[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order for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________