[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)

     

                          ____________________