[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H1187-H1199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3967, HONORING OUR PROMISE TO
ADDRESS COMPREHENSIVE TOXICS ACT OF 2021
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 950 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 950
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3967) to
improve health care and benefits for veterans exposed to
toxic substances, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 117-33, modified by the amendment printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
or their respective designees; (2) the further amendments
described in section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments
en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4)
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this
resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as
part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this
resolution 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controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn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 division of the question.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time after debate
pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the
chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs or his designee
to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs or their
respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Sec. 4. All points of order against the further amendments
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ruiz). The gentleman from Massachusetts
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to state what
I think we are all feeling here today, and that is that our prayers are
with the Ukrainian people during this very perilous time.
I want to acknowledge the unity displayed in the yesterday afternoon
Rules Committee meeting when Democrats and Republicans came together
and with one voice condemned Vladimir Putin's blatant aggression, his
brutality, and the horrific actions the Russian state is now taking
against the people of Ukraine. It was almost as if there was no
distinction between political parties, and I think that is as it should
be because Vladimir Putin is not a genius, as some have said, and he is
not smart. He is a bully. He is a dictator.
I cochair the Human Rights Commission in Congress. We have done
countless hearings on his brutality against the Russian people. He
jails people he disagrees with, he kills people he disagrees with, and
he tortures people he disagrees with. He truly is an international
pariah.
After this latest action, he will be in the same category as Kim
Jong-un in North Korea.
So I just want to acknowledge the unity yesterday in the Rules
Committee, and I want my Republican friends to know how grateful I was
to have us all speak as one, especially during this difficult time. I
know it is important not just for the Ukrainian people but in Russia
that we are speaking as one because when people start to make excuses
for the Russian dictator or start to find ways to praise him, that gets
played on Russian TV and exaggerated in a way to indicate that somehow
we are not unified here when I believe that we are.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule,
House Resolution 950, providing for consideration of H.R. 3967, the
Honoring Our PACT Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes
a manager's amendment from Chairman Takano, provides 1 hour of general
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and makes in order 28
amendments. Lastly, the rule provides en bloc authority to Chairman
Takano and provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, today we are here to stand up for our veterans. For a
long time now, more and more have been speaking out--pleading--to be
taken seriously about the health impacts of the toxic chemicals they
dealt with while serving our country.
Many encountered water at military bases that were contaminated with
toxins, like harmful forever chemicals. They breathed in toxic fumes at
burn pits where jet fuel was used to incinerate things like paint,
petroleum, and plastic. And they were exposed with radiation when being
tasked to clean up after nuclear tests, without being given the proper
safety equipment.
These were duties we demanded of them. And as a result, many veterans
have been left to suffer with severe health challenges like cancers,
infertility, and respiratory conditions. Many more have died, and
others are just too sick to work.
{time} 1230
We aren't talking about just a few people here, Mr. Speaker. We are
talking about millions and millions of veterans who answered the call
to serve.
When they asked us to take care of them, for too long, they were just
brushed aside not just by Congress but also by the Department of
Defense, year after year after year.
They were told the science wasn't clear. And they were told that
providing the medical care that they needed and that they earned was
just too high.
Maybe some bureaucrat somewhere viewed denying veterans' disability
claims as an exercise in frugality. Maybe drowning them in paperwork
and setting an unreasonably high bar to get benefits just became the
norm. I don't know.
But that finally ends here and now, Mr. Speaker. The legislation
included in this rule will cut the burdensome red tape. It will
streamline the VA's review process, and it will get veterans exposed to
toxins the care that they so badly need.
H.R. 3967 tasks the VA with providing standardized trainings to
better handle these claims, and it requires them to conduct outreach
and provide resources to veterans exposed to deadly chemicals.
Thanks to this bill, no longer will the burden to prove toxic
exposure be placed on veterans themselves. And it is about damn time,
Mr. Speaker.
If this bill becomes law, it will help an estimated 1.4 million
veterans by fiscal year 2031. That is something that we should all be
proud of.
The Honoring our PACT Act recognizes that just thanking our veterans
for their service isn't enough. We must back up those words with
action.
Some may suggest that we should just maintain the status quo or make
the scope of this bill much, much smaller. Let me remind them that
Congress made the choice to spend trillions
[[Page H1188]]
of dollars over the last 20 years on sending our servicemembers into
harm's way. Those decisions came at a cost of more than $6 trillion.
That is trillion with a T.
How in the world, Mr. Speaker, can anyone justify spending trillions
of dollars on sending servicemembers to fight abroad just to nickel and
dime them on healthcare costs once they return home? That is
unconscionable.
Taking care of toxic-exposed veterans is a cost of war, period. If
anyone here has reservations about paying it, they should think long
and hard before calling for our servicemembers to fight in another
conflict halfway around the world.
Our veterans put their lives on the line for us. They made sacrifices
that are hard to even imagine. They fought to protect us, and they
shouldn't have to then fight their country for the benefits that they
have earned.
Let's take care of our veterans. Let's pass this bill and the
underlying legislation. And let's honor our veterans with more than
just words.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee,
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to take a moment to
recognize someone who absolutely exemplifies the bipartisanship and
camaraderie of the Rules Committee staff, and that is James Fitzella.
He has worked on the Rules Committee for 7 years, and I am incredibly
sad to say that he is leaving us for the private sector. His commitment
to this institution and working across the aisle to get things done,
that attitude will be truly missed.
He served the Rules Committee with integrity, dedication, and
unwavering optimism. Congressional staff are often the unsung heroes of
this body and of any legislative accomplishment, and this is absolutely
the truth in James' case.
I know I speak for everybody on the Rules Committee when I extend my
sincere gratitude to James for his public service and wish him our very
best.
I would also be remiss if I didn't recognize Jeff Gohringer, who is
leaving the majority staff after being on the Rules Committee for 6
years. I am sure Chairman McGovern would agree that we would be lost
without the excellent work from our staff members.
I know Jeff was an absolutely critical part of the team, so I would
like to also extend my best wishes to Jeff in his future endeavors as
well.
Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the rule before us. The rule before us
today makes in order H.R. 3967, the Honoring our PACT Act.
As an Iraq war veteran, I believe supporting toxic-exposed veterans
should be of the highest priority.
Approximately 3.5 million veterans who served our Nation after the
terrorist attacks of 9/11 were exposed to open-air burn pits and other
toxins. Many of these troops now suffer from serious health issues,
including rare and aggressive cancers, respiratory conditions, and
other illnesses. Yet, they face significant barriers to obtaining help
from the VA.
These men and women put their lives on the line to defend our
freedoms. We must provide them with the care and benefits they have
earned.
That is why I am disappointed that we are here considering H.R. 3967
rather than voting on the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, a
bipartisan bill that has already passed the Senate by unanimous
consent. If we took up that bill immediately, it could be signed into
law by the end of the week, ensuring swift delivery of lifesaving care
for toxic-exposed veterans.
Instead, here we are, prioritizing a bill that must still undergo a
lengthy analysis process and many legislative considerations. We also
have to look at the impact on the current VA and those that are getting
benefits now from the VA, and the backlog that exists in our VA system.
Republicans want to quickly deliver help to veterans suffering from
toxic exposure. The best way to do that is to bring the Senate-passed
Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act to the House floor.
Prioritizing H.R. 3967 will only slow down the process and delay
implementation of toxic exposure benefits. I, therefore, urge my
colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. I just want to say
that he is right. We could probably pass the very short bill that the
Republicans have put forward, H.R. 6659, and send it to the President.
But our bill, which is actually more than 80 pages, goes into much more
depth and covers a lot more.
Republicans want to do just a little bit. We want to actually solve
the challenges that so many of our veterans face.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of
Administration Policy, which states that President Biden would
basically sign the bill we are discussing here today into law.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3967--Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT)
Act--Rep. Takano, D-California and 100 cosponsors
The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3967, which would
expand veterans' access to health care and benefits to
address the health effects of harmful environmental exposures
that occurred during military service.
The President believes that our Nation has only one truly
sacred obligation: to properly prepare and equip our service
members when we send them into harm's way and to care for
them and their families when they return home. Far too often,
military service comes with a cost, and we owe it to our
veterans and their families to address these consequences
comprehensively. Unfortunately, it has taken decades to
understand the deleterious effects of environmental
exposures--leaving too many without access to the benefits
and services they need.
H.R. 3967 would make changes to the definitions for who is
eligible for VA health care based on presumed toxic exposure
during military service, including from bum pits, radiation,
or other environmental conditions. H.R. 3967 would also make
changes to the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA's) process
for determining presumptive service connection and mandate
several research studies related to military related
environmental exposures. It would also establish new
registries related to exposures, which would provide new data
on the long-term impacts from environmental exposures. H.R.
3697 also would allow a Federal cause of action related to
contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and
establish training requirements for health providers, and
require an outreach plan to educate veterans about their
eligibility for benefits and services related to toxic
exposure.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress to enact this legislation and ensuring it is
effectively implemented. We must address the toxic legacy of
environmental exposures sustained by veterans during their
military service and fulfill our sacred obligation to our
veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors. We must
also ensure that VA has the resources it needs to implement
this legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. We have an opportunity today to move a bill forward
that will pass the House, even if many Republicans will not vote for
it; send it to the Senate; get them to act on it; and send to the
President a bill for him to sign that will actually do the job and be
more than just a press release.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of today's rule.
As we work with President Biden to build a better America, we must
honor our debt to our veterans for their service and sacrifice on
behalf of our country.
There are obvious risks and sacrifices in military service: the
physical and mental challenges, time away from loved ones, and the
possibility that one may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice
for one's country. But there are hidden risks and sacrifices as well,
and our failure to address them means that, for too long, we have not
met the needs of veterans who have been exposed to toxic substances
during the course of their military service, as they have suffered from
chronic respiratory illness, cancer, and a variety of other maladies
later in life.
The most well-known example of this is Agent Orange. It took years of
veterans' advocacy for the government to acknowledge and provide
services and treatment for injuries caused by Agent Orange.
Even as the connections between illness and exposure to Agent Orange
[[Page H1189]]
have multiplied, new links have been established between exposure to
other toxic substances during military service and chronic and life-
threatening diseases. The burn pits used at military installations
across the globe are a more recent example.
The Honoring our PACT bill enacts long-overdue support for over 3
million veterans suffering from illnesses due to exposure to toxins and
radiation during military service. This comprehensive bill will cut red
tape to getting veterans benefits, allowing veterans exposed to
chemical, airborne, and radioactive hazards to receive full health
benefits to treat illnesses related to that exposure.
We owe it to our vets to pass this bill and provide them with the
benefits they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to highlight my amendment to the Honoring
our PACT Act, which will provide additional funding to ensure that the
VA can implement the new benefits that this bill will authorize.
I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule, the
PACT Act, and my amendment when they are considered on the House floor.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just a quick point of rebuttal. I would just remind my good friend
from Massachusetts that passage of H.R. 3967 is not guaranteed in the
Senate.
We don't have that concern when we are talking about the Health Care
for Burn Pit Veterans Act, which has already passed the Senate by
unanimous consent. We could pass that today here on the floor this
week. It could be signed into law this week. Doing anything other is
simply to delay assistance to the veterans who need it most.
Now, to the topic of Ukraine. In the wake of Vladimir Putin's brutal,
brutal invasion of Ukraine, the world is crying out for an alternative
to Russian energy. Pennsylvania, and the rest of America's heartland,
could provide that alternative.
But President Biden and Congressional Democrats refuse to let that
happen. They would rather promote their radical Green New Deal agenda
and continue buying oil from Putin's ruthless regime. They would rather
do that than unleash domestic energy production, and that includes
Pennsylvania coal, oil, and natural gas industries. They would rather
do that than lower gas and heating prices for American families and
strengthen our national security through becoming an energy exporter.
Republicans, on the other hand, actually want to make America energy
independent once again, just like we were in the last administration.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider the
American Energy Independence from Russia Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Here to explain the amendment is one of the bill's
authors, the Natural Resources Committee ranking member and my good
friend. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we witness an evil empire trying to
remake itself, I reflect on Mrs. Bolin's first grade class in my tiny
rural school in the heartland of America and, as a 6-year-old living
during the Cold War, trying to understand how crouching under a desk as
part of our nuclear attack drill would save anyone. The simple truth
is, it wouldn't.
Crouching, hiding, and being intimidated only emboldens Communists.
Standing up strong is how you beat the evils of communism.
Last year, I had the great experience of standing at the Brandenburg
Gate in Berlin, where Ronald Reagan spoke those famous words in 1987:
``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''
Remarkably, less than 2\1/2\ years later, that wall came down, and by
the end of 1991, the evil Soviet empire had dissolved. The Soviet Union
was gone, but the seeds of the evil in the Communist government of
Russia and other parts of the world still remain.
As brave Ukrainians are fighting a David and Goliath type battle of
survival, we must stand strong and create a long-term plan to crush the
Russian energy grip on Europe and our allies. Energy revenue feeds the
Russian beast, and we have the resources and the technology to starve
it to death.
Only a few years ago, the United States became energy independent.
But my, how quickly things have changed.
On his first day in office, President Biden canceled the Keystone XL
pipeline that could have reduced our reliance on Russian oil. But it is
not just Keystone. All U.S. pipeline projects are being held up, and
Russian hackers even attacked our existing pipelines with no recourse.
A week into office, the Biden administration doubled down on their
anti-American energy agenda, ordering an indefinite freeze on new oil
and gas leasing and, to this day, has issued zero new leases on Federal
lands or waters.
President Biden's policies are choosing Russian oil and Russian jobs
over American energy and our own national security. In fact, in 2021,
U.S. imports from Russia reached an 11-year high, and we are sending
tens of millions of our dollars every day to fund Putin's war machine.
Why are we doing this to ourselves when we have so many resources at
our fingertips?
Our bill is simple, and it stands up to Russian aggression by going
after their major source of funding. It will empower U.S. domestic
production by immediately approving the Keystone XL pipeline; by
restarting the oil and gas leasing program on Federal lands and waters;
by requiring President Biden to submit an energy security plan to
Congress; by unleashing liquefied natural gas exports to displace
Russian gas abroad; and, finally, requiring drawdowns from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be replaced by increased Federal oil and
gas leasing.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up strong and
join Mrs. McMorris Rodgers and me in cosponsoring the legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional
15 seconds.
Mr. WESTERMAN. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question
so that our legislation can be considered immediately by the House of
Representatives.
{time} 1245
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we begin on a note of basically saying that it was
wonderful that we were all united in standing up to Vladimir Putin and
speaking with one voice. I think we need to kind of amend that at this
point.
Let me just say that we need to stand with the people of Ukraine. We
need to stand with President Zelensky, who has had the guts to stand up
to Vladimir Putin, but also to the former President who tried to extort
him and who withheld essential defensive military aid in exchange for
trying to get from him some manufactured dirt on the President's son.
Let's be a little bit careful about what charges we are throwing around
here.
Again, I am sorry that my Republican colleagues are feeling the need
to come here and play partisan politics in the middle of a global
crisis, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Yet, for all their criticism on how this administration is handling
the crisis in Ukraine, they have been all over the map on what they
would do differently. They talk about energy independence, yet they are
the ones who have consistently voted against and opposed green and
renewable energy here at home, which is the fastest way to achieve real
energy independence.
I include in the Record a February 23 Washington Post opinion piece
entitled ``Republicans say Biden is `weak' on Ukraine. What would they
do differently?'' By the way, just a spoiler alert, the answer is: They
have no idea.
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2022]
Opinion: Republicans Say Biden is `Weak' on Ukraine. What Would They
Do Differently?
(By Paul Waldman)
There was a time in American history when foreign crises
were considered a moment for unity. We said ``politics stops
at
[[Page H1190]]
the water's edge,'' meaning that partisanship had to be put
aside so the country could show the world a united front, and
both parties usually agreed.
The public acted that way, too. Presidents' approval
ratings would rise whenever we found ourselves in any sort of
conflict with a foreign adversary; this was called the
``rally 'round the flag effect,'' and it occurred even when
things went badly. For instance, President Jimmy Carter's
approval ratings shot up by almost 30 points after Americans
were taken hostage in Tehran.
But no more. Even the most straightforward of foreign
policy challenges become yet another opportunity for the
opposition to say the president is a failure and a villain,
which is what Republicans are doing now as we confront
Russian leader Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
But that doesn't mean the Republican Party can decide what
it believes.
One of Donald Trump's legacies is that in some GOP
quarters, Putin is now regarded as akin to a hero. That
starts with Trump himself, who reacted to the invasion by
calling Putin's aggression ``genius,'' ``smart,'' and
``savvy.'' Meanwhile, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has been
so relentless in passing on the Kremlin's perspective that
Russian state TV regularly airs clips from his show.
That exacerbates the profoundly unsettled nature of
contemporary foreign policy thinking in the GOP. The right
has struggled to find a singular voice over the past 15 years
or so, once the thrill of the Global War on Terror ran
aground in the disaster of the Iraq War.
In the 2016 presidential primaries, Republican candidates
struggled over whether and how to call the war a mistake, and
where that would leave the party's traditional hawkishness.
Then Trump took over, with less a foreign policy doctrine
than a shifting collection of impulses, including a distrust
of ambitious adventures and an obsequiousness toward Putin
that can be described only as pathetic.
So how should a Republican hawk respond to the current
crisis? The answer is clear: Just make it about President
Biden.
The GOP critique is both blessedly free of substance and
plays right into the anxieties about manhood that determine
approximately 75 percent of everything Republicans do these
days.
So whether you're a Putin fanboy or a cold warrior, you
can agree that the real problem here is weakness. Why is this
crisis happening? Because Biden is weak. What should America
do now? Not be weak, because Biden is weak. Is your favorite
baseball team going to win the pennant this year? They would,
if Biden wasn't so weak.
``Biden weakness invited Russian aggression, Republicans
say,'' reads a Fox News headline. Biden is ``the weakest
president that America has ever had,'' says former Trump
administration ambassador to United Nations Nikki Haley. ``No
one fears this pathetic old geezer'' says the National
Review.
The House Republican Conference tweeted a picture of
Biden, with the caption ``This is what weakness on the world
stage looks like.'' Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the
third-ranking Republican in the House, tweeted, ``Biden is
unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. He has consistently
given into Putin's demands and shown nothing but weakness.''
Though some Republicans say the sanctions at the center of
Biden's strategy should have started earlier, you'll have a
hard time finding one who can specify in any detail what
Biden's ``weakness'' toward Russia has consisted of to this
point, nor what a ``strong'' president would be doing
instead. Mounting a ground invasion to take Moscow? Launching
nuclear weapons? What?
If the answer is ``What Biden is doing, but, you know,
more,'' that's not very persuasive. But as far as they're
concerned, ``strength'' isn't something presidents
demonstrate with their actions; it's more of an ineffable
quality that Republican presidents possess by definition
while Democratic presidents lack.
Consider Trump. Short of literally getting down on his
hands and knees to shine Putin's shoes, there's almost no way
you could imagine Trump having been weaker toward Putin than
he actually was. Trump continually praised the Russian
dictator, dismissed his misdeeds and went out of his way to
denigrate NATO--just as Putin would want.
It culminated in the utterly disgraceful display at the
2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump was asked about Russian
interference in the 2016 election and declared he was taking
Putin's word over the analysis of U.S. intelligence agencies,
because ``President Putin was extremely strong and powerful
in his denial today.''
It was so embarrassing that even Republicans were shocked;
then-Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said Trump ``made us look
like a pushover.'' Sen. John McCain called it ``one of the
most disgraceful performances by an American president in
memory.'' Nevertheless, today Republicans claim that when it
came to Russia, Trump was a paragon of strength.
And however this crisis ends, they will insist that
everything would have worked out far better if only Biden
were stronger. Whatever that means.
To be clear, everyone has the right to criticize the
president; having politics end at the water's edge brings its
own problems. Nor is there anything wrong with intraparty
differences. But rather than a lively debate over alternative
courses of action, what we're seeing now from the GOP is
mostly juvenile name-calling.
Not that we had much reason to expect anything different.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, today, thousands of veterans struggle with the
health effects of exposure to hazardous substances during their
training or deployment. Congress has an obligation to provide these men
and women with the resources, including healthcare services, they need
to live with dignity.
The Honoring our PACT Act fulfills this duty by streamlining VA
processes to receive care for toxic exposure-related illnesses,
reducing the burden on all veterans. It also takes preemptive measures
to ensure that the VA conducts research to track and identify emerging
toxins. This will ensure that we are proactive in our efforts to
safeguard the health of future veterans.
I am particularly pleased that this bill includes the Camp Lejeune
Justice Act, which gives our servicemembers the opportunity to seek
compensation for exposure to contaminated water at Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
For decades, marines and their families stationed at this base
unknowingly consumed, bathed in, and used water containing harmful
chemicals and industrial solvents. As a result of their service, many
veterans and their family members now suffer from serious medical
conditions, including cancer and birth defects.
For years, North Carolina law prevented these individuals from
seeking relief in court. The Camp Lejeune Justice Act rights this
wrong, bringing long overdue justice to affected veterans.
The Honoring our PACT Act also creates a registry of veterans exposed
to PFAS, or forever chemicals, from use of fire extinguishing agents in
military installations. I proposed an amendment to this section with my
colleague from North Carolina, Representative Rouzer, which will
require the Department of Defense to study additional sources of PFAS
exposure on military bases and make recommendations to expand
eligibility for toxic exposure benefits accordingly. I am grateful that
this amendment was made in order. We owe our Nation's veterans an
immeasurable debt for putting their lives on the line to defend our
freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways that we can support the Ukrainian
people, and President Zelensky by extension, is by ensuring that we
have a steady supply of American energy and that we are supplying our
allies in Eastern Europe. This will also deny Putin a major revenue
stream.
Alarmingly, U.S. oil imports from Russia reached an 11-year high in
2021, accounting for more than 10 percent of the total U.S. crude oil
and petroleum product imports.
Here to explain why that should concern all Americans is my good
friend, my mentor, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Tom
Cole.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole).
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for
yielding.
It is imperative that we defeat the previous question so that we can
bring up the American Energy Independence from Russia Act for immediate
consideration.
Mr. Speaker, last week, Vladimir Putin sent shock waves around the
world by launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Though much of the
planet has rallied to support Ukraine in their heroic defense, Putin
has begun to use his most potent weapon to threaten Western
democracies. That weapon is dependence of much of the world on Russian
oil and gas.
Not even the United States is immune from this national security
threat. In 2021, according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers, the United States imported an average of 209,000 barrels
of crude oil per day and 500,000 barrels per day of other petroleum
products from Russia. It is unconscionable that we are still this
reliant on imports from authoritarian countries like Russia. This
reliance on bad actors for our energy supply needs poses a clear and
present
[[Page H1191]]
danger to the security of the United States, just as it poses a threat
to the security of Western and Central Europe.
At any time, Vladimir Putin could choose to retaliate on the dozens
of countries that have imposed sanctions on him and his regime by
simply turning off the spigot. Gas prices in the United States would
undoubtedly increase, even more than they currently are, and much of
Europe will be plunged into the cold in the depths of winter. That is a
potent leverage for a dictator like Putin to have. We must counter this
by restoring America's energy independence and helping our friends and
allies to do the same.
Unfortunately, when President Biden took office, he immediately took
steps that ultimately harmed America's energy independence and made us
more reliant on foreign energy imports. That included his decision to
cancel the Keystone XL pipeline, which was expected to transport
830,000 barrels of oil every day, and his decision to impose a
moratorium on new oil and gas leasing on Federal lands, including my
home State of Oklahoma. President Biden's actions have made America
less energy secure and more vulnerable to foreign threats.
This is why we need the American Energy Independence from Russia Act
more than ever. This bill would immediately approve the Keystone XL
pipeline, would restart oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and
waters, and would expand liquid natural gas exports at a time when
Europe needs them the most. It would ensure an all-of-the-above energy
policy that paves the way for American energy independence, and it
would rightly end the ongoing vilification of America's oil and gas
industry.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply common sense. With one bill, we can
open up new sources of energy and reduce or eliminate imports of
foreign sources of energy. Above all, by advancing this bill, we can
improve the security of the United States, and weaken Vladimir Putin's
most potent weapon in one fell swoop.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to respond, because I like
the gentleman too much.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
would like to begin by thanking Chairman Takano for his incredible
leadership on this legislation and tireless work on behalf of veterans
all across our country.
H.R. 3967, the Honoring our PACT Act of 2021, recognizes the full
range of military toxic exposure, from contaminated water at military
bases and airborne hazards from burn pits, to radiation from atomic
testing. It upholds and recognizes the promise we made to every
servicemember that we would care for them should they become wounded or
sick while risking everything to protect this country.
This legislation is long overdue, and it is the least we can do for
the more than 3.5 million veterans who are currently suffering without
the healthcare they need and deserve.
These veterans and their loved ones should never have been forced to
come to Congress demanding that we and the VA provide the care they
have so clearly earned, which is why I am glad that this bill ensures
that future veterans will be able to get the help they need without
waiting decades for help by streamlining the VA's toxic exposure
presumptions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan
bill.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, one in six American adults reported they cannot pay
their full energy bill in the last 12 months. That is appalling. It is
especially appalling given the fact that at our fingertips we have an
abundance of energy. In Pennsylvania alone, we have oil, gas, and clean
coal. We should be unleashing the American energy sector.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Herrell), who is here to talk more about this.
Ms. HERRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so
that the rule can be amended to consider H.R. 6858, the American Energy
Independence from Russia Act offered by my colleagues, Ranking Member
McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Westerman.
The Biden administration has taken seemingly every step possible
since taking office to cripple the energy dominance agenda of the Trump
administration that saw America become an energy-independent Nation for
the first time in decades.
In New Mexico, the Biden administration has yet to hold a lease sale
since taking office, which is a direct violation of Federal law. By not
holding a lease sale, the Biden administration is robbing the citizens
of New Mexico of revenues that could be used to improve vital services
like our public education system.
By artificially reducing our energy production, we are only
increasing Russia's power in the world. Since the beginning of 2020,
imports of Russian oil into the U.S. have increased by nearly 300,000
barrels a day. This is a direct result of the Biden administration
flipping the switch and taking disastrous executive actions that
prevent energy development here at home. Our increased dependency on
foreign sources of energy is causing energy prices for our constituents
to skyrocket. Gas prices are up over 50 percent, which is hitting our
constituents hard every time they go to the pump and every time they
buy groceries or heat their homes.
If we get back to producing energy at the capacity that we are
capable of, our energy supply will be secure, gas prices will fall, and
economic outlook will vastly improve. Advancing innovation and
increasing U.S. production is the only effective way to achieve
American prosperity and reduce global reliance on Russia.
By accepting the status quo of being an energy-dependent Nation, my
Democratic colleagues are willfully weakening both our national and
economic security.
H.R. 6858 will change the course of American energy policy and bring
back the era of American energy dominance. I urge my colleagues to
oppose the previous question and support the American Energy
Independence from Russia Act.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, two quick things. One, my friends are touting this
whatever it is, this all-of-the-above approach to dealing with our
energy challenges. But I am looking at this proposal, and it just seems
it is the same old, same old, fossil fuels, fossil fuels, fossil fuels.
I wonder who wrote this. I wonder where this came from.
Why isn't there any mention of green energy or clean energy or solar
energy or renewable energy, any of the things that, quite frankly, the
majority of the American people want us to do? Why isn't it here?
Well, I will make a suggestion to people who are tuning in: Follow
the money. Follow the money. This is Big Oil's wish list. If you want
to continue to find ourselves in circumstances, whenever there is an
international crisis, that we have to kowtow to Big Oil, then listen to
them.
But on the Democratic side, we want to wean ourselves off of the same
old, same old. And ``all-of-the-above,'' by the way, is not just oil,
oil, oil.
The second thing I want to say is that my friends on the other side
always love to talk about how much they support our veterans. Well, we
actually have a bill here that will support our veterans. It is a big
deal. You all received a letter from all the leading veterans' service
organizations of this country saying to please pass this bill.
They don't want to talk about it. They say: Oh, support this
minuscule bill, the alternative that we are putting up here, by the
way, which our veterans' organizations do not prefer.
If you really want to help our veterans, if you are sincere about
what you say when you say let's support our veterans, then how about
voting that way. Talk is cheap around here. How about putting your vote
where your rhetoric is and supporting this underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
{time} 1300
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, we ask our veterans to serve, young men and
[[Page H1192]]
women who sign up, serve in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and they are going
knowing that they are representing us, and they will take on the
challenges and the dangers of combat. They do that willingly.
But why is it that we create an extra hazard within our control by
creating these burn pits and assign men and women to be breathing that
toxic air? It is not right. This legislation, Honoring our PACT Act,
finally acknowledges that that was wrong and that we have a duty to
every one of those veterans.
In Vermont--and I know, Mr. Speaker, it is in your State as well; you
have been a leader on this--there has been tragedy with cancers to
young men and women, fathers, moms.
In our State, Pat Cram and June Heston both lost their wonderful
husbands, Sergeant Major Michael Cram and Brigadier General Michael
Heston, to cancer. Those women have started a movement in Vermont that
has supported this legislation that finally is going to do for these
veterans what we did for the Vietnam veterans with Agent Orange and
establish a presumption that this was combat related. It is overdue,
and it is necessary.
So I thank all of the men and women on both sides of the aisle who
are standing up to acknowledge that our obligation is to take care of
the warrior and his or her family after they have served us so well.
This is overdue legislation. Let's pass it by unanimous consent.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, just three quick points in rebuttal.
First and foremost, I myself am a veteran of the Iraq war. I was there
for 6 months, actually, in 2009.
If we would just pass the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act that
the Senate passed by unanimous consent, we could pass that and put it
on the President's desk at the end of this week. There is nothing
standing in our way except the Democratic Party on this.
Also, I would just remind my good friend from Massachusetts that my
motion does not prevent the House from considering the Honoring our
PACT Act. It doesn't. It simply amends the rule to also allow for
consideration of the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.
I am sure everyone on the other side of the aisle would agree that
lowering gas and heating prices for all American families and ending
our dependence on Russian oil is of the utmost importance. In fact, I
just got an alert that a gentleman from my colleague's State General
Assembly just put forward a bill on the floor of the General Assembly
of Massachusetts to stop the importation of Russian oil.
Sixty percent of the natural gas our country imports actually goes to
Massachusetts. People don't realize that. But if New York would get out
of the way and allow Pennsylvania to have a pipeline from Pennsylvania
to New England, the New Englanders wouldn't need dirty Russian oil.
They could use Pennsylvania natural gas. But I digress. We can and
should find the time this week to add the American Energy Independence
from Russia Act to our agenda.
Lastly, ad nauseam, I have heard bill after bill after bill from the
leftists across the other side of the aisle on electric vehicles, and
yet again I am reminded that the Republicans are the real party of
science because if you look at the actual science, an electric car will
generate just 23 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a
gasoline-powered car.
In fact, if you were to take every gas-powered car on the face of the
planet and get rid of it, it would only mean a mere 1.8 percent decline
in total emissions. This is fake science. We have alchemy and
chemistry. We have astrology and we have astronomy. We have the
Democrat Party and we have the Republican Party.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Armstrong), my good friend, to talk more about this.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Dickinson, North Dakota,
is in the southern part of the Bakken oil patch. It is where we
unleashed this revolutionary technology of shale hydraulic fracturing,
horizontal drilling, and producing natural gas. But you know what else?
Eighteen miles away from my childhood hometown is an ethanol plant.
Seven miles to the west is a biodiesel plant. Thirteen miles south,
fourteen miles south is the largest wind farm in North Dakota
generation of Brady I and Brady II. About 80 miles to the northeast we
are figuring out how to strip rare earth metals out of lignite coal so
we can be less dependent on Russia and China in all of those issues.
The people who work and live in my communities grow all the cereal
grains, and the by-products from the ethanol plant are fed as feedstock
to our cattle industry, so I don't need lectures from anyone on all-of-
the-above energy, particularly when the left's version of all-of-the-
above energy is solely wind, solar, rainbows, unicorns.
Here is the dirty little secret: The world is going to burn more
carbon in 2 years whether we shut down domestic production or not, and
this naive and idealistic viewpoint that if we shut down American
industry, American ingenuity, then the rest of the world will follow
along is fundamental differential to the fact we are watching it play
out in real time.
Our strategic adversaries and, indeed, our enemies will fill this
space--that is the fact--because the world needs these products, and
they are going to continue to utilize these products. But at least
welcome this: We are going to do nothing to reduce global carbon
emissions because the atmosphere doesn't recognize countries' borders.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question,
allow this to go back, and let us do what we were doing so well until
the last year, developing American energy, allowing it to be utilized,
rather than energy from our adversaries.
I can tell you one last thing, and then I will close. In the last
year, we haven't had a Federal lease sale in North Dakota.
Congressional Democrats have tried to ban the transport of liquefied
natural gas by rail, and so let's be honest about how we got here so we
can get there in the future.
Mr. McGOVERN. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about a
major veterans bill, and the gentleman couldn't even bring himself to
mention veterans once in his statement.
To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, talking about taking all cars off
the road, who is talking about that? I will tell the gentleman that if
we go ahead with what he wants to do on the Keystone pipeline, that is
equivalent to adding another 5 million cars on the road. That is what
that would mean to our environment.
My Republican friends, if they want to think small when it comes to
veterans, have at it. Veterans' organizations are watching. We are
hearing from veterans all across the country who want this bill passed.
They want us to pass this comprehensive bill. We will do that.
If you want to do your minuscule bill, you have a substitute, you can
vote for it. It is in your substitute. We want to actually do something
in a comprehensive way to meet the concerns that our veterans have
expressed for years and years and years. If you want to take a pass, go
ahead. That is what you do on our most important issues. This probably
is no exception.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
rule for the Honoring our PACT Act, which includes the Camp Lejeune
Justice Act. This legislation would allow marines and their families
who were exposed to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune over 34
years--34 years of neglect and denial--finally to pursue their long
overdue day in court.
Toxicity rates in Camp Lejeune's water were staggering. They ranged
from 240 to 3,400 times what is permitted by today's national safety
standards. This greatly increased the risk of cancers, adverse birth
outcomes, and other medical tragedies. And now many veterans and their
families are suffering from no legal recourse.
The Camp Lejeune Justice Act will correct an anomaly in North
Carolina law by providing a legal pathway for affected veterans and
their families to pursue fair compensation, which would already be
permitted had their exposure occurred anywhere else except the State of
North Carolina.
Today's effort is a culmination of the decades-long bipartisan
campaign to
[[Page H1193]]
provide servicemembers affected an opportunity for justice long
deferred. First by Congressman Brad Miller and Senator Burr, as well as
the late Congressman Walter Jones.
I am also grateful for the tireless advocacy of the affected marines
and their families, the sustained efforts of diverse groups of
supporters, and my congressional colleagues, including the bill's
sponsors, Congressmen Matt Cartwright and Greg Murphy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule for this Honoring our
PACT Act and with it the adoption of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, a
critical step to honor the promises we have made to our veterans.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the Republican whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for
yielding. First of all, opposing the previous question, the bill that
is going to be coming up later is a very partisan bill. We could
actually bring up the Senate bill for our veterans that passed the
Senate unanimously. Imagine in these times when a bill passed the
Senate unanimously, and Democrats in the majority won't even bring that
bill up, which clearly is the way to help our veterans.
But there is something more important that we can do today, dealing
with the crisis in Ukraine. There are many crises in America, but in
Ukraine Putin is running roughshod over the people of Ukraine, carpet
bombing cities. One of the ways he is fueling his war is with oil that
America and other countries are buying because President Biden took
American energy off the table.
There are very specific things President Biden does that if we reject
this previous question, we can turn around and bring up this
legislation by my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
Rodgers) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), that
actually open up American energy and take leverage away from Putin and
also take billions of dollars away from Putin that he is using to
finance the war.
Let's talk about a few of those very specific things we can do with
rejecting the previous question to bring up this important energy
legislation. When President Biden came in office, he did a number of
very specific things to undermine American energy. Not energy all over
the world. He is begging OPEC and Russia to produce more oil. Think how
tone deaf that is, begging Russia to produce more oil. Let's open up
our American energy reserves that President Biden shut off. Let's
approve LNG exports so we can help Europe get energy from America, not
from Russia. President Biden hasn't approved a single LNG facility in
over a year or pipeline. Let's get rid of the red tape that they are
using. Do you know that Russia right now is making $700 million a day
by selling oil to America, EU, and U.K.? $700 million a day to fund his
war against Ukraine. Let's end it by opening up American energy
reserves. Reverse all these radical policies by President Biden that
are emboldening Putin. Let's reject this.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that
President Biden didn't try to extort President Zelensky by withholding
money to get him to manufacture dirt on one of his political opponents.
But I find this a little bit comical.
My Republican friends say that they want to bring up this Senate
bill, which is much narrower than what we are doing right now, yet they
want you to defeat the previous question not so they can bring up that
Senate bill, but so they can bring up this giveaway to the oil
companies. Again, follow the money. Follow the money. This is a bill
that was written in some back room in some oil company and, quite
frankly, it is unconscionable. They never let a crisis go to waste.
Today we are talking about trying to help our veterans, and it would
be nice if on this one issue of helping our veterans we could all come
together, but I guess that is asking too much.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Cartwright).
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I could not be prouder that the Honoring
our PACT Act includes my bill, the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, and let me
tell you why I wrote this bill. Between 1953 and 1987, two generations
of marines and marine families and employees at Camp Lejeune were
poisoned by the water at Camp Lejeune. Poisoned by water that by
today's standards in health, 240 to 3,400 times the level of acceptable
toxins was in that water. This was water that the marines drank. It was
in the mess halls. It was water they showered with. It was water that
they drank out from the water buffaloes and filled their canteens from
while on exercise. This is water that was poisoned, and it not only
poisoned the water of marines but also the marine families and the
employees at Camp Lejeune.
Mr. Speaker, when marines volunteer for Marine duty, they know they
are up for something dangerous. They know that the Marines pride
themselves on being the first to fight. They know they are going to be
in harm's way at some point, but when they went to Camp Lejeune for
combat training, they didn't realize what their real enemy was going to
be. It was going to be leukemia, bladder cancer, kidney cancer,
aplastic anemia, liver cancer, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma, Parkinson's disease. Not only the marines, but their families
were subject to this from the water.
I would like to thank the people who helped put together this bill,
David Price, Greg Murphy, the Reverend William Barber, the veterans
service organizations, 151 Republicans and Democrats who came together
on this bill.
Folks, at long last, all of these great marines, these great
Americans will get a shot at justice. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the PQ,
``yes'' on the rule, and let's vote ``yes'' on the Honoring our PACT
Act and the Camp Lejeune Justice Act.
{time} 1315
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, just one point in rebuttal to my good
friend from Massachusetts: Republicans do support toxic-exposed
veterans. Yesterday, I personally offered an amendment in the Rules
Committee to bring up the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act. By the
way, that passed unanimously in the Senate. We could again be doing
that right now. That doesn't stop us from debating the current bill. We
can walk and chew gum at the same time, but the only thing that is
delaying getting the Senate version of this bill on to the President's
desk at the end of this week is the Democratic Party. We could pass
that bill this week.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Graves) to talk about oil and gas and energy issues.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for yielding.
I just heard my friends on the other side say, let's follow the
money. Let's follow the money.
Mr. Speaker, right now under this administration, we have gone from
buying approximately 76,000 barrels of crude oil a day to surging to
198,000 barrels of crude oil every single day. If you add in other
petroleum products, Mr. Speaker, let's follow the money. The additional
$22 million a day that we are giving to Vladimir Putin, if you add it
all up, we are giving him $7 billion a year. $7 billion a year that
goes toward the $65 billion Vladimir Putin puts towards military
spending every single year.
Yes, let's follow the money.
I hear my friends on the other side talk about emissions, oh, we
can't do these things because it is going to cause greater emissions.
Let's once again look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. Under the previous
administration, on average, emissions went down 2\1/2\ percent a year.
Under President Biden they have increased 6.3 percent every single
year.
Let's follow the money.
Do you know who is paying that money? It is the Americans that can
least afford it, whether it is the $12 extra every single time they are
filling up their vehicle with gas, whether it is the 700 to $1,700 a
year in extra electricity payments that Americans are paying this year
to heat their homes.
Mr. Speaker, yes, let's follow the money because the people in
America that can least afford it, they are the ones that are paying the
bill for these irresponsible, ill-advised energy policies that, Mr.
Speaker, you can go back
[[Page H1194]]
and look at the Record, we are the ones who advocated otherwise.
Here is the deal: This administration has stopped offshore
production, prevented new lease sales, prevented onshore production.
This majority has tried to impose a $10,000 per year per mile pipeline
fee, tried to raise royalty fees, increased severance taxes on domestic
energy.
Do you think Vladimir Putin is doing the same thing with Russian
energy? I can answer that, Mr. Speaker: Absolutely not.
The policies that this bill fixes are the errors that this
administration and this majority in Congress made in imposing this
energy crisis on us in raising energy prices for Americans that can
least afford it.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the facts don't result in the narrative
that my friends on the other side are trying to establish. Let's be
clear on why we have an energy crisis in America, why we are dependent
upon Vladimir Putin for energy, why we are funding the military
atrocities that he is carrying out in the Ukraine right now, and let's
support this bill, this legislation that Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers
and Congressman Westerman have pushed to ensure that we can have a
clean American energy future.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an April 28, 2021,
Military.com article titled: ``VA Secretary Wants More Vets Sickened by
Burn Pits to File Claims, But Many Are Still Being Turned Away,'' and I
include in the Record an April 12, 2021, ``NBC News'' article titled:
``Veterans Face Uphill Battle to Receive Treatment For `Burn Pit'
Exposure.''
[From Military.com, Apr. 28, 2021]
VA Secretary Wants More Vets Sickened by Burn Pits To File Claims, But
Many Are Still Being Turned Away
(By Steve Beynon)
Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough
wants more veterans who believe they were sickened by
exposure to burn pits overseas to seek help from the
department, despite many being turned away.
``We're urging vets to come forward with their claims,''
McDonough said at a press briefing Monday. ``Our commitment
is to treat each claim with the care it deserves. As we get
more claims, we can aggregate those claims to draw bigger
conclusions.''
As of March 31, the VA had denied 72% of burn pit claims,
according to agency data obtained by Military.com. Between
June 2007 and March 31, the VA processed 15,640 disability
compensation claims related to burn pit exposure. Of those,
3,510 veterans had at least one burn pit issue granted.
The top three diagnoses related to burn pits are bronchial
asthma, chronic bronchitis and allergic rhinitis, according
to department data. The most common reasons for a veteran to
be denied is not having a diagnosed medical condition or
being unable to connect the condition to their service--43.1%
and 42.8% of denials, respectively.
But the data doesn't reflect the scope of the issue. The
number of patients filing claims might be disproportionately
small given VA estimates that 3.5 million veterans have been
exposed to burn pits since 1990. It is unclear how many are
sick due to their exposure or have died as a result.
McDonough suggests that more data is needed, and he wants
more veterans to seek help from the VA so officials can get a
better grasp on the issue.
The burn pit data also could be inherently flawed. To get
the data, the VA had to use text mining, searching for
keywords such as ``burn pit'' and ``burn pits'' in its
patient databases, according to department records. This
means patients coming forward with issues related to burn
pits might not automatically be listed as burn pit patients
if that phrase wasn't used in their records.
Out of the 2.5 million Global War on Terrorism veterans,
781,384 have filed claims related to respiratory issues.
According to VA data obtained by Military.com, 63% were
granted. Of all the GWOT veterans, 42,686 filed for claims
related to cancer; 37% of those claims were granted.
The VA's research shows GWOT veterans are three times more
likely than non-deployed veterans to file claims related to
respiratory issues and twice as likely to file claims for
cancer.
``Although the GWOT-deployed and GWOT non-deployed
population sizes are relatively the same, the GWOT-deployed
cohort has more than two times the number of service-
connected cancers,'' according to the agency's findings.
Burn pits are often referred to as the post-9/11
generation's Agent Orange, referencing the bureaucratic maze
and uneven claims process veterans have to navigate, and what
could be a decades-long legislative fight to issue easy-to-
access health care and disability compensation.
The House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees and
advocacy groups have made toxic exposure the top issue this
year. Congress is looking at some two dozen bills, ranging
from incremental improvements to sweeping health care bills
for all 3.5 million veterans exposed to burn pits and other
toxic environments.
But it's unclear what can actually make it to President Joe
Biden's desk. Some lawmakers and advocates are concerned over
what is very likely to be a huge tab to cover the cost of
opening the VA up to a huge swath of new patients.
____
[From NBC News, April 12, 2021]
Veterans Face Uphill Battle To Receive Treatment for `Burn Pit'
Exposure
(By Kenzi Abou-Sabe and Didi Martinez)
During Marine veteran Scott Evans' two tours in
Afghanistan, his work on a specialized team that used dogs to
sniff out explosives led him to spend large chunks of time
around open-air pits where trash was burned.
In August, Evans, 33, of North Carolina, received
devastating news: he had terminal pancreatic cancer. The
diagnosis placed him among a growing number of military
veterans who say they have developed serious and sometimes
fatal diseases after facing prolonged exposure to burn pits
at overseas bases.
The pits were a common feature at military bases during the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a crude answer to the basic
logistics problem of how to deal with piles and piles of
trash. Everything from electronics and vehicles to human
waste was regularly doused in jet fuel and set ablaze,
spewing toxic fumes and carcinogens into the air.
The Department of Defense estimates that roughly 3.5
million service members could have been exposed to burn pits.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has denied about 75
percent of veterans' burn pit claims, including Evans',
because it does not acknowledge a connection between
conditions like asthma and cancer to exposure to the flaming
garbage piles.
Veterans say that at the same time they face resistance
while seeking treatment from the VA, they have also been let
down by civilian medical providers who often lack an
understanding of the existence and dangers of burn pits.
``Over the next decades, I'd be shocked if we didn't see
spikes in disease in these patients,'' said Dr. Tom Abrams,
an oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who has
treated two veterans affected by burn pits.
``Whether it's cancer, respiratory illness or some other
disease that has yet to make itself known, I think we have to
be on the lookout and really be aware that these veterans are
at very high risk.''
Abrams and other medical experts acknowledge that it's
exceedingly difficult to draw a definitive link between burn
pits and the conditions veterans are reporting, but they note
that ample evidence already exists showing that long-term
exposure to toxic smoke can lead to serious health issues.
A VA spokesperson said it ``follows the science on
questions of health outcomes of military exposures'' and is
conducting a review of the hazards of burn pits.
The spokesperson referenced a 2020 report by the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine that found
none of the 27 respiratory health outcomes it reviewed met
the criteria for ``sufficient evidence of an association.''
The evidence for respiratory symptoms such as chronic
persistent cough and wheezing met the criteria for ``limited
or suggestive evidence of an association,'' the spokesperson
added.
A Pentagon spokesperson said the Defense Department and VA
are ``continuing to fund studies to provide more evidence on
the potential long-term effects of burn pit exposure.''
Lawmakers in Washington have taken up the cause,
introducing multiple bills aiming to change the way the VA
deals with veterans who think they're suffering from a burn
pit-related illness.
On Tuesday, advocates and legislators led by Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and the
comedian Jon Stewart will take to Capitol Hill to rally in
support of a measure, which would force the VA to expand care
and benefits to veterans affected by certain burn pit-related
illnesses.
In an interview with NBC Nightly News' Lester Holt, Stewart
said the situation echoes the aftermath of the terror attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001, when first-responders were coming down
with serious illnesses and health officials were slow to
recognize them as being caused by toxins swirling in the air
at ground zero.
``What the first responders were standing on top of was
essentially a burn pit,'' he said. ``The jet fuel from the
planes ignited it, but it was all those materials from the
World Trade Center.''
Stewart got involved in the effort after being approached
by Rosie Torres, the founder of the nonprofit Burn Pits 360.
Torres started advocating for veterans suffering from toxic
exposure-related illnesses after her husband, an Army
veteran, was diagnosed with constrictive bronchiolitis.
``I would challenge any congressperson who says, `Well,
we're going to wait for the science to be settled,' to dig a
hundred-yard pit in the middle of a town where your
constituents live, and burn everything in that town with jet
fuel,'' Stewart said. ``And then come and tell me that,
`Yeah, they're cool with it, because there's a lot of
confusion about whether or not the science is settled that
this is harmful to your health.' ''
[[Page H1195]]
For most veterans who think they are suffering from a burn
pit or other toxic exposure-related illness, getting the VA
to acknowledge their condition and treat them has been a
losing battle. Veterans must prove to the VA that they were
exposed to a burn pit during their service, and that the
exposure caused their condition.
Further complicating matters, veterans affected by toxic
exposure often find themselves against the clock when it
comes to gaining access to health care through the VA. If
veterans don't seek treatment during an initial five-year
period in which the VA offers combat veterans free health
care--and experts say many of the diseases that stem from
toxic exposure typically manifest slowly--they have to wait
for their claim to be approved before getting care at a VA
facility.
Even if they do meet the burden of proof and have their
claim approved, veterans say the approval process can take
months to years, wasting precious time for those with
terminal illnesses.
Gina Cancelino, whose husband, Joseph, died of an
aggressive form of testicular cancer in 2019, said they only
learned about the possible link between burn pits and the
disease months before he passed away.
``I said, `Hon, burn pits, burn pits in Iraq,'' she recalls
telling the former Marine Corps gunnery sergeant. `` `Look,
I'm reading about this. Were you near these?' And he's like,
`Yeah, I'm pretty sure I was.' ''
Joseph Cancelino, who worked as a New York City Police
Department sergeant, had deployed to Iraq in 2003 during the
first wave of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Now, his wife has made it her mission to piece together his
exposure to burn pits.
``Had we known earlier that this was an issue, maybe he
goes annually and gets checked,'' Gina Cancelino said.
``Maybe we find it earlier, and we don't give it a chance to
harbor in there, and fester in there. So I'm disappointed.
I'm disappointed in the lack of communication.''
Gen. Michael Heston was one of the rare few whose claims
were approved. He served three tours in Afghanistan with the
Vermont Army National Guard, and died in 2018 after a battle
with pancreatic cancer. He was 58 years old.
Heston's wife, June, said she remembers her husband
questioning the safety of the burn pits while he was still
deployed. At one of the bases where Heston was stationed, she
said, the burn pit was initially near the airfield, but the
smoke and soot were interfering with the jet engines, so it
was moved to another area of the base, closer to where troops
lived and worked.
``He just couldn't understand,'' she said. ``If it's doing
that to a jet engine, well, why would you think it would be
OK to be moving [it] closer to human beings that are
breathing that in?''
When Heston started complaining of back pain and rapidly
losing weight in 2016, it took doctors 10 months to deliver a
diagnosis.
By that time, the cancer had metastasized to other parts of
his body.
Abrams, the Dana-Farber oncologist, had never heard of burn
pits before treating Heston. When Heston first explained
them, Abrams said, he was shocked.
``I was just horrified because I thought that was probably
one of the most toxic kinds of things you could possibly
have,'' Abrams, who is also a faculty member at the Harvard
Medical School, said. ``It's extremely unhealthy to be
exposed to the products of massive combustion for years on
end.''
Abrams ultimately came to the conclusion that Heston's
cancer was likely caused by his exposure to toxic substances
in Afghanistan, and wrote a letter spelling that out to
bolster his application for VA benefits.
``Most patients are diagnosed [with pancreatic cancer] in
their mid- to late-60s or early 70s,'' Abrams said. ``He had
no risk factors, he was not a diabetic, he was in excellent
shape. And he had this long term, very significant toxic
exposure that was certainly not something that was common at
the time.''
The VA ultimately acknowledged that Heston's cancer was due
to his toxic exposures during service, due in large part,
June Heston thinks, to Abrams' letter. But a letter like that
is not easy to come by, experts say, because doctors are
tasked with treating an illness, not investigating its cause.
``It's very difficult to definitively say that X causes
Y,'' Abrams said. ``But on some level, I think it's important
to at least acknowledge that exposure to high levels of toxic
smoke is a contributor to lots of diseases in general. And I
don't think you need to necessarily pore through the data for
years to make at least that kind of general claim.''
Andrew Myatt deployed to Iraq in 2004 as a combat engineer
with the Army National Guard, disarming improvised explosive
devices, or IEDs. He believes the acute lymphocytic leukemia
he was diagnosed with in 2019 is connected to his exposure to
burn pits in Iraq, but when he applied for health care and
benefits, the VA denied his claim.
Myatt, 53, said he'd be lost without the help of Anita
Ritchie, the senior national service officer at the nonprofit
Wounded Warrior Project, who is helping him gather evidence
for an appeal.
``Toxic exposure is one of the few instances where there's
not a lot of people in the civilian world who know anything
about this stuff,'' Ritchie said.
Myatt said he is happy with his current private health
care, but getting the VA to accept that his cancer was
related to his service would ensure he has access to medical
care in the future.
``If this [cancer] shows up 20 years from now, when I'm
retired and living someplace, then I can go to them for
help,'' he said.
In 2014, the VA created a burn pit registry to start
tracking the long term health effects for service members who
were exposed to burn pits and other airborne hazards. Since
then, nearly 240,000 current and former service members have
joined.
But the practice hasn't stopped. In an April 2019 memo to
Congress, the Defense Department acknowledged that it had
nine active burn pits at bases throughout the Middle East.
Legislators and advocates are hopeful that this will be the
year that burn pit reform makes its way through Congress in
part because of a unique connection to President Joe Biden.
In the past, Biden has suggested that his son Beau's
deployment to Balad Air Base in Iraq may have had something
to do with his brain cancer diagnosis.
Balad Air Base had one of the largest burn pits, spanning
more than 10 acres. ``Because of exposure to burn pits--in my
view, I can't prove it yet--he came back with stage 4
glioblastoma,'' Biden told a Service Employees International
Union convention in 2019.
But for veterans like Scott Evans, who said he was told he
had between six months and a year to live, legislation may
not come soon enough.
Evans first contacted the VA medical center closest to his
home last April after his weight began to plummet and the
whites of his eyes had turned yellow. But he said he was told
he was ineligible because there was no evidence his condition
was connected to his service and he didn't qualify for
financial need.
He was eventually able to start receiving care at the VA in
July due to a different condition. The following month, he
was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at age 32.
Evans said he tries not to dwell on how things may have
been different if he had been able to access VA care last
April.
``Would [the tumor] have been operable? What would the
outcome have been of it?'' he said. ``For me, it's done and
over with, we can't change that. But the big thing that I
would like to see happen is that if somebody comes in and
they need help, and they're a veteran, be able to get that
help right away. And let's ask questions later.''
Still, Evans said he has no regrets over his military
service.
``Even knowing what I know now, and knowing the
consequences, I'd still do exactly the same thing, because it
was about the guys you're with,'' he said, pausing to collect
himself. ``The thing I'm most proud of is everybody who
walked behind me has all their limbs, and came back safe. And
if the cost of it was getting cancer, that's fine.''
Mr. McGOVERN: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise today
understanding that the greatness of America will not be measured by the
number of nuclear-powered submarines we have. Its greatness won't be
measured by our B-1 bombers or our number of soldiers in uniform. The
greatness of our Nation will be measured by how do you treat the
persons who fly the B-1 bombers; how do you treat the persons who will
take on the challenges of the world who become the front line of
democracy; how do you treat them when they return home? This is how the
greatness of America will be measured.
The greatness of America will be measured by what kind of housing do
we give them, do we help them to transition from military life to a job
in civilian life? The greatness of America will be measured by the kind
of insurance that they get so that they can have the best healthcare
the world can afford.
This bill, this legislation, among other things, expands healthcare
services for a larger group of veterans who were exposed to toxic
substances, Agent Orange, for example. Many men have died and suffered
and didn't get the healthcare that they earned because we allowed a
nebulous notion as to what Agent Orange was doing to them to persist.
There is a presumption now.
This bill increases the number of veterans without service-connected
disabilities who can receive healthcare. If I had my way, you would get
all of your healthcare whether service-connected or not. But I don't
have my way. But I am going to support this bill because I want my
record to show that when I had the chance to help the veterans, I did
what I could, and I voted ``yes.'' I didn't cop out. I stood tall with
them. I want my record to show that I came to this floor and encouraged
my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
[[Page H1196]]
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I have talked a lot today about the
Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, which is again, the Senate
version. That legislation carries the support of leading veteran
service organizations, VSOs, including Disabled American Veterans,
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Wounded Warrior Project, Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the American Legion, as well as
the Military Officers Association of America.
Again, that Senate version passed unanimously. We could be running
that here today and get it on the President's desk at the end of the
week. The only thing that stands between getting help to veterans right
now in terms of the burn pit issues is the Democrat Party's refusal to
just run the Senate version of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy), the Republican leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, but more
importantly, for his service to our Nation, and when he talks about
that bill, you think, in Congress, when can you find something that is
bipartisan?
Here you have something come out of the Senate that Republicans and
Democrats both agree upon. Republicans on this side of the aisle will
vote for that. The only thing holding it up for these veterans are the
Democrats. They know the bill they are going to produce won't go
anywhere, and hopefully, we can come back and get this done, and it
will go to the President's desk. It would have been nice for the
President to have a bill before he came for the State of the Union, so
he could actually sign something, but unfortunately, politics again
gets in the way.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to support Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers' and Mr. Westerman's legislation.
The crisis in Ukraine is a crisis of American energy security.
Over the past decade, we have had every opportunity to lead. During
the previous administration, we were energy independent and an exporter
of energy for the first time in 50 years.
Today, however, we have an administration that crippled domestic
production. This administration has increased its daily reliance on
Russian oil by 34 percent.
As every American is glued to their television to see what is
happening in Ukraine, to see the bombing of innocent children and
women, there is no one American who would want any of our money to go
to fund that. But in this administration, you had actually done that,
increased the production of oil and natural gas coming from Russia to
America. Meanwhile, it slow-walked oil and natural gas exports to our
allies in Europe. In doing so, it made Europe more reliant on Putin.
Today, 40 percent of natural gas and 25 percent of crude oil in
Europe comes from Russian. The Biden administration has made the free
world dependent on despots for oil and natural gas from Russia.
We all know that is shameful.
As an economic and energy superpower why are we relying on dictators
when we should be supplying the world?
If you are like me and you are concerned about the environment, do
you realize that American natural gas is 42 percent cleaner than
Russian natural gas? That crude oil could have come from Canada and
been refined in America if President Biden hadn't pulled the plug on
the Keystone Pipeline. But instead, he allowed Putin to have Nord
Stream 2.
For those at home that are wondering, what is the Nord Stream 2
pipeline? It is another pipeline built by Russia to go in to supply
natural gas to Europe, but it goes around Ukraine because the current
pipeline goes through Ukraine, and Ukraine gets part of the money.
But with this new administration and President Biden going to meet
with Mr. Putin, what did he do? He waived the sanctions. But when
President Biden watched Putin put hundreds of thousands of men along
the border of Ukraine there was an amendment offered in the Senate to
put sanctions on Nord Stream 2. People wondered; did it pass? It came
close, but it failed.
Do you want to know why it failed? Because the Biden administration
used all their political will to lobby against it passing. And more of
American millions of dollars went to fund Putin who uses it for his
military.
That natural gas that goes to Europe, it could have come from
America, from our Federal lands and waters where President Biden hasn't
approved a single new lease--not one; he has actually shut them down--
and if we had continued the energy policies of the Trump
administration, we would actually be safer today and Putin would have
less money to fund his military weaponry. Our allies would be safer
today, and American families would be paying less for cleaner energy.
In California it is more than $5 a gallon, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I
don't know if you can remember back when when it was much less.
Now, I hear from our colleagues on the other side that the reason
American resources must stay in the ground is climate change. I
listened to Mr. Kerry be interviewed as Russia invaded Ukraine, and he
was concerned. This former Secretary of State, now helping in this
administration, I thought he would be concerned about the men and women
in Ukraine. He was concerned with; would Putin still work with climate
change? I think you should tell that to the Ukrainian people. I don't
think one of them is concerned about that right now.
Now, I hear our colleagues when they talk about climate change, but
if they really studied it, the truth is what I told you before,
American natural gas is 42 percent cleaner than Russian natural gas.
And we can guarantee you this, we are not invading Ukraine. We won't
use the resources to carpet-bomb, to shoot innocent women and children.
If you are concerned about the environment, like I am, you should
support this bill. You could, Mr. Speaker. It immediately approves the
Keystone Pipeline because we have waited long enough and can't afford
to wait a minute longer. It removes all restriction on liquid natural
gas exports so we could become an arsenal of energy for the free world.
And it restarts the leases on Federal lands and waters which are being
held up by the Biden administration.
{time} 1330
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. You have the majority here on the
floor. You have the Biden administration. It is in the power of your
party. But those six permits that sit at the desk of the Secretary of
Energy that could take money away from Putin, provide American jobs,
and provide Europe with cleaner natural gas from America still sit
there to this day because somehow you think it is better for climate
change.
Mr. Speaker, a vote for this bill is a vote to produce more energy
for our allies. It means American jobs. It means our allies don't have
to deal with Putin, be held hostage to him. It means Putin will not
have millions of dollars from Americans to buy the weaponry that he
uses to kill innocent people in Ukraine.
A vote for this bill is a vote to provide relief for working families
at the pump. It means Americans won't have to pay the high prices they
are today.
I know at the White House, when they were asked this question, they
said it is okay that the price is high because that way somehow it
helps them with climate change if they could get more renewable energy.
Mr. Speaker, that is a tax on all Americans, especially low-income.
But I don't know, in this administration, they have the highest
inflation we have had in 40 years. Somehow, they must think that is
positive, too.
Mr. Speaker, in this new administration, when you have crime, we have
a border that is not secure. People are coming across the border that
are on the terrorist watch list. We now have more fentanyl in America
today than at any time, enough to kill every single American seven
times over.
Mr. Speaker, I know you would care about this because you know,
today, the number one cause of death of those between the ages of 18 to
45 is fentanyl. You know where it comes from, the chemicals of China,
across the border of Mexico that no longer is attended to.
Mr. Speaker, I know the President of your party has put the Vice
President in charge, and she has been there one time--one time. Every
city in America has become a border city today every single weekend.
[[Page H1197]]
Mr. Speaker, you know this based upon your background. You see the
deaths that are happening. It is unwanted. It is unneeded. And we could
do better.
Mr. Speaker, a vote for this bill is a vote to deprive Putin of a
major revenue stream.
It is not difficult. There won't be any pressure. All Members have to
do is walk onto the floor, take the card out of their pocket, put it in
the little box. And if you are somebody that because you are afraid of
COVID, you are still home, or you are on a boat, you could still vote
by proxy with this majority.
What you could do is you could vote for this bill. You could vote to
make America energy independent. You could lower the gas prices. You
could take the money out of Putin's hands that he uses to kill innocent
people.
Everybody in the world is watching. Mr. Speaker, the sad part, I bet
if this bill was on the floor in any country in Europe, it would be 100
percent voted for. I will be watching. I think America will be
watching.
Would we stand for America and for freedom? Would we stand for
President Zelensky, who didn't take the advice of President Biden and
leave his country, who doesn't ask for men and women from America to
come to fight? He just asks to provide some weapons so they can defend
against Putin.
Mr. Speaker, the sad part about that is every day that we allow crude
or natural gas to come from Russia, American money is going to Putin.
Let's stop that and stop that today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the world is watching. And I am not going
to be lectured by someone who takes their marching orders from Donald
Trump, who said that Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a genius and savvy
move. I wish the gentleman would have condemned that.
Listening to that speech, you would think that Joe Biden invaded
Ukraine. I mean, he spent all this time criticizing Joe Biden, John
Kerry, and everybody else but hardly criticized Vladimir Putin.
You know, look, I also wish, because I think it would be helpful for
this country and a signal to the world, if the gentleman who just spoke
would reprimand Members of his own party who cozy up to white
nationalists and go to pro-Putin rallies. That would send a signal to
people in this country and to people around the world on whose side we
are on.
Bottom line is, the people of Ukraine are being invaded by a brutal
dictator, Vladimir Putin. And when their standard-bearer, Donald Trump,
was in charge, he spread propaganda about Ukrainian interference in the
2016 election, which was a lie. He ousted a well-regarded U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine because they weren't doing what he wanted to in
terms of finding dirt on his political opponents. He froze military
assistance to Ukraine; they said nothing. He withheld a White House
meeting with Zelensky, turned Ukraine policy over to Giuliani--I could
go on and on and on.
We are not going to be lectured by them. Instead, we are going to
move forward and pass a bill to help America's veterans, with or
without them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, so just a quick history lesson. The
Obama-Biden administration sent Ukraine blankets and well-wishes. The
Trump administration sent Javelin missiles. That is the big difference.
You know, I have said numerous times standing up here that the
Democratic Party is a party of political science. I could be even more
generous. The Democratic Party is also a party of false choices and
false narratives. The Democrats have presented us with a false choice
when it comes to U.S. energy and also a false narrative.
Let me be clear: We can unleash domestic energy and be good stewards
of the environment. Thanks to American energy innovation, thanks to the
energy sector, the U.S., at least under President Trump, was actually
reducing carbon emissions. In Pennsylvania, for example, thanks to
natural gas, our energy sector has reduced emissions by 41 percent
since 2005.
Again, it is an absolutely false choice. It is a false narrative that
we cannot unleash the American energy sector and be good stewards of
the environment. In fact, quite the opposite. We actually are good
stewards of the environment when we are using clean natural gas,
particularly from Pennsylvania.
But here to talk more about that issue is my good friend, the ranking
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and one of the authors
of the American Energy Independence from Russia Act, Cathy McMorris
Rodgers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Mrs. Rodgers).
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge
immediate consideration of the American Energy Independence from Russia
Act.
Innocent blood is being spilled in Ukraine as we speak. Women and
children are being separated from their fathers. Democracy is under
attack. Freedom must prevail. What do the people in Ukraine want? They
want self-determination and independence from Russia.
Mr. Speaker, Russia's economy is entirely dependent upon energy
production and exports. Putin uses energy and pipelines as weapons,
threatening to cut off supplies or hike prices when the West confronts
Russia's aggression. Russia's energy exports fund its military and its
current attack on Ukraine. America, not Russia, is the world's number
one energy producer. We should act like it and lead.
President Biden must restore American energy dominance and use energy
resources to help Ukraine and Europe fight back. We shouldn't be buying
a single barrel of oil from Russia, and our allies shouldn't be
beholden to aggressors that attack their freedom. Europe should have
the choice to buy American energy and say no to Russian pipelines and
Nord Stream 2.
That is why Congressman Bruce Westerman and I are leading on the
American Energy Independence from Russia Act. This bill flips the
switch on American energy. We need more pipelines, including Keystone
XL, so this bill immediately approves the Keystone XL pipeline so that
we can import crude oil from Canada, not Russia.
It also removes all restrictions on U.S. energy exports to deliver
natural gas to our allies in Europe, and it restarts oil and gas
leasing on our Federal lands and offshore waters.
This is how we shut down Putin's war chest, stand by Ukraine, empower
our allies, protect our national security, and create jobs here at
home.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to say ``no'' on this previous
question and ``yes'' on the American Energy Independence from Russia
Act.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this
time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am an Iraq war veteran. I was in Baghdad for 6 months
in 2009. I can tell you that I am committed to ensuring the men and
women who served our Nation receive the care and benefits they deserve.
It is of utmost importance to me as a Member of this body and as an
Iraq war veteran.
That is the reason why I am so disappointed in my friends across the
aisle. I am disappointed that instead of considering the Senate-passed
Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act--which, again, could immediately
be sent to the President's desk--House Democrats are prioritizing
legislation that is still a long way away from enactment and will delay
benefits for toxic-exposed veterans.
Let me be clear. We can get help to veterans. We can get this bill to
the desk of the President by the end of this week. The only thing
standing in the way are my friends on the other side of the aisle.
It is for that reason I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I want to thank and acknowledge Jeff
Gohringer, who has served as the communications director for the House
Committee on Rules in both the majority and minority over the last 6
years. Today is his last day with the Committee on Rules, and I speak
for Members and staff on both sides of the aisle when I say to Jeff
that we are grateful
[[Page H1198]]
for your years of service in this institution. We wish you well in your
future endeavors, and you will always have a home here.
I also thank James Fitzella, who is leaving as well. The staff are
incredible on the Committee on Rules, and James will be dearly missed.
Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that we heard a lot on the
other side and barely a mention about our veterans. The gentlewoman
from Washington, who came on the floor just recently and read the oil
company talking points, couldn't even bring herself to mention veterans
once.
The bill that we are talking about here today is to make sure
veterans who have been exposed to toxic chemicals, who get cancer, who
get other ailments, get the healthcare they need.
You would like to think that we could all come together on it. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania keeps on talking about this narrow bill. I
mean, they are not even serious about it because if they were, they
would have used the previous question vote, which would give them the
right to control the floor, to bring that up. But they didn't. Instead,
they are bringing up an oil company's wish list.
This really is obnoxious. I get it. They don't like President Biden,
and they will let no crisis go by without trying to make it about
President Biden.
But let me just say this: We should be together in standing with the
people of Ukraine, and we should be together in standing with our
veterans.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as
follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 950
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 6858) to strengthen United States energy security,
encourage domestic production of crude oil, petroleum
products, and natural gas, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 6858.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. 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 221,
nays 202, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 49]
YEAS--221
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)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
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
Gaetz
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
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
NAYS--202
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
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
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
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
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
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
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
NOT VOTING--9
Bost
Cloud
Gallagher
Gohmert
Mfume
Miller (IL)
Taylor
Weber (TX)
Zeldin
{time} 1417
Mr. STEWART changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Aguilar (Correa)
Babin (Norman)
Barragan (Correa)
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Cardenas (Gomez)
Carter (TX) (Cawthorn)
Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
Cuellar (Correa)
DelBene (Kuster)
Deutch (Rice (NY))
Doggett (Beyer)
Doyle, Michael F. (Connolly)
Evans (Brown (MD))
Fallon (Jackson)
Fletcher (Wexton)
Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
Gosar (Greene (GA))
Granger (Van Duyne)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Johnson (SD) (Armstrong)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kahele (Correa)
Kelly (PA) (Keller)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawson (FL) (Soto)
Manning (Beyer)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Kuster)
Miller (WV) (LaHood)
Nehls (Cawthorn)
Pfluger (Ellzey)
Pocan (Jayapal)
Raskin (Cicilline)
Roybal-Allard (Takano)
Rush (Jeffries)
Scott, David (Jeffries)
Sessions (Duncan)
Sires (Pallone)
Strickland (Jeffries)
Suozzi (Beyer)
Trone (Connolly)
Underwood (Jeffries)
Van Drew
(Reschenthaler)
Veasey (Beyer)
Wilson (FL)
(Cicilline)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
[[Page H1199]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. 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 220,
nays 200, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 50]
YEAS--220
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)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
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
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
NAYS--200
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Clyde
Cole
Comer
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
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
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
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
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
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson
(SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
NOT VOTING--12
Balderson
Bost
Cloud
Crawford
Gallagher
Gohmert
Kinzinger
Mfume
Miller (IL)
Taylor
Weber (TX)
Zeldin
{time} 1437
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I was unavailable to vote in the House. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 49 and ``nay''
on rollcall No. 50.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Aguilar (Correa)
Babin (Norman)
Barragan (Correa)
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Cardenas (Gomez)
Carter (TX) (Cawthorn)
Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
Cuellar (Correa)
DelBene (Kuster)
Deutch (Rice (NY))
Doggett (Beyer)
Doyle, Michael F. (Connolly)
Evans (Brown (MD))
Fallon (Jackson)
Fletcher (Wexton)
Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
Gosar (Greene (GA))
Granger (Van Duyne)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Johnson (SD) (Armstrong)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kahele (Correa)
Kelly (PA) (Keller)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawson (FL) (Soto)
Manning (Beyer)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Kuster)
Miller (WV) (LaHood)
Nehls (Cawthorn)
Pfluger (Ellzey)
Pocan (Jayapal)
Raskin (Cicilline)
Roybal-Allard (Takano)
Rush (Jeffries)
Scott, David (Jeffries)
Sessions (Duncan)
Sires (Pallone)
Stauber (Bergman)
Strickland (Jeffries)
Suozzi (Beyer)
Trone (Connolly)
Underwood (Jeffries)
Van Drew
(Reschenthaler)
Veasey (Beyer)
Wilson (FL)
(Cicilline)
____________________