[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 15, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2947-S2958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

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

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

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

  Pending:

       Tester-Moran amendment No. 5051, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Schumer amendment No. 5065 (to amendment No. 5051), to add 
     an effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 5076 (to the text proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 5051), to add an effective date.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

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


                               Inflation

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, American families are being crushed by 
a giant backdoor inflation tax, and it has been fueled, in large part, 
by Democrats' huge mistakes.
  Month after month, families pick up the newspaper, flip on the 
television, and hear that Democrats' inflation is setting new 40-year 
records.
  Month after month, families find themselves shelling out hundreds 
upon hundreds of extra dollars per month just to actually tread water. 
Forget about saving and getting ahead.
  In this Democrat-run economy, working Americans have to shell out 
hundreds of extra dollars every month just to remain standing still. 
Even when you factor in the nominal pay raises that workers have 
earned, the average American worker got a 3.9 percent pay cut--pay 
cut--last year due to Democrats' inflation.
  According to the Joint Economic Committee, inflation cost the average 
American household $635 last month alone--$635 in 1 month.
  For families in Colorado, combined effects of Democrats' inflation 
and higher household spending put that number at a staggering $825. In 
Arizona, it is $733 extra per month. In Nevada it is $731. For New 
Hampshire families, it is $653. It is $599 in Washington State, and 
$598 in Georgia.
  Everybody knows why this is. Food costs are up more than 10 percent, 
year on year. Gas is up nearly--listen to this--50 percent. Rent is at 
a 35-year high, and would-be home buyers are being squeezed between 
high prices and soaring interest rates.
  In my home State, Kentucky, that monthly inflation bill comes out to 
more than $500 every month.
  Right before Senate Democrats spent $2 trillion last spring, the 
Democratic leader said he wasn't worried--wasn't worried--about the 
possibility of inflation. Now, working families are paying dearly for 
that incredibly bad judgment.
  I hear from hard-working Kentuckians who are falling behind on home 
payments or late on their utility bills

[[Page S2948]]

or cutting back at the grocery store, families who are skipping--
literally skipping--summer vacation.
  Every month, the average Kentucky household now spends over $500 more 
than they did before the Biden Presidency.
  One of my constituents from Beaver Dam wrote to tell me:

       Things are looking pretty grim for me and my family right 
     now. Everything--

  Everything.

     --is too expensive.

  His family was already giving up buying chicken and beef at the 
grocery store. Next they may have to stop making car payments. They are 
literally out of slack.
  Another constituent from Science Hill told me that his family is 
maxing out credit cards to stay above water. He is watching as the 
Democrats who control Congress continue--continue--to advocate for more 
reckless spending and laments that Washington does not appear to 
understand what is happening--what is happening--to our heartland.
  A third constituent from Paint Lick is struggling because--clarifies 
that she is not asking for a handout because she doesn't believe it 
would help. ``After all,'' she writes, ``money is not free; taxpayers 
must pay it back.'' If only Washington Democrats had that much wisdom. 
If only our one-party government had exercised that much common sense 
back last spring.
  Three of the most basic duties that any government owes its citizens 
are stable prices, public safety, and secure borders--stable prices, 
public safety, and secure borders.
  Unfortunately for our country, the Democrats have struck out--struck 
out--swinging.


                           Political Violence

  Mr. President, now on a completely different matter, yesterday marked 
5 years since the attempted assassination of numerous Congressmen on a 
baseball field across the river.
  The perpetrator was a far-left activist who doublechecked that it was 
Republicans on the field before he started shooting.
  Five years on, political violence and threats are again making 
national headlines. The far left has spent weeks fomenting rage and 
panic over the possibility that one or more upcoming Supreme Court 
rulings may not deliver the liberal policy outcomes they would prefer.
  Last week, the authorities arrested a deranged person who traveled to 
Washington from California with a premeditated plan to assassinate an 
Associate Justice for ideological reasons--fruit of a toxic culture 
that is fueled by the precedent-breaking leak of a draft opinion last 
month and a torrent of reckless talk from prominent Democrats.
  It took that assassination attempt and then another week of wasted--
wasted--time for House Democrats to stop slow-walking a bipartisan bill 
to beef up Supreme Court security that passed the Senate unanimously 
more than a month ago. The same people--the same people--fanning the 
flames of fear and anger blocked that noncontroversial bill for more 
than a month--more than a month--before they finally sent it to the 
President.
  Meanwhile, as mobs continue to mount angry demonstrations outside 
these Justices' private family homes, President Biden's Department of 
Justice continues to assiduously ignore--ignore--the fact that this is 
totally illegal now under existing law. Section 1507 of the Criminal 
Code makes it perfectly clear: It is flat-out illegal to demonstrate at 
a judge's private family residence to pressure them in a pending case. 
That is the fact set that we have here. It is not just immoral; it is 
not just civically toxic; it is literally a Federal crime.
  Where is Attorney General Garland? As the former chief judge of the 
DC Circuit, he should understand the need for judicial security and 
independence as well as anyone. But the same soft-on-crime ethos that 
pervades the modern Democratic Party apparently extends even--even--to 
ignoring illegal pressure campaigns aimed at Federal judges.
  Two years ago, a New Jersey judge had a gunman show up to her front 
door in disguise and murder her son. Just recently, somebody murdered a 
retired judge in Wisconsin, and then last week's near assassination. 
But where is President Biden? He won't even denounce the ongoing 
protests at Justices' private homes, and our supposedly nonpolitical 
Attorney General will not lift a finger--a finger--to enforce existing 
Federal law.
  Today, every Republican member of the Judiciary Committee and I are 
sending another--another--letter to Attorney General Garland. His 
dereliction of duty on this subject must come to an end.
  The far-left political violence and intimidation efforts do not stop 
with judges. In the weeks since the draft opinion suggested the Court 
may--may--overturn an abortion decision that even Justice Ruth Bader 
Ginsberg acknowledged was poorly reasoned, a spate of vandalism, 
threats, and even some arson attacks have been unleashed upon Catholic 
churches--upon Catholic churches--and pro-life crisis pregnancy centers 
all around the country. In 2022, simply being a Christian or being pro-
life seems to be sufficient cause for angry radicals to call in 
threats, graffiti your door, or firebomb your office. Once again, 
President Biden and his Justice Department have been totally silent--
not word about any of it; unable to even simply denounce the hatred.
  The same Democrats who want to make a national spectacle out of their 
supposed opposition to political violence will not even call out 
violence and intimidation from their own side, let alone--let alone--
fulfill their oaths and put a stop to it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


                               H.R. 3967

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we continue a productive week here on the 
Senate floor.
  Today, the Senate will take another step closer to passing the 
largest veterans' healthcare bill in decades, the Honoring our PACT 
Act. In a few moments, the Senate will vote to adopt the substitute 
amendment and then immediately vote on cloture on the bill, bringing us 
to the brink of passing this long-sought piece of legislation.
  Frankly, the Senate should come to an agreement to finish the PACT 
Act work A-S-A-P. We should pass this bill as soon as we can and 
finally tell our veterans that the long wait for their well-earned 
benefits is over.
  Let me say it again.
  There is no reason not to finish the PACT Act A-S-A-P. Our Nation's 
veterans have waited long enough for this bill. Since 9/11, nearly 3.5 
million veterans have been exposed to toxic burn pits in the line of 
duty. Scores of Americans went off to serve our country in perfect 
health only to come back home and get sick from toxic exposure, and 
when many of these veterans applied to the VA for healthcare benefits, 
they oftentimes discovered that they didn't qualify.
  It is a confounding indignity for our Nation's heroes to sacrifice 
everything for our country only to come home, get sick, and discover 
that the VA ain't there for them--they have to fend for themselves.
  What kind of message does it send to future veterans when we can't 
guarantee they will get the healthcare benefits they rightfully deserve 
and when the VA will not deal with injuries that occurred on the 
battlefield because of toxic burn pits and other issues? With the PACT 
Act, we have a chance to answer that question with a resounding yes.
  Question: Well, if I enlist, am I going to really be taken care of 
when my service is complete?
  We are going to have a chance to answer that question with a 
resounding yes. Yes, we will take care of you. Yes, we will make sure 
you can live healthy and dignified lives. Yes, we will keep our promise 
to protect our veterans just as they have sacrificed everything for us.
  No great nation can dare afford to turn its back on the multitudes 
who have served our country. No veterans

[[Page S2949]]

should ever have to carry the burden of treating complications from 
toxic exposure all by themselves, and we can change that simply with a 
vote on this bill.
  Let us pass the PACT Act with all due haste. We have a moral 
obligation in the Chamber to get this done.


                              Nominations

  Now, Mr. President, on the nominations front, we are moving ahead 
with confirming President Biden's critical and well-qualified nominees.
  Later today, we will vote on the confirmation of Alan Leventhal to 
serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Denmark.
  Later this week, once we conclude the PACT Act, we will also move 
forward on the nomination of Mary Boyle for the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, whose confirmation would give that Agency a Democratic 
majority.
  We will also soon vote to confirm another historic judicial nominee, 
Ana Isabel de Alba, to serve as a district judge for the Eastern 
District of California. Judge de Alba will be the first ever Latina to 
serve as a Federal judge in California's Eastern District, joining the 
more than 65 qualified judicial nominees that this majority has 
confirmed under President Biden.
  I am proud of the historic progress this Senate Democratic majority 
has made in confirming well-qualified and diverse nominees to the 
executive branch, to independent boards, and to the Federal bench, and 
we are going to keep going.


                            Gun Legislation

  Mr. President, on gun safety, Democrats and Republicans continue 
negotiations over the legislative text for the first major gun safety 
bill to pass the Senate in 30 years.
  Just a few weeks ago, such an effort would have seemed unimaginable. 
If there were any issue that encapsulates the gridlock of the past few 
decades, gun safety would be near the very top of the list. For too 
long, Americans have gotten used to a frustrating pattern--tragedy 
strikes; families grieve; but gridlock in the Senate ensues.
  Perhaps this time--hopefully, this time--it will be different. Many 
in this Chamber are working, right now, in the hopes that it will be 
different. We are not over the finish line yet, but there is a real 
hunger to finally accomplish what has escaped the Senate for far too 
long: passing meaningful gun safety reform.
  Again, not too long ago, this debate would have been hard to have 
fathomed, but despite the long odds, we gave negotiators space to do 
their work. I am glad we did because we now have the best chance in 
decades to act on gun violence. I spoke to both Senators Murphy and 
Cornyn this morning. They are eager to get the text completed. There 
will be meetings all day long in the hopes that we can get the text 
done so we can put it on the floor as soon as possible and get it 
passed. If we can prevent even one death from gun violence in the 
future, our efforts at this moment will have been worth it.
  Gun safety is near and dear to my heart. As the Acting President pro 
tempore knows, three decades ago, I was a proud author of the Brady 
Bill in Congress, which won the support of many Republicans and even 
law enforcement. Back then, I argued we had to get something done 
because the American people were sick and tired of the insanity and 
inaction of gun violence as much as they are today. After years of 
trying, we succeeded back then, but it wasn't on the first try. Yet we 
enacted a bill that, very likely, saved tens of thousands of lives. 
There are many, many people--thousands or tens of thousands in all 
likelihood--walking the streets today because we passed the Brady Law.

  Today, the American people are similarly sick and tired of the 
insanity of the gun violence happening every day across the country. 
Just thinking about all of the shootings we have suffered over the 
years is exhausting and debilitating: Columbine, Virginia, Sandy Hook, 
Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando, El Paso, Charleston, Atlanta, Buffalo, 
Uvalde. The list keeps going on and growing. The American people have 
had enough. They want us to move forward.
  If the Senate can come up with a bill that embraces the bipartisan 
framework, we are going to save lives. I promise that, once the text is 
done, I will put it on the floor as soon as possible, so I encourage my 
colleagues to keep working. As I mentioned, our Senators on both sides 
of the aisle will be working diligently all day to try and come up with 
the final text as soon as possible. We don't know the next time we will 
have a chance to make meaningful progress on gun violence, so we have 
every reason in the world to get to yes.


                               Elections

  Mr. President, on the elections of last night and election deniers, a 
year and a half after the 2020 election, Donald Trump's Big Lie is 
alive and well, unfortunately.
  Last night, hard-right candidates who believe the last Presidential 
election was stolen--it is so incorrect, with no factual basis. But 
these people with these beliefs were elevated into the general 
election. Many of these candidates are running in critical swing States 
and running for offices that will have outsized influence in managing 
future elections.
  The example of Nevada's secretary of state race is especially bone 
chilling. Jim Marchant--a far-right radical, who openly believes that 
the 2020 election results were illegitimate, who believes the Big Lie--
is now running to be the top elections official in Nevada. Mr. Marchant 
is someone who openly thinks Donald Trump should be the President right 
now, and if he wins in November, he will be Nevada's most important 
election official and would pose a direct threat--a direct threat--to 
the democratic process in that State.
  He must be rejected by the people of every political persuasion. It 
doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent, 
a liberal or a conservative or a moderate. Democracy is at risk if we 
elevate individuals who don't believe in the sanctity of elections. 
That is the road to authoritarianism, to dictatorship. This isn't a 
partisan argument. Undermining democracy endangers all of us--
Democrats, Republicans, Independents. If the proponents of the Big Lie 
are elected to office, they pose a direct threat to our democratic way 
of life.
  The January 6 hearings have made it abundantly clear that even Donald 
Trump's inner circle knew the Big Lie was utter garbage, so it is 
nothing short of horrifying to see that radicals who profess the Big 
Lie are gaining strength across the country.
  I urge the American people to reject the credo of lies pushed by 
Donald Trump and his cronies and, whatever your party, to vote this 
November for men and women who will safeguard our democracy and 
preserve the sanctity of our elections. Without it, our country could 
be on the road to ruin.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 4409 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               H.R. 3967

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the bipartisan 
accomplishment by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and the 
expanded support we are delivering for veterans living with illnesses 
as a result of toxic exposure due to their service in our Nation's 
uniform through the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our 
Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022. This legislation 
ensures veterans who need help now can get it. We are all too familiar 
with the challenges that exist for veterans as a result of toxic 
exposure.

[[Page S2950]]

  I have been working to improve veteran services and benefits for more 
than 20 years as a member of both the Senate and the House VA 
Committees. During that time, I have heard a lot about toxic exposure 
issues and have come to understand the immediate need to make 
improvement to benefits and care for post-9/11 veterans who were 
exposed to toxic substances as a result of burn pits. This exposure is 
known to cause serious illness, including rare cancers and respiratory 
ailments. Those suffering deserve to know they have not been forgotten 
and their voices have been heard.
  The promise our Nation made to the men and women who served in these 
dangerous conditions must be kept. This bill fulfills that promise and 
delivers immediate access to healthcare for toxic-exposed veterans. It 
directs the VA to evaluate diseases for presumption of service 
connection and streamlines the process for toxic-exposed veterans 
seeking disability compensation for their illnesses without 
overwhelming the VA system. The Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson 
PACT Act also invests in the tools and resources to help the VA process 
disability claims in a timely manner and deliver quality healthcare to 
veterans living with toxic exposure illnesses.
  With this measure, we continue to correct past failures of the VA to 
provide healthcare and benefits to previous generations exposed to 
Agent Orange as well. These challenges have existed for decades, and it 
is time we fulfill our promise to Vietnam-era veterans once and for 
all.
  The legislation we are poised to approve updates VA policies to 
provide veterans like Bill Rhodes of Mena, AK--a marine who served in 
Thailand during the Vietnam war era--provide them access to the care he 
and the others who served in that area deserve. Mr. Rhodes has been a 
relentless advocate of toxic exposure benefits.
  The VA accepts that herbicides were used along the perimeter of 
military bases in Thailand but does not recognize the impact of the 
herbicides inside the perimeter. This current policy makes no sense and 
is not fair, preventing veterans like Mr. Rhodes from accessing 
benefits as a result of toxic exposure.
  After developing illnesses linked to herbicide exposure, Mr. Rhodes 
turned to the VA for help, but his claim was denied. I have been 
working with him for several years to advance a provision that corrects 
this mistake, and I am pleased that this act eliminates the 
bureaucratic hurdles that have stood in the way of veterans getting the 
care they earned.
  This legislation is the result of bipartisan cooperation. We can 
achieve great things for our country when we put partisan politics 
aside. I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Tester and Ranking 
Member Moran to get this bill to the Senate floor. I am proud to work 
with them to address these pressing needs that face our veterans and 
their families.
  I would also like to recognize and thank the countless veterans, the 
families, advocates, and veteran service organizations that continued 
their persistence to ensure Congress fulfills its promise to the men 
and the women who served in our Nation's uniform.
  This legislation is long overdue. We have heard the struggles of 
veterans and their families living with toxic exposure-related 
illnesses. We can end the hurdles they experienced and save lives by 
passing this landmark legislation. I encourage my colleagues to join me 
in supporting it.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for up to 5 minutes, followed by the Senator from Montana, 
Senator Tester, for up to 5 minutes, prior to the scheduled rollcall 
votes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to address 
the U.S. Senate and the American people.
  In a few moments, the Senate will vote on the Tester-Moran Sergeant 
First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our PACT Act.
  For far too long--way far too long--our Nation's veterans have been 
living with chronic illnesses as a result of exposures during their 
time in uniform. Today, we are continuing to take the steps necessary 
to right this wrong with our legislation that will provide veterans and 
their families with the healthcare and benefits that they have earned 
and that they deserve.

  In March, Secretary McDonough testified before our committee, the 
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and he stated that the House 
toxic exposure bill needed additional work before being brought to the 
full Senate for a vote. Because of the improvements we have made in the 
House bill, the VA Secretary yesterday told our committee that he can 
now ``certify'' this legislation will be implemented without negative 
operational impacts on existing disability claims and healthcare for 
veterans.
  All along, I have had concern about the consequences of this 
legislation and the volume of cases that the VA will now encounter, 
what it may mean for those veterans as well as veterans who need VA 
care and benefits who are not toxic-exposed. Secretary McDonough 
yesterday went on to say: ``We're ready for it, we've been preparing 
for this. . . . I think we can do this and do it well and in all cases 
do it transparently.''
  While I appreciate the Secretary's assurance, our committee must 
continue its oversight of the VA and make certain that this bill is 
implemented correctly and that all those with toxic exposure and all 
veterans can rely upon the system for benefits and for healthcare. We 
still have our work cut out as a Congress, as a Senate, to make sure 
that the promises that are made in this bill are promises that are kept 
and that the promises that are made to other veterans are kept.
  This bill is designed to fix a broken system that has been cobbled 
together over decades of patchwork fixes. Congress has been trying to 
solve these problems. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been 
trying to solve these problems. Finally, we bring together a solution 
that should make things significantly better for many.
  While I continue to insist my GOP colleagues should be allowed to 
offer and debate and to vote on amendments, it is time to advance the 
Tester-Moran substitute and bring us one step closer to connecting all 
generations of toxic-exposed veterans with the care they need and they 
deserve and to provide veterans with certainty and support.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to start my remarks by expressing 
my appreciation for Ranking Member Moran's leadership. It has been 
stellar. If you combine him with Senator Boozman and Senator Heinrich, 
it has been a great team. I just want to thank Senator Moran for his 
leadership and his continued desire to do the right thing for the 
servicemembers who have served this country in the military.
  The Senate has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity today to make history 
in passing the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise 
to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act.
  Let me be clear. This bill isn't about Democrats versus Republicans. 
It is not about political posturing. It is about Americans standing up 
for those who have served and sacrificed on behalf of this country and 
the freedoms that we have today. In fact, it is even more than that. It 
is about righting a wrong that has been ignored for too damn long.
  It is about Will Thompson, who served our country for 23 years in the 
Army on Active Duty as a West Virginia National Guardsman.
  After his second tour in Iraq in 2009, Will developed pulmonary 
fibrosis from the effect of his exposures to burn pits, and he endured 
two double-lung transplants. He testified in front of our committee, 
less than a year ago. He lost his battle with his illnesses this last 
December.
  It is about SFC Heath Robinson, who answered the call of duty and was 
deployed to Kosovo and Iraq with the

[[Page S2951]]

Ohio National Guard--a picture of Heath right here and his daughter.
  While deployed, he was exposed to potent toxins, and 13 years after 
his deployment--13 short years after his deployment--he lost his life 
to a rare autoimmune disease and stage IV lung cancer, conditions 
absolutely and unequivocally caused by burn pits.
  Sadly, it is too late to do right by Will and Heath and so many 
others for them personally, but today this body has a chance to do the 
right thing by their families and future generations of our All-
Volunteer military by advancing the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson 
Honoring our PACT Act.
  I want to talk a little bit about this plaque right here, see the 
picture of Heath in uniform? But you also see what is the most 
important thing to Heath, and that is his daughter. His daughter was at 
a press conference that the ranking member and I were at a little over 
a week ago. And I said this when I first spoke on this bill a little 
over a week ago, the first words out of her mouth were: ``I love my 
daddy. Daddy's not around anymore.'' But because of, hopefully, the 
work that we are going to do here today, she will have a future.
  This is not only about our service men and women--the people who 
served in our military--it is about their families because when folks 
go to war, it is just not the service person who does it; it is 
everybody in their family.
  And what this bill will do, is it will address decades of inaction 
and failure by our government, expanding eligibility for VA healthcare 
to more than 3.5 million combat veterans exposed to burn pits. It 
supports our post-9/11 and Vietnam-era veterans by removing the burden 
of proof for 23 presumptive conditions caused by toxins.
  These conditions include cancers to lung disease, and it establishes 
a framework for the establishment of future presumptions and service 
connections related to toxic exposure, giving the VA the tools it needs 
to bolster its workforce, establish more healthcare facilities, and 
improve claims processing.
  There is always a cost to war, and that cost is never fully paid when 
the war ends. Our country didn't live up to its promise to veterans 
like Will Thompson and Heath Robinson, but if we do what Senator Moran 
and I have done, and that is put politics aside, if we put our American 
men and women's bravest first, if we can begin settling our debts to 
millions of other veterans and their families by getting this bill 
across the finish line, we will have done something great.
  And I would urge my colleagues to support this final procedural vote 
and a vote that is critical to moving this bill forward.


                          Amendments Withdrawn

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining pending 
amendments be withdrawn, with the exception of the substitute amendment 
No. 5051.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendments were withdrawn.
  Mr. TESTER. I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5051

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All postcloture time has expired.
  The question now occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 5051.
  Mr. TESTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--15

     Blackburn
     Burr
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Paul
     Romney
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Wicker
       
  The amendment (No. 5051) was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). Pursuant to rule XXII, the 
Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the 
clerk will state.
  The senior assistant 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 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, 
           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 H.R. 
3967, the bill to improve healthcare 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 76, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--23

     Blackburn
     Burr
     Crapo
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Wicker
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 76, the nays are 
23.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                               Juneteenth

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, on Monday, these Chambers will be empty, 
but our hearts will be full because we will be joining the American 
people in commemorating a historic moment in our Nation's story--
Juneteenth, the formal end of slavery in the United States.
  One year ago today, we stood together, across party lines, to pass 
this legislation to memorialize this important day as a Federal 
holiday. Though we celebrate this anniversary today, on

[[Page S2952]]

Monday, communities across our Nation have been marking Juneteenth for 
more than 150 years.
  The celebration of Juneteenth dates back to June 19, 1865, when Union 
soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger traveled to Galveston, TX, 
with the announcement that the Civil War had ended and that the 
enslaved were now free.
  This was 2\1/2\ years after the date of President Lincoln's 
Emancipation Proclamation. Either the news of Lincoln's order had not 
reached many, including those in Texas, or local officials refused to 
enforce the Emancipation Proclamation.
  Decades later, I introduced, along with my partners in service, 
Senators Cory Booker and Tina Smith and Representative Sheila Jackson 
Lee, the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act to honor the day that 
these Americans took their first steps into freedom and finally made 
Juneteenth a Federal holiday.
  On June 17, 2021, I was honored to stand with Vice President Kamala 
Harris, Senator Smith, Representative Jackson Lee, Senator Cornyn, 
Senator Warnock, and Ms. Opal Lee, while President Biden signed the 
National Juneteenth Independence Day Act into law.
  And why do I mention Ms. Opal Lee? Well, because she is the 
grandmother of the Juneteenth movement, who fought for years to make 
Juneteenth a Federal holiday, from Fort Worth, TX, an activist, an 
educator, who walked 2\1/2\ miles every day, fighting for the United 
States to finally have Juneteenth a Federal holiday. And at the age of 
94, she saw that become a reality in the White House.
  And in doing so, Juneteenth finally took its rightful place amongst 
other Federal holidays so that all Americans in all States can 
celebrate Juneteenth just like they celebrate Memorial Day. The same 
way they celebrate Martin Luther King Day, they now celebrate 
Juneteenth.
  Juneteenth is a holiday that requires us to remember, reflect, and 
recommit to the principles that undergird our Nation, liberty and 
justice for all, but that we have never fully embodied.
  We continue to strive to live up to these principles today. Systemic 
discrimination and mistreatment of Black and Brown Americans still 
permeates our society--from our criminal justice system to our schools, 
to our healthcare systems, that is why it is so important that we can 
learn from our past and honor the heroes in our history who have bent 
the moral arc of our Nation toward justice.
  We face a long road toward justice and equality in the United States, 
and for us to move forward, that path must be lit with the recognition 
of our Nation's history.
  Juneteenth is our Nation's history. Disparities and injustices 
reflect the unfulfilled promise of a nation built upon the notion that 
all people are created equal.
  And it has roots in our Nation's original sin--slavery--a crime 
against humanity that we have for far too long failed to fully 
acknowledge or to address.
  In commemorating Juneteenth as a Federal holiday, we will not fulfill 
our obligation to right all these wrongs or fix what remains broken, 
but it is the truth of our history. We must read these missing chapters 
to understand our national story of freedom and independence.
  And right now, in red States across the country, extremists don't 
want us to learn from our own history. They are burning books and 
threatening schoolteachers in an attempt to stop our young people from 
understanding our Nation's past and how it sheds light on our present.
  These extremists are afraid that learning about our Nation's history, 
including many dark chapters as well as the many triumphs, is a threat. 
And instead of empowering our children to learn from their example, 
they wish to silence the stories of the brave women and men who have 
fought for racial equality, and those who continue to fight today 
follow in that tradition.
  Critics say that this discourse will divide us, but that couldn't be 
less true. More than 150 years since the freeing of the last slaves in 
America, our Nation stands at a crossroads on our path to racial 
justice and equality.
  We must recognize our wrongs, acknowledge the pain, acknowledge the 
suffering of generations of slaves and their descendants, and 
understand the structures of inequity that continue to oppress 
communities of color and, importantly, learn how the freedom fighters 
of yesterday and today embody the truest values of our Nation.
  We have them to thank for our march toward a more perfect Union, but 
there is more work to be done. As Ms. Opal Lee said when talking about 
Juneteenth as a unifier, ``I truly believe that we can do so much more 
together rather than apart.''
  Together, thanks to the work of this Chamber and so many Americans 
across our Nation who have fought to tell the full story of our past, 
Americans will commemorate Juneteenth on Monday.
  In doing so, we will join with one another in honoring our past and 
recommitting to the work which lies ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Sunday, a bipartisan group of Senators 
announced principles for addressing the concerns over shootings like 
occurred in Uvalde, TX, 3 weeks ago, and other places as well.
  And I would say we have been making good progress, but we have run 
into a couple of bumps in the road that have slowed things down a 
little bit.
  One of them is over crisis intervention programs, something we agree 
is very important. I believe that we ought to put every State in the 
position of seeking and receiving funds for crisis intervention 
programs that they have in place already, even if they don't have a red 
flag law.
  ``Red flag'' has been what has been discussed and discussed many 
times, but 19 States have red flag laws, but that means 31 States have 
other crisis intervention initiatives that are designed to address the 
same problem, which is people who are a danger to themselves and others 
because of their mental health. It includes things like assisted 
outpatient treatment programs, drug courts, mental health courts, and 
veterans courts.
  The other issue that we are wrestling with relates to the domestic 
violence provision and the way nontraditional relationships are 
handled. We need to define this in a very crystal clear way. It can't 
be overly broad or open to interpretation. It needs to be something 
that can actually be applied because we are talking about very serious 
consequences here.
  Of course, with both of these provisions, we must include rigorous 
due process protections. That is a redline for folks on my side of the 
aisle.
  I know Senator Schumer, the majority leader, wants to put this bill 
on the floor next week, but unless we can resolve these differences 
over these two provisions and do it soon, hopefully today, then we 
won't have time to prepare the text so Senators can read the bill for 
themselves, which we would expect them to do. And so that is going to 
require some continued work and good faith negotiations on all sides.
  The details of these provisions are critical for support from my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle, and I hope that our colleagues 
across the aisle will understand, if we continue down this path without 
resolution, that we are jeopardizing the timetable that the majority 
leader has set out for us, or we are jeopardizing the likelihood we can 
get to 60 votes for anything, and we know how hard this is.
  I am eager to wrap up our negotiations, but we are not going to cut 
corners or capitulate for the sole purpose of passing something. I am 
not willing to compromise on some of my basic principles or throw the 
Constitution out the window so we can have something we can hold up and 
say: Look what we did.
  There is a bipartisan appetite to get this done--that is good--and I 
am optimistic about how far we have come, but we are not there yet, and 
we need to continue and do so quickly to reach an agreement on language 
so we can then write the text and have the vote.
  From the outset, I said I wanted to identify targeted reforms that 
could have prevented the recent tragedies in Uvalde and elsewhere. That 
includes stronger mental health resources, which could have helped 
Salvador Ramos before he became so sick that he killed innocent 
children, and he

[[Page S2953]]

committed suicide, essentially, in the process. That includes school 
safety measures, which could have prevented the shooter from actually 
getting inside Robb Elementary School. It includes reforms to prevent 
violence by criminals and other dangerous individuals.

  The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is one of the 
most effective tools we have to keep guns out of the hands of criminals 
and people who suffer from severe mental illness, but it is not a 
perfect system. It is only as good as the information contained in the 
system.
  For example, in 2017, in the shooting in Sutherland Springs--a little 
town outside of San Antonio, TX, my hometown--what happened there 
highlighted the gaping hole in the background check system. Despite the 
fact that the shooter had a long and disturbing history of violence 
that should have prohibited him from purchasing a gun, he was able to 
do so because the Air Force in this instance had not uploaded his 
felony convictions, his domestic violence conviction, or his mental 
health commitment.
  In response to Sutherland Springs, Senator Murphy and I introduced 
the Fix NICS Act to ensure that all Federal Agencies accurately and 
correctly upload the required conviction records on a timely basis.
  Yes, this is the same Senator Chris Murphy whom I am working with now 
to try to achieve success here. We have done it before, and I believe 
we can do it again. Our bill was signed into law in March of 2018, and 
in the first 3 years, 11\1/2\ million more records were uploaded into 
the three national databases that the FBI checks. The number of records 
in one of those databases increased by more than 30 percent alone. So I 
think I can say with assurance that what we did together in 2018 has 
saved lives because if it kept a gun out of the hands of somebody who 
is already prohibited from getting a gun under current law, we will 
have saved a life--maybe even the life of the shooter. Sixty percent of 
the gun deaths in America are suicides. But I know we have saved at 
least those lives and I think many others as well.
  But, as the Uvalde shooting demonstrated, there is another hole in 
the background check system, and that is juvenile records.
  Salvador Ramos showed up at the age of 18 and had a clean record as 
far as the background check system was concerned because it couldn't 
look back at his troubled history, struggling with mental health and 
law enforcement problems. So he showed up as if he had been born the 
day before, and nothing else previously mattered because it wasn't in 
the background check system.
  If there are disqualifying criminal or mental health records, that 
information should show up in the NICS system. In other words, if there 
are things in your life that would disqualify you if you were an adult 
but that happened before you turned 18, I think that is the information 
we need and would want to have for purposes of determining who should 
be able to purchase or possess a firearm. So that wall that prevents 
the lookback into pre-18-year-old records is obviously a problem.
  Four years ago, the Uvalde Police Department received information 
about two male juveniles, 13 and 14 years old, who were plotting a 
school shooting for their senior year. That was 4 years ago, and they 
were plotting a school shooting when they graduated in--you guessed 
it--2022. Now, there is no way for us to know for sure whether one of 
those individuals was Salvador Ramos because those juvenile records are 
not available to us. But I am here to say that if it is not Salvador 
Ramos, then we have even a bigger problem. If there are two additional, 
young, 13- and 14-year-old boys out there saying they are going to 
shoot up the school when they become seniors, we have even a bigger 
problem.
  One of the provisions we are discussing would encourage the States to 
upload similar relevant juvenile records into the NICS. This is 
standard practice in some but not all States, and it is easy to see why 
it is important.
  If an 18-year-old is convicted of aggravated assault--a felony--the 
record will show up in his background check and prohibit him from 
purchasing a gun, but if a 17-year-old is convicted of the same crime, 
the record will not necessarily be uploaded into the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System. If he tries to purchase a gun at 18, 
the background check is likely to come back clean--again, because the 
system is only as good as the information in it.
  Let me give you another example. An individual can be adjudicated 
mentally ill on his 17th birthday and actually be civilly committed for 
multiple months in a mental institution, but that same person could 
likely purchase a gun at the age of 18 without anything showing up on 
his record. Existing law prohibits that purchase, but not all the 
States are sending that information to the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System.
  Those are examples of why it is so important to be able to get that 
lookback in the pre-18-year-old history for mental health or criminal 
justice encounters.
  This is not actually an expansion of the background check system 
because it doesn't add any new restrictions to gun ownership, but it 
would permit the background check system to actually have access to 
relevant and material information. It is a commonsense step to ensure 
that the data in the NICS system is accurate.
  That is easy enough to say, but we need to ensure this idea would 
work in practice, and that is exactly what we are examining now.
  No. 1, we need to ensure this provision would protect due process of 
law. That is a constitutional right that is fundamental. Under current 
law, anyone who receives a denial has the right to appeal that decision 
or challenge the accuracy of the record. Of course, those same 
protections should exist for juvenile records as well.
  Secondly, we need to establish an interim plan while these records 
are being uploaded into the background check system, a process that 
will take some time.

  Now, my colleagues across the aisle suggested a mandatory waiting 
period for all purchasers under the age of 21, but we didn't agree to 
that. There is no reason why somebody who passes a background check 
with all relevant information in the database should be denied the 
ability to purchase a gun. In fact, we are talking again about a 
constitutional right. So no mandatory waiting period. But we are 
looking at extending the investigatory period for juvenile records that 
are unclear or ambiguous. Let me explain what I am talking about.
  Under current law, a person who wants to purchase a gun from their 
local retailer must complete a background check. We talked about that. 
In nearly 90 percent of the cases, the background check is resolved 
almost immediately because these are computerized records. The average 
processing time is, in fact, less than 2 minutes. In those cases, the 
seller receives an immediate answer--either the sale can proceed or it 
cannot.
  In the remaining roughly 10 percent of background checks, the system 
doesn't return a green light or a red light. In short, this happens 
when there are question marks or other things that need to be inquired 
about. This could be caused by a number of factors. If the buyer has a 
common name, the system could pull records on the wrong individual with 
the same name. It could also be caused by incomplete criminal history 
records. For example, if somebody was convicted of assault but the 
record doesn't say whether it was a felony or misdemeanor or in some 
cases whether the assault was a domestic violence incident, that would 
have consequences in terms of their ability to purchase a firearm. So 
further review, further investigation sometimes is necessary to see 
whether the light should be green or the light should be red.
  Under the current law, the FBI has up to 3 business days to complete 
a background check and give the seller a clean answer on whether the 
sale can proceed. That is current law, up to 3 days. In many cases, 
this review that we are talking about adding for persons between 18 and 
21--this review can clarify that the sale can proceed, and that is a 
great thing. That is how we safeguard Second Amendment rights for law-
abiding gun owners.
  We discussed the idea of extending that investigatory period when 
there is a question mark surrounding juvenile records. Again, this is 
the exception to

[[Page S2954]]

the rule, where more information is required because the answer that 
you get is ambiguous or unclear.
  Under this enhanced review, an 18-year-old with a clean record would 
be able to expeditiously purchase a firearm. The extended investigation 
period would only apply to those rare cases and, again, only for those 
18 to 20 for whom the system does not return a clear answer--yes or no, 
green or red--but, rather, a yellow light.
  We believe this is a commonsense and straightforward way to improve 
the existing background check system without adding new restrictions.
  As I said, negotiations are ongoing, but time is of the essence 
because we need to get to an agreement so we can get text to our 
colleagues so that the majority leader can bring this bill up on the 
floor next week after giving everyone a chance to read it and 
understand it and have their questions answered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 732 and 735; 
that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening 
action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nominations be 
printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it has come 
to my attention recently on a couple of the nominees whom the Federal 
Mine Safety and Health Review Commission is entertaining--this body has 
been rife with allegations of abuse of power and a hostile work 
environment, resulting in several whistleblower complaints. Several of 
these allegations would have occurred during both Mary Lu Jordan's and 
Timothy Baker's previous tenures at the Agency.
  The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission was created 
under the Mine Act, which declared that the industry must view the 
health and safety and consider it the most precious resource of the 
miner. The Agency does not have its own Office of Inspector General to 
review these considerations. I think it probably needs one. This has 
led to ongoing efforts by both House Oversight and Senate Republicans.
  It is important to shine a light on Agencies like this, the Federal 
Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, that have little to no 
oversight currently.
  So, until I am satisfied--and I think others as well--that we look 
into that, that we vet those concerns, and have some type of interim 
oversight, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I have some remarks on the nominations.
  As the Senator from Indiana noted, the two individuals talked about 
are Timothy ``T.J.'' Baker and Mary Lu Jordan to serve on the Federal 
Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. Mr. Baker and Ms. Jordan are 
highly qualified nominees who were nominated last year.
  Mr. Baker currently serves as the associate general counsel of the 
United Mine Workers of America and previously worked for the Federal 
Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, first as an attorney-advisor 
in the Office of Administrative Law Judges in Pittsburgh and then as 
attorney-advisor in the Office of the Commissioners in Washington, DC. 
Mr. Baker is also the son of a coal miner.
  Ms. Jordan was appointed as a Commissioner on the Federal Mine Safety 
and Health Review Commission in 1994 and has served in that capacity 
almost continuously since then. Her most recent term as Commissioner 
ended in 2020, and she has since served as senior attorney-advisor at 
the Commission.
  Given their expertise and commitment to public service, both Mr. 
Baker and Ms. Jordan would be assets to the Federal Mine Safety and 
Health Review Commission. It is past due that the Senate confirm their 
nominations. Confirming both would give Democrats a majority on the 
Commission.
  Mr. Baker and Ms. Jordan are among the excellent nominees who have 
been put forward by the Biden-Harris administration. Nominees like Mr. 
Baker and Ms. Jordan will help us represent our Nation's coal miners, 
and I hope we can advance their nominations today.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. OSSOFF. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               H.R. 3967

  Mr. OSSOFF. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues--
Democrats, Independents, Republicans--to seize this opportunity that we 
have to pass bipartisan legislation to look out for the veterans of 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who are suffering the terrible 
consequences of exposure to burn pits, toxic fumes, and toxic waste.
  When we send Americans to war, caring for them when they return is 
not a favor, it is not a good deed, it is not a choice; it is a sacred 
obligation of the U.S. Government.
  I would observe that many of the same Senators who voted to send our 
forces into harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan are still serving in 
this body today.
  We have a sacred obligation to pass this legislation to ensure that 
those who served in those conflicts and anywhere around the world in 
service to the United States, suffering from the effects of exposure to 
toxins, get the care they need through the VA.
  This is about folks like COL David McCracken of Tyrone, GA, an Army 
Reservist deployed in defense of our country after 9/11. Colonel 
McCracken made it home from those deployments. He served his country. 
He did his duty with valor and bravery. But at the age of 45, when 
otherwise healthy, Colonel McCracken was diagnosed with brain cancer--a 
rare occurrence at his age--and 11 months later, he was dead, taken 
from a wife and three children.
  This is about folks like Army SGT Jeff Danovich, who fought in Mosul 
in 2004, where he lived just 100 yards from a burn pit. Like Colonel 
McCracken, Sergeant Danovich did his duty. He served in combat. He came 
home to his family, but just 2 years ago, Sergeant Danovich was 
diagnosed with leukemia. And when he filed for disability with the VA 
because of his exposure to burn pits, his claim was denied.

  Let me just state again that when this government sends its forces 
into harm's way, caring for them when they return is not a good deed. 
We don't get extra credit for doing this. It is not a favor; it is our 
job. And let me remind my colleagues once again that many of you in 
this body voted to send these men and women into combat.
  So Senator Tester and Senator Moran have presented us with a 
bipartisan bill to do what is right and look after the veterans who did 
their jobs for us when we sent them to do those jobs. Let's do our jobs 
for them and pass this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  (Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from Illinois.


                       Tenth Anniversary of DACA

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was 10 years ago today that President 
Obama walked into the White House Rose Garden and said he had an 
announcement to make.
  He made an announcement which changed the lives of hundreds of 
thousands of people living in America. He announced the Deferred Action 
for Childhood Arrivals. Now, we call it DACA.
  And with that announcement, I joined with, I guess, thousands of 
young leaders across this country and breathed a sigh of relief.
  Over the past decade, DACA has allowed more than 800,000 Dreamers to 
remain in the only home they have ever known: America. These young 
people we call Dreamers came to this

[[Page S2955]]

country as children, some as young as a few months old. They grew up 
studying in our classrooms. They grew up befriending our children and 
grandchildren. They went to church with us, and when they were kids, 
every morning they stood up in that classroom and pledged allegiance to 
that flag. And the reason they did it, of course, is they believed it 
was their flag.
  In the years since DACA was announced, a lot has changed in the 
world. Presidents have come and gone, wars have ended, and a once-in-a-
century pandemic has rocked the world.
  But in the face of all these changes and upheavals, one thing remains 
steady, constant, and predictable: the devotion of Dreamers to America. 
These young people have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to 
America. They served as our school teachers, first responders, members 
of the military, essential workers in the pandemic.
  More than 200,000 DACA recipients were classified by our government 
as ``essential critical infrastructure workers'' during the pandemic--
200,000 of them. And, remember, they don't enjoy the benefit of 
citizenship yet. Among them are 40,000 healthcare industry workers, 
doctors, nurses, paramedics.
  Over the years, I have come to the floor of the Senate over 125 
different times to tell the stories of the Dreamers. These stories show 
us what is at stake when we consider the fate of DACA and the Dream 
Act.
  Today, I want to tell you the story of Yazmin Ruiz. She is the 130th 
Dreamer story that I have told on the Senate floor.
  This is a photograph of Yazmin.
  She arrived in this country at the age of 3, along with her twin 
sister and her mom. And even though her extended family remained in 
Mexico, she said she never felt alone growing up in Arizona because 
``we were surrounded by community.''
  But when Yazmin was 16, the family suffered a tragedy that ignited 
her passion for medicine. Her mother had a stroke, and when the family 
arrived at the hospital, they were shocked to discover that none of the 
healthcare providers spoke Spanish.
  At a young age, Yazmin, who was grappling with the trauma and fear 
that her mother might die, was forced to play the role of interpreter 
and translator to save her mother's life.
  It was at that moment, even as a terrified 16-year-old, that Yazmin 
resolved to become a healthcare hero if her mom needed her.
  She studied hard in high school. She graduated with honors. She made 
her way to the University of New Mexico, where she earned a bachelor of 
science in biology and Spanish.
  Yazmin then matriculated to the University of New Mexico School of 
Medicine, but then she hit a speed bump. She discovered that her 
immigration status was going to stop her from receiving a professional 
license to practice medicine. Her dream was interrupted.
  What did she do? She said: No way. She wouldn't accept no for an 
answer.
  She joined a coalition of like-minded students and rallied support in 
the New Mexico Legislature to change the State law on licensure.

  Now Yazmin Ruiz is fulfilling her childhood dream. Every day she 
delivers care and support to families like her own and offers the 
guidance that she once sought as a teenager lost in our healthcare 
system.
  Yazmin is in the third year of her general surgeon residency at the 
University of New Mexico. And at the height of the pandemic, she was 
deep in the trenches of our healthcare system.
  Back in the summer of 2020, when COVID was new and basically unknown, 
Yazmin was working 80 hours a week, providing daily care to COVID-
positive patients, performing CPR, and wearing protective gear from 
head to toe.
  Like so many Dreamers, Yazmin's commitment to serving her community 
was unshakeable. Even when her own family members came down with COVID, 
she didn't stay home and take care of them. She went to work. Day after 
day, she put her life on the line to save the lives of others.
  And she has continued that journey as a healthcare professional 
against improbable odds.
  Yazmin considers it ``a privilege and an honor to serve America in 
the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis.''
  I want to thank Yazmin Ruiz for her service on the frontlines of the 
coronavirus pandemic. She is an immigrant health hero. She is a DACA 
health hero. She has put herself and her family at risk to protect 
American lives. She shouldn't also have to worry about whether she is 
going to be deported tomorrow and whether her family will be deported 
as well.
  Think about that for one moment. This young woman, against all the 
odds, is pursuing her residency in surgery. She is determined to serve 
this Nation and to make people's lives better.
  And what is our response, our official government response? Sorry. 
You are not a citizen, and under the current law, you never will be.
  So you ask yourself, what are we thinking? If a quality, contributing 
person like Yazmin Ruiz is willing to defy the odds and to risk 
everything to be a doctor, why aren't we applauding that, rewarding 
that, giving her an incentive and others like her to be a generation of 
service to America?
  Basic question we have to ask, would we be a better nation, a better 
country, if we deported Yazmin Ruiz? I hope the answer is pretty 
obvious. It is to me.
  Over the past 20 years or more, I have had the privilege of sharing 
more than 100 stories like Yazmin's on the floor of the Senate--the 
stories of Dreamers who have given everything they can to America and 
who have more than earned their place in America's story.
  Yet these brilliant young people are still waiting on us, on 
Congress, to finish the job that President Obama started with DACA. 
This program was always supposed to be a temporary solution. Ten years 
ago we knew that. The permanent solution was enacting a piece of 
legislation that I introduced 20 years ago called the DREAM Act. It 
provides a path to citizenship for Dreamers, including young immigrants 
eligible for DACA.
  Congress has been on the cusp of passing the DREAM Act for years. In 
2013, we included it in a larger immigration package that passed the 
Senate with 68 votes. It was a glorious day. Can you imagine it--68 
votes in the Senate for anything?
  And that broad bipartisan support reflected America's public opinion; 
that the Dream Act was the right thing to do. In fact, over the years, 
``Dreamers'' have become a household word. When we came up with the 
name for this legislation over 20 years ago, and you said the word 
``Dreamers,'' people would say: Oh, I know that. That is a rock group, 
a British rock group, and it might have been Freddie and the Dreamers, 
but that wasn't the group we were describing at all.
  These Dreamers have touched the hearts of America because in the 
Dreamers we see our own history as a nation of immigrants. We know that 
they deserve permanent status in this country, their home. They have 
earned it, but time and again the Senate has failed DACA recipients.
  Instead of making these protections permanent, we have left them in 
doubt. The former President of the United States, Donald Trump, even 
attempted to terminate the DACA Program to turn people like Yazmin Ruiz 
away from the country.
  Can you imagine what that would have meant to her, to her family, to 
New Mexico, to America, for all the Americans whose lives have been 
saved by Dreamers like Yazmin or for the Nation's classrooms and 
businesses that count on these idealistic, hard-working people who want 
to be part of our future?
  And our failure to protect Dreamers is not only a human disaster, it 
is an economic disaster. It doesn't add up.
  DACA recipients and their households pay more than $5 billion in 
Federal taxes, more than $3 billion in State and local taxes every 
single year. That is money that funds the construction of roads and 
bridges, pays Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And the economic 
upside of enacting the Dream Act is even bigger.
  Last year, the House passed the bipartisan Dream and Promise Act. If 
the Senate just followed their lead and passed that legislation today, 
we could increase America's GDP by more than $800 billion over the next 
decade and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process.

[[Page S2956]]

  Our broken immigration system is embarrassing. It is failing America, 
and it is failing our families. It is also failing our economy. Beyond 
the Dream Act, Congress on both sides of the political spectrum agree, 
comprehensive immigration reform would boost our economic growth and 
help ease inflationary pressures in the United States. The United 
States Chamber of Commerce even called for doubling the number of legal 
immigrants in America to address the worker shortage and in turn 
alleviate inflation. With the Dream Act, we are talking about a 
bipartisan measure that is very simple in scope. It allows young people 
who have grown up in America to continue contributing to our economy. 
For decades now, Dreamers have been stuck in legislative purgatory. 
Only a subset of them have been able to secure DACA protections, and 
even for those who do, they have to renew their status every 2 years, 
which means they can only plan their lives in uncertain 2-year 
increments. That is unfair. No, it is cruel.
  Dreamers are living with the sword of Damocles hanging over their 
head. In the coming weeks, a Federal judge could strike down DACA and 
deport these young people to countries they barely remember, if they 
remember at all. Just last year, a Federal judge in Texas limited the 
program to only renewing applications. That ruling was wrong. It 
excluded a whole generation of Dreamers from stepping out of the 
shadows of a broken immigration system.
  If there is one lesson we can learn from the bipartisan gun safety 
framework that is being debated this week in Washington, it is that the 
Members of this Senate are not as divided as the American people think. 
We can come together to support commonsense policies that secure a 
brighter future for America. That is exactly the opportunity we have 
with the Dream Act.
  I can think of no better way to celebrate the 10-year anniversary of 
DACA than by finally passing this legislation, offering every one of 
our amazing Dreamers a path to American citizenship, which they deserve 
and they have earned. An overwhelming bipartisan majority of voters 
want Congress to pass the Dream Act. They know it will dramatically 
grow our economy and strengthen our Nation. Most importantly, it is the 
right thing to do.
  It is time for Congress to step up and meet our responsibility--
Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. Let's get this done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Vermont.


                           Budget Resolution

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, at 5:15 this afternoon, we will be voting 
on a budget resolution written by my colleague Senator Rand Paul from 
Kentucky. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I urge a very strong 
``no'' vote.
  At a time of a massive incline in wealth inequality, at a time when 
two people in our country own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of 
our population, at a time when the top 1 percent owns more wealth than 
the bottom 92 percent, at a time when we are looking at more income and 
wealth inequality than at any time in American history, this budget 
resolution offered by Senator Paul would move us in exactly the wrong 
direction and make a bad situation worse.
  Senator Paul's resolution would make the very wealthiest people in 
this country even wealthier, while at the same time, it would make tens 
of millions of middle-class Americans--people in the middle class, 
people in the working class, lower income Americans--even poorer.
  We remain, sadly, the only major country on Earth not to guarantee 
healthcare to all people as a human right. We pay the highest prices by 
far in the world for prescription drugs. Half of our people are living 
paycheck to paycheck, and millions are working at 8, 9, 10 bucks an 
hour because we still have a disastrous, starvation minimum wage of 
$7.25 an hour. Many millions of Americans today, as housing prices 
soar, are spending half or more of their limited incomes on housing. 
Forty-five million people in our country are struggling with student 
debt. At a time when half of older Americans have no savings--people 
have worked their entire lives, and they have no savings to prepare 
themselves for retirement. The Social Security benefits that they will 
receive are inadequate to allow them to live out their remaining years 
in dignity.
  What this budget resolution brought forth by Senator Paul does is 
exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Instead of expanding 
Medicare to make sure that every man, woman, and child in this country 
has healthcare as a human right, this is a budget that would lead to 
devastating cuts to Medicare, cuts to Medicaid, and cuts to other 
public health programs.
  Senator Paul's budget resolution would cut nutrition assistance at a 
time when there are children in America today who are going hungry. It 
would cut Federal aid to education at a time when schools are looking 
for funding to pay the teachers they need adequate wages. But in the 
midst of this budget that cuts healthcare, that cuts education, that 
cuts Social Security, that cuts every benefit needed by ordinary 
Americans, this is a budget that would give massive tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people in this country.
  So you have a situation where, right now, we have a tax system which 
is broken, which is corrupt, which allows some billionaires in a given 
year to pay zero in Federal income taxes--zero. Some of the richest 
people in this country in a given year do not pay a nickel in Federal 
income tax. We have a tax system which allows dozens of major, 
profitable corporations making billions of dollars a year in profit to 
pay in a given year zero in Federal income tax. We have an effective 
tax rate today in which billionaires pay a lower effective rate than 
nurses and firefighters. That is what we have today. Senator Paul's 
budget--well, you guessed it. You are right. It would give even more 
tax breaks to the 1 percent and to the billionaire class.
  Unfortunately, the vision of America that Senator Paul's budget puts 
forward--balancing the budget on the backs of working families, the 
elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor in order to make the 
richest people in America even richer--is not just the vision of 
Senator Paul. I wish it was just his vision, and I have to applaud his 
honesty for coming forward and putting his vision on paper. 
Unfortunately, it is the vision of many, many people in the Republican 
Party, and this is what they want.
  Senator Paul and many in the Republican Party do not believe that it 
was good enough to provide over $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1 
percent and large corporations, as they did when Trump was President--
not good enough. The budget that we are debating today, Senator Paul's 
proposal, would make those tax breaks for the wealthy and the powerful 
permanent--permanent--at a cost of more than $2 trillion over the next 
decade, cutting nutrition programs for hungry children, throwing 
millions of people off of Medicare and Medicaid, but providing $2 
trillion in tax breaks for the very wealthy.
  Under Trump, Republicans came within 1 vote of passing a bill that 
would have thrown up to 32 million Americans off of health insurance 
and eliminated vital protections for people with preexisting conditions 
like cancer or diabetes and substantially increased premiums for older 
workers. That was the bill that the Trump administration tried to get 
passed. It failed by one vote--the late Senator McCain.
  Senator Paul and many Republicans who support this budget resolution 
believe that what they tried to do a few years ago in decimating the 
Affordable Care Act--hey, that didn't go far enough.
  So the budget that we are talking about right now, Senator Paul's 
proposal, would throw up to 35 million Americans off of Medicaid.
  So what do you do in the middle of a pandemic when you have no health 
insurance? Well, right now, as a nation today, there are estimates that 
about 60,000 people a year die because they don't get to a doctor on 
time. Throw 35 million people off Medicaid, that number will escalate. 
We are talking about tens and tens of thousands of people who would die 
because they wouldn't have Medicaid, wouldn't be able to go to a doctor 
when they are sick.
  When Donald Trump was in office, he proposed a budget that would have 
cut Medicare by nearly $845 billion. Senator Paul and the Republicans 
who

[[Page S2957]]

will support this budget do not believe that those cuts went far 
enough--only $845 billion in cuts to Medicare. The budget we are 
debating today would cut Medicare by up to $3.9 trillion over the next 
decade and throw some 29 million senior citizens and persons with 
disabilities off of Medicare.
  At a time when tens of millions of Americans struggle with hunger, 
Senator Paul and the Republicans who support this budget want to cut 
the SNAP program by $300 billion, throwing some 13 million people off 
of that program.
  I don't know what a nation stands for if we cannot feed the hungry 
and if we cannot provide healthcare to people who need it, but that is 
what this budget does. Overall, Senator Paul's budget would make $15 
trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, slashing the Federal budget by 
nearly 40 percent by the end of this decade.
  So that is where we are today, Mr. President. And, again, I would 
reiterate that this is not just Senator Paul's budget. And I applaud 
him for his honesty. He is an honest guy; he is a straightforward guy; 
and he comes forward and he says: This is what I believe.
  It would be bad enough if this were just the views of one U.S. 
Senator. Unfortunately, it is not. These are the views of many in the 
Republican Party.
  So, Mr. President, it is absolutely imperative that this budget 
proposal of Senator Paul be defeated and that we move this country 
forward in a very different direction. It is a direction which says 
that the U.S. Government should be representing the needs of all of the 
people, not just the wealthy and the powerful and Big Money campaign 
contributors. It is a vision in opposition to Senator Paul that says 
that healthcare is a human right, that we have to stand up to the 
pharmaceutical industry and cut prescription drug costs in this country 
in half. It is a vision which says that, no, we should not be cutting 
Social Security; we should be lifting the cap on taxable income, which 
today is at $147,000, meaning that somebody making $10 million pays the 
same amount into Social Security as somebody making $147,000. We should 
be lifting that cap so that we can increase Social Security benefits 
for all seniors.
  So, Mr. President, this is not just a budget resolution on the part 
of the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Paul; this really is a 
contrasting vision of where we want this country to go. Do we want to 
move into an oligarchic form of society where a handful of people on 
top have enormous wealth and enormous political power while, at the 
same time, the middle class continues to become small and we have more 
and more people living in poverty?
  So these are contrasting visions of the future of America, and I hope 
very much that Senator Paul's resolution will be soundly defeated.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                               H.R. 3967

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to talk for just a few 
minutes, if I could, about a bill that is coming to the floor. It is 
called the PACT Act. And this is something that those of us at the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee have worked on for quite a period of time.
  And we had worked diligently through what we thought was a prescribed 
and agreed-to process, and we are finding out that the majority leader 
is pretty much forcing this issue to the floor this week for a vote. 
And he is calling it ``the most ambitious and important expansion of 
veteran healthcare benefits that we have seen in decades.''
  Now, Senators Schumer and Tester have, indeed, put forth a bill that 
when you look at it, when you hear the intent, a first glance at it, 
you say: Oh, this is exactly what we need to help our servicemembers.
  And, indeed, we all are just so grateful for the men and women who 
have served in this country, who have worn that uniform. But there is a 
lot to be said for bringing measures to the floor for passage when they 
are ready, when there has been agreement on critical importance. As the 
majority leader said, the biggest expansion of benefits that we have 
seen in decades.
  Now, many of us have worked for quite a period of time on the issue 
of toxic exposure and have worked on how best to make certain that when 
we address this, that you are going to get care to the veteran in a 
timely manner--they are not going to have to wait; they are going to 
receive the care that they need.
  So it is frustrating to me, as it is to many of my colleagues, to 
think about what could have been accomplished had the majority leader 
just done what he had promised to do and had allowed a thorough 
amendment process. We should all share the goal of making certain that 
legislation we pass that deals with our veterans, that deals with our 
men and women in uniform, is going to be a promise fulfilled and not a 
false promise or not a frustration.
  Yesterday, at Veterans' Affairs Committee, we had a hearing with our 
VA Secretary. We have had a terrible problem with case backloads on 
benefits in health services. Currently, the case backload is about 
188,000. That is the backlog. That is what needs to be worked through. 
And in passing this bill that is before us today, the estimate is that 
we are going to add about a million cases to that.
  Now, I want you to put yourself in the shoes of a veteran who has 
suffered and is suffering with toxic exposure and has a rare cancer, 
has a respiratory disease, a cardiovascular disease, and is needing 
access to care.
  What you want is to be able to get that care. What you don't want to 
do is have to wait for that care. And that is why we needed to go 
through this amendment process: to address this issue of how a veteran 
is going to be able to access that care in a timely manner when they 
need the care because with some of these rare diseases, days and weeks 
and months become a life-or-death issue. So the access is important. 
The amendments that we proposed were as noncontroversial as you can get 
in these days.
  Now, the amendment that I had, which was one of the two amendments 
that we were to have on the Republican side--by the way, I said that, 
two amendments. That is what we were going to be allowed. It wasn't an 
open amendment process--two amendments, two things that would have 
improved the bill. I proposed an amendment that would have eliminated 
arbitrary bureaucratic hurdles for toxic exposed veterans, would have 
eliminated this from the long wait times at their local VA hospitals 
and clinics. Basically, it would have been that express pass that they 
need because it would have allowed them to seek care in the community 
if they could get it there faster than they could through the VA.
  Now, the reason for this is because I spend a lot of time talking 
with veterans in Tennessee. I have veterans who are a part of our team. 
They talk to me about the issues that many of their friends and their 
neighbors are experiencing or people who served in their unit or their 
battalion and how they need this care.
  Right now, if you are in the Nashville area, which is where many of 
our retirees from Fort Campbell and the 101st go for their care--if you 
are there and you are going to go to the VA over at Vanderbilt there in 
Nashville and request an appointment, your wait is 72 days. What if you 
are a veteran and you have a rare respiratory condition that is caused 
from a burn pit or from toxic exposure or you have developed a cancer 
and you are needing care, do you really want to have to wait 2\1/2\ 
months to be able to see a general practitioner for an appointment that 
will refer you to a specialist?
  Do we think that is fair to our veterans? Is that the way to treat 
them--to say, pick up the phone and call and then we will get you an 
appointment? By the way, it is going to be 72 days on the wait time, 
and then we will start the clock to try to get you into community care 
to get you to a specialist.
  My amendment would basically have said veterans can take that card 
out of their wallet, their VA card--they can show it at a care facility 
in their community, and they can get the care they need then. You are 
eliminating wait times for them. You are eliminating long lines. You 
are eliminating the frustration and the fear and the anxiety that comes 
as every day you think this cancer is growing, and I am being denied 
care because of the bureaucratic process. Our veterans ought not to 
have to deal with that bureaucratic process. They have waited a long 
time.

[[Page S2958]]

  So this amendment would have improved the bill. And I have it right 
here in my hands. It is really very simple. Section 121, ``Subtitle C--
Other Health Care Matters''--that is what is underneath--``REQUIREMENT 
TO PROVIDE CARE UNDER VETERANS COMMUNITY CARE PROGRAM FOR TOXIC-EXPOSED 
VETERANS.'' And then it goes through, it strikes an ``or,'' inserts a 
semicolon, strikes the period at the end of the sentence and inserting 
``or'' and adds ``the covered veteran is a toxic-exposed veteran.''
  Pretty specific. It elevates the care that they need so that they do 
not have to wait because they have waited long enough. And they don't 
want to have to wait until the VA hires enough people to do this. Right 
now, if the VA is going to hire new nurses or doctors, do you know how 
long it takes them to get them hired? Ninety-seven days. Do they have 
what they need to meet this load? No, they do not.
  Now, in the private sector they can make these hires in about 16 
days. And they do. And we have discussed these hiring process changes 
that need to be made in order to facilitate this care.
  Now, some have said: Well, you know, if we allow community care, in 
essence, that is privatizing--privatizing--the VA. No, it is not. It is 
not privatizing. What it is doing is saying the VA is seeking a better 
way to deliver a service in a timely manner to the people who have been 
promised the service. That is what the amendment would do. It would 
allow them to avoid that bureaucratic process to take that VA card to 
go get the care they need that day. But, no, because we have some who 
are so fearful that the VA or the Federal Government might lose some of 
their power, some of their control over your life, they will not agree 
to that.
  Now, the fiscal year 2021 NDAA included my K2 Veterans Toxic Exposure 
Accountability Act, requiring a 180-day study by DOD on toxic exposures 
at K2 to demonstrate more clearly the associations between exposure to 
toxic substances and negative health consequence experienced by K2 
veterans. That is something that had a tremendous effect on many of our 
military men and women at Fort Campbell and there with the 160th, with 
the 101st.

  And I have worked with Senator Tillis on the Toxic Exposure in the 
Military Act, the TEAM Act, which was largely included in the PACT Act. 
And I worked with Senator Sullivan on the Veterans Burn Pits Exposure 
Recognition Act, which would concede exposure to a list of toxic 
substances, hazards, and chemicals common to burn pits for veterans who 
deployed to certain covered locations within certain corresponding 
periods.
  So I thank my colleagues who have put the effort in on this. I will 
say that I am very disappointed that my colleagues from New York and 
Montana decided no amendments. Senator Moran's amendment would have 
adjusted how that wait time is calculated to be more fair to our 
veterans. My amendment would have allowed them to immediately get the 
care they need, lifesaving care--lifesaving care. It would have allowed 
that immediate access. But we have chosen, it appears--or the majority 
leader and the chairman have chosen--to move forward without an 
amendment process that would be more fair and more responsive to our 
veterans. And at the same time, they are daring us to vote no on this 
bill. I would challenge them.
  Take a moment and let's return to the agreed-to amendment process and 
improve this for the sake--for the sake--and the livelihood of many of 
our veterans who are experiencing the effects of toxic exposure.
  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. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________