[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 99 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2875-S2883]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   HONORING OUR PROMISE TO ADDRESS COMPREHENSIVE TOXICS ACT OF 2021--
                                Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3967, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3967), to improve health care and benefits for 
     veterans exposed to toxic substances, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Tester/Moran amendment No. 5051, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Schumer amendment No. 5065 (to amendment No. 5051), to add 
     an effective date.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this year we have already seen more 
mass shootings in America than we have had days in the year--more than 
one a day on average. The prevalence of guns, their ease of access, and 
the hateful motivations of mass shooters have all mixed into a toxic 
brew that is tearing America apart. People are asking, what is going 
on, and why can't Congress protect us?
  Yesterday, our House colleagues heard from those affected most: the 
parents of a young girl murdered in Uvalde, a student who played dead 
by covering herself in her friend's blood, and the mom of a Buffalo 
survivor who painted the gruesome picture of the bullet holes on her 
son's neck, back, and leg.
  These were harrowing, gut-wrenching testimonies. That Congress has 
not acted in decades in response to these acts of violence is shameful. 
It used to be different. About 30 years ago, I was the author of the 
Brady bill and worked with Republicans and law enforcement to get 
strong gun safety laws passed. That was a different era. But the lesson 
from back then remains clear today: The right laws can make a real 
difference in reducing gun deaths. Because those laws were on the 
books, it is very likely that tens of thousands of people are alive and 
healthy who would not have been.
  Right now, the Senate is trying to break that streak of inaction--the 
30-year streak of inaction since we were able to pass Brady and the 
assault weapons ban--by working toward meaningful legislation on gun 
violence.
  Yesterday, a bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans met again 
to continue working toward a bipartisan compromise. This morning, my 
colleague Senator Murphy reported that the group is making good 
progress, and they hope to get something real done very soon. As soon 
as the bipartisan group comes to agreement, I want to bring a measure 
to the floor for a vote as quickly as possible.
  The overwhelming consensus of our caucus, of gun safety advocates, 
and of the American people is that getting something real done on gun 
violence is worth pursuing, even if we cannot get everything that we 
know we need.
  The work of curing our Nation of mass shootings will continue well 
after

[[Page S2876]]

this debate concludes. But at this moment, we have a moral obligation 
to try for real progress because taking tangible steps to reduce gun 
violence is critically important.
  Americans are sick and tired of going through the same grieving cycle 
over and over again, only for Congress to do nothing. They are enraged 
that even after shootings in Sandy Hook, Parkland, San Bernardino, El 
Paso, Boulder, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and so many others, that nothing--
nothing--has changed.
  We hope this time around something will change at last. I hope that 
very soon we can see a deal come together. I encourage my colleagues to 
keep their talks going so we can act on it very quickly.


                           January 6 Hearings

  Madam President, on the January 6 hearings, tonight, the Nation will 
tune in to the House Select Committee on January 6 as they begin their 
first public hearings on the Capitol insurrection. Tonight's hearings 
will be a watershed moment in the fight to protect our democracy from 
the Big Lie of the hard right.
  The committee will lay bare the truth that the American people must 
know; first, that there was tremendous violence. There are still many 
out there who say there wasn't violence. There was. The pictures show 
it. The eyewitnesses testify to it.
  And the committee will lay bare the truth that the American people 
must know; that Donald Trump was at the heart of a coordinated effort 
to overturn the 2020 elections, to overturn our constitutional order, 
and inflict permanent damage upon our democracy. It will be essential 
viewing.
  But in one of the most cowardly journalistic decisions in modern 
memory, FOX News--one of the biggest amplifiers of the Big Lie about 
January 6, about Donald Trump, and about the election--will not 
broadcast tonight's hearing.
  FOX News's decision not to air the biggest hearing in modern history 
should end any debate that they are not a real news organization. FOX 
News is rapidly becoming a propaganda machine of the hard right, and it 
is as plain as day that they are scared of their viewers learning the 
truth about January 6.
  FOX News's decision not to air the January 6 hearings is dangerous, 
cowardly, and shameful, given that they have spent more than a year 
spreading the Big Lie and misinforming their viewers.
  Instead of telling the truth, they have isolated their viewers in an 
alternative reality of conspiracy theories that is immensely damaging 
to our democracy. Even the so-called liberal media which FOX News 
regularly attacks tries to tell both sides.
  FOX News is afraid of telling both sides because they are afraid of 
the truth, and they are afraid their viewers may learn that FOX News 
has lied to them.
  I urge FOX News to change course very soon. The press has an 
obligation--always has had that obligation--not to hide the truth from 
the American people, no matter how painful or inconvenient.
  And as a nation, we have a duty to never forget what happened on 
January 6. The direct assault on our democracy and the dangers of that 
day, sadly, remain still with us.


                     Honoring our PACT Act of 2021

  Madam President, now, on the PACT Act, a happier note, today, the 
Senate will continue consideration of the most important veteran 
healthcare expansion in decades, the PACT Act, authored by my 
colleagues Senators Tester and Moran--bipartisan.
  We want to get this bill done as soon as we can. We can't have 
dilatory or destructive amendments to this bill because it is too 
important for our veterans' well-being to delay or destroy it.
  For years, I have worked extensively with veterans, veterans service 
organizations, and advocates, including Jon Stewart and John Deal, who 
all say that the VA rules must be changed to ensure sick veterans get 
the care they need.
  They volunteered, went off to war, and were exposed to toxins. That 
is a cost of war, and the American people cannot let them down.
  The bill, which could benefit 3.5 million veterans who have been 
exposed to toxic chemicals in the line of duty, represents that change. 
For the sake of our veterans, there is no reason--no reason--not to 
pass this bill A-S-A-P, and I hope that is precisely what we can do.


                                Shipping

  Madam President, on shipping, next week, the House is to vote on a 
much needed bill, passed unanimously by the Senate in April, to lower 
costs and relieve supply chains by reforming unfair shipping practices 
that hurt exporters and consumers alike.
  Rising costs are top of the mind right now for the American people, 
and one of the more flummoxing causes of inflation is the crushing 
backlog that we are seeing at our ports. We have all seen the pictures 
of scores of ships lining up in ports, from Los Angeles to Savannah, to 
Seattle, to my home port of New York and New Jersey.
  These backlogs have created serious price hikes. According to one 
study from earlier this year, the price to transport a container from 
China to the west coast of the United States costs 12 times--12 times--
as much as it did 2 years ago, and the American consumer is paying the 
price. And it hurts both ways when shipping costs go up: It affects 
exports that we send overseas and imports that come back. It is a 
double whammy, whacking the American people's pocketbooks and wallets. 
At the end of the day, the American consumer ends up paying the higher 
price.
  So I am very glad that the House will finally act on the Senate-
passed shipping bill next week. The shipping reform bill will help us 
lower costs. It will clear our ports, relieve our supply chains, and 
American families will feel the benefit.
  I want to thank my colleagues Senators Klobuchar and Thune, the 
authors of the legislation, as well as the fine work of Senator 
Cantwell, for leading this legislation earlier this year out of 
committee, onto the floor, and passing here in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 2 years ago, the Senate Democratic 
leader stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened two 
Justices by name. ``You will pay the price,'' he shouted. ``You won't 
know what hit you.'' A month ago, after the precedent-breaking leak of 
a draft opinion, top Democrats intensified the reckless talk. Hillary 
Clinton said the Court was poised to ``kill and subjugate women.'' 
Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi said the Court would be ``ripp[ing] 
up the Constitution.'' Some of the most powerful people in the country 
pushing total hysteria over the possibility that Justices may--may--
overturn a decision that even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said was 
badly reasoned.
  Far-left activists publicized Justices' private addresses and 
encouraged angry people to flock to their homes. President Biden and 
his White House were asked to condemn these intimidation tactics, and 
they refused. I wrote to Attorney General Garland about a month ago, 
asking why he wasn't enforcing the laws on the books already against 
judicial intimidation.
  Look, everybody saw where this climate might lead. So, yesterday 
morning, U.S. marshals arrested a deranged person who traveled to 
Washington from California in order to assassinate a Supreme Court 
Justice at his house. He has reportedly been charged with attempted 
murder. The FBI says the would-be assassin was armed and equipped for a 
break-in. He told authorities that he was trying to think about how to 
give his life a purpose. Apparently, it was only when he came across 
the Justice's address posted online that it occurred to him to attempt 
a murder-suicide. He explained that his problem with this Justice was 
ideological, citing abortion and the Second Amendment.
  While this would-be assassin was making his plan and traveling across

[[Page S2877]]

the country, House Democrats have spent weeks--weeks--blocking 
bipartisan legislation to strengthen security for the Justices and 
their families.
  This bipartisan bill passed the Senate unanimously in early May. 
Chairman Durbin is a strong supporter. But inexplicably--inexplicably--
this urgent and uncontroversial bill has been sitting on Speaker 
Pelosi's desk ever since. The same House Democrats whose irresponsible 
rhetoric has contributed to this dangerous climate are themselves 
blocking added security for the Justices and their spouses and their 
children. Even last night--last night--even after this arrest was 
made, even after a leftwing group published an ominous social media 
post concerning a school that a Justice's children attend, when Leader 
McCarthy asked consent to pass the uncontroversial bill, House 
Democrats objected to it.

  Meanwhile, the Biden Department of Justice, under Attorney General 
Garland, continues to flatly ignore section 1507 of the Criminal Code, 
which would appear to make it a Federal crime to protest at the homes 
of Federal judges to influence them over a pending case. That is the 
law right now.
  So this has been a shameful and disturbing two-step from Washington 
Democrats. First they use reckless rhetoric that helps fuel the 
dangerous climate, and then they refuse to do their jobs and address 
the problem. The same far left that has spent years trying to 
improperly pressure the Court is now aiding and abetting this illegal 
intimidation campaign through total inaction.
  So why won't President Biden call on his supporters to leave the 
Justices alone?
  President Biden, call on your supporters to leave the Justices alone.
  Why won't the Attorney General of the United States enforce existing 
law? Why won't the Speaker stop blocking a bipartisan security bill 
that passed the Senate unanimously?
  So it is hard to avoid concluding that perhaps some Democrats may 
want this dangerous climate hanging over the Justices' heads as they 
finish up this term--a disgraceful--disgraceful--dereliction of duty. 
This is antithetical to the rule of law. The Speaker of the House and 
the Attorney General must honor their oaths to the Constitution and do 
their jobs.
  I understand Democrats want to stage a big spectacle this week about 
what they claim is their opposition to political violence, but in 
reality, they are going out of their way to block concrete steps to 
prevent political violence.


                             Foreign Policy

  Madam President, now on an entirely separate matter, 1 year ago 
yesterday, the Biden administration announced its withdrawal from 
Afghanistan had reached a halfway point.
  Analysis after analysis has confirmed what was clear to many of us in 
real time: The President's shoddy plans for a reckless pullout were 
doomed to disaster from the start.
  Back in February, an Army investigation found that in the run-up to 
President Biden's botched retreat, his senior national security and 
diplomatic advisers were ``not seriously planning for an evacuation'' 
and not paying attention to ``what was happening on the ground.'' That 
is an Army investigation of the withdrawal.
  Last month, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction blasted the administration's bad judgment before 
Congress. He explained that removing U.S. military and contractor 
support to our Afghan partners was ``the single most important factor'' 
in the collapse--the collapse--of Afghanistan's resistance to the 
Taliban.
  It is not just that this giant policy failure should have been 
foreseeable to the Biden administration; it was, in fact, foreseen. 
Experts spent months warning that the President's policies would create 
chaos. I spent months saying the very same thing.
  Now many of the worst predictions about the aftermath are coming true 
before our eyes. Our country and our partners are facing needlessly 
heightened risk from terrorists because of how the Biden administration 
botched Afghanistan. Yet the administration is still in denial.
  In a letter to Congress just yesterday, the Commander in Chief 
claimed the United States ``remains postured to address threats'' to 
both our homeland and our interests ``that may arise from inside 
Afghanistan.'' But the reality is that Pentagon leaders have been clear 
about the dramatic ways the withdrawal has limited our ability to 
identify, to target, and to strike terrorists in Afghanistan.
  The former commander of U.S. Central Command says that forcing U.S. 
air assets to travel longer distances to reach Afghan airspace means 
severely limiting the time they can spend actually performing 
counterterrorism missions--just as we predicted.
  A brandnew report from the lead inspector general for our ongoing 
counterterrorism operations further confirms that the Biden 
administration's mistakes have put us way, way behind the 
curve. Without human intelligence or bases in the country, the United 
States is already suffering from less insight into emerging terror 
threats. Our sources are drying up just as we predicted.

  We haven't conducted a single strike against a military target in 
Afghanistan since the last military personnel left Kabul, and that 
isn't because there aren't any terrorists there. As the IG report 
confirms, it is because of ``logistical challenges and limited 
intelligence.''
  The Taliban-Haqqani government in Kabul is not just a state sponsor 
of terrorism, it is literally a government made up of terrorists and 
kidnappers with deep ties to Al Qaeda.
  Even as the Biden team continues to pretend that over-the-horizon 
operations are not inadequate in Afghanistan, they are implicitly 
acknowledging that same insufficiency in other theaters. Last month, 
President Biden redeployed U.S. troops to Somalia, reestablishing a 
limited but real presence intended to help local partners prevent their 
country from becoming a terrorist haven. So President Biden's own 
actions in Somalia give rise to the false claims in Afghanistan. In 
point of fact, the longest term vision about counterterrorism this 
White House has managed to lay out is their obsession--obsession--with 
someday shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention center entirely.
  I have yet to hear any coherent plans for what the Biden 
administration intends to do with the dangerous killers currently held 
there. Will they continue to rely on third countries to detain 
terrorists? That is the strategy that made possible the Taliban's 
massive jailbreak of thousands of hardened terrorists from Bagram after 
this administration fled Afghanistan.
  Does the administration intend to send terrorists to Syria to be held 
indefinitely by a nongovernmental entity like the Syrian Defense 
Forces? In that case, how long is the Biden administration prepared to 
remain in Syria to make sure that ISIS, Hezbollah, or the Assad regime 
can't facilitate another giant jailbreak?
  The American people and our coalition partners deserve a clear, 
coherent counterterrorism strategy that leaves our homeland safer and 
our partnerships stronger.
  The Biden administration is providing, unfortunately, exactly the 
opposite.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before I begin, I would like to express 
my dismay at House Democrats' decision last night to block legislation 
to provide enhanced security for Supreme Court Justices and their 
families.
  Due to the unprecedented leak of an early draft of the Supreme 
Court's Dobbs decision and the resulting hysteria from members of the 
pro-abortion left, the Supreme Court asked Congress for additional 
authorities to protect Justices' families. This happened 4 weeks ago. 
And yesterday's arrest of an armed man near Justice Kavanaugh's home--a 
man who told police that he intended to kill a Supreme Court Justice 
and has been charged with attempted murder--made clear just how needed 
that protection is.

[[Page S2878]]

  The Supreme Court security legislation in question passed the Senate 
unanimously 4 weeks ago but has faced inexplicable delays in the House 
of Representatives.
  This should not be a partisan issue. The Senate Democratic Whip said 
just yesterday that the House should pass this legislation.
  And I really thought that yesterday's arrest of an individual bent on 
assassinating a Supreme Court Justice would have forced House Democrats 
to abandon political gains and provide this urgently needed protection.
  There is no excuse for further delay. One press report suggests that 
Democrats may be rethinking their opposition. I hope that is true. 
House Democrats should abandon the political games today and pass this 
legislation.


                             Student Loans

  Madam President, recent reporting suggests that President Biden may 
be contemplating forgiving $10,000 in Federal student loan debt per 
borrower. That is a bad idea for many reasons. It is difficult really 
to know where to start, but let me begin by pointing out the obvious: 
that forgiving $10,000 in Federal student loan debt will do absolutely 
nothing to address the underlying problem and, in fact, would likely 
make things much worse.
  The price of higher education has risen stratospherically in recent 
decades. The cost of 1 year of attendance at some colleges--just 1 
year--is more than many Americans' yearly salaries. And that is a 
problem. But forgiving $10,000 of student loan debt would do absolutely 
nothing to fix the problem of soaring tuition costs. As I said, it 
would very likely make things worse.
  What incentive would colleges have to rein in costs if they could be 
confident that part of their students' bill would eventually be picked 
up by the Federal Government; because, of course, no one should be 
deceived into thinking that student loan forgiveness would be a one-
time thing?
  One estimate suggests that the student loan burden in this country 
would return to its current amount within 4 years--4 years--of $10,000 
in debt being forgiven, and calls to forgive more debt would 
undoubtedly come much sooner.
  Future graduates are very likely to want the same deal that would be 
offered to graduates today--the wiping away of $10,000 in debt--which 
brings us to another problem: some students opting to take on 
unrealistic levels of debt to finance their educations.
  How much greater is that problem going to be if students think that 
the Government is likely to step in and forgive some of the debt that 
they have agreed to repay? It is very easy to imagine a student feeling 
free to take on more debt than he or she otherwise would, believing 
that the Government is likely to reduce the resulting debt burden.
  Another massive problem with President Biden's plan is, of course, 
its complete unfairness. Under President Biden's plan, an individual 
who just finished paying his or her student loans after years of work 
would not receive a penny. Meanwhile, a student who graduated a month 
ago and hasn't yet paid a dime on his or her loans could see a 
substantial part of his or her debt wiped away.
  The President's plan is also incredibly unfair to the tens of 
millions of Americans without any student loan debt who would be asked 
to subsidize a student loan debt of a small percentage of Americans. 
Somewhere around two-thirds of millennials have no student debt, either 
because they didn't attend college or didn't take out any loans to 
attend college. The president's plan is unfair to those who avoided 
loans by working their way through school or choosing a lower-cost 
college option. It is unfair to parents who worked for years to ensure 
that they could finance their kids' education. And it is unfair to 
those who chose not to attend a traditional 4-year college and, 
instead, trained in one of the many essential trades we depend on, from 
plumbing to air conditioning to broadband installation, at a 
significantly lower-cost community college or technical school.
  Another problem with the President's plan is what it would teach 
about the sanctity of contracts. While it may, at times, be ill-
advised, students freely enter into the agreements when they take out a 
loan. Should we really be teaching that agreements and contracts mean 
nothing, that people can incur debt and then not have to pay it off?
  Another important point to make here is that the average debt for 
undergraduate education in this country is not as crippling as it might 
be portrayed. Now, there is no question that there are students out 
there who were encouraged to take on unrealistic levels of debt and are 
currently struggling with huge debt burdens made up of private as well 
as Federal loans, but the average debt, the average debt for an 
undergraduate education is somewhere around $29,000. That is not chump 
change, for sure, but it is also not an unmanageable level of debt for 
the average college graduate--especially with the availability of 
extended repayment plans and income-driven repayment programs.
  Average student loan debt rises substantially for those with advanced 
degrees, and there are certainly those who take on far too much debt 
for graduate education, but it is also important to know that those 
with advanced degrees have higher--and in some cases much higher--
earning potential.
  Doctors, for example, take on medical debt north of $190,000 on 
average, but once they have completed their education and training they 
can expect to make a robust--sometimes a very robust--six figures per 
year, making repaying debt of that size a very feasible proposition.
  There is no question that the cost of higher education is out of 
control and that students sometimes take on unrealistic levels of debt 
to pay for it. But forgiving student loan debt is not the answer for 
the reasons I have mentioned, among others. Instead, we should be 
exploring ways to drive down education costs.
  We should be also highlighting affordable education options like our 
Nation's community colleges and technical schools. These institutions, 
like the outstanding tech schools we have in South Dakota, provide 
students with associate's degrees, certificates, apprenticeships, 
opportunities to learn a trade, and more.
  There are also things we can do to help students pay off loans 
without forcing taxpayers to shoulder the burden. In December of 2020, 
Congress passed a 5-year version of legislation that I introduced with 
Senator Warner to allow employers to help employees repay their loans. 
Our Employer Participation in Repayment Act amends the Educational 
Assistance Program to permit employers to make tax-free payments on 
their employees' student loans. It is a win for employees, who get help 
paying off their student loans. And it is a win for employers who have 
a new option for attracting and retaining talented workers.
  Our bill isn't a cure-all, but it will certainly help ease the pain 
of paying back student loans for a number of Americans. I am pleased 
that it was enacted into law for a 5-year period, and I hope at some 
point Congress will act to make it permanent.
  Another big thing we can do, of course, is to make sure that 
graduates have access to good-paying jobs. This is key to enabling 
people to pay off their debt, and we should resolve to build on the 
economic progress that we had made prepandemic and focus on policies 
that will allow our economy to thrive.
  Republicans are not alone in thinking that forgiving $10,000 in 
student loan debt is fraught with problems. As one Democrat Senator 
said:

       An across-the-board cancellation of college debt does 
     nothing to address the absurd cost of college or fix our 
     broken student loan program. It offers nothing to Americans 
     who paid off their college debts or those who chose a lower-
     priced college to go to as a way of avoiding going into debt 
     or taking on debt. . . . [R]really importantly, it ignores 
     the majority of Americans who never went to college, some of 
     whom have debts just as staggering . . .

  That is from one of our Democrat colleagues here in the Senate.
  The New York Times editorial board, not exactly known for toeing the 
Republican line, noted:

       Canceling this debt, even in the limited amounts the White 
     House is considering, would set a bad precedent and do 
     nothing to change the fact that future students will graduate 
     with yet more debt--along with the blind hope of another, 
     future amnesty. Such a move is legally dubious, economically 
     unsound, politically fraught and educationally problematic.

  That was from the New York Times editorial board.

[[Page S2879]]

  With inflation near a 40-year high, with the President's approval 
rating hitting a new low, and with Democrats' prospects for November 
looking less rosy, it is not exactly surprising that the President 
would look toward student loan forgiveness as a way of distracting 
voters or that some Democrats are reportedly pushing for student loan 
forgiveness as a way to boost their chances in November; but I very 
much hope that the President will decide that temporary political gain 
is not a good reason to put American taxpayers on the hook for billions 
of dollars in student loan debt that is not their own.
  As the New York Times noted, the President's plan is ``legally 
dubious, economically unsound, politically fraught, and educationally 
problematic.''
  I strongly, strongly encourage the President to abandon a plan that 
even the Democratic Speaker of the House has suggested he doesn't have 
the authority to implement.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at 11:45 
a.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session and vote on the 
confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 856, the nomination of Robert 
Steven Huie, as provided under the previous order, and that, following 
the vote, the Senate resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           January 6 Hearings

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this evening, the Select Committee to 
investigate the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold its 
first public hearing.
  For more than 10 months, the January 6 Select Committee has labored 
diligently to discover and document the truth about the day we nearly 
lost our democracy. This evening, the committee will begin to lay out 
publicly, for the first time, the coordinated plan in place to overturn 
the results of the 2020 Presidential election and prevent the peaceful 
transition of power to a new administration in America. Those are 
incredible words that I have just spoken, but they reflect the reality 
of January 6, 2021.
  Among the witnesses will be Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards, 
one of the more than 140 Capitol and Metropolitan police officers who 
was injured when the mob attacked the Capitol.
  To Officer Edwards and all of the police officers who defended 
American democracy that day and who continue to protect this Capitol 
every day, we owe more than our thanks.
  January 6 revealed to the world how fragile democracy can be, even in 
America. Keeping our democracy requires vigilance and truth. Often, it 
requires sacrifice, and there must be a willingness to accept that 
truth. It is regrettable--no, it is shameful--that our Republican 
colleagues in the Senate filibustered the creation of an independent, 
bipartisan commission to investigate what happened on January 6.
  I recall that moment, and I am sure the Presiding Officer does as 
well. It was slightly after 2 o'clock, just a few minutes after 2 
o'clock. Vice President Pence was presiding over the U.S. Senate as we 
went through the orderly, constitutional process of counting the 
electoral votes. I looked up from my chair to see the Secret Service 
come in and physically remove--quickly remove--the Vice President from 
that chair. The events that unfolded in the next few minutes were hard 
to imagine could ever occur in the United States of America. We were 
told to sit safely in our chairs, in that this was a secure Chamber, 
and be prepared for other staffers from around the Capitol to join us. 
Not 10 minutes later, a member of the Capitol Police stood before us 
and said: As quickly as possible, evacuate this Chamber.

  It is hard to imagine this in the United States of America. We have 
seen the videos. We know what happened. There is no doubt as to what 
happened that day and what an impression it must have left on the rest 
of the world. What would we think, at this moment in time, if a mob 
with battering rams beat down the doors of Parliament and entered the 
House of Commons and the House of Lords? Would we not say on this side 
of the ocean, my God, what has happened to the United Kingdom? Can this 
government survive? Can that country survive? The same questions were 
being asked about America because of that insurrectionist mob on 
January 6.
  The proposal was made--and it was a legitimate, thoughtful, good-
faith proposal--to establish a bipartisan commission to get to the 
bottom of it--who was behind it?--and to ask the hard questions. What 
role did President Donald Trump play in what unfolded after his rally 
on January 6, 2021? Some people don't even want to raise the question, 
let alone hear the answer.
  History demands the truth, unless we have reached the point that we 
saw in the times of the Soviet Union when they refused to print in 
their daily newspapers plane crashes. It was bad news, and they didn't 
want to peddle any bad news in the official partisan organ, Izvestia. 
No. That was the reality of the Soviet Union--deny the truth, rewrite 
history. We see the same thing occurring today, but the American people 
are going to learn the truth.
  All three major broadcast networks and all but one cable news network 
will carry this evening's hearing live. What cable news network might 
not require the broadcast of this? I am going to guess FOX News, and I 
am right. Think about that for a second. Clearly, to FOX News, which 
profits off the Big Lie of Donald Trump, it matters more to continue 
that relationship than to tell the truth to their viewers.
  The members of the Select Committee have undertaken their duty with 
uncommon courage, and I want to single out, in particular, Congressman 
Adam Kinzinger from the State of Illinois. We are not close friends, 
but we have worked on a few things together. I have the highest regard 
and admiration for the courage that he has shown throughout this 
travail; and the fact that he would volunteer, against the wishes of 
the Republican House leadership, to make this committee bipartisan is a 
tribute to his citizenship and to his commitment to this Nation.
  The same thing, of course, is true for Representative Liz Cheney. She 
has a lot at stake. Representative Kinzinger has announced his 
retirement. She continues to represent Wyoming, and I hope she will for 
many years to come. I may disagree with her on virtually every other 
issue, but I have respect for her courage in serving on this bipartisan 
committee.


                       Federal Bureau of Prisons

  Mr. President, on another topic, it is no secret that the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons has been plagued by misconduct. One investigation 
after another has revealed a culture of abuse, mismanagement, 
corruption, torture, and death that reaches all the way to the top.
  One of the most troubling investigations was published last week by 
National Public Radio and the Marshall Project. The title of the report 
reads: ``How the Newest Federal Prison Became One of the Deadliest''--
the facility in question I know well: U.S. Penitentiary Thomson. It is 
located in my home State of Illinois. In fact, it is a facility that I 
officially and originally encouraged the Federal Government to purchase 
in order to reduce overcrowding in high security prisons. The opening 
of U.S. Penitentiary Thomson was supposed to improve safety within the 
Bureau of Prisons, but the reality, sadly, has been the exact opposite.
  According to this report, seven inmates at U.S. Penitentiary Thomson 
have died in just 2 years. Five of them were reportedly murdered by 
other inmates; two died by suicide. And those deaths are just a 
snapshot of the grim reality of this facility--the deadly, grim 
reality. The investigation paints a picture of rampant abuse by prison 
staff. This alleged abuse includes the excessive use of two kinds of 
painful restraints--ambulatory restraints and four-point restraints. 
The ``four'' refers to each of a person's limbs, which, under this 
technique, are chained to a concrete bed, rendering the individual 
immobile.
  This is an American penitentiary. The Bureau of Prisons' protocol 
says

[[Page S2880]]

that these restraints should be used sparingly and only to 
momentarily--momentarily--restrain an inmate who presents an active 
danger to himself or others.
  According to this report, some guards at U.S. Penitentiary Thomson 
have, apparently, made a habit of regularly using these restraints on 
inmates--not momentarily but regularly. In some cases, inmates have 
reportedly been left chained for hours and days.
  A lawyer who has spoken with U.S. Penitentiary Thomson inmates said:

       [The inmates] are denied food. They are denied water. Many 
     of them report being left in their own waste. It's really 
     akin to a torture chamber.
  This is an American prison in my State.
  The use of restraints and shackles has become so common, inmates have 
coined a term to describe the scars they leave on their arms and legs. 
It is known as the ``Thomson tattoo.''
  The report also alleges that the staff at U.S. Penitentiary Thomson 
have gained a reputation for stoking tensions between cellmates. Make 
no mistake, this is a special management unit. These are inmates who 
can be very dangerous, and I understand that. I understood it when the 
penitentiary was opened.
  One example that was highlighted in this report is indicative of the 
challenge. It was the murder of Matthew Phillips, a U.S. Penitentiary 
Thomson inmate who died in 2020. Mr. Phillips was a Jewish man with a 
visible Star of David tattoo. The corrections officers at U.S. 
Penitentiary Thomson reportedly locked Mr. Phillips in a recreation 
cage with two known White supremacists. These inmates beat Mr. Phillips 
until he was unconscious, and he died from his injuries 3 days later. 
Both men have since been indicted by the Justice Department on murder 
and hate crime charges.
  Following the publication of this shocking report, I joined Senator 
Duckworth, my colleague from Illinois, and Illinois Congresswoman Cheri 
Bustos, sending a letter to the Justice Department's Inspector General 
Michael Horowitz. In it, we urged him to launch a full-scale, immediate 
investigation into the failures at Thomson prison.
  I spoke with General Horowitz yesterday. He confirmed that his office 
is investigating the deaths at Thomson, along with many other abuses in 
the Bureau of Prisons.
  But this report about U.S. Penitentiary Thomson is only the most 
recent look into the house of horrors that is the Bureau of Prisons, 
the Federal Bureau of Prisons. We already have ample evidence of a 
pattern of neglect and abuse that has been embedded in their 
bureaucracy.
  Consider, for instance, the Bureau's overuse of restricted housing--
the practice of separating inmates from the general prison population, 
isolating them alone or with one other person for 24 hours at a time. 
The practice can cause severe mental anguish for inmates and can 
severely harm the prospects for ever reentering society.
  Much like the use of four-point restraints, restricted housing 
should, as the Justice Department noted in 2016, ``be used rarely, 
applied fairly, and subjected to reasonable constraints.'' That is the 
standard, the published standard, of the Bureau of Prisons.
  During the Obama administration, I held two hearings, which are still 
fresh on my mind they were so gripping, on the issue of solitary 
confinement. Following those hearings, the Justice Department took 
steps to reduce and reform the Bureau of Prisons' use of restricted 
housing. We started to make real progress.
  Unfortunately, the progress was erased during the Trump 
administration. And since the former President left office, the Biden 
Department of Justice has had plenty of time to change course and 
leadership. And I have urged them to do so.
  A year and a half into this administration, nearly 8 percent of BOP 
inmates are still being held in restricted housing. That is the same 
level it was under President Trump. That is just plain unacceptable. 
The continued overuse of restricted housing and the alleged abuses at 
Thomson are among the many instances of misconduct and mismanagement 
that have occurred under the failed leadership of Bureau of Prisons' 
Director Michael Carvajal.
  In light of those earlier reports detailing similar failures, I 
called for Mr. Carvajal's resignation last November. So it was welcome 
news when, about 6 weeks after I asked for his resignation, he 
announced it. Mr. Carvajal said he was going to resign.
  But that was January. Now we are in June, and the Justice Department 
has shown little progress or urgency in naming Carvajal's replacement. 
As a result, he is still running and mismanaging the Bureau of Prisons.
  This recent investigation at Thomson makes it clear there are no 
excuses for further delay. So today I am calling on President Biden, 
Attorney General Garland, and Deputy Attorney General Monaco to do one 
of two things; either name a new reform-minded Director to replace 
Carvajal immediately or appoint an Acting Director until a permanent 
selection is made. This cannot wait. We need to act before another 
inmate dies in the custody and care of this Federal Government.
  In the coming weeks, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, 
will be holding a hearing on the Bureau of Prisons. We will examine 
these allegations of abuse at Thomson and other facilities. We need 
answers from the Biden administration on the failure to reduce the use 
of restricted housing, and we will discuss what BOP must do to address 
the staffing crisis that has contributed to this disastrous situation.
  The crisis demands the attention of the highest ranking officials 
within the Department of Justice. It has been long overdue. It is time 
for us to have competent, principled leadership at the Bureau of 
Prisons.
  I am not condemning every person who works at that Agency, for sure. 
I have met many of them and respect them. But those who are guilty of 
this misconduct need to be held accountable, and new leadership is 
imperative.
  It has been a long time since we have had that kind of competent, 
principled leadership. I believe that Attorney General Garland and 
Deputy Attorney General Monaco will choose the right leader to clear 
out the bureaucratic rot and improve with significant reforms. But we 
need to act quickly. Lives are at stake.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last couple of weeks, many of us 
have spent a lot of time thinking about the horrific shootings in 
Uvalde, Philadelphia, Buffalo, and elsewhere.
  Unfortunately, these are familiar scenes that we have seen before, 
and we would like to try to find a way to reduce the likelihood of 
their reoccurrence in the future if there is anything we can do here in 
the Senate to make that possible. So I have been working particularly 
with Senator Murphy, who was my partner on the Fix NICS bill that we 
passed in 2018.
  Senator Murphy comes from a blue State, Connecticut; I come from a 
red State, Texas. Yet, in that example, we were able to take the 
horrible events of Sutherland Springs, where innocent parishioners were 
gunned down at a small Baptist church outside of San Antonio, and take 
out of that tragedy something good, which is a bill we call Fix NICS, 
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
  Since that was signed into law, 11\1/2\ million new records have been 
uploaded into the background check system, and I believe that has saved 
lives.
  You will recall, in that case, the shooter was a veteran of the U.S. 
Air Force, but, unfortunately, he had a troubled history: felony 
convictions, domestic violence, mental health adjudications. None of 
that was in the background check system. It should have been, and it 
would have disqualified him had it been known. But he did what so often 
happens; he lied, and then he bought--the lie and buy--and tragedy 
ensued. We were all sickened by these shootings, and we are hyperaware 
of the public interest.
  The most common refrain I hear is: Do something. Do something. 
Unfortunately, it gets a little less specific after that what exactly 
should be done, and that is where the hard work begins.
  But, as before, I am optimistic that we can find something that 
protects the rights of law-abiding citizens under our Constitution, 
under the Second Amendment, who, I believe, are not a

[[Page S2881]]

threat to public safety, and focus on people with criminal records, 
people with mental health challenges, like young Salvador Ramos in 
Uvalde, TX; like Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook.
  The profile is pretty well established--young, alienated, 
disaffected, mentally challenged boys who lack access to treatment 
which will help them manage their mental illness and who descend into a 
pit of despair, ultimately resulting in their desire not only to harm 
themselves but to take other people with them. That profile is well 
established in the scientific literature. And the New York Times did an 
excellent piece a couple of weeks ago on that profile. So I think that 
gives us a little bit of a roadmap for the sorts of things we might do 
to deal with that.
  What makes this more challenging than, for example, the Fix NICS bill 
after Sutherland Springs is that was a singular point of failure. Here, 
we see multiple points of failure, and I think we need to address as 
many as we can.
  So as I mentioned, the mental health issue looms large. We know that 
during the 2 years, where many students were isolated at home, trying 
to keep up with their studies virtually, many of them have languished, 
many of them have fallen behind. And because they have been isolated 
from their peers at a time when their social development is the most 
important, many of them have fallen into despair, exacerbating 
underlying problems that they may have in the first place. So trying to 
figure out how to support our schools and our communities with 
resources needed to address the mental and emotional health of people 
who are struggling, particularly young students, that seems like an 
obvious area that we can work on together.
  Obviously, school security is important. The initial reports in 
Uvalde were that the door was propped open that Salvador Ramos entered. 
Later, we found out that, no, it wasn't propped open, but the lock 
didn't work. He just walked right in.
  There are a lot of studies and best practices when it comes to what 
is necessary to secure our schools. If we can secure our airports post-
9/11, we can secure our schools to make sure that people who should 
come in and out of those schools can do so relatively easily but that 
outsiders cannot and particularly those who are a threat to the safety 
of those students.
  I think all of us want to try to find ways to reduce the likelihood 
of something like this happening again, and school districts across the 
country are eager to get our help and guidance to harden their 
infrastructure to provide for the personnel, resource officers--that is 
the local police officer on the school campus. Those are things that I 
think would diminish the likelihood of another Uvalde.
  Mental health and school safety seem to me as kind of no-brainers, in 
a sense, where I don't think there is a lot of division between that 
side of the aisle and this side of the aisle.
  But we are also looking at ways to keep guns out of the hands of 
people who already, by law, are prohibited from having them. I am not 
talking necessarily about expanding the background check system; I want 
to make sure the background check system works.
  What makes this challenging is Salvador Ramos showed up after his 
18th birthday as if he were born yesterday. For purposes of the 
background check system, there was no insight into his many mental 
health challenges or terroristic threats of fellow students, 
potentially drug use, and other things that if he were an adult, he 
could not pass a background check. But because of the fact that 
juvenile records are typically sealed and are not part of the NICS 
review, the merchant who sold him the firearms he used didn't know 
anything about his track record.
  But we know how, as I said earlier, that he fits a familiar profile. 
He shot his own grandmother because she wanted him to go back to school 
after being out of school for the last 2 years. He engaged in self-
mutilation, self-cutting, tortured animals, made threats against his 
fellow students, threatened sexual assault against his fellow female 
students, and made threats that he would, in fact, do what he 
ultimately did online. He was a ticking timebomb.
  So if there is some way for us to look back into the sorts of records 
that would disqualify an adult if they had occurred post-18--because 
they would have been public records available to the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System--if there is a way to look back and 
identify people like Salvador Ramos, who, by virtue of his mental 
health and other problems, we would know he should not be able to 
purchase a firearm legally.
  A couple of States--I think it is South Carolina and Virginia--
voluntarily upload mental health adjudications for 17-year-olds. We 
can't compel other States to do that, but we can sure provide--we can 
facilitate other States doing so and incentivize their populating the 
NICS background check system with this necessary information for 
juveniles, who ultimately will end up--they will turn of age and be 
able to buy a firearm, and we need to know ahead of time, for purposes 
of the background check system, what those records look like.
  So there are a number of things that we could do. One suggestion is, 
for example, to take a look at the background check process itself for 
18- to 21-year-olds in particular since that is the population we are 
focusing on based on this profile.
  Under current law, if you go in and buy a firearm and you have a 
clean record, you can pass your background check pretty quickly. In 90 
percent of cases, that is actually what happens. The average processing 
time is 2 minutes. In most cases, the system returns a binary result: 
You either pass or you don't pass, you fail. When you fail, that means 
you can't purchase a firearm.
  Now, the Congress, the Senate--in particular, Senator Coons from 
Delaware and I sponsored a bill that would notify local police when 
somebody goes in to take a background check and fails because they 
don't qualify. Many times, the local law enforcement knows more about 
these people and would be interested to know that they tried to 
illegally purchase a firearm and were denied.
  But in about 10 percent of the gun purchases, the background check is 
not resolved immediately. The system returns a yellow light, which 
means additional review is required. For example, if you have a common 
name like John Smith, the search may pull records for somebody else, 
for the wrong person with the same name who is prohibited from 
purchasing a gun. It could also be caused by incomplete criminal 
history--for example, if somebody is convicted of assault but on 
further examination, you find out it was domestic violence, which is a 
prohibited category. You would also learn whether it was a felony or a 
misdemeanor.
  In those cases, the FBI, under current law, already has 3 days in 
which to complete the background check. The problem is, under current 
law, there are no finish--the seller still sells the gun, and we have 
an incomplete record.
  Dylann Roof, I believe, was the name of the shooter at the Mother 
Emanuel Church in Charleston, SC. As it turned out, he had a 
misdemeanor drug offense that was not uploaded into the background 
check system.
  Now, it is a disqualifying condition if you are addicted to or a 
frequent user of illegal drugs, but because the background check system 
did not allow enough time to include that information--maybe, just 
maybe, he would have been denied the purchase of the firearms that he 
ultimately used to kill those innocent people that day.
  So what we are looking at is the possibility of--in those cases where 
there is what I will call a yellow flag or an indication that further 
review is necessary--an extended period of time, for this class of 
purchasers between 18 and 21, for the background check system to 
complete their review.
  Well, I have said it before, and I will say it again: I don't believe 
law-abiding, mentally well gun owners are going to commit mass 
shootings or are a threat to public safety. I know within the Senate, 
we have a number of people who are sportsmen; who enjoy target 
shooting, let's say; who believe that they need to exercise their 
Second Amendment rights in order to protect their family and their 
homes. They are not a threat. So blanket limitations or prohibitions on 
those law-abiding citizens who are not a threat to public safety and 
never will be, to me, strikes as overreach.
  We are not talking about a discretionary right; we are talking about 
a

[[Page S2882]]

constitutional right. But I do believe that the Second Amendment and 
sound public policy are not mutually exclusive here, and that is the 
needle we are trying to thread here. So adding juvenile records to the 
NICS system is a commonsense way to ensure we have a complete picture 
of the buyer's history.
  Then, of course, there is the scandal of our mental health delivery 
system in the United States today. Back in the sixties, when people who 
had mental health challenges were institutionalized, we finally figured 
out that that didn't work very well; it was inhumane. The theory was 
that there would be created some safety net in communities across the 
country where people could turn; where the police, if they answered a 
9-1-1 call and they realized that this isn't a criminal, that this is 
somebody going through a mental health crisis--where the police could 
take people where they could actually get help, get treated, get 
counseling, and get better. That doesn't exist today in many 
communities--in the major cities perhaps, even in suburban areas, but 
Uvalde, TX, population 15,000, not so much.

  So we are looking at ways to expand the community-based mental health 
system. Senator Stabenow and Senator Blunt have a great proposal that 
would extend the current eight-State pilot program nationwide. Now, is 
that solely related to what happened at Uvalde or what happened in 
Buffalo or what happened in Philadelphia? No, but it would address the 
larger underlying challenge of more and more Americans falling through 
the cracks.
  While we know most people in a mental health crisis are not going to 
commit acts of violence, we also know that 60 percent of the gun-
related deaths are suicides. And as it occurred to me like a light went 
off in my head, Salvador Ramos, Adam Lanza, and others of this profile 
of young men, in addition to the multiple homicides they commit, they 
commit suicide. They know they are not going to make it out alive.
  So addressing this mental health crisis that affects our country and 
particularly where we fail these young men who feel like they have 
nowhere else to turn, who become increasingly isolated, become 
increasingly desensitized to the idea of taking someone's life because 
they are sitting in their room playing video games, killing people 
virtually all the time, and then, in their bizarre fantasies, decide to 
extend those fantasies to taking not only their own life but the lives 
of other innocent people.
  So this is challenging, Mr. President, and there is no doubt about 
it, but we can do this. We can do this. Sometimes politics is called 
the art of the possible, and I think this is possible. Is it going to 
be perfect? Are we going to not have to revisit some other scenario 
where people have fallen through the cracks or where vulnerabilities 
are exposed? No, we can't be sure that this is one and done. But I do 
believe there is a sense of urgency, not only here in the Congress but 
in the White House and across the country. We have all heard from our 
constituents, who are in anguish over what has happened in Uvalde and 
elsewhere. The cry is to do something. Like I said, that is not very 
specific. And I understand, but it is up to us to try to find what is 
the right set of policies that would respect the rights of law-abiding 
citizens under the Constitution but at the same time address what we 
know is a huge mental health crisis in this country and make sure that 
the systems that are in place work, like the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System.
  We need to populate that system with the relevant information that 
would disqualify somebody, if they were an adult, if it occurred while 
they were a juvenile. There are ways we can do that. We can incentivize 
that. We can take a look back in some cases. We can allow the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System, in those limited cases where 
they need to do further review, to see that the information is 
complete.
  We can figure this out, and I think, on a bipartisan basis, there is 
a will to do so. Around here, if there is a will, there is a way, and I 
believe we do have the will and we will find a way.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, secondly, I would ask unanimous consent 
that I be allowed to speak even though it may go a moment or two longer 
and that the vote be delayed to allow me to complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Honoring Our PACT Act of 2021

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I want to speak this morning really to 
America's veterans and provide an update on our work to get our toxic 
exposure legislation across the finish line.
  The Senate is in the midst of considering the Sergeant First Class 
Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act. This is historic. It is 
bipartisan.
  I hope that we can keep it becoming, when something is bipartisan, 
that it is historic because we ought to be able to solve these problems 
for veterans and really for Americans in a way that brings us together 
and not pulls us apart, and this is an effort to show that that can be 
done. This legislation will deliver on a promise we made as a country 
to take care of our service men and women, both when they deploy and 
when they come home.

  The Heath Robinson Act will provide access to healthcare and benefits 
for millions of veterans who are sick from illnesses connected with 
toxic exposures.
  When we send our warfighters into harm's way, it is with the 
understanding that we will have their back. When they come home bearing 
physical, mental, or invisible wounds of war, we care for those wounds. 
Toxic wounds should not be treated differently.
  John Buckley, a retired U.S. Army colonel from Andover, KS, told me:

       Our Soldiers were put into dangerous situations in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan. And many who suffered from their wounds or made 
     the ultimate sacrifice have been cared for by our nation. 
     Unfortunately, many too have been overlooked and ignored. 
     Especially those who are suffering from injuries after having 
     recurring and prolonged exposure to toxic fumes, burn pits 
     and other environmental hazards.

  This legislation is designed to address what the retired colonel told 
me.
  Another Army colonel, this one from Leavenworth, KS, Pat Proctor, who 
served in Iraq and Afghanistan, shared that many of the men and women 
he served with are facing health challenges from being exposed to 
toxins while deployed. He said:

       There is no telling--[there is no telling]--how many of us 
     will be impacted as we get older.

  I know many of our veterans live with the lingering fear, will the 
toxic exposures from their service catch up with them and leave them 
with a debilitating disease? And if that happens, will the VA be there? 
Will Americans be there for them with the healthcare and benefits they 
need?
  William Turner, the former deputy commander general of support for 
Kansas's own Fort Riley First Infantry Division, told me:

       Our Veterans have served in multiple locations where they 
     have been exposed to a number of toxins that have resulted in 
     them developing serious illnesses, and they often struggle to 
     gain access to health care and benefits that help alleviate 
     some of the pain and suffering they are experiencing.

  Sometimes we think these issues are something people in Washington, 
DC, are talking about, but what we are trying to address is the real 
circumstances of real Americans who have served our Nation and who are 
deserving of our attention.
  The former deputy commanding general went on to say--to note this:

       It is absolutely imperative that we pass this bill to 
     guarantee exposed veterans receive permanent access to health 
     care.

  Moving legislation through Congress can be a slow and frustrating 
process. However, this week, when the Senate began debate on our bill, 
I was encouraged by the resounding show of confidence. This bill--to 
move forward on this bill, that vote was 86 Senators in favor.
  We are now focused on an amendment process and will continue working 
as quickly as the Senate will allow to get this bill to the House and 
back on its way to the President's desk.
  Whether Democrat or Republican, every Member of this Chamber 
represents veterans at home, and I firmly

[[Page S2883]]

believe that every Member in this Chamber cares about those veterans. 
Issues related to veterans often have a way of bringing us together to 
find consensus, and that is what we have been attempting to do and we 
will continue to do as we sort out what amendments could be considered.
  We were able to deliver veterans choice through the MISSION Act, 
landmark mental health legislation through the John Scott Hannon Mental 
Health Improvement Act, and I believe we can do that again on this 
legislation to deliver care and benefits to all generations of toxic-
exposed veterans.
  This country is good at recognizing the physical wounds of war, and 
we are getting better at recognizing the mental wounds of war, but no 
longer can we ignore the wounds of war from toxic exposure--the wounds, 
like Agent Orange before it, that may not arrive until years later.
  Throughout the remaining procedural votes on the Heath Robinson Act, 
I urge my colleagues with remaining questions or concerns to reach out 
so we can all, together, deliver on this promise to those who have 
borne the battle. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see 
that this bill crosses the finish line soon.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________