Mike Bost

Mr. BOST

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, to be clear, the Veterans' Affairs Committee had numerous opportunities in the last year to do that work that I had just discussed, and I don't know why the chairman chose not to. I have heard him say over the last week that it is okay we didn't have a hearing on the EVEST Act in this Congress because the bill has been in the public domain. Now, I am not sure what that statement really means because there have been almost 400 bills introduced in this Congress that have been referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I guess that each of those are in the public domain. But I don't think any of them are ready for a vote here on the House floor. It is not too much to ask that we seek the input from stakeholders before voting on a bill to become law. That is actually the least we can do. I don't think our constituents sent us here to do anything less than that. During last week's Rules Committee, Congresswoman Torres, a member of Chairman Takano's own party, seemed to agree with me by lamenting the lack of process this bill has received this Congress. With all due respect to the Congresswoman, I doubt that we agree on much, but we do agree on this, though. Having this bill go through a much more robust process this Congress could have resulted in a much better product for our veterans. Finally, I want to note that the bill will also cost taxpayers $3.1 billion in new discretionary spending. Not a penny of that $3.1 billion is offset. Implementing this bill will certainly require additional funding above the nearly $100 billion already appropriated for the VA healthcare system. We cannot keep saddling our children and grandchildren with billions of dollars more debt. We have to do better than this. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that I understand why my colleagues will likely vote for this bill. I wish I could vote for this bill, as well. Leaving the military was not easy. It can leave new veterans feeling adrift and alone. I have been there. But that is why I supported efforts during the Trump administration to improve the Transition Assistance Program and increase the VA's outreach to separating servicemembers during their first year out of uniform. I want separating servicemembers who need additional support to be able to get it and the help they need in a seamless manner. And I am not at all confident that this bill will accomplish that goal without harming services to other veterans and adding to the national debt. As a result, I must oppose this bill today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to the EVEST Act has been in the public domain, I think it is very important to note, as I mentioned earlier, the last Congress is not the same as this Congress. We have more than 70 Members who are new Members of Congress, half of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is new, we have a different President, and we have a different secretary. Introducing a bill is not the same as conducting a hearing. You can't get input from the stakeholders. You can't engage in meaningful debate in the public domain. This reflects zero input from the VA, meaning we have no idea whether it is flexible, whether it is workable, whether it is disruptive to the VA system. We don't know. And even the Biden administration agrees that more work is needed before this bill should become law. And the previous speaker, Mr. Speaker, spoke about the person that didn't know what was available to them through the VA. If you were my age as a veteran it is true that you could not know because you got a quick class and the TAP program. And I have mentioned on this floor before that that is a tap on the back and see you later. But today's TAP program is a course that you take, and you are bound to understand separation from your active service and what VA benefits are available to you. And not only that, the Trump administration in 2018 put an administrative order out that you are then contacted after separation at 90, 180, and 360 days out to be notified of what benefits are available to you in the VA. We are doing that. This instead enrolls members without their consent, and then they are enrolled. And the only option they have is to be notified later how maybe they can get out of being enrolled. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In my debate and the things that I brought up here today, I never said that VSOs didn't have input. I did say the VA did not come to the committee, and we did not have the proper hearings. If the VA is in support of this bill, I would request that the VA send the documentation saying how they are in support of this bill. Their input would be vitally important. Whether it is a Republican or Democrat administration, the VA is vitally important to make sure they provide services to our constituents and to our veterans. No one on this floor cares more about veterans than the people who serve on this committee--I can guarantee you that--whether it is the chairman or myself. But we have to make sure what we are providing does what it is we are trying to do. It was mentioned earlier that they believe that this would help reduce suicide among transitioning servicemembers. I care deeply about this. This is something that both I and the chairman have worked on and will continue to work on. The majority of veterans who die of suicide have not had meaningful engagement with the VA. They may have been enrolled in the VA, but they haven't gotten the VA care that they need. This bill would add names of eligible separating servicemembers from the VA and put them on the rolls, but it doesn't do the outreach that is necessary to possibly prevent them from that ultimate decision to end their lives. Those are the type of things we are working on and will continue to work on. This is not the answer to that. There are a lot of other concerns that I have expressed and will continue to express. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not do our job on this bill. We did not consider this bill in a legislative hearing. We did not seek input from stakeholders or the VA. We did not make certain that automatically enrolling newly separated servicemembers into the VA healthcare system would not impede access for existing employees or cause funding crises. And those things are very, very real. Even the Biden OMB has admitted that there are going to be challenges with implementing this bill. If you look at the numbers--and I am going to add this into what should be mentioned--19.1 million veterans is what we have; 9 million veterans are enrolled; 7 million have used access to the VA. If we start and do it this way without letting veterans make decisions on their own, it can overwhelm the VA. That is what has been mentioned by OMB. Veterans are already facing tough challenges. So is the VA health system that they can go to. But we don't need to add any more to their plates without at least hearing how it is going to affect the services that are already being provided to our veterans. That is why, just so you know, I am offering a motion to recommit this morning. My motion to recommit, if adopted, would send this bill back to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to consider an amendment to H.R. 4673 that would delay implementation until 30 days after the VA has certified that it can implement, without disruption, services to veterans or requiring additional funds. Mr. Speaker, I don't see how those who support this bill, despite its problems and the Biden administration's recognition that it may cause challenges, can object to this amendment. The very least we can do for the millions of veterans who are already enrolled in VA care and counting on VA services is to ensure--before this bill goes into effect--that it won't cause undue harm to them. I have already drafted an amendment that would accomplish that goal. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the four en bloc amendments are offered by Congressman Delgado, Congresswoman Hayes, and Congresswoman Tlaib. I thank them for their work. I remain opposed to the underlying bill, and I explained why in detail over the last debate. One of the reasons I was opposed to it is because the Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not do our job before bringing this bill to the floor. We did not hold hearings on the bill or seek input from stakeholders. And importantly, we did not get assurance from the VA that the bill could be implemented without negative impact to services. In fact, shortly before this bill hit the Rules Committee, the Biden administration did release the statement that we talked about earlier. That statement, remember, says that there are challenges in implementing this bill. Now, I wish we could have done that work in the VA Committee before considering the bill on the floor. If there are challenges, we need to know about them, and we need to be able to address them to make sure that no veteran is harmed by this bill. Nevertheless, here we are. These en bloc amendments will help get some of the information we should have gotten before passing the bill. They will help us stay informed on how the bill is working and the impact it is having on veterans and on the VA healthcare system after the fact. For example, one of Congressman Delgado's amendments would require GAO to study the best methods for VA to notify newly separated servicemembers of their enrollment status. His second amendment would require VA to consider texting newly separated servicemembers to inform them of their enrollment status and their ability to disenroll. If a veteran chooses to disenroll, Congresswoman Hayes' amendment would require VA to provide them with information on how to enroll at a later date if they change their mind down the line. Finally, Congresswoman Tlaib's amendment would require VA to report to Congress on the implementation of this bill not later than 1 year after enactment. That would allow us to course-correct, as needed, if the bill is causing problems at least 1 year out. Now, I feel like a broken record, but this is information we should have had already. Nevertheless, it is better late than never. That is why I will be in support of that amendment alongside the amendments for Delgado and Hayes. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Escobar's amendment would expand automatic enrollment to servicemembers who left the military 90 days before this bill is enacted. There are already many existing mechanisms for separating servicemembers to connect with the VA if that is something they need and want. As I explained during the general debate, I have a number of serious concerns with the underlying bill. The Biden administration agrees that there are challenges. I think that is an understatement. Regardless, we should not be further complicating an already difficult implementation by expanding it even more. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOST

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

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

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

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. 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.

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

Mr. BOST. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.