[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.
____________________