a
stronger VA system, and provide one-on-one opportunities for veterans
to learn about benefits available to them.
Our amendment to H.R. 1836 builds upon their work to ensure that when
transitioning to civilian life, veterans receive information about what
healthcare and mental healthcare services are available to them,
including how to access the Veterans Crisis Line and seek mental health
support. This amendment also specifies that this information should be
provided to veterans in a manner that helps destigmatize mental health
and encourages veterans to reach out.
These are important steps toward creating a society in which every
single veteran has access to universal, high-quality healthcare and is
empowered to seek out the mental health support they need to thrive.
If you are a veteran who is struggling with mental health challenges,
please know that you are not alone and that seeking out mental health
support is an important step toward feeling better. During these
especially difficult times, we must care for ourselves and for one
another.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed honor and privilege to
yield 1 minute to a champion and staunch advocate who is unparalleled
in her support for our Nation's 22 million veterans. This Congress with
her support we have continued to preserve the sacred trust of our men
and women in uniform and the 200,000 servicemembers who become veterans
each year.
Mr. Speaker, of course, I am referring to the Speaker of this great
House from the great State of California, my own State.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in
bringing this important legislation to the floor and for yielding.
We owe our veterans everything. They make us the home of the brave
and the land of the free. They protect our democracy. They and their
families make us so very, very proud.
I thank the gentleman again, Mr. Takano, as chair of the committee,
and Mr. Levin for his leadership on this particular legislation which I
will acknowledge in a moment.
First, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, nearly eight decades ago when
Congress enacted the first GI Bill, our Nation made a bipartisan and
unbreakable promise: that every hero who steps forward to defend our
Nation deserves the tools to succeed when they come home. Today, the
House will proudly take another strong step toward fulfilling that
pledge.
On behalf of the Congress, I commend the outstanding leadership of
the committee chair, Mark Takano, who has ensured that the Veterans'
Affairs Committee remains committed to its long legacy of
bipartisanship. I salute the chair of the Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Congressman Mike Levin of
California, both for leading on this important legislation every step
of the way and for his lifetime advocacy on behalf of our military
communities.
Every time our Nation seeks to strengthen and expand benefits for
veterans, we have listened closely to our men and women in uniform and
our veterans, taking their insight and expertise into account. We
continue to listen to them today as we continue to build upon our
progress and appropriately honor their service.
On a regular basis we have a meeting with our veterans service
organizations. The American Legion is very much a part of that, as well
as other groups reflecting our involvement in other wars since World
War II, and we still have a few veterans from then.
What is interesting about this legislation today to me is that,
again, it sprang from listening to our men and women in uniform and our
veterans as to what their needs are. That is exactly how the first GI
Bill came to be.
The veterans of World War I, recognizing the disadvantages that they
were at after World War I, came forth with the proposal to have the GI
Bill. So this was passed and signed by Franklin Roosevelt during World
War II at the suggestion of veterans of World War I.
During the dark days of the Second World War and after listening to
the calls of the brave veterans of World War I, President Roosevelt
made clear the urgent moral imperative of supporting our returning
soldiers.
In a message to Congress in November 1943, he said,
``The members of the Armed Forces have been compelled to make greater
economic sacrifice and every other kind of sacrifice than the rest of
us, and they are entitled to definite action to help take care of their
special problems.''
I am very proud that my father, Thomas D'Alesandro, was in this
Chamber. He was a Member of Congress from Baltimore when the President
said that. His brother would be lost shortly thereafter in the battle
leading up to the Battle of the Bulge.
Less than a year later, Congress enacted the first GI Bill on an
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote marking a turning point in how our
Nation cares for our veterans. In doing so, we made a transformational
investment in our servicemembers, opening the doors to a college
education and home ownership, launching millions of families into the
middle class.
In 2008 it was my great privilege to serve as Speaker as the Congress
took a crucial step to bring these benefits into the 21st century. With
the Post-9/11 GI Bill--passed on a strong bipartisan vote and signed
into law by President George W. Bush--we expanded the promise of a
full, 4-year college education to veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
we ensured subsequent legislation that their families could also take
advantage of that benefit. In 2017 we strengthened this law by
improving benefits and closing gaps in eligibility so that we can best
serve those who served our Nation.
Yet, today, too many veterans still do not receive equal access to
the life-changing benefits they have earned. Over the last few decades,
our valiant reservists and guardsmen have become even more integral to
America's national security strategy. Our reservists often serve side
by side with Active-Duty servicemembers, do the same jobs, and incur
the same risks. And as our Nation has battled the pandemic, our
communities have relied on our guardsmen to help protect our Nation
from the deadly virus.
These heroes are essential to keeping our families and our Nation
safe, but current law falls short of delivering the benefits they
deserve. With the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, we will ensure
that every day our reservists and guardsmen heroes serve in uniform
count toward their GI benefits. In doing so, we will lift up hundreds
of thousands of current and future veterans across the Nation so that
they, too, will have the opportunities they need to thrive in the 21st
century economy.
Let me be clear: ensuring every servicemember has equal access to
hard-earned benefits is an issue of fairness. When the House passes
this legislation today, we will build on the proud, bipartisan progress
forged by generations of lawmakers in this Chamber and in the Senate as
well, we show our heroes that they will always have our unwavering
support, and we honor the sacrifice on the battlefield. The military
vows that on the battlefield we will leave no soldier behind, and when
they come home, we pledge that we will leave no veteran behind.
There is so much more that we can learn from listening to our
veterans and our servicemembers that we must do, so that they can take
their strongest position when they come home.
Mr. Speaker, in this all-American spirit, I urge a very strong
``aye'' vote for this legislation.
I want to thank the distinguished chairman for his leadership and
Mike Levin for his relentless persistence for the benefit of our
veterans as a member of that important committee.
Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
[[Page H57]]
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. 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. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here today to offer
this MTR.
If we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs to consider an amendment to H.R. 1836
which ensures members of the Armed Forces granted a general discharge
under honorable conditions solely for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine are
eligible for the GI Bill education benefits of which the Speaker just
spoke about.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask unanimous consent to include the text of
the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, on August 24, 2021, the Secretary of
Defense issued a directive requiring mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for
all servicemembers, including those in the Ready Reserve and the
National Guard. Despite the challenges this vaccine mandate currently
faces in the Supreme Court, the Defense Department has proceeded to
discharge those who refuse the vaccine.
Hundreds of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians have
already been discharged, and as many as 20,000 servicemembers remain at
risk over being involuntarily removed from service. It is outrageous.
To prevent those who have refused the vaccine from being dishonorably
discharged, Congress included a provision in the fiscal year 2022
National Defense Authorization Act limiting discharges for failure to
receive the COVID-19 vaccine to either an honorable discharge or a
general discharge under honorable conditions.
This change succeeded in stopping further disciplinary action or
court-martial for those who refuse the vaccine, however it potentially
leaves many veterans in limbo between leaving the service with full
benefits or having their education benefits stripped as they walk out
the door.
As many of my veteran colleagues in this Chamber know, those
servicemembers who receive a general discharge under honorable
conditions are ineligible for the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bill
benefits due to restrictions Congress implemented in 2011.
While this change was intended to open eligibility status to members
of the National Guard, there will now be a group of veterans who have
served honorably up until the point of refusing COVID-19 vaccine who
will now have their education benefits completely wiped out.
For those who may not know the full breadth of education benefits
entitled to a veteran, let me give you just a couple of items. A
veteran who was served at least 36 months on Active Duty is entitled to
100 percent of Post-9/11 GI benefits. That includes full tuition
coverage for public schools, or roughly $26,000 annually for private
education or apprenticeships.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. FITZGERALD. That veteran also receives a monthly housing
allowance which varies by location, plus $1,000 annually to cover books
and other school supplies. Add that up, and we are talking about well
over $100,000 worth of education benefits a veteran loses simply by
having their discharge characterized as general under honorable.
{time} 1345
And let's be clear on who this is truly affecting, Mr. Speaker. We
are not talking about recruits who are fresh out of basic training or
those discharged at the MEPS station. These are men and women who have
done their time, who have paid their dues, and who have served with
distinction up until the point of refusing this vaccine.
And now we are going to tell them that we don't care how spotless
their record may have been beforehand because they made a moral,
ethical and even religious objection to a vaccine?
Those who have fought to defend our country should not be deprived of
the benefits they so rightly deserve simply for refusing to comply with
this divisive, and potentially unlawful, vaccine mandate.
My motion to recommit corrects this disparity by ensuring any member
of the armed services who receives a general discharge under honorable
conditions solely for the refusal of the COVID-19 vaccine is entitled
to education benefits.
We are a country that rewards our heroes, not punishes them, and this
motion to recommit makes sure of that. I urge the adoption of this
motion to recommit.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The issue of how servicemembers are disciplined for refusing to take
the vaccine has already been addressed in the National Defense
Authorization Act. It already states plainly that there could be a
general discharge, or an other-than-honorable discharge, or an
honorable discharge. So there is, it seems to me, an irrelevance or it
is unnecessary, this proposed MTR. So we already have a solution that
has been agreed to in the Armed Services space and jurisdiction.
That being said, I do not have any further speakers, I am prepared to
close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. 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
[[Page H58]]
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. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will, in closing, say that the minority has not raised a
substantive argument, a serious argument against the substance of this
bill. This is a good, good piece of legislation, one that is agreed to
and supported by numerous veterans service organizations.
To the issue of and to the objection raised by the minority over a
lack of process and a lack of regular order, this is simply not true.
We have had ample opportunity for the minority to have input in
numerous hearings related to this topic.
And as to the concern over recruitment and retention of our Active-
Duty Forces, I will remind my esteemed ranking member, or the esteemed
ranking member, for whom I have great admiration for his own service
and the service of his family in the military, that we turned to the
Guard and Reserve in greater and greater dependence in the post-9/11
era. And because we were able to turn to them, we did not have to have
discussions about a draft.
We had issues recruiting folks for our military in the early aughts
to the numbers that we needed, and we had to turn to the Reserve and
the Guard. So we need good incentives and great retention incentives
for our Guard units and our Reserve units all across this country
because we aren't going to depend on them less. In fact, we are going
to depend on them more.
And the tempo of the training, all we are saying is that the
readiness training they undergo is no less than the readiness training
of our Active-Duty troops. Regardless of whether they knew or didn't
know at the beginning when they signed up as reservists or guardsmen,
they deserve to have every day count.
Now is the time for Congress and this House to say that every day of
readiness training should count toward GI bill eligibility.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support
of the bipartisan amendment that I have put forward, along with my
colleagues Deborah Ross, Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, and Jamaal Bowman.
As my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have made clear, our
Nation owes a tremendous debt to our veterans.
I am pleased that this week, the House will take up a bill to help
improve access to services and benefits that our men and women in
uniform have earned.
H.R. 1836--the National Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of
2021--would allow Members of the National Guard and Reserves to count
time spend in training towards their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
I am so proud of the men and women in Wisconsin's National Guard who
have mobilized throughout our nation's history in support of overseas
combat operations in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, during both world
wars, the Spanish-American War, and the Civil War and are now engaged
in their longest ever domestic mobilization, to combat COVID-19.
They are a key part of our communities and to efforts to protect and
defend our nation.
Our amendment to this bill simply attempts to help ensure that the VA
take every opportunity to ensure that new veterans who are leaving or
about to transition from active duty are aware of the VA benefits they
may be eligible for, including critical health care services.
Unfortunately, too many vets leave the military without knowing what
they are eligible for at the VA or do not have the documentation they
need to prove their eligibility. As a result, they can find themselves
missing out on critical benefits and services they need or trying to
navigate bureaucratic red tape, without success, to try and find the
right answers. These men and women answered the call to serve their
country and it is our responsibility to honor the debt our Nation owes
them for their service.
We can do better. And that must start with providing as much
information as early as possible to those who could be eligible for VA
benefits or services.
Our amendment requires the VA to inform new veterans of the medical
care and services for which they are eligible, including community
care; mental healthcare, care relating to military sexual trauma; and
any other information the Secretary deems appropriate.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying
bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R.
1836, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, which will expand
eligibility for post-9/11 G.I. Bill educational benefits to members of
the National Guard and the Reserves.
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, will 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.
Under current rules, service members need three years on active-duty
to be eligible for full Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, which include 36
months of in-state college tuition, a monthly living stipend and other
payouts.
Reaching that amount of time mobilized to active-duty is difficult
for guardsmen and reservists, and outdated and confusing eligibility
requirements means the difference of tens of thousands of dollars for
college for those individuals.
For example, the deployment of thousands of Guard troops to Capitol
Hill following the January 6 attack counted towards GI Bill
eligibility, because the mission was being paid for with federal funds.
However, troops mobilized for crowd control during racial equality
protests in Washington, D.C., last summer were not able to count that
time, because those missions weren't funded by federal dollars.
Some other riot response missions across the nation were funded by
federal funds, and did count towards the education benefits.
Similarly, tens of thousands of Guard and Reserve troops have been
mobilized for pandemic response missions over the last two years, but
their eligibility varies depending on the specific orders and units
involved.
For years, members of the National Guard and Reserve Components have
been disadvantaged and overlooked in the accumulation of their
education benefits while performing the same or similar service as
their Active-Duty counterparts.
Time and time again, through natural disasters, global pandemics, and
threats to our democracy, our National Guard and Reserve members have
answered the call to serve.
But despite taking on the same risks and doing the same jobs as their
active-duty counterparts, these service members don't have access to
the same benefits.
This has become much clearer and more severe during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Members of the National Guard and Reserve Component have risked their
lives on the front lines of this pandemic, administering aid and
protecting the Capitol on training status.
Our brave men and women continue to selflessly answer our nation's
call and are long overdue the benefits befitting their service.
The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021 will ensure the men
and women of the National Guard are entitled to GI Bill education
benefits when activated for service either for training or for
operational needs of our country, just like their Active- Duty
counterparts.
I want to thank all of our armed serviceman and women for their
selfless dedication to our protection every day.
In my home state of Texas, the National Guard has been deployed time
and time again to assist citizens and save lives during numerous
natural disasters, including the Winter
[[Page H59]]
Freeze of last February and the tragic Hurricane Harvey.
The Texas National Guard is host to nearly 21,000 troops, including
its army and air components.
The National Guard is a diverse force that includes all ethnicities:
White: 69 percent;
Black: 15 percent;
Hispanic: 10 percent;
Asian: 3 percent;
Male: 83.1 percent;
Female: 16.9 percent
This bill, in which we further the benefits and recognition that our
servicemen and women deserve, also reminds us that we have an
overriding duty to protect the health and dignity of those serving
today.
For this reason, I would like to discuss the crisis that our National
Guardsmen and Guardswomen have been thrust into at the Texas Governor's
direction on our Southern Border.
In March 2021, the Texas Governor launched the ill-fated and
ineffective Operation Lone Star which he claimed was necessary to stem
a so-called invasion of migrants at Texas' southern border.
As of November 2021, more than 10,000 Texas National Guardsmen have
been deployed to the southern border in pursuit of this folly.
According to published media accounts, National Guard members who
have been activated for Operation Lone Star are experiencing habitual
pay delays and poor working conditions during the border mission,
including being exposed to COVID-19, and many are missing the equipment
necessary for safety and mission success.
In addition, the National Guard has faced austere conditions and
limited resources, leading to unsanitary conditions such as the lack of
portable restrooms.
Rather than addressing these conditions, just last week the Texas
Governor filed a frivolous lawsuit in federal court challenging the
authority of President Biden, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
Forces to require that members of the National Guard be vaccinated
against COVID-19.
There is no merit to this nuisance law suit as demonstrated by the
summary rejection of similar arguments raised by neighboring Oklahoma
Governor Stitt.
The Texas Governor's failure to comply with the policies intended to
reduce the spread of COVID-19 among the Armed Forces will mean that
there will be less military personnel available national disasters that
have struck Texas in recent years, such as the winter freeze of last
year.
This will also mean that there are fewer personnel to respond to any
attacks on the homeland.
Encouraged by the Texas Governor's obstinacy, about 40 percent of the
members of the Texas Army National Guard are refusing to get
vaccinated, which puts at risk their colleagues and the persons they
are sworn to defend and protect.
National Guardsmen and Guardswomen deployed in this disastrous
mission at the Texas Governor's insistence face the deadly spread of
COVID-19, unsanitary conditions, lack of pay, and a lack of a certain
future.
These uniformed men and women deserve better, and some of them,
seeing no alternative to their present reality, have decided to end it
all.
Five National guard soldiers have shot and killed themselves in the
past three months, and one more survived a suicide attempt.
One of these men, private first class Joshua R. Cortez, was preparing
to accept a ``lifetime job'' with one of the nation's biggest health
insurance companies in late October last year, but the Texas National
Guard had other ideas.
Operation Lone Star required involuntary activations to meet the
Texas Governor's troop quotas, and Cortez was one of the soldiers
tapped to go on state active duty orders--with no idea how long the
mission would last.
In November, the 21-year-old mechanic requested a hardship release
from the mission: ``I've been waiting for this job and I'm on my way to
getting hired . . . I missed my first opportunity in September when I
had to go on the flood mission in Louisiana. . . . I can not miss this
opportunity because it is my last opportunity for this lifetime job.''
Cortez's company commander recommended approval. But his battalion
commander and brigade commander disapproved.
Within 36 hours of his request being denied, Cortez drove to a
parking lot in northwest San Antonio and shot himself in the head.
Three other soldiers tied to Operation Lone Star have died by
suicide, including:
Sgt. Jose L. De Hoyos was found dead in Laredo, Texas, on Oct. 26. He
was a member of the 949th Brigade Support Battalion's headquarters
company.
1st Sgt. John ``Kenny'' Crutcher died Nov. 12, as time ran out on his
temporary hardship waiver. He was the top NCO for B Company, 3rd
Battalion, 144th Infantry.
1st Lt. Charles Williams, a platoon leader in Crutcher's company,
died at home overnight Dec. 17 while on pass.
The string of suicides raises urgent questions about the mission's
conditions and purpose, as well as the way it's organized and manned
through indefinite involuntary call-ups.
This is an excellent and common-sense bill that will enhance the
benefits of our servicemen and women.
We must also act to ensure that our servicemen and women are
protected from COVID-19, both for their own safety and the safety of
our nation.
When called to action, the National Guard performs the name duties as
our active duty forces, oftentimes in extraordinarily difficult
situations.
Although we cannot bring back the lives lost due to the Texas
Governor's misguided actions, we can remember the names of those we
have lost and work to ensure that we treat all members of our military
equally and with dignity and respect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Each further amendment printed in part A of House Report 117-225
shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be
withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to
a demand for a division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Ross
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
1 printed in part A of House Report 117-225.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 4. PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO VETERANS DURING
TRANSITION TO CIVILIAN LIFE.
(a) Requirement.--In providing information to new veterans
regarding benefits administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, the Secretary shall ensure that the information
includes the following:
(1) A description of the medical care and services for
which the veteran will be eligible under chapter 17 of title
38, United States Code, including with respect to--
(A) community care under section 1703 of such title;
(B) mental health care, including how to access the
Veterans Crisis Line established under section 1720F(h) of
such title; and
(C) care relating to military sexual trauma (as defined in
section 1166 of such title).
(2) Any other information that the Secretary determines
appropriate, including information about the services and
benefits to which the veteran may be entitled.
(b) Manner.--The Secretary shall provide the information
under subsection (a) in a manner that promotes the
destigmatization of mental health care and encourages
veterans to reach out for support.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 860, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for my bipartisan
amendment, which will require the VA to notify transitioning
servicemembers of the services for which they are personally eligible.
Notification must include information about mental healthcare,
community care under the MISSION Act, and care related to military
sexual trauma.
Troubling reports have found that many transitioning veterans are not
aware of the health benefits available to them through the VA. A recent
Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General report found that
the DOD has failed to provide proper mental health screening and care
for transitioning veterans; in part, because so many veterans do not
understand what care is available to them.
The transition away from active service can be a tumultuous time
during which many new veterans face mental health issues. Left
unaddressed, these issues can be debilitating and deadly.
My father served as a psychiatrist in the Air Force during the
Vietnam era. He witnessed firsthand the need for proper and timely
mental healthcare among veterans. But mental health resources at the VA
can only be helpful to those who know of their existence.
[[Page H60]]
We owe a debt of gratitude to our veterans, and they deserve gold-
standard and seamless access to the benefits that they have earned.
My amendment will help new veterans understand and access the care to
which they are entitled.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon, Congressman
Bowman, and Congresswoman Moore for joining me in offering this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the amendment,
although I am not opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BOST. 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.
{time} 1400
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.
Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Takano), the chairman of Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Ross, Gonzalez-
Colon, Moore, and Bowman amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, there is no way better way to connect veterans with
medical care and services than first making sure that they are aware of
the care that they have earned with their service.
The Ross amendment makes sure that VA informs our veterans of this
care they have earned just as they are entering civilian life.
The first months are crucial in a veteran's transition out of the
military, and the Ross amendment ensures that veterans are aware of
what kind of care and support they can access and how they can access
it.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the Ross amendment.
Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, this amendment will help new veterans
understand the specific benefits that they have and that they have
earned through their service. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
my amendment, the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Houlahan). Pursuant to House Resolution
860, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Ross).
The amendment was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moore of Alabama
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
2 printed in part A of House Report 117-225.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE TO MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD WHO
PERFORM CERTAIN FULL-TIME DUTY.
(a) In General.--Section 3301(1)(C)(ii) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(not including training)'' after ``title
32''; and
(2) by striking ``for the purpose of responding to a
national emergency declared by the President and supported by
Federal funds''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2022.
SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENTS OF IRRRL RATE.
Subparagraph (E) of the loan fee table under section
3729(b)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(E)(i) Interest rate reduction refinancing 0.85 0.85 NA
loan (closed on or after July 1, 2022, and
before August 8, 2022)........................
(ii) Interest rate reduction refinancing loan 0.50 0.50 NA''.
(closed during a period not covered by clause
(i))..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 860, the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to replace the
underlying bill with the text of my bill, H.R. 2047.
This amendment would provide additional eligibility for members of
the National Guard who are called up on Federal Active-Duty orders for
service other than for training.
As a former member of the National Guard, I know all too well the
challenges that they face. The National Guard has transitioned in
recent years from a reserve force for domestic missions to a full-time
force operating around the globe.
My amendment would remove the Presidential declaration requirement
that has restricted benefits for so many members of the National Guard
in the past. It would make it so that members of the National Guard
would receive eligibility for the time spent under any Federal Active-
Duty orders that are not for training.
This would provide eligibility for Federal benefits to those who
support COVID-19 relief, respond to natural disasters, and protect our
southern border.
I agree with Chairman Levin that we must take a hard look at duty
status reform and the expansion of benefits afforded to the National
Guard and the Reserve component while operating under Federal Active-
Duty orders.
My amendment would make it clear that if you are called up on Federal
orders for something other than training, you should receive
eligibility for GI Bill benefits.
However, I am concerned that the expansion proposed in his bill is a
little too broad. We should allow the DOD to complete their efforts to
better align benefits to certain duty statuses before we move forward
with such a broad expansion. I think General Bergman hit on that point
today, that we need to give them time to work through the process.
An expansion of every day in uniform could cost over $2 billion over
the next
[[Page H61]]
10 years in mandatory benefits, where my expansion is only $16 million.
We talked about inflation in the hearing today. We have seen the
highest increase in 40 years. I think we need to try to get a handle on
this kind of runaway spending. I think my approach is more surgical, if
you will. It allows the benefits to our Guard and servicemembers
without just painting a broad brush for everyone in uniform.
My amendment ensures that members of the National Guard that are
called to action receive access to educational programs, like all other
veterans, while doing so in a fiscally responsible manner.
Finally, I would like to thank Ranking Member Bost and all his staff
for their support on this amendment.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to highlight
for the sponsor of this amendment, Representative Moore, and all
Members, just how severely this amendment would harm National Guard and
reservists from their States and districts.
Congressman Moore represents the great State of Alabama. Despite
being the 24th most populous State in the Union, Alabama has the 12th
largest National Guard in the Nation by number of servicemembers. Among
the units in the Alabama National Guard that the Moore amendment would
shortchange by eliminating training days--and I say training days are
also readiness days--is the Alabama 20th Special Forces Group.
Members from this group, and units like it, must complete roughly 2
full years of training, from basic training to completion of the
arduous and highly competitive Special Forces Qualification Course,
just to be qualified as Special Forces Green Berets.
In order to maintain a high level of readiness and be ready to deploy
when our Nation calls on them, these servicemembers must constantly
attend additional training to maintain certifications and proficiencies
critical to their jobs as reservists.
To be clear, this training is conducted at Active-Duty schools right
alongside their Active-Duty counterparts, yet guard and reservists
don't receive the same credit for the days they are in uniform, despite
maintaining the exact same readiness requirements.
Readiness matters. Consider this: In 2013, reservists spent 87,000
days on title 32 orders, which is how the Reserve Force assists with
floods, hurricanes, and other significant events. However, in 2021,
that number had grown to 9.5 million days.
This amendment would continue to uphold this unequal policy and
prevent members of the Alabama 20th Group from accruing days of service
for training. Training is another word for readiness.
Some States and servicemembers from units like Alabama's 20th Group
carry a heavier burden, but this example is not unique to Alabama. All
across the country, Guard and Reserve members from every State put
their civilian lives on hold in defense of our Nation. They give much
of themselves, their sweat, blood, and sometimes even the ultimate
sacrifice in service. Whether during training or deployment, they
deserve the same benefits for their days in service. They have earned
it.
Finally, I would also note that the Moore amendment uses the same
IRRRL rate change found in H.R. 1836, which we agree is a fair update
to the IRRRL program.
Let's be clear: A vote for this amendment is a direct statement to
our Guard and Reserve servicemembers that you don't think their days in
service are equal to those of their Active Duty counterparts.
Representative Moore served in the National Guard, and I thank and
commend him for that service. Now, I know that he is a humble man, like
most of our servicemembers, but I think his days in service should be
honored and given their due credit. I know he may have participated in
ROTC, but if his education wasn't fully paid for by that program, then
I think he should be given credit for his National Guard service for GI
Bill eligibility.
Madam Speaker, I urge Representative Moore to reconsider his
submission of this amendment, and I urge all Members to oppose the
Moore amendment.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), the ranking member of the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. BOST. 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.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 1\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, let me just say there is nothing commonsense about
this amendment. Injustice to our reservists and our Guard units is not
common sense. Unfairness to our guard and reservists is not common
sense.
To say that this is a fiscal burden to our Nation, who depends on our
guard and reservists in natural disasters and who our Nation will rely
on even more in the future, that is not common sense.
Madam Speaker, it is time to make every day of readiness training
that our reservists and our Guard unit members perform count toward
their GI Bill eligibility.
The GI Bill, as Speaker Pelosi has said, did amazing things for this
Nation in the post-World War II era. That same amazing contribution of
our reservists and our guardsmen will continue.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote against this amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 860, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Moore).
[[Page H62]]
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appear to have it.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 198,
nays 225, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 4]
YEAS--198
Aderholt
Allen
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McHenry
McKinley
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
NAYS--225
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amodei
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roy
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Cartwright
Cheney
Cline
Higgins (LA)
McClintock
Palmer
Rogers (AL)
Webster (FL)
Williams (TX)
{time} 1451
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Messrs. BEYER, CORREA, DAVID
SCOTT of Georgia, SCHIFF, CONNOLLY, and ROY changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. FEENSTRA, CAWTHORN, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, and Mr.
FITZPATRICK changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Adams (Ross)
Auchincloss (Clark (MA))
Barragan (Beyer)
Bass (Cicilline)
Bera (Kilmer)
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Bonamici (Kuster)
Boyle, Brendan F. (Swalwell)
Brooks (Moore (AL))
Brownley (Kuster)
Bush (Bowman)
Butterfield (Kildee)
Cardenas (Soto)
Casten (Underwood)
Chu (Clark (MA))
Cohen (Beyer)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
Crawford (Stewart)
Crist (Soto)
Cuellar (Jackson Lee)
DeFazio (Brown (MD))
DelBene (Kilmer)
DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
DeSaulnier (Beyer)
Doggett (Raskin)
Doyle, Michael F. (Connolly)
Evans (Mfume)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gaetz (Boebert)
Garamendi (Sherman)
Gohmert (Weber (TX))
Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Grothman (Fitzgerald)
Hagedorn (Carl)
Herrera Beutler (Moore (UT))
Hudson (McHenry)
Jacobs (NY) (Garbarino)
Jayapal (Raskin)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kahele (Case)
Katko (Meijer)
Kim (CA) (Steel)
Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
Kind (Connolly)
Kinzinger (Meijer)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lamborn (McHenry)
Langevin (Lynch)
Lawson (FL) (Soto)
Lee (CA) (Khanna)
Leger Fernandez (Clark (MA))
Lieu (Beyer)
Lofgren (Jeffries)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Mace (Timmons)
Maloney, Sean Patrick (Jeffries)
Matsui (Thompson (CA))
McCaul (Ellzey)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Kuster)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Beyer)
Nadler (Pallone)
Napolitano (Correa)
Ocasio-Cortez (Bowman)
Panetta (Kildee)
Payne (Pallone)
Pingree (Cicilline)
Pocan (Raskin)
Porter (Wexton)
Pressley (Garcia (IL))
Price (NC) (Connolly)
Reschenthaler (Armstrong)
Roybal-Allard (Correa)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Ruppersberger (Trone)
Rush (Kaptur)
Salazar (Gimenez)
Schrier (Spanberger)
Sires (Pallone)
Smucker (Joyce (PA))
Speier (Escobar)
Stansbury (Jacobs (CA))
Stanton (Levin (CA))
Suozzi (Raskin)
Titus (Connolly)
Tlaib (Khanna)
Torres (NY) (Cicilline)
Vela (Correa)
Waltz (Mast)
Waters (Takano)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Welch (McGovern)
Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question is ordered on the
bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Motion to Recommit
Mr. Fitzgerald of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill H.R.
1836 to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Fitzgerald is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 4. CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR A MEMBER OF THE
ARMED FORCES GRANTED A GENERAL DISCHARGE UNDER
HONORABLE CONDITIONS ON THE SOLE BASIS THAT
SUCH MEMBER FAILED TO OBEY A LAWFUL ORDER TO
RECEIVE A VACCINE FOR COVID-19.
(a) All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance.--Section
3011(a)(3)(B) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``an honorable discharge;'' and inserting
an em dash; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following new clauses:
``(i) an honorable discharge; or
``(ii) a general discharge under honorable conditions on
the sole basis that the individual failed to obey a lawful
order to receive a vaccine for COVID-19;''.
[[Page H63]]
(b) Post-9/11 Educational Assistance.--Section 3311(c) of
such title is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) A general discharge under honorable conditions on the
sole basis that the individual failed to obey a lawful order
to receive a vaccine for COVID-19.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 204,
nays 219, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 5]
YEAS--204
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
NAYS--219
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Cartwright
Cheney
Cline
Higgins (LA)
McClintock
Palmer
Rogers (AL)
Webster (FL)
Williams (TX)
{time} 1518
Mr. O'HALLERAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CAWTHORN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Adams (Ross)
Auchincloss (Clark (MA))
Barragan (Beyer)
Bass (Cicilline)
Bera (Kilmer)
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Bonamici (Kuster)
Boyle, Brendan F. (Swalwell)
Brooks (Moore (AL))
Brownley (Kuster)
Bush (Bowman)
Butterfield (Kildee)
Cardenas (Soto)
Casten (Underwood)
Chu (Clark (MA))
Cohen (Beyer)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
Crawford (Stewart)
Crist (Soto)
Cuellar (Jackson Lee)
DeFazio (Brown (MD))
DelBene (Kilmer)
DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
DeSaulnier (Beyer)
Doggett (Raskin)
Doyle, Michael F. (Connolly)
Evans (Mfume)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gaetz (Boebert)
Garamendi (Sherman)
Gohmert (Weber (TX))
Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Grothman (Fitzgerald)
Hagedorn (Carl)
Herrera Beutler (Moore (UT))
Hudson (McHenry)
Jacobs (NY) (Garbarino)
Jayapal (Raskin)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kahele (Case)
Katko (Meijer)
Kim (CA) (Steel)
Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
Kind (Connolly)
Kinzinger (Meijer)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lamborn (McHenry)
Langevin (Lynch)
Lawson (FL) (Soto)
Lee (CA) (Khanna)
Leger Fernandez (Clark (MA))
Lieu (Beyer)
Lofgren (Jeffries)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Mace (Timmons)
Maloney, Sean Patrick (Jeffries)
Matsui (Thompson (CA))
McCaul (Ellzey)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Kuster)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Beyer)
Nadler (Pallone)
Napolitano (Correa)
Ocasio-Cortez (Bowman)
Panetta (Kildee)
Payne (Pallone)
Pingree (Cicilline)
Pocan (Raskin)
Porter (Wexton)
Pressley (Garcia (IL))
Price (NC) (Connolly)
Reschenthaler (Armstrong)
Roybal-Allard (Correa)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Ruppersberger (Trone)
Rush (Kaptur)
Salazar (Gimenez)
Schrier (Spanberger)
Sires (Pallone)
Smucker (Joyce (PA))
Speier (Escobar)
Stansbury (Jacobs (CA))
Stanton (Levin (CA))
Suozzi (Raskin)
Titus (Connolly)
Tlaib (Khanna)
Torres (NY) (Cicilline)
Vela (Correa)
Waltz (Mast)
Waters (Takano)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Welch (McGovern)
Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOST. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 287,
nays 135, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 6]
YEAS--287
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amodei
Auchincloss
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bice (OK)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bucshon
Burgess
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Cammack
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carey
Carl
Carson
Carter (LA)
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
[[Page H64]]
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Dunn
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gimenez
Gohmert
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Guest
Harder (CA)
Hartzler
Hayes
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jacobs (NY)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lucas
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Malliotakis
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Meuser
Mfume
Moolenaar
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Salazar
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spartz
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stauber
Steel
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wagner
Walorski
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yarmuth
Zeldin
NAYS--135
Aderholt
Allen
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Budd
Burchett
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cloud
Clyde
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Donalds
Duncan
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gallagher
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Hice (GA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Issa
Jackson
Johnson (LA)
Jordan
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Norman
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Scalise
Schweikert
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Womack
Young
NOT VOTING--10
Buck
Cartwright
Cheney
Cline
Higgins (LA)
McClintock
Palmer
Rogers (AL)
Webster (FL)
Williams (TX)
{time} 1620
Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mrs. WAGNER, and Messrs. JOHNSON of South Dakota and
SMUCKER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Adams (Ross)
Auchincloss (Clark (MA))
Barragan (Beyer)
Bass (Cicilline)
Bera (Kilmer)
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Bonamici (Kuster)
Boyle, Brendan F. (Swalwell)
Brooks (Moore (AL))
Brownley (Kuster)
Bush (Bowman)
Butterfield (Kildee)
Cardenas (Soto)
Casten (Underwood)
Chu (Clark (MA))
Cohen (Beyer)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
Crawford (Stewart)
Crist (Soto)
Cuellar (Jackson Lee)
DeFazio (Brown (MD))
DelBene (Kilmer)
DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
DeSaulnier (Beyer)
Doggett (Raskin)
Doyle, Michael F. (Connolly)
Evans (Mfume)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gaetz (Boebert)
Garamendi (Sherman)
Gohmert (Weber (TX))
Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Grothman (Fitzgerald)
Hagedorn (Carl)
Herrera Beutler (Moore (UT))
Hudson (McHenry)
Jacobs (NY) (Garbarino)
Jayapal (Raskin)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kahele (Case)
Katko (Meijer)
Kim (CA) (Steel)
Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
Kind (Connolly)
Kinzinger (Meijer)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lamborn (McHenry)
Langevin (Lynch)
Lawson (FL) (Soto)
Lee (CA) (Khanna)
Leger Fernandez (Clark (MA))
Lieu (Beyer)
Lofgren (Jeffries)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Mace (Timmons)
Maloney, Sean Patrick (Jeffries)
Matsui (Thompson (CA))
McCaul (Ellzey)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Kuster)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Beyer)
Nadler (Pallone)
Napolitano (Correa)
Ocasio-Cortez (Bowman)
Panetta (Kildee)
Payne (Pallone)
Pingree (Cicilline)
Pocan (Raskin)
Porter (Wexton)
Pressley (Garcia (IL))
Price (NC) (Connolly)
Reschenthaler (Armstrong)
Roybal-Allard (Correa)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Ruppersberger (Trone)
Rush (Kaptur)
Salazar (Gimenez)
Schrier (Spanberger)
Sires (Pallone)
Smucker (Joyce (PA))
Speier (Escobar)
Stansbury (Jacobs (CA))
Stanton (Levin (CA))
Suozzi (Raskin)
Titus (Connolly)
Tlaib (Khanna)
Torres (NY) (Cicilline)
Vela (Correa)
Waltz (Mast)
Waters (Takano)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Welch (McGovern)
Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)
____________________