[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 100 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2901-S2908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I move to proceed to legislative
session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The 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order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The minority leader is recognized.
Inflation
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, runaway inflation has pushed workers
and families to the breaking point. According to one recent poll,
nearly 60 percent of Americans are making an effort to drive less and
cut back on electricity use. Three in four are pinching their budgets
for food and entertainment outside the home, and two-thirds are bracing
for prices to climb even higher in the coming year.
Six months ago, in December, President Biden told the American people
we had reached the ``peak''--the peak--``of the crisis'' with
inflation. He said that prices would start falling ``over the next
couple months.'' But like so many of Democrats' other confident
predictions about our economy, the President's statement has proven
completely false.
Friday morning's inflation report provided more official confirmation
of what American consumers know painfully well: The Democrats' out-of-
control inflation is not letting up. In fact, it is actually getting
worse.
This year to May, consumer prices rose 8.6 percent, blowing away
expectations, jumping a full percentage point over the previous month
and setting--you guessed it--a new 40-year high. The data underneath
tell a brutal story for working families and American businesses. The
categories driving inflation last month were the ones they can't do
without.
Overall energy prices clocked a year-on-year increase of nearly 35
percent. Drivers are paying 48.7 percent more at the pump. And fuel oil
consumers have seen prices more than double.
Food costs continue to climb at over 10 percent. Grocery prices, in
particular, hit nearly 12 percent inflation, the worst year since 1979.
And full service restaurant prices saw their largest increase on
record.
Of course, that is not to mention the 31-year high for inflation in
the services sector, the 35-year high for rent inflation, or the 42-
year high for rising airfare.
Day by day, all of these painful milestones add up to one simple
reality: Americans' hard-earned dollars aren't going nearly as far as
they once did. Runaway inflation has swallowed up any shot of rising
pay bringing more prosperity. In fact, the average worker has seen a
3.9-percent pay cut in the last year.
One mother of two in Indiana recently reported that she is earning
more than she ever has in her career but ``says she still feels like
she is financially losing ground.'' This is what she had to say:
I should be able to live on my own. I'm getting ready to
pay rent and it's going to take every single dime I've made.
As one of my constituents in Barbourville put it recently, ``We're
cutting back on everything--and I mean everything. Gas, meat, bread,
it's all expensive as hell. One moment you think you can afford to buy
something, then you go to the store and it's like, `Nope, can't get
that anymore either.'''
And here is a real kicker. One young couple in Utah has taken to
asking themselves weekly, ``What did we spend money on that we could
not have spent money on?''
Imagine if Washington Democrats were willing to engage in that sort
of self-reflection. Remember, it was their policy choices that made
this painful situation possible. It was the Democrats' choice to insist
on flooding--flooding--the economy with trillions of dollars in liberal
spending last spring. And it was Democrats' choice to spend months last
summer and fall working on ways to pour even more gasoline on the fire,
even though working families were already feeling the pinch of
inflation.
The Democratic leader himself said last spring:
I do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the
near term, are very real.
None other than some of his own party's top economists warned the
exact opposite. But Washington Democrats were not to be deterred.
Working families' budgets took a backseat to the far-left's wish list,
and now Democrats' decision is literally driving them off a cliff.
H.R. 3967
Madam President, on another matter, the Senate is in the middle of
proposing major legislation to expand healthcare access for veterans
exposed to toxic substances in the line of duty. Doing right by our
vets is a bipartisan priority. An 86-vote majority of us voted to begin
processing this bill a few days back, myself included.
This legislation is not a minor fix; it is a series of major--major--
changes to help more veterans. So the precise language of the final
bill will have major consequences for veterans, for policy, and for
government spending.
Republicans have pushed to get votes on a few commonsense amendments
that would make this bipartisan bill even stronger for our veterans.
For example, one of these amendments would make sure the veterans who
are already in line--those who are waiting now, already in line--
waiting for treatment under the current rules are not disserved or
treated unfairly as an unintended consequence of the new expansion.
Surely that should be completely without controversy.
Another amendment would clarify how the government accounts for the
new funding to make sure the new legislation does not impose major
unintended consequences on the appropriations process.
Another amendment would make it clear that new medical presumptions
must rest on sound science, so Congress does not substitute our
judgment for the experts'.
These are not controversial amendments. They are directly related to
the substance of this bill. And given the magnitude of the changes
under consideration, the Senators sponsoring these amendments have
every right to expect votes on the floor. There is no reason why this
important bipartisan bill should be denied a bipartisan floor process.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S2902]]
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Gun Legislation
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I got the news, along with others,
Sunday morning about the decision of 10 Republican and Democratic
Senators to move forward with the proposal to deal with our Nation's
epidemic of gun violence. I had a conversation with Senator Chris
Murphy, who has been one of our leaders on the Democratic side, about
exactly what that meant and the help that we might be able to offer to
him from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I just want to say, at this moment, that I really want to commend my
colleagues on both sides, Democrats and Republicans. I believe they
made a good-faith effort to negotiate a package of reforms. Senator
Murphy, Senator Cornyn of Texas, made it bipartisan, timely, and I
believe did an excellent job. Is it the package that I would have
written? No--nor yours, Madam President. You would have included
things, and I would have included others. But it is within our reach.
We have a bitterly politically divided nation. That is a fact. We
have a Senate Judiciary Committee evenly divided 50-50. We have a
Chamber evenly divided 50-50. So it is difficult to say that any one
party or one person will get exactly what they want in this political
atmosphere, but it is equally important to note that we have all gone
home and gotten the message over and over again. Whether it was in
reference to the supermarket killing in Buffalo, the fourth grade
school class in Uvalde, TX, or the doctor and other bystanders being
killed in a Tulsa, OK, hospital, all of that has occurred in the last
few days.
The American people have reacted with one voice, and they have said
to us two words: ``Do something.'' To Members of Congress, don't just
tell us you are going to give us your thoughts and prayers. Do
something.
Well, I think this decision to move forward could help. Every
provision in this agreement could save a life. For that reason, if for
no other, I will be supporting it.
This agreement would support ``red flag'' laws. It is one way they
characterize them. ``Crisis intervention orders'' is another. Many
States--19--already have them. It would also close dangerous gaps in
Federal law that enable domestic abusive boyfriends to get guns.
I want to commend Senator Klobuchar, who has been the leader in the
U.S. Senate on that issue. We tried to help her on a previous piece of
legislation, and it didn't have the votes to do it, but if it is
included in this package, I will definitely support it, and I thank her
for her leadership.
It also would strengthen the background check system by clarifying
which gun sellers would be required to conduct background checks. That
is a step in the right direction. I hope there is more coming.
The agreement would provide funds for desperately needed mental
health and trauma support services, including more school counselors
for enhanced school safety.
I can't tell you how critically important that is. Half of the people
who die because of a gun in America commit suicide. It is a plea for
help that we should be answering. This could help. We also know that
some of the people who pick up these guns and go shooting children and
innocent people have serious mental illness problems. They need
counseling, too, and we need to find ways to reach them.
I also want to add that we have a different form of gun violence in
big cities like Chicago. Many of these crimes are committed by kids and
gangs, and these kids--90 percent-plus of them--have been victims of
trauma in their lives. Things have happened to them which they can
never forget, and they need help to deal with them. So mental health
counseling and trauma counseling are critical to reducing gun violence
at all of these different levels.
Importantly, the framework would crack down on the straw purchasing
and the illicit trafficking of guns. Last August, an amazing young
woman who was a Chicago policewoman, Ella French, was on duty with her
partner, sitting in the squad car, when a man walked up and shot her in
the head and killed her. Then he shot the other officer and blinded him
in one eye. The gun that he used to kill the policewoman was the
subject of a straw purchase.
What does that mean? That means that he could never have cleared a
background check. He was a convicted felon. So he finds a friend or a
girlfriend to go in and buy it--someone who has no criminal record--and
then he hands the gun over to him, and he turns around and kills a
wonderful Chicago policewoman. The outpouring of sentiment in favor of
Ella French and her family was overwhelming.
I hope that we can get this provision, which I have worked on with
Senators Collins and Leahy, included in the final passage so as to
tighten up the penalties on those who make straw purchases.
If you are going to stand up and lie to buy a gun so that you can
give it to someone who can't pass a background check, you ought to pay
dearly for that. It cost Ella French her life, and I hope that we stick
with this provision all the way through.
The last point is especially important because I have met her mother;
I have met the officer who was in the car with her; and I met his
family. I know how much this particular incident has meant to each and
every one of their lives.
Does an agreement like this do everything that I would like? No, it
doesn't, but this, if we can pass it, will be the most significant gun
violence reform in 30 years in Congress--30 years. We now have more
guns than people in this country. They estimate some 400 million guns.
They can't even give me anywhere close to an exact number of how many
AR-15s we have in this country. I have heard estimates that people are
convinced the number ranges from 10 to 20 million of these AR-15
military assault-type weapons.
We have a long way to go before we reach the finish line, but I want
to commend those Senators who have worked so hard to bring us to this
point. I will just make it very clear: I am prepared to do everything I
can as a Senator and as whip to bring the votes together to get this
done as quickly as possible.
Student Loan Forgiveness
Now, Madam President, on another matter, 2 weeks ago, the Education
Department announced it would wipe out $5.8 billion in student loan
debt owed by 560,000 borrowers who had attended for-profit Corinthian
Colleges in the last 20 years. Corinthian Colleges was one of the
largest, most corrupt, most unscrupulous companies in the for-profit
college industry, but it wasn't alone in its shady dealings--far from
it.
So the basic primer on for-profit colleges and universities--the
question that you are going to face on the final exam--is this: What
two numbers tell the whole story about for-profit colleges and
universities? The numbers 8 and 30. What do they mean? Eight percent of
high school graduates go to for-profit colleges and universities--8
percent. Thirty percent of all of the student loan defaults in the
United States are of students from for-profit colleges and
universities.
Why? Why are these students who attend for-profit schools failing to
make their student loan payments?
Well, first, these for-profit industry schools charge too much in
tuition. The students can't keep up with the debt, so they borrow more.
They reach a point where something happens, and they have to drop out--
afraid of the debt they have accumulated.
At the next stage, some finish. They take their diplomas from their
for-profit schools, and they learn, unfortunately, that they are almost
worthless. Westwood College is one of those fraudulent for-profit
colleges. It operated 15 campuses in 5 different States, including
Illinois--Westwood College. I remember driving out to O'Hare Airport
and looking up at the side of one of those tall office buildings. They
had a sign for Westwood College, and I thought: What a fraud.
Like the Corinthian Colleges, Westwood used high-pressure sales and
marketing tactics and outright lies to pressure students to take on
huge amounts of student debt. Students in Westwood's criminal justice
program in Illinois were told that a Westwood
[[Page S2903]]
criminal justice degree would all but guarantee them a good-paying job
with the local police department, maybe even with the FBI. What a lie.
Victoria Vences is one of the thousands of Illinois students who
heard those lies and is paying the price for it. Victoria is the first
person in her family ever to attend college, and that is the case more
often than not. These students come from families with no college
experience and don't know where to turn. They look at the advertising
and, unfortunately, fall for it. They sign up for these for-profit
schools like Westwood.
Victoria enrolled in the criminal justice program at Westwood in
2007, believing it would help her land a job as a probation officer or
maybe even with the Immigration Services. After 3 years of juggling
full-time jobs and going to school full time, Victoria was shocked to
learn that a Westwood degree would not pay off at all. At that time,
she owed $50,000 in student loans that she had taken out at Westwood.
Not wanting to take out more loans for a useless degree, she dropped
out. She started applying for law enforcement jobs, showing them the
certificate of her transcript from Westwood, and they told her that it
was worthless.
Victoria now works for the Illinois Domestic Violence Hotline. She
likes her job, and she helps a lot of people, but she has never earned
enough of an income to make the monthly payments on her student loans.
Victoria Vences isn't someone who shirks responsibility. She is helping
to raise a niece and a nephew who live with her. She doesn't believe
that she should have to pay back $50,000 in loans because of the
deception. I agree.
Last week, I wrote to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, asking him
for a second time--and I like him, but if he doesn't start answering my
letters, I am going to have to think of a way to get his attention. I
asked him to cancel the student loan debt of all former Westwood
criminal justice students in Illinois who were defrauded by this
company.
I first made this request in April of last year. It is time for a
response, Mr. Secretary.
Last July, the Education Secretary canceled the student loan debts of
1,600 former Westwood students. Among them were 488 Illinois students
who had taken on debt to enroll in Westwood's worthless criminal
justice program. These students had all applied for relief under
something known as borrower defense that allows the Education
Department to cancel their student debts.
There are still more than 3,000 Westwood criminal justice students in
Illinois who haven't gotten that same break. Some of them, like
Victoria Vences, have carried that debt for more than 10 years. It has
ruined their credit ratings, and it has made it harder for them to find
a job, rent an apartment, or think about a future.
We have known for more than a decade that Westwood used misleading
marketing tactics. Now they have to be called to account. The unethical
behavior was documented in detail by Illinois' former attorney general,
Lisa Madigan, who sued Westwood 10 years ago. I remember that. I joined
her in a press conference announcing it.
The Education Department also has concluded that Westwood defrauded
its criminal justice program students in Illinois. The Education
Department should grant automatic loan forgiveness for all of the
approximately 3,000 students who are still burdened with Westwood's
criminal justice program deception.
During the Trump years, the Education Department decided to take a
blind eye to the situation of these for-profit schools. The Trump
administration actually hired people who worked in that industry--for
these schools--to regulate them. You can guess what happened--no
regulation.
It is time for the Education Department to make a difference, and let
me say that it is time for us to make a difference when it comes to
student loan debt. It was in 1998 when we decided--in a bill which was
loaded with extras that people didn't discover until long after it
passed--that you couldn't discard your student loan in bankruptcy. If
you had a mortgage on a home and filed for bankruptcy, you could
discharge that mortgage, even on a second home, even on a car loan,
even on a loan for a boat, even on a loan for appliances--just about
everything except a student loan.
Well, that was the wrong decision. That was the wrong policy. There
are more than 3 million student loan borrowers who owe more than
$100,000 in student loans, but we have decided these would be
nondischargeable in bankruptcy. There is a provision in there that
says, if there is an undue hardship, you might be able to discharge
your loan. Almost never does a court rule that there is an undue
hardship.
This situation is unsustainable. Senator John Cornyn of Texas and I
have introduced a bipartisan bill to change it to make sure the
Bankruptcy Code gives student debt a break. I will continue working
with him and others to get this done. Bankruptcy should always be the
last resort, but it ought to be an option for those who truly need
relief, and these student borrowers do.
The bottom line: Even with other reform measures, like relief for the
Corinthian Colleges students, bankruptcy reform ought to be part of the
solution to the student debt crisis. I hope that it will.
H.R. 3967
Madam President, I recently received a letter from a man in Chicago
who was writing on behalf of his dad who was a Vietnam war vet, and he
was writing for hundreds of thousands of other veterans just like his
dad.
These people are sick with illnesses connected to their military
service. These veterans served our Nation in many different wars, in
many different places, and at many different times in different
branches of the military. They have one thing in common: They were
unknowingly poisoned with toxic chemicals during their service. They
came home from war and thought they were safe as they managed to escape
the fate of some of their colleagues, but years and sometimes decades
later, they became sick with rare cancers, with debilitating lung
diseases, heart conditions, and other illnesses as a result of toxic
exposure during their service.
One veteran said:
It's like an I.E.D. that goes off in your body 8 or 10 or
20 years [after you are out of the service].
Al LaHood, who is not related to the Congressman or the Congressman's
son, is the father my constituent wrote to me about. Al was 22 years
old when he was drafted in the Army, and he went to Vietnam in 1968. He
was an infantryman, a machinegunner, stationed at Camp Cu Chi,
northwest of Saigon. He came home after a year, with a Bronze Star for
valor, but he brought something else home, although he wouldn't know it
for almost 50 years. His body had absorbed Agent Orange, the toxic
defoliant used by the U.S. military in Vietnam to clear the jungles.
(Ms. DUCKWORTH assumed the Chair.)
After his service, Al LaHood earned a college degree and an MBA, got
married, had a family--the American dream.
Every 2 years, he and his Army buddies made a point of having a
reunion somewhere. One by one, over the years, his buddies started
getting sick. Heart disease, prostate cancer, esophageal cancer--it
turns out all related to the toxic exposure to Agent Orange.
Four years ago, the toxic timebomb caught up with Al LaHood. He was
diagnosed with a rare form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; last year, even
worse news--diagnosed with another rare cancer. Doctors tell him he has
a 30-percent chance of surviving 5 years.
The VA ruled that his cancers are service-related and declared Al a
hundred percent disabled. It amazes him to think that he now receives
more in disability compensation each month than he received in combat
pay for an entire year in Vietnam.
``People don't understand the true cost of war,'' Al says.
Exposure to toxic substances is not new. In World War I, it was
mustard gas; World War II, exposure to nuclear tests; Vietnam, Agent
Orange. In the Persian Gulf wars and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
there was a new form of exposure. It was called burn pits. The military
dug massive pits, filled them with everything imaginable--from ruined
humvees and aircraft to medical waste, human waste, computers,
batteries, plastics--every bit of trash produced in a war on a military
[[Page S2904]]
base. Then they doused it all with jet fuel and lit it on fire. The
thick black smoke from the fire contained invisible deadly chemicals.
They filled the air and covered everything around. And the soldiers,
they breathed them into their lungs and into their bodies.
Al LaHood's son said his dad was concerned for the veterans from Iraq
and Afghanistan. He hopes they receive early screening, so if they
develop cancer, this just might be able to save their lives.
Al and his family say they want more research into the kinds of rare
cancers and other illnesses that toxic-exposed veterans developed so
they can be detected earlier. Al would give up gladly all of his
disability payments if the money could be spent on research for
illnesses that might hit his fellow victims exposed to toxic
substances.
I want Al LaHood and the hundreds of thousands of toxic-exposed
veterans, their families, and caregivers to know the U.S. Senate not
only honors your service; we hear your voices.
This week, the Senate is taking up SFC Heath Robinson Honoring Our
PACT Act. The PACT Act is the most important piece of veterans
legislation in a generation. It is about keeping promises, the promises
that we made to veterans that if they risked their lives for our Nation
and became wounded as a result, that we would not leave them behind;
they would have healthcare and benefits they needed and earned.
The PACT Act builds on the historic Agent Orange Act. Let me, at this
point, note that a friend of mine, now deceased, was one of the major
movers on the Agent Orange Act of 1991. His name was Lane Evans. He was
from the Quad Cities in Illinois. He and I were elected to the U.S.
House in the same year, 1982.
Lane was a Vietnam-era veteran who came back determined to help his
fellow veterans, and he made Agent Orange his cause. He recognized that
illnesses caused by Agent Orange are actually war wounds and should be
treated that way.
The PACT Act takes that principle that Congressman Lane Evans stood
for and applies it to other situations. It applies it to all American
veterans from all wars who were exposed to toxic chemicals during their
service, whether overseas or in the United States.
As we continue to learn about the cost of exposure, it provides a
framework to add more conditions related to toxic exposure in the
future. Veterans will no longer have to fight a second war with the VA
to prove their illness was service-related. They can focus on fighting
their disease instead of fighting the bureaucracy.
It is estimated that the PACT Act will affect 1 out of every 5
veterans--3.5 million veterans in all. The act directs the VA to devote
resources and personnel needed to process new claims and treat new
patients.
In another provision, which I strongly support, the PACT Act directs
the VA to work collaboratively with the Department of Defense and
Health and Human Services and EPA--a whole-of-government search for
better ways to detect, treat, and cure these hidden deadly wounds of
war. Our veterans deserve nothing else.
I have heard some critics say: This is going to cost a lot of money.
Right. It just might do that. But can you think of a more deserving
cause? Can you think of anything better than for us to really face the
true causes of war than to stand by our veterans?
Madam President, you know that story far better than I do.
I have long supported this whole-of-government approach to research--
especially at the VA--and treatment for our veterans.
Many VA researchers are veterans themselves, determined to find
innovative treatment and cures.
I commend Senator Jon Tester of Montana and Senator Jerry Moran--they
are the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee--for their leadership in producing this excellent, timely,
and historic bipartisan bill.
I especially thank the more than 60 veteran service organizations,
like the VFW--I spoke to their statewide convention in Springfield just
last Friday--and so many others that helped produce this bill and the
veterans who fought to reach this point--fought sometimes literally
with their last breath.
I will vote proudly for the PACT Act. I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Gun Violence
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, tomorrow will mark 3 weeks since the
devastating school shooting in Uvalde, TX.
Over those last 3 weeks, Senator Murphy from Connecticut, Senator
Sinema from Arizona, Senator Tillis from North Carolina, and others
have been working to identify steps that Congress should take to
prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future.
This is not an easy debate. It is emotional. It can be divisive, but
it is also very important that we act.
Most often, you hear people say: Do something. Well, they don't give
you a lot of guidance on what that something looks like. And when you
begin to dig down into the details, you find out that there is not a
lot of consensus about what that something should look like.
The good news is, as a result of the work we have been doing these
last 3 weeks, working with our colleagues, I believe we are making good
progress.
Over the weekend, there was an agreement reached between 20
Senators--10 Republicans and 10 Democrats--on a framework, or
principles, for bipartisan legislation to keep our kids and our
communities safe.
Before I go through some of the details of this agreed framework, I
want to explain what it does and what it does not include.
From the beginning, I promised my constituents that when I took an
oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, I did
not take that oath with the intention of violating it. And so I said at
the outset I would not support any additional restrictions on the
rights of law-abiding gun owners.
There are hundreds of millions of guns in America today, and the vast
majority--almost all of those gun owners--are responsible. They are not
a threat to public safety. And so this being a constitutional right to
keep and bear arms, there is no basis to restrict the rights of law-
abiding gun owners or to restrict the constitutional rights of many of
our citizens.
I made clear this is a redline of mine from the outset. And this
bipartisan agreement on principles makes good on that commitment.
The gun-related provisions in this proposal will only impact
criminals and those adjudicated mentally ill. Law-abiding gun owners
will not be subject to any new restrictions, period.
Our agreement also strengthens the existing background check system,
something we have had strong bipartisan support for and where we have
had some notable successes in the past, for example, the Fix NICS bill
that passed after this tragic Sutherland Springs shooting, where an
individual, who should not have been able to get a firearm because of
his record of felonies and domestic violence and mental health
commitments, was able to do so because the Air Force had not uploaded
that information into the background check system.
I am proud of the fact that, on a bipartisan basis, we passed that
legislation which compelled Federal Agencies to post this derogatory
information, which disqualifies people under current law, into the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Since 2018, when
that bill was signed into law, there have been 11\1/2\ million new
records uploaded into the background check system.
As I said, our agreement on the background check system in this
particular legislation is an attempt to try to make sure that existing
law works the way Congress intended. I am very proud of the bipartisan
work that led to this framework, and I am eager to share more with my
Republican colleagues this week.
The various portions of this proposal can be grouped into three broad
categories.
One is mental health support. To prevent violence, we need to improve
the
[[Page S2905]]
availability and accessibility of mental health services across the
country. If you look at the profile of these young, male shooters--
whether it is in Sandy Hook or it is in Uvalde, TX--they fit a familiar
profile: alienated from their peers, suffering increasingly
deteriorating mental health, not getting any treatment. It is like
circling down the drain. Unless they get some help, they are likely to
do what, unfortunately, too many of our young people do, and that is
commit suicide. In the case of Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook and Salvador
Ramos in Uvalde, they not only commit suicide--because they know they
are not coming out of this alive--but they take innocent lives with
them. So access to mental health support is absolutely critical.
So, too, is the investment in our schools. This includes everything
from physically hardening school buildings to training personnel, to
more effective violence prevention efforts. We know at Uvalde the door
had a lock on it but it didn't work, allowing the shooter easy access
to this elementary school.
All of our students--all--deserve to feel safe in their schools, and
no parent should send their child to school worried that they may not
come home. They deserve to know their child will be safe at school and
the peace of mind that goes along with that. That is why I think these
resources for additional school hardening of that soft target is very
important.
The final portion provides targeted reforms to keep guns out of the
hands of individuals who already, by law, should not have guns to begin
with. Our proposal includes resources for States to implement crisis
intervention orders.
Now, some have talked about red flag laws, but that is actually a
broader category than red flag laws that exist in 16 States. As I said,
some of this assistance for crisis intervention orders will help
administer existing red flag laws, but my hope is that others will
qualify for these resources for other important measures to help
provide support for our communities to aid in crisis intervention,
things like assisted outpatient treatment centers. As I said, 16 States
have red flag laws. Texas does not, and they certainly shouldn't miss
out on access to those resources for crisis intervention.
But one of the things you hear people concerned with most when it
comes to these red flag laws where people who are found, after an
adjudication, to be a danger to themselves and others and can lose
access to their firearms on a temporary basis--it is absolutely
critical that each and every one of those includes protection that
comes from due process of law and particularly when it comes to the
rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Our framework also includes protections for victims of domestic
violence. It shouldn't matter whether the victim is married to their
abuser; if the abuser is convicted of domestic violence, they should
not be able to purchase a firearm.
Our proposal also cracks down on illegal sellers and manufacturers of
firearms, like the man who sold a gun to the shooter who killed 7
people and injured 25 others in Midland and Odessa out in West Texas.
The shooter knew he couldn't pass a traditional background test, so he
traveled to Lubbock, TX, and purchased a firearm from somebody who made
knockoff AR-15s out of parts that he purchased over the internet. And,
of course, no background check was done, and tragedy ensued.
Our provisions also include a review of juvenile records for buyers
under the age of 21. In Uvalde, Salvador Ramos was able to pass a
background check only because no one had any insight--official
insight--into his tortured background. I have said before he was a
ticking time bomb: somebody who mutilated himself; threatened assaults,
including sexual assaults, against his fellow students; somebody who
posted pictures online of the weapons that he had bought and threatened
online to go shoot up a school.
We need to know before somebody walks in and buys a firearm when they
turn 18 what their mental health and criminal record history looks
like, to the extent feasible. Then we need to incentivize more States,
like the States of South Carolina and Virginia that currently upload
mental health adjudications even for juveniles.
To be clear, we agreed on a press statement, a set of principles.
That was very important and hard-fought. But now comes the even more
difficult task of trying to agree on legislative text to actually
implement those principles, and that is what we are working on this
week. My hope is that we can complete that job in the next few days--
hopefully by the end of the week--so that the bill will be available
for all Senators--indeed, all the world--to read, and then Senator
Schumer will have that available, should he choose to do so, to put it
on the floor of the Senate next week.
There has been a lot of talk and speculation in the press about what
was included in the bill, and I am pleased to say that I believe the
principles we came up with will save lives. To me, that is the ultimate
goal, just like the legislation we passed in 2018 to fix the background
check system after Sutherland Springs.
I believe the principles we have articulated, if carried out in
legislative text, which I expect them to be, will save lives. That is
our goal. But we also understand that we are operating here in the
Senate with a 60-vote threshold, that 59 votes won't get it and any
lesser number will not allow us to vote to close off debate and then to
pass a bill. So I want to just talk about ideas that were left out of
this deal because we knew they would jeopardize our ability to get to
60 votes.
There was a lot of desire on both sides to include additional things,
but they were excluded in large part because of our necessity of
getting to 60 votes in order to get a bill--for example, proposals on
universal background checks, assault weapon bans for 18- to 21-year-
olds, mandatory waiting periods, a 21-day waiting period for purchases
of all firearms for 18- to 21-year-olds, high-capacity magazine bans,
unconstitutional mandatory safe storage requirements of all firearms in
homes, licensing requirements for purchasing an assault weapon,
criminal penalties for negligent storage of firearms in a home, and low
mens rea--that is a criminal state of mind--standard for straw
purchasing and trafficking firearms.
All of these had been proposed by either President Biden or many of
our Democratic colleagues and were not included in the statement of
principles that was agreed to by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. We
knew including any of these components would jeopardize our ability to
get a deal. So anytime our Democratic colleagues tried to push the
envelope as far as they could, we had to remind them of that
requirement and push back.
Again, my view, my redline, my starting point, my premise in all of
this is law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. Law-abiding gun
owners who have passed a background check have a Second Amendment right
to purchase a firearm, and no limitation on their rights is going to
prevent shootings like Uvalde or Sandy Hook or Sutherland Springs. So
focusing on the problem, which is keeping criminals and people with
mental health problems from purchasing firearms under existing law, I
believe, is the right formula to build consensus and get a bill on the
President's desk.
We are still working, as I said, through a lot of the details, but I
am encouraged about where things stand right now. As I said, my goal
all along is the art of the possible. That is what politics is; it is
the art of the possible. It is not everything I want and nothing you
want or everything you want and nothing I want. That is how not to get
a deal. That is how not to accomplish anything.
I am hoping that 10 Republicans supporting the bill is not a ceiling
but is the floor, and we intend to continue to work with our colleagues
to help them understand these principles that we have agreed to, the 20
of us, and to write legislative text that can earn broad bipartisan
support, maybe supermajority support, here in the U.S. Senate.
I want to personally thank our colleagues Senator Murphy, Senator
Sinema, and Senator Tillis for working in good faith to get us to this
point, as well as a number of other Senators who contributed to this
bipartisan proposal.
We still have a lot of work ahead of us. I think in many ways this is
the beginning--not the middle or the end--of our work because now we
need to put
[[Page S2906]]
these principles into legislative text, and then we need to get it on
the Senate floor, get it passed, get it passed in the House, and then
get it to President Biden's desk.
I will be sharing further updates with my colleagues in the
Republican conference this week, and I hope, working together with
Senator Tillis and others, to build additional support on our side of
the aisle.
U.S. Supreme Court
Madam President, I just want to close on one final note. The
bipartisan work that we have done here in the Senate on this school
safety, mental health, and gun safety bill is a sharp contrast from
what is happening on the other side of the Capitol. House Democrats,
unfortunately, have a history of prioritizing politics over policy, but
now, their games have reached a dangerous low. I am talking about the
safety and security of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court and their
families.
It has been more than a month since the Senate passed bipartisan
legislation to protect them from threats of violence. The legislation
Mr. Coons, a Senator from Delaware, and I introduced--a bipartisan
bill--passed the Senate unanimously. Do you think that happens every
day? Not by a long shot. To get all 100 Senators to support a piece of
legislation means it is really not controversial. But, unfortunately,
once it went to the House, it sat there and languished for a month.
Even as members of the Supreme Court and their families are being
threatened, the House hasn't allowed a vote on that bipartisan bill.
The reason given by our Democratic colleagues in the House is, well,
they want to extend further protection to Court employees and their
families. That could include around-the-clock security details for
everyone from clerks to IT staff and their spouses, children, siblings,
and parents. That makes a mockery of what Senator Coons and I tried to
do.
All we wanted to do is give the police at the Supreme Court the very
same authority that the Capitol Police have to provide protective
details to Members of Congress. In fact, the leadership in both Houses
have permanent details assigned to them, but if a Member of Congress
receives a credible threat, Capitol Police will provide a protective
detail for them. That is all we want to do for the members of the
Supreme Court and their families.
Last week, we received a terrifying reminder of the failure to act
and what the consequences of that might be. U.S. marshals arrested a
man outside of Justice Kavanaugh's home who had traveled all the way
from California to assassinate a sitting Justice on the U.S. Supreme
Court. When he was arrested, he had a Glock 17 semiautomatic pistol. He
had ammunition, a knife, a crowbar, and some zip ties. He told
authorities his plan was to break into Justice Kavanaugh's house, kill
Justice Kavanaugh, and then commit suicide. That was his plan. Thank
goodness law enforcement authorities were able to stop him.
But this close call immediately set off calls for the House to pass
the bipartisan legislation that I was discussing a moment ago--again,
that passed unanimously in the Senate a month ago--but unfortunately,
House Democrats have still refused to do that. They still claim that
the law clerks and other Supreme Court staff who were virtually
anonymous to the public are in dire need of protection too. I think
this is pretty transparently a stalling tactic. It is a pretty lame
excuse for not providing the Supreme Court Justices and their families
with the very same protection that Capitol Police provide Members of
Congress.
The bill that the Democratic House Members say they want to pass
instead was introduced on May 10, almost 5 weeks ago, but they haven't
even voted on that bill yet. Again, this is a transparent attempt to
stall legislation that passed 100 to 0. If House Democrats actually
believed in the snake oil they are trying to sell, they would have
passed their own bill a month ago, but they didn't, and they haven't.
They wasted precious time and left Justices' families vulnerable to
grave danger.
If House Democrats want to vote on a bill that extends protection to
other people, including the leaker of the Supreme Court opinion, they
are welcome to try to do so, but first, they need to pass the
bipartisan bill Senator Coons and I introduced.
The line between legitimate public discourse and acts of violence has
been crossed, and House Democrats cannot continue to turn a blind eye.
We don't have time to spare when it comes to protecting the members of
the Court and their families. If, Heaven forbid, something were to
happen because of a lack of authority that would be conferred by the
Supreme Court Police Parity Act, shame on Members of the House of
Representatives. It would be on them for their failure to act on this
commonsense, bipartisan bill.
Madam President, the House needs to pass the Supreme Court Police
Parity Act today and, if not today, tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Free Speech
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, there has been a lot of well-deserved
attention to free expression limits on college campuses. My colleagues
have heard me right here on this very Senate floor speak about the need
for free expression many times. But one reason we have this issue at
colleges is because students aren't exposed to the diverse ideas in our
public schools and other K-12 institutions. So when brandnew college
students encounter opposing ideas for the first time, you have heard
it--they lash out. They demand what are called safe spaces on the
college campuses.
Now, that tells me that students are coming to college very
unprepared to hear diverse views. If your own views have never been
challenged, then you almost certainly have not developed the skills to
evaluate different viewpoints and then go ahead and make up your own
mind.
So let's raise this question: Why are students arriving in college so
resistant to hearing diverse views?
I have been following some news stories on this subject last month,
and all of this may not be entirely accidental, that our high school
students aren't prepared to hear diverse viewpoints when they get to
college.
The American Federation of Teachers recently announced that it wants
to put an extension on the computers of its 1.7 million members. The
goal of this NewsGuard extension is to provide ``trust ratings'' of
news websites. Although numerous studies have pointed to a clear
leftwing bias from NewsGuard, the AFT still wanted to bring it into the
classrooms across America. Now, that should not be our goal. Our goal
should be to get political bias out of K-12 schools, not ingrain it.
Contrariwise, a major focus that I have heard from Iowa teachers has
been that we need to develop among our students critical thinking.
Well, critical thinking requires listening to different ideas. If all
students just agree with their teachers, that is repetition, not
independent thinking.
The disease that has infected so many colleges now seems to spread
throughout our K-12 schools. I hope for our country's future we find a
way to continue to show kids both sides of an argument rather than
shutting down ideas that teachers may disagree with. I have heard from
many Iowans concerned about exactly that kind of bias. But we can't fix
it here in Washington, DC.
The first rule of education policy should be that decisions are made
as close to the family as possible. If you have issues with how your
school is being run, your local school board should be your very first
step. These elected officials are directly accountable to the parents
in their own communities. A problem should only go up to the State
legislature if it is caused by State law, and only a select few issues
should go to this national level, where Federal intervention is found
out to be the source of the problem.
So if you see political bias or lack of diverse viewpoints in your
kids' school, go to the people who can fix it. Make your voice heard
both at school board meetings and at the ballot box.
Border Security
Madam President, on another subject, we had the good fortune of
hearing a series of speeches last week led by my colleague from Iowa,
Joni Ernst, on the critical situation at our southern border, with
people violating our laws, coming into this country, and almost being
invited into this country in violation of our laws because our
[[Page S2907]]
laws say you need the permission of the United States to come to this
country.
So I didn't speak last week on that subject, but, as I have done on a
number of occasions otherwise, I want to once again come to my
colleagues about the border crisis created by President Biden,
Secretary Mayorkas, and maybe more throughout this administration.
The crisis at our southern border is one of the top issues I hear at
my county meetings. Iowans are understandably upset by President
Biden's policies that have incentivized illegal immigration and created
a historic crisis at the southern border.
In the first 15 months of this administration, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection--CBP, as we call it--has experienced over 2.7 million
encounters with illegal immigrants at the southern border. That number
is staggering. It is larger than the population of 15 States and
Washington, DC. It is almost three times larger than the President's
home State of Delaware.
Make no mistake about it, this crisis is entirely the fault of
President Biden and the policies that he put in place almost his first
day in office.
Since taking office, this administration has terminated physical
barrier construction at the southern border. In other words, the wall
that works to keep people from entering our country was stopped being
built.
Next, this administration attempted to severely limit the ability of
ICE to deport illegal immigrants; also attempted to terminate the
``Remain in Mexico'' policy; rolled back asylum cooperative agreements;
openly supported sanctuary city policies; embraced mass catch-and-
release policies; put forward mass-amnesty legislative proposals that
would do nothing to secure the border; and even attempted to terminate
title 42 without any plan in place to deal with what happened when we
increased the number of people illegally crossing our border from about
6- to 7,000 a day to 18,000 a day, and that figure comes from the
estimates of our own executive branch government.
Now, listing all these things, therefore, it shouldn't be a surprise
to see a record-shattering surge of illegal immigration at our southern
border. This is what happens when you make it clear that you have no
intention of fully enforcing the Nation's immigration laws or cracking
down on illegal immigration.
As I have said before, it is an unfortunate reality that the
President and his administration believe the surge in illegal
immigration at the southern border due to his policies is a process to
be managed rather than a crisis to be stopped. Until that mindset
changes, this historic crisis at our southern border will continue. And
President Biden, Secretary Mayorkas, and the irresponsible and reckless
policies of this administration deserve all of the blame for the
situation that we are in.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
H.R. 3967
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, as you know, the Senate is currently
considering the Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act. This bipartisan
legislation is the most comprehensive toxic exposure bill ever
considered for veterans.
My colleagues deserve a fair consideration of common sense and
reasonable amendments to improve this bill for our veterans. The House
of Representatives had six votes and adopted 27 amendments. Part of the
agreement between the chairman, Chairman Tester, and I was that
amendments would be considered for this legislation; and, specifically,
I have pushed for two amendments to be considered.
Given the magnitude and size of this legislation, there needs to be a
bipartisan process, and given the magnitude of the bipartisan support
of this legislation, there needs to be a bipartisan process on the
Senate floor; and I would ask the leadership of the Senate to make
certain that is the case.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, the Senate has a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation this week. The Sergeant
First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act will honor this
country's commitment to our country's toxin-exposed veterans and their
families.
Generation after generation of veterans have been exposed to toxic
substances during their time serving this country. And when they return
from their military service, they have faced yet another battle right
here at home--that battle to get the care and benefits that they have
earned and that they desperately need.
In the worst cases, folks are praying and praying with the price of
their lives--veterans and heroes like SFC Heath Robinson, for whom this
bill is named. Like many Americans, Heath answered the call of duty and
deployed to Kosovo and Iraq with the Ohio National Guard.
When he deployed, he was a healthy and active soldier. While
deployed, he was exposed to toxins from burn pits. And 13 years--13
short years--after his deployment, he lost his life to a rare
autoimmune disease and stage 4 lung cancer, conditions undoubtedly
related to his exposure to toxins from burn pits while he was on active
duty serving this Nation.
Heath left behind an 8-year-old daughter. He also left behind a wife
and family. And this family is now committed to ensuring that this
country provides for other veterans what it could not provide for
Heath--the support he needed to survive.
This bill will address decades of inaction and failure by our
Government. It expands eligibility for VA healthcare to more than 3\1/
2\ million combat veterans exposed to burn pits, supporting our post-9/
11 and Vietnam-era veterans by removing the burden of proof for 23
presumptive conditions caused by toxic exposure, from cancers to lung
disease.
It establishes a framework for the establishment of future
presumptions of service-related toxic exposures, giving the VA the
tools it needs to bolster its workforce, establish more healthcare
facilities, and improve the claims process to better meet the immediate
and future needs of every veteran that the VA serves.
There is always a cost to war. And we often look at it with ships and
airplanes and tanks, but the fact is, the cost of the wars we have
fought are never fully paid. This bill will help right that wrong.
Congress has a chance to show our Nation's veterans that their
government has their back. Our men and women in uniform answered the
call of duty. The Presiding Officer of the Senate knows exactly what I
am talking about. They upheld their end of the bargain; we need to
uphold ours.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that we yield back all time and
the vote occur right now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Tester
substitute amendment No. 5051 to Calendar No. 388, H.R. 3967,
a bill to improve health care and benefits for veterans
exposed to toxic substances, and for other purposes.
Charles E. Schumer, Jon Tester, Tammy Duckworth, Robert
P. Casey, Jr., Margaret Wood Hassan, Kyrsten Sinema,
[[Page S2908]]
Mark Kelly, Christopher Murphy, Sherrod Brown, Tina
Smith, Jacky Rosen, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jack Reed,
Tammy Baldwin, Jeanne Shaheen, Mazie K. Hirono, Ben Ray
Lujan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 5051, offered by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, to
H.R. 3967, a bill to improve health care and benefits for veterans
exposed to toxic substances, and for other purposes, shall be brought
to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 78, nays 17, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]
YEAS--78
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NAYS--17
Blackburn
Burr
Crapo
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
NOT VOTING--5
Cruz
Kennedy
Sasse
Warnock
Wicker
(Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). On this vote, the yeas are 78,
the nays are 17.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Arizona.
____________________