Andrew Ogles

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, if this administration supported Israel as much as it has worked to preserve Hamas, this war would be over. Of course, it doesn't. Rather than signal its support for Hamas' extermination and Israel's right to defend itself, Joe Biden now wants to keep thousands of Hamas sympathizers in the United States. On February 14, 2024, perhaps chosen to demonstrate the administration's relative affinity for the so-called Palestinian cause, Joe Biden announced he was extending Deferred Enforced Departure for Palestinians, allowing up to 6,000 Palestinians to stay in our country through August 13, 2025. Think about that: Hamas has just been organized, and they attacked, and they raped, and they killed, and what does this administration do? It defends Hamas. It allows Palestinian sympathizers to stay in our country. Again, Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. This is the United States of America. It is time to secure our border. We get to decide who comes in and, by George, we get to decide who has to leave. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, environmental justice is a concept closely intertwined with DEI principles. Rather than seeking to use Federal resources to mitigate environmental harms as effectively and efficiently as possible, advocates of environmental justice want resources allocated based on their misguided notion of equity for marginalized communities. DHS owes all Americans fair treatment regardless of race, ethnicity, or any other factor. It also owes it to taxpayers to dedicate its resources to where they can provide the most benefit. Whatever some critical theory professor might claim, we all know that the weather is not racist. A tornado will not check the race of a homeowner before damaging a house. If the temperature reaches 100 degrees in your town, it will be 100 degrees for everyone. The existing environmental justice strategy for 2021 through 2025 sets such goals as: expand department-wide awareness of environmental justice considerations that might result from its programs, policies, and activities; further the integration of environmental justice principles into DHS lines of business, prominently including mitigation, adaptation, and resilience; strengthen outreach to communities and stakeholders. It goes on and on and on. It doesn't say anything about providing resources in the case of a catastrophic event. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's perspective. Prior to being in Congress, I was a county executive. One of my departments was emergency services, emergency management, county fire. We also had a county hospital and a county health department. What I can say is, during my tenure, I witnessed tragedies, tornadoes, fires, and in each case, those first responders, those in charge of deploying resources did so without concern for race, color, creed. They responded to a disaster. The idea that resources would be diverted for justice, I can speak for the men and women on the front lines, they don't see by way of color; they see people, their friends, their neighbors in need, and I trust they will do the right thing. There are procedures and mechanisms in place if there is truly an injustice that can be resolved. Mr. Chair, this is a good amendment. At a time of burdening debt, we have got to start cutting. This is wasteful. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits the Secretary of Defense from requiring individuals to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on any military installation in the United States. I was proud to introduce a similar amendment last year, and I am happy to do so again. Policies involving mandatory mask implementation are not about science or safety but control. Tom Jefferson, not to be confused with Thomas Jefferson, a leading epidemiologist who coauthored what The New York Times Opinion section called: ``The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illness, including COVID-19'' found that there was no evidence that masks made a difference. It found that wearing a mask in public places probably makes little or no difference in the number of infections, and Dr. Fauci has recently admitted as much. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his words. Again, to my colleague's point, this really is about following the science and the lessons we have learned that this information, the requirement, the mandatory implementation of mask wearing, which was not presented honestly to the American people, has created distrust within the very institutions that we should trust when such said things happen. That being said, I think this is important to lay the groundwork and the framework that you can't just mandate masks because you feel that you have to do something. Fauci has acknowledged that he was winging it, that the 6-foot margin was made up. We now know the efficacy of masks didn't work, and, yes, obviously not wearing a mask could or could not have an impact. The efficacy studies were on the masks themselves, on N95 masks. This isn't about not wearing a mask; this is about the fact that N95 masks did not work against COVID. We should not have a mandatory mask allowance for our military because of control. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, again, I will just emphasize this amendment is based off of what we now know about COVID. We know the masks didn't work. There is no need for the Secretary of Defense to urge or mandate our military to wear masks on military installations. This is about freedom. This is about liberty. This is about science. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, Eurosatory is France's biggest defense exposition, and it is also the largest international expo for land and air-land defense and security. If it attracts the attendance it did in 2022, over 60,000 professional visitors and over 250 official delegations from 96 countries will be represented. More than 70 Israeli companies were scheduled to participate in this year's expo, including large Israeli defense firms like Israel Aerospace Industries and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, which worked together to make Iron Dome, and which have extensive partnerships with American defense firms. Another would-be participant, Elbit Systems, has an American subsidiary that has provided our military with aviator integrated helmets and night vision equipment. Events like Eurosatory are especially beneficial to smaller Israeli firms that benefit from the massive exposure provided. However, just last week, the event organizers announced that at the request of French authorities, Israeli firms were no longer welcome. The French Armed Forces Ministry said that conditions are no longer suited to welcome Israeli companies to the French show in a context where their president is calling for Israeli operations in Rafah to stop. The exposition, it is worth pointing out, welcomes firms from such bastions of humanitarianism like China, Pakistan, Turkiye, and Saudi Arabia. In China's case, it is richly ironic, given Beijing's ongoing genocide of the Uyghur Muslim population. It is predictable and unfortunate, Madam Chair, that we are unable to find any condemnation from the international community for such genocide. France is attempting to use the defense expo to bully Israel from protecting its own national security against some of the world's most heinous terrorists. It is widely immoral, and the French Government should apologize for embracing anti-Semitism. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his kind words. While American defense firms can continue to participate in this exhibition, maybe it would help if Federal agencies did not lend any U.S. support for France's outrageous behavior by participating as exhibitors. I don't think that would be something that France would want. I think U.S. participation is important. I also think that Israeli participation is important. Madam Chair, I ask for adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, when I think about my home State of Tennessee, and particularly Maury County, where I reside, we have Maury Regional Hospital, which is a community-owned nonprofit hospital. The VA is over an hour away if veterans live where I live. If they live further south, then the VA would be 1\1/2\ hours to 2 hours away. You have a locally owned, community-owned hospital that is a nonprofit that could provide these same services for our veterans, in our community, at their homes, where they are not having to travel 1 hour or 1\1/2\ hours to get services. This isn't about privatization. This is about prioritizing our veterans as they seek medical care for the service that they gave to their country. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, our veterans deserve the very best. It is our job to make sure they get it. That is why we are here during amendment debate to ensure that their needs continue to be met after their honorable and heroic service to the Nation. The underlying bill appropriates $320 million to the VA Housing Benefit Program Fund for administrative expenses to carry out the direct and guaranteed loan programs. As many of my colleagues know, the VA loan program guarantees loans made to servicemembers, veterans, reservists, and single surviving spouses for the purchase of homes. As veterans navigate the often cumbersome process of buying a home, they should have access to as much information as possible that will enable them to make the best financial decisions for their families. That is all this amendment does. If the VA accepted this recommendation, this amendment would ensure that $1 million of the total administrative expenses funds appropriated for the home loan program can be used for the development of improved information materials regarding the relative benefits of a VA home loan versus other types of housing loans for prospective buyers. This is simply a reflection of the fact that while a VA home loan is often the right choice for veterans who are trying to buy a home, the benefits may not be as clearly presented as they go through the process. If a VA loan would be better, then the veteran should know it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for her support. Again, all we are trying to do here is make sure that our veterans who have committed their lives and sacrificed for our country have information as they are trying to provide for their families. We have made promises, so this is promise made, promise kept. Madam Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of my amendment to prioritize increased support for our veterans suffering from post- traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. The numbers don't lie and bear repeating: Over 20 percent of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans have received a diagnosis of PTSD. Our older veterans are also impacted. Over 10 percent of Gulf war veterans and 15 percent of Vietnam veterans are similarly impacted by this cruel diagnosis. Unfortunately, current treatments do not always meet the needs of our veterans suffering from PTSD. Therefore, it is vital that the Department of Veterans Affairs invests more of its resources into any treatment that can improve the daily lives of our veterans. One of those treatments, SGB therapy, has been a cause championed by my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry). Madam Chair, I urge adoption of his amendment, as well. Caring for our soldiers is the top priority of this Congress, whether Democrat or Republican. This bill proudly carries the legacy of the great promise from President Lincoln that the United States would ``care for him who shall have borne the battle.'' Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for her support. PTSD is real. We have veterans suffering from it every single day. ``Promises Made, Promises Kept,'' that is our oath. Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, with many veterans in my family, this is something that is near and dear to my heart as I have seen members of my family having to drive long distances to receive care that otherwise could have been provided at home. I think of my Uncle Keith, who suffered and languished in the hospital when he could have passed peacefully with his family in his own home. VA's Medical Community Care Program allows veterans to get the care they need from community providers when the VA cannot do so. To complement the VA's efforts to provide medical services to chronically ill or disabled veterans through the community care program, this amendment ensures additional funding specifically for in-home healthcare. If a disabled veteran would like to receive medical services from a specific VA-approved community provider, and it would better facilitate that veteran's care than other medical services, it should be a top priority for the VA. This is plain and simple, common sense, providing the best healthcare for those who have sacrificed so much for this country, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague's comments, but I would disagree. This is simply about prioritizing our veterans. Again, I speak of my community. From where I live, the VA is over 1 hour away. Veterans can be served by their regional hospital, their community hospital. In rural Tennessee, most of the hospitals are community owned. This is about allowing veterans, who otherwise would be 1 hour to 3 hours away from care, to be served and serviced in their community. They are our veterans. They served the country. They have sacrificed, and they deserve the best. Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment. Promises made, promises kept. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, the underlying legislation provides similar funding to the Board of Veterans' Appeals as the fiscal year 2024 levels, approximately $267 million. This amendment recommends that the Board of Veterans' Appeals invest a very small portion of its appropriated funds to expedite and eliminate the casework backlog many of our veteran constituents have raised with a variety of Members of Congress. Again, this is simply to get rid of the backlog, to expedite those cases, as has been discussed here previously, so that our veterans can get care in a quick, expeditious manner. The committee report highlights sustained Member concerns regarding the ongoing delays veterans and their families face. Claims can currently take years to resolve. I am grateful to see that the committee, under Chairman Carter's leadership, has prioritized hiring needed staff to expedite processing. This amendment stands in support of the committee's work. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for her kind words. This is a report ordered by this legislation that directs the VA Secretary to produce a plan within 90 days that would eliminate the veteran case backlog within 3 years. It is a simple, commonsense approach of promises made, promises kept. Let's do that. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, coming from a family who has had family members serve in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the current war on terror, I have a near and dear place for all of our veterans in my heart. Specifically, I think about our World War II veterans and the veterans of the Korea and Vietnam conflicts. We owe it to those who risked life and limb to fight our Nation's battles, not only to have our deepest gratitude and sympathy, but to have their service recognized. They should know that we will stand with them through disability, illness, and old age. Again, to our veterans of World War II--there are not many of them left--Korea, and Vietnam, we need to make sure that they have access to excellent extended care. State extended-care facilities play a critical role in living up to that promise. State governments can place these facilities where they can best serve veteran communities. They allow our veterans to find high-quality nursing home care in their home States and near their communities so they can enjoy the camaraderie of being surrounded by other residents who know what it is to have served our country. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.