[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 103 (Thursday, June 16, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2992-S3001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          MOTION TO DISCHARGE

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as we await completion of the gun safety 
bill, today, the Senate is taking another important step to protect 
communities from gun violence, moving forward with the nomination of 
Steven Dettelbach, to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives.
  In a few moments, I will move to discharge Mr. Dettelbach's 
nomination from the Judiciary Committee. After that, I am going to make 
sure his nomination moves through this Chamber rapidly.
  The bipartisan gun safety legislation currently being negotiated is 
crucially important but so is having a fully staffed ATF. And my 
colleagues, listen to this: We haven't had a Director of ATF since 
2015. Gun violence is ripping through the Nation, killing so many, and 
we still don't have a Director of ATF. That is just outrageous, at a 
time when we need one more than ever.

[[Page S2993]]

  At a time when Americans are sick and tired of our country's gun 
violence epidemic, we should be sprinting--sprinting--to confirm 
someone whose job would be precisely to keep Americans safe from gun 
violence, and that is exactly what the new ATF Director will do.
  The ATF may not always capture the spotlight, but it is vital in 
stopping gun trafficking, in preventing illegal possession of firearms, 
and making sure our kids can't get their hands on dangerous weapons.
  It is still so confounding to realize we haven't had somebody there 
because people have blocked it since 2015. An organization as important 
as the ATF absolutely needs to have a Senate-confirmed Director in 
place, and though we haven't had one in 7 years, we are going to change 
that very, very soon.
  Having a strong, qualified nomination like Dettelbach will certainly 
help reduce the scourge of gun violence in the country.
  So, once again, after I move to discharge Mr. Dettelbach, I am going 
to make sure his nomination moves rapidly through this Chamber. We need 
to fill this vacancy that has been blocked by the other side far too 
often.
  Now, pursuant to S. Res. 27, the Committee on the Judiciary being 
tied on the question of reporting, I move to discharge the Committee on 
the Judiciary from further consideration of Steven M. Dettelbach, of 
Ohio, to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of S. Res. 27, there will 
now be up to 4 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided between 
the two leaders or their designees, with no motions, points of order, 
or amendments in order.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2340

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again today to 
seek unanimous consent for the passage of the Daniel Anderl Judicial 
Security and Privacy Act of 2021.
  I say ``once again'' because a little over a month ago, I came to the 
floor seeking unanimous consent for this same exact bill, which was 
reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last December with 
overwhelming bipartisan support and whose namesake is Daniel Anderl, 
the 20-year-old son of U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas.
  Judge Salas is in the Gallery today, hoping we can come together as a 
body to deliver real solutions to honor her family by ensuring that no 
Federal judge or their family experience the same violence that she and 
her family faced.
  Mr. President, 1 year, 10 months, and 27 days ago, her son Daniel was 
brutally murdered by a gunman who targeted Judge Salas for her gender, 
her ethnicity, and because he could not accept her judgment in a case 
that reached her court. Every single day since July 19, 2020, Judge 
Salas and her husband Mark have endured the immense grief of burying 
their only son.

  No parent should have to experience such a devastating loss. Yet, in 
the face of so much pain, Judge Salas has channeled this into purpose, 
embarking on a personal mission to increase the safety and privacy of 
her fellow judges and their families.
  The murderer was able to carry out this horrific hate crime using 
publicly available information, tracking down Judge Salas to her home 
in New Jersey, gravely injuring her husband, and murdering Daniel in 
cold blood when he answered the door.
  As I said the last time I came to the floor seeking unanimous 
consent, no parent should have to experience such a devastating loss. 
But in the months since then and now, our country has seen the tragic 
results of inaction. On June 4, a retired county judge in Wisconsin was 
shot and killed in his home by a gunman who appeared before his court, 
and just 4 days later, a man was arrested near Justice Kavanaugh's home 
in Maryland after being found with a gun, a knife, and a plan to kill 
the Supreme Court Justice. Reports suggest the perpetrator found 
Justice Kavanaugh's address online.
  We cannot take these events as isolated incidents. The brutal murder 
of Judge Salas's son, a horrific killing of a retired county judge in 
Wisconsin, and the attempt on Justice Kavanaugh's life, demand that 
Congress act to protect those who sit on the judiciary. Simply put, we 
must prevent any other judge from having to endure the threats and 
senseless violence that these families have experienced.
  After the horrific tragedy Judge Salas and Mark suffered, Senator 
Booker and I made personal commitments to honor Daniel's legacy through 
action. We told her we would not rest until we enacted greater 
protections for those who serve on the bench to protect any other judge 
from having to endure the senseless violence Judge Salas experienced.
  And it is important to protect this branch of our government because 
we want them to render decisions that are free from fear--free from 
fear--that they will render impartial justice free from fear of what 
may happen to them as a result of their judgment. We can make progress 
on that work today in this Chamber.
  The bipartisan bill I seek unanimous consent for is an effort I am 
proud to lead with 12 of my colleagues, including Senators Booker, 
Durbin, Graham, Kennedy, Cruz, and Grassley. Our bill will protect the 
personally identifiable information that assailants have used to target 
judges and their families. It is a commonsense measure that would 
authorize the U.S. Marshal Service to monitor online threats and deter 
future attacks. It is so common sense that it was voted out of the 
Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support. I am talking about 
a 21-to-0 vote in the affirmative. It is so common sense that it should 
build on the work the Senate just did a month ago when it fast-tracked 
important safeguards for Supreme Court Justices and their families.
  I will say it again. Nearly a month ago, the Senate acted here in 
mere minutes to increase protections for Supreme Court Justices--
protections that were proven to be necessary when police apprehended 
Judge Kavanaugh's would-be assailant.
  Yesterday, our colleagues in the House of Representatives voted to 
pass that bill. Today, we should take steps to protect all Federal 
judges. There is simply no explanation or justification to protect 
Supreme Court Justices while delaying legislation to protect judges at 
every level of the judiciary who face the same, if not greater, risks.
  No judge in America should have to fear for their lives and the 
safety of their family as they work to uphold the Constitution, our 
democracy, and ensure all people have equal justice under the law. We 
have seen the consequences of inaction over the previous month. But we 
have an opportunity to act in this moment and advance our bipartisan 
bill, the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, which has 
continued to garner support.
  This isn't a partisan issue. This bill is not about right or left; it 
is about right and wrong.
  Once again, I ask my Senate colleagues to let us honor the life and 
memory of Daniel Anderl with decisive action and results. Let's do the 
right thing to honor Daniel's legacy and unanimously pass this 
legislation named after him.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for 
the Senate to act to protect Federal judges.
  In the past few years, the growing use of political violence has 
endangered elected officials, police officers, flight attendants, 
school board members, election workers, and judges. We all must condemn 
all violence and threats of violence against public officials in the 
strongest possible terms, regardless of whether it comes from the right 
or the left.
  Last week, news broke that an armed man was arrested near the home of 
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This man made it clear to law 
enforcement that he desired to kill Justice Kavanaugh. Importantly, 
court documents showed that the gunman outside Justice Kavanaugh's home 
said he found the address online.
  This week, the House approved a bill that unanimously passed the 
Senate

[[Page S2994]]

last month and would give the Supreme Court Police greater discretion 
to protect the Justices' families. I am glad that this important 
legislation is headed to President Biden's desk.
  But it has been over 6 months since the Judiciary Committee 
unanimously reported the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy 
Act. This bill was first introduced by Senators Menendez and Booker in 
response to a tragic incident in which a disgruntled litigant found the 
home address of Judge Esther Salas on the internet, went to her house, 
and shot and killed her son.
  The bill is directly responsive to the threats that Federal judges 
face, including the threat to Justice Kavanaugh. It would allow judges 
to safeguard their personal information from being posted on the 
internet and would empower the judiciary to monitor online threats. We 
have tried to pass this bill in the past, and it has been blocked by at 
least one Republican Senator. The bill's sponsors have negotiated 
changes to address these concerns, and I am hopeful that Republican 
objection will be lifted today.
  The threat to Justice Kavanaugh and the tragic death of Daniel Anderl 
underscore the need to pass this bipartisan bill quickly and get it 
signed into law so we can protect all Federal judges and their 
families.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 190, S. 2340; further, that the 
committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Menendez 
substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the 
bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, for a year 
and a half, we have been offering my colleague a compromise in the 
passage of this bill. We could pass this bill today, immediately. All 
we have been asking is that it not only protect Federal judges but 
protect Members of Congress as well. I haven't heard a cogent or even 
any argument for why it couldn't.
  It is a very simple compromise. To pass things unanimously takes 
compromise. It takes people coming together and people agreeing. But 
there hasn't been any movement; there hasn't been any compromise; and I 
am still open. We can pass this today to include Members of Congress.
  If recent years have taught us anything, it is that members of the 
legislative branch need protection as well as those in the judiciary. 
That was clear in 2011 when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was tragically 
shot while she was doing the most important part of her job--meeting 
with constituents. Words cannot express how happy and inspired I was to 
see that Congresswoman Giffords was in the Chamber with her husband, 
Senator Kelly, when he was sworn in as a Member of this body. Well, 
words also cannot express the pain felt by the families of the people 
who were killed that day and wounded. That should have been a wake-up 
call to protect Members of Congress and, in doing so, to better protect 
the people around them.
  Yet, just a few years later, a shooter nearly killed Congressman   
Steve Scalise during a practice for the charity baseball game. I was 
there. A young man was shot 10 feet from me. I said at the time that 
our lives were saved by the Capitol Police. Had they not been there, 
things could have been much worse.
  Extending the provisions of this bill to Members of Congress would 
better protect us and our families and our constituents. I have been 
offering this for 2 years. My amendment, which I will offer through 
unanimous consent, simply extends the same protections that it would 
offer to the judicial branch to the legislative branch.
  This is not a new request. In December of 2020, when we discussed 
this bill on the floor, I offered this compromise. I said I would work 
together with the other side to try to get a bill that we could pass. 
But we haven't gotten anywhere. If we want this to pass, let's 
compromise. Let's come together and figure out a way that we can get 
this to pass.
  I know of no argument or no constituency that is coming to 
Washington, saying: We don't want Members of Congress to be protected. 
There is no such constituency. There is no such argument, and there is 
no reason we couldn't pass this today. It has been almost 2 years. 
Let's pass this bill today. As I have said over and over again, I 
support this bill and the provisions, and I don't believe it ought to 
be blocked merely because Members of Congress also need protection.
  With that being said, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify 
his request to include my amendment to the Menendez substitute 
amendment, which is at the desk; that the amendments be considered and 
agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time 
and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I think 
the points that the Senator from Kentucky is making are worthy. We are 
facing a reality right now wherein there are lots of threats that are 
increasing against public officials all around our country, and I 
understand that.
  This is not a bill that Senator Menendez and I just wrote and brought 
to the floor. This is a bill that we worked through the committee 
process. It was a long and arduous process that was done in a 
bipartisan manner. During the discussion that the committee had, the 
point that the Senator from Kentucky brought up was brought up as well. 
There is a real concern about the safety and security of the Members of 
this body. But with the understanding and the commitment that there 
would be a bipartisan effort to work on this issue, every Senator on 
the Judiciary Committee said we should let this go for right now. This 
bill has been vetted; it has been worked over in a bipartisan manner; 
and it is ready to pass.
  Threats on the Federal judiciary have gone up 500 percent. I will 
grant you, threats on Members of Congress have doubled, but the threats 
on the Federal judiciary are rising, and we saw that in the case of 
Justice Kavanaugh. This body thought it enough not to hold up the 
protection of Supreme Court Justices in order to protect the 535 of us, 
and we passed a bill to protect the Supreme Court Justices.
  So here we now have a bill that has been vetted in committee, that 
has been worked on in a bipartisan fashion, and has come out, and we 
have a commitment. For the Senator from Kentucky to say that nothing 
has been done is not right. We now have Senator Ted Cruz and Senator 
Amy Klobuchar working a bill through committee, through regular order, 
to make sure that we address the concerns that he is having.
  This is my concern: Threats on the judiciary have gone up and are 
significantly higher than on this body. To grind this bill to a halt 
right now puts at risk members of the judiciary when we have the power 
in this body to protect our brothers and sisters in that branch of 
government.
  Why would we stop when there is good will on the Judiciary Committee 
to work on the concerns?
  There are two people who are committed to this bill, and there are 
verbal commitments from everyone. To stop this today creates a window 
of vulnerability that we know is real because we just saw a threat on a 
Supreme Court Justice.
  For the sake of mercy, for the sake of caution, for the sake of the 
protection of the people in the Federal judiciary, let's pass this 
bill. I commit myself to joining with Senator Ted Cruz, to joining with 
Senator Amy Klobuchar, to joining with Chairman Durbin and with Ranking 
Member Grassley, who have also spoken of their willingness to work a 
bill through regular order. That is what we should be doing.
  Our job as Senators, if anything, first and foremost, is to protect 
the lives of American citizens. We have a bill that is widely 
bipartisan, that has proven to be urgent--a bill with a name of a young 
man who was slaughtered in his home. To hold this bill up is cruel. It 
is creating risk and jeopardy to people who serve in the judiciary. It 
is wrong. It is wrong. It is wrong.

[[Page S2995]]

  I ask my colleague, with all humility and with all compassion and 
empathy, to please let this go. I commit to him that I will fight and 
work with the bipartisan coalition that is working on ways to protect 
the people in this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
  The senior Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, for 
all of the reasons that Senator Booker just mentioned and with an equal 
commitment to Senator Paul to work with Senator Klobuchar and Senator 
Cruz, who are working on a bill to protect Members and who look to 
advocate for the Senator's language to be included in that legislation, 
the Senator could have done this on the Supreme Court Justices, but he 
didn't.
  So, at this point, I will have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, we have 
been trying for a year and a half. Our staff has offered to meet with 
the opposition's staffs. We have not had one meeting. They have not 
accepted a meeting much less a compromise--a year and a half.
  This could pass today by simply accepting this. There is a promise to 
do it at a later date when we have waited a year and a half? A year and 
a half went by because no one would meet with us. We have not had one 
meeting. We have offered to meet with the staffs of both of the authors 
of this, and we have not been granted a meeting. There has been no 
discussion of this between staff and no discussion of a compromise.
  We would take a compromise. I don't understand. There has been no 
argument made today as to why Congress couldn't be added to this bill. 
They could have added this to the bill or talked to us over a year and 
a half. No one has talked to us. Other than to come for the public 
theater, no one has tried to get this thing passed.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The senior Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I know the hour is late, but I am 
unaware of any such request, and I am unaware of our not being willing. 
Of course, we are willing. As a matter of fact, Judge Salas is here, 
and she tried to see Senator Paul to make her case. He wouldn't give 
her the time of day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I literally turned to my staff and asked: 
Has Senator Paul's staff reached out to us at all?
  That is not the case.
  Then, to characterize us as the opposition, we are not in opposition 
to this bill. We are trying to protect Federal judges as is the 
unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee.
  So this is very frustrating that we should stop this for the Supreme 
Court Justices--the Senator has no objection to that--but, for some 
reason, not for the other members of the judiciary. I just find that 
problematic.
  I am willing to meet with the Senator. I am not in opposition to his 
bill. The meeting which would be had, I will do but with the two 
sponsors of the bill to protect the U.S. Senate. But to hold up the 
protection of other fellow citizens because we are not getting 
protection, to me, does not mark the nobility of this body and the 
self-sacrifice of this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield back all time on the motion to 
discharge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.


                      Vote on Motion to Discharge

  The question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge.
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), 
the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and 
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 233 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cramer
     Daines
     Hyde-Smith
     Kennedy
     Rounds
     Tuberville
     Wicker
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The nomination will be 
placed on the calendar.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, first, let me say that I am glad to see 
the successful discharge of Steven Dettelbach's nomination. I have 
known him since he was a detailee for the Department of Justice to the 
Judiciary Committee. I found him one of the hardest working, most 
talented, honest, and evenhanded people I knew. I was happy to support 
him for U.S. attorney in Ohio. I can understand why so many law 
enforcement organizations backed him because of his values there. I 
will have more to say when he is confirmed, but it is a good move.


                      Nomination of Beth Robinson

  Madam President, Vermonters are no strangers to making history, and 
in November 2021, one Vermonter in particular made history again: the 
U.S. Senate confirmed Beth Robinson to a seat on the Second Circuit 
Court of Appeals. She assumed her seat on that bench days later. I 
could not be more proud. Vermont has one seat on the Second Circuit 
Court of Appeals, so we always try to send our best.
  Judge Robinson embodies Vermont's values: her commitment to justice 
and equality and her compassion for her fellow human beings. She has 
also proven to be an exceptional jurist, one dedicated to the rule of 
law above all else. There should be no doubt that she brings that same 
excellence to Vermont's single seat on the Second Circuit, as a 
successor to my dear friend, the late Judge Peter Hall.
  Since Vermonters first elected me to the U.S. Senate, I have worked 
hard to ensure that Vermont's best and brightest represent our State on 
the Federal judiciary. In 2004, I recommended Judge Hall, then 
Vermont's U.S. Attorney and a Republican, to serve on the Second 
Circuit because he was the most qualified. During his 17-year tenure on 
the panel, Judge Hall was a fine jurist. He was fair and kind to all 
litigants before him, and was always humble. His passing, at just age 
72, was a loss to not just Vermont, but also to the Federal judiciary 
at large.
  In 2009, I proudly recommended Christina Reiss to be a judge for the 
District Court of Vermont. We have a very small district court with a 
State of our size. With her confirmation, Judge Reiss became the first 
woman to serve on the District Court of Vermont. And, like Judge Hall, 
she has served as a model of fairness and impartiality on the bench 
ever since.
  Judge Robinson is a trailblazer herself. As a tireless champion for 
LGBTQ rights, she successfully litigated the landmark Baker v. Vermont 
decision, which led to Vermont becoming the first ever State to enact 
civil unions in the United States. Beth's advocacy served as a 
blueprint for the successful advancement of LGBTQ rights across the 
country, securing her place as one of the first pioneers in the 
national movement for LGBTQ rights.
  Her smart and steady approach and her unimpeachable reputation won 
her

[[Page S2996]]

allies across the political spectrum in Vermont. In 2011, she was 
appointed by Governor Peter Shumlin to serve as a justice on the 
Vermont Supreme Court--that is a five-member court--a position to which 
she was confirmed unanimously by the Vermont Senate. She became the 
first openly gay Vermont Supreme Court justice, breaking yet another 
barrier. Now, today, Judge Robinson is the first openly gay female 
judge to serve in our Federal circuit courts.
  While on the Vermont Supreme Court, Judge Robinson seamlessly traded 
her advocate's cap for that of an impartial jurist. She is a consensus 
builder. Her unwavering commitment to the neutral application of the 
law was second-to-none on the Vermont Supreme Court; it is a commitment 
I know she brings with her to the Second Circuit.
  When I recommended to President Biden that he nominate Beth Robinson 
to the Second Circuit, there was such an outpouring of support from all 
corners of Vermont. The membership of the Vermont Supreme Court--
justices appointed by both Democratic and Republican Governors--signed 
a strong letter of support for her nomination. They were joined by 
prominent Republicans and Democrats from all around the State, 
underscoring just how widely respected she was for her reputation as an 
impartial and independent jurist.
  When Judge Robinson was confirmed in the Senate with bipartisan 
support, I celebrated. Judge Robinson is a Vermonter who has dedicated 
her life to the causes of justice and equality. She is a Vermonter who 
embodies our State's highest ideals, who brings fairness, independence, 
and integrity on the Second Circuit.
  Next week, along the shores of Lake Champlain, friends, family, State 
leaders, fellow lawyers, and many more Vermonters will gather to 
celebrate the investiture of Vermont's newest judge on the Second 
Circuit. Vermonters can be assured that Judge Robinson will continue to 
be guided by the same principles that have brought her this far. 
Marcelle and I are two Vermonters who are proud that, once again, we 
are breaking barriers and making history, now with the investiture of 
Judge Beth Robinson on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                        Student Loan Forgiveness

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I want to talk a little bit about the 
whole idea of loan forgiveness, student debt forgiveness. I have spoken 
many times on the floor about the importance of higher education--both 
college education and apprenticeships and other kinds of work 
preparation. I was the first person in my family to ever graduate from 
college, and later was the president of the university. And it is 
important, there is no doubt about that.
  I have often also talked about one of the reasons I think our system 
works so well is in post-World War II America, we have not tried to run 
higher education; we have tried to encourage and support higher 
education.
  You could use your student benefits, whether they were student loans 
or VA benefits or other benefits, at any accredited institution, and 
the Federal Government doesn't decide what is an accredited 
institution.
  I think the way that we have found that balance has been really 
important for higher education. I think it is why we have the best 
higher education in the world, but I think the balance is one that we 
ought to be thinking about maintaining.
  We should be concerned when we begin to get into that balance in a 
way that the government does more than it should do or, frankly, less 
than it should do.
  This is the 50th anniversary of the Pell Grant Program. I have been a 
big supporter of Pell grants. I know you have too.
  And during the time we have worked here together, we have expanded 
Pell grants to year-round Pell grants. One of the great ways to keep 
college costs down is to finish. If you have got a pattern that is 
working, particularly if you are a first-time college student in your 
family or an adult that has gone back to school, if you have got 
something that is working and you can keep it working, we ought to do 
that.
  There was about a 10-year period where we had two semesters of Pell 
grants and then there was a summer without Pell grants, that didn't 
really work out all that well. And every higher education person I know 
believes we did a really great thing by going back to year-round Pell.
  We have also increased the Pell grant award. In fact, in the last 7 
years, we have increased the annual individual award by over $1,000--
$1,120. We have reinstated year-round Pell.
  The Pell grant is targeted. It is targeted to people who need help 
going to school. When we were talking, I think very wrongly, about free 
higher education--which I think would really be expensive if you had 
free higher education and the government became the payer. I have said 
the Pell grant is really the way to adjust that.
  If the Pell grant is not high enough, Congress can raise it. If the 
income levels are not high enough, if you had to have higher income 
levels or lower income levels to get the full Pell or partial Pell, 
Congress can do that as well.
  I think the one thing that would be a mistake here would be to ask 
the taxpayers of America to now pay the loans off of other Americans 
who made those loans. The President is talking about the potential, at 
least the administration is, of forgiving up to $10,000 in student 
loans for everyone who has a student loan and makes less than $150,000.
  You know, a lot of Americans make less than $150,000. I think the 
median family income in America today is under $70,000, but, suddenly, 
for those who make under $150,000, we would be giving them $10,000. And 
what did they get for that $10,000?
  They went to school. They got an education. They had choices they 
made as they did that, and we will talk about that in a minute. And 
also the legal problems here. You know, the President has said in the 
past that he didn't think he had the legal authority to forgive these 
loans. The Speaker of the House has said in the past that she didn't 
think the President had the legal authority to forgive these loans.
  And by the way, there is a way to get the legal authority--I will 
talk about that in a minute, too--coming to you and I with a proposal 
to give them the authority to do that.
  Even the New York Times Editorial Board says that loan forgiveness 
is--this is their quote--``legally dubious, economically unsound, 
politically fraught, and educationally problematic.'' Those are pretty 
good reasons not to do it. The best one would be the ``legally 
dubious'' one, and the President himself has thought that was the case 
in the past.
  You know, 87 percent of Americans don't have a student loan. The 
President is telling them, frankly, we are going to forgive the loans 
for the 13 percent that the other 87 percent don't have.
  People who decided not to go to college wouldn't get that $10,000, 
neither would those who avoided loans by attending a more affordable 
school, working harder part time, doing the things that lots and lots 
of people have done to get through school.
  The same is true of people who have gotten out of school, and as they 
are paying off their loans, they have sacrificed vacations or better 
cars or bigger houses or other things to pay the student loan that they 
agreed to pay back when they took it.
  So the President's plan disproportionately would benefit people who 
are in the upper income group, the top 40 percent of American 
households hold 60 percent of the student loans.
  The bottom 40 percent have less than 20 percent of the student loans. 
If you were going to talk about this at all, maybe we should be talking 
about the bottom 40 percent of incomes, not essentially the top 40 
percent of incomes, which an across-the-board forgiveness of debt--and, 
by the way, that $150,000 would generally be in that higher percent.
  Student loan forgiveness under the President's plan would largely 
benefit people who, frankly, you could argue, just don't need the 
benefit as well as many other American families and American 
individuals do.
  The Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimates that student loan 
forgiveness could be as much as $320 or $350 billion. That is on top of 
the $100 billion that we already have cost the system by stepping back, 
maybe for

[[Page S2997]]

too long, but certainly stepping back during COVID, and telling people 
they didn't have to make their loan payments.
  To put that in some perspective, that amount of money, $320 billion 
and another $100 billion, would fund the entire Pell Grant Program for 
about a decade and a half.
  So we ought to think about what we are doing here, how we are doing 
it. I think this plan would actually not drive college costs down; it 
would logically drive college costs up because colleges, just like 
students, would be told, when people make these loans, pay the school 
for the education they are getting, there is a good chance they won't 
have to pay it back, and there is a good chance we would have more 
income during this period of time.
  It is more likely that you would have higher college costs and you 
would have people borrowing more money and borrowing it quicker than 
they currently do because we actually would be setting the precedent 
that there is a real chance you won't have to pay this back.
  That is not a good precedent to set. What Americans really need right 
now is relief from the crushing inflation we see, not more bad policies 
that put more money into the economy and drive inflation to an even 
greater height.
  President Biden has been bragging, frankly, about how strong our 
economy is and how low unemployment is. Well, if that is true, why do 
we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a program that is 
unfair, that disproportionately helps upper income Americans? You know, 
it is either the strongest job market since World War II, which the 
President said just recently, or he has also said that this economy is 
the strongest economy we have ever had.

  It is either that, or it is an economy in such rough shape that 
people can't pay their loans. Now, it really can't be both. And we are 
sending all kinds of messages here we don't need to send and, frankly, 
I think the administration shouldn't really want to send.
  People made the decision to invest in their education. They borrowed 
money to do it. The initial plan was that people would borrow money, 
and as they paid it back, that money would be available for the next 
generation of people who wanted to borrow money.
  If that had worked out that way, we would still be working off some 
of the first dollars that went into these student loan payments and 
student loan programs.
  If we say that this select special group of people who happen to have 
the exact kind of debt, at this exact moment, don't need to pay it back 
later, I think that is the more logical thing that would happen. What 
if we say that this group doesn't have to pay their debt so maybe we 
should figure out other groups shouldn't have to pay their debt?
  If it is a good economic policy not to pay your student debt, what if 
we decide we are not going to pay people's car loan debt, or we are not 
going to pay people's mortgage debt, or we are not going to pay 
people's credit card bills if they are somehow out of control?
  There are ways to deal with that in the legal system, but government 
forgiveness is not one of them. The same arguments really apply to 
forgiving those debts as would apply to forgiving college debts.
  If the President thinks it is a good idea, as I mentioned before, he 
could write a piece of legislation, hand it to one of his friends in 
the Congress and let us work through the process. Let's make the case 
as to why these debts should be forgiven.
  Let's debate which other competing priority is less important than 
forgiving these debts. You know, we have spent a lot of time acting 
like the money is not money that you have to take from somewhere else 
to use for a current purpose. And I think we are all realizing just how 
untrue that is.
  The President hasn't sent that legislation up. In fact, the President 
in his budget didn't even suggest that loan forgiveness should be part 
of his budget. It is not in legislation. It is not in the 
appropriations budget. It is not a priority in anything the 
administration has put out there for us to debate and talk about.
  We just had a hearing this week with the Secretary of Education about 
the education budget request. There was nothing in that request about 
specific student loan proposals. I really hope that the administration 
will pause, will think about this, will understand the overall impact 
of effectively suddenly deciding we are going to put $321 billion or so 
dollars back into the economy that otherwise would be coming back into 
the Treasury as the debt repayment that those individuals have agreed 
to do.
  We have got ways to help people go to school. We have got ways to 
debate whether or not this is a good priority to forgive loans, but I 
take the President's original position, which is the President doesn't 
have the authority to do that.
  I agree with the Speaker of the House's original position that the 
President doesn't have the authority to do this. If the President wants 
to make the case, let him make it right here, and that will be a debate 
that I think would be worth having.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                         Tribute to John Lohrke

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague from 
Missouri. And I will just mention here in the Senate his leadership on 
so many issues are really going to be missed. Maybe he will reconsider 
his decision to leave this august body, which is going to be a lot 
less--a lot less of an institution that thinks hard about these 
difficult issues when he is gone. So I want to thank Senator Blunt for 
all he has done. He is a great friend of mine, so we are going to miss 
him.
  It is Thursday, and once again it is an opportunity for me to talk 
about our Alaskan of the week.
  Now, I know that our pages--the new pages, they are going to really 
realize this is probably one of the most exciting, interesting speeches 
of the week. Some of our friends in the media even like it because it 
is end of the week. I get to brag about Alaska and talk about someone 
who is doing something really great for our State, maybe their 
community, maybe the country, maybe the world, right?
  We have all kinds who do this.
  I always like to talk a little bit about what is going on in Alaska 
first.
  So it is amazing how quickly the seasons go by because it is almost 
summer solstice in the State. That is when the Sun rarely sets across 
any part of Alaska and the State is filled with life, filled with 
energy. You can feel it when you come up. Hopefully, we get a lot of 
tourists this summer. I know we are going to get a lot. A lot of people 
want to get up to Alaska, particularly after the pandemic. You can feel 
it in the air when you are there, this sense of energy and excitement.
  So our tourists are there now. They are seeing spectacular scenery, 
wildlife, glaciers, our salmon-choked streams. They will be able to 
hike through thousands of miles of State and Federal parks, climb 
mountains, fly through the skies, and some are even there to watch 
baseball. Yes, baseball.
  Now, maybe not the Braves, but still good baseball. Now, I know that 
is going to sound odd to some people. Now, wait a minute. Going up to 
Alaska to watch baseball probably isn't the first thing that comes to 
many people's minds when they think about Alaska.
  But diehard American baseball fans know that Alaska has played a 
fundamental role in America's pastime. They know how important Alaska 
summers are and have been for decades, taking young college students 
with raw but exceptional talent and growing them under the midnight Sun 
into seasoned professional Major League Baseball players.
  This is the Alaska Baseball League, one of the premiere amateur 
collegiate summer baseball leagues that anybody plays anywhere in 
America.
  Let me give you just a few--and I mean a few--of those who have come 
up through the Alaska Baseball League. It has produced some of Major 
League Baseball's most well known All-Stars, including Mark McGwire, 
Barry Bonds, Tom Seaver, Dave Winfield, and Randy Johnson, just to name 
a few.
  The Alaska Baseball League is sometimes composed of five teams, 
sometimes six--two teams in Anchorage, one in Palmer, one in Chugiak-
Eagle River, one in Kenai.
  And then there is a team, a very famous team, in Fairbanks--the 
oldest

[[Page S2998]]

and most storied of them all--which I am going to focus on today.
  It is the Fairbanks Goldpanners; and the team's general manager, who 
is our Alaskan of the Week, John Lohrke, makes the baseball magic of 
Alaska happen.
  So, first, a few words about John's background. He was raised in a 
baseball family. His father, Jack Lohrke--Lucky Lohrke, as baseball 
fans might know him--was a World War II veteran who landed on Omaha 
Beach 6 days after D-day, fought his way across Europe, survived many 
near-death experiences in combat and even back home; hence the name 
``Lucky.''
  After the military, Jack played baseball as a third baseman for the 
New York Giants and the Philadelphia Phillies.
  After Jack Lohrke retired, his family moved to California, but, as I 
said, baseball is in the Lohrke family's blood.
  Our Alaskan of the Week, John, had an older brother, who was drafted 
by the Red Sox, and John himself got into the game administratively. As 
a college student at Santa Clara, he began helping his college team 
behind the scenes.
  In 1980, the Santa Clara coach was going to Alaska to coach the North 
Pole Nicks. John thought that that sounded great and asked if he could 
come. He did, he fell in love with Alaska and stayed, like so many in 
our State.
  He managed the Nicks for 7 years, then was the president of another 
team, the Oilers, on Alaska's beautiful Kenai Peninsula; then it was 
back to the interior part of the State, where John stayed involved with 
baseball as a board member of the Goldpanners.
  In 2016, he became president of the board, and now he is the general 
manager of the Goldpanners in Fairbanks, the person in charge of making 
it all happen. And what a responsibility and what a team and what a 
history and what a legacy of excellence John has been part of.
  Since its founding in 1960, the Goldpanners have had over 211 players 
that have gone on to the major leagues. Isn't that remarkable--211 
players? A pipeline into the major leagues from Fairbanks, AK. Who 
knew? And that doesn't include the countless others who went on to be 
coaches or general managers or scouts.
  The current Cleveland Guardians manager played for the Goldpanners. 
The current pitching coach for the Red Sox is also a Goldpanner 
alumnus. As I mentioned, the Goldpanners are one of the premier 
pipelines into the major leagues.
  One of the highlights of the season in Alaska, something that is 
happening very soon--actually, this Tuesday--is when the Goldpanners 
play their most famous game. It is the Midnight Sun game, and it is 
played every summer on the summer solstice.
  The tradition of the Midnight Sun game in Fairbanks goes way, way 
back. The first one of these games was played in 1906. Americans have 
been playing midnight baseball in Alaska well over 100 years, and now 
this game is famous--worldwide. It is a must-do bucket list game for 
baseball enthusiasts all across America. Thousands of people, many of 
whom come from across the globe, will gather for this game this 
Tuesday, as they do every summer in Fairbanks.

  Now, this game is a culmination of a dizzying array of activities 
that occur in Fairbanks. Right now, parties, street festivals, a famed 
Midnight Sun Run. Fairbanks--a great city. My wife was born and raised 
there--is known for its spirit, generosity, and on the summer solstice 
weekend, that spirit explodes. I will be heading there tomorrow. I am 
going to partake in some of these festivities, including taking in a 
Goldpanners game and maybe, as I usually do, join the many runners in 
the Midnight Sun Run, where I have been known to bring up the rear of 
all the runners. We will see what happens.
  But for Tuesday night's Midnight Sun game this year, the Goldpanners 
will be playing the San Diego Waves. The game starts at 10 p.m. in 
Growden Park and goes until the wee hours.
  With Fairbanks just 150 miles south of the Arctic Circle, the Sun 
just begins to set in the north a little bit as the game gets underway 
but never fully goes down under the horizon, and as the game ends, the 
Sun is actually starting to rise again.
  As one sports writer put it: ``It is the stuff that baseball dreams 
are made of.''
  And it is never dark. And throughout its century-long history, 
artificial lights have never been used ever--not once.
  John Lohrke, our Alaskan of the Week, understands how important that 
particular game is to the larger culture of baseball, not just to 
Fairbanks and the interior. He understands how important the 
Goldpanners team is for all of Alaska, for Fairbanks, but for baseball 
writ large.
  Since starting in as a manager, he has put more money into the 
stadium to spruce it up. There are a lot of pictures of some of the 
great alumni there that I mentioned earlier in my remarks. He is 
constantly in touch with members of the business community who help 
sponsor and support the team.
  He is in charge of getting housing for the 24-member team and the 
coaches, many of whom are talented athletes who come up to Alaska from 
the lower 48 for the summer.
  He is in charge of transportation needs. He is in charge of the 
vendors and ticket sales and the beer garden. He is in charge of making 
all of this run smoothly for Fairbanks, for the team he loves, and for 
the love of baseball.
  ``I love Fairbanks,'' he said. ``And I love baseball. It's in my 
blood,'' and this is where it happens.
  So thanks to all the Goldpanner players and the community that 
supports the team. Thank you, John, for all you do to make it happen to 
bring us together to keep baseball alive. Congratulations for being our 
Alaskan of the Week.
  (Mr. WARNOCK assumed the Chair.)


                         Tribute to Liz Banicki

  Mr. President, I just talked about our Alaskan of the Week. I am 
going to mention another Alaskan who deserves really, really great 
praise. It is with a heavy heart that this week Team Sullivan will be 
losing a critical member of our staff in the wonderful staffer Liz 
Banicki, who is moving on to the private sector to help veterans, a 
group she has worked tirelessly for during her time in my office.
  Liz is from Eagle River, AK. She is a Chugiak High School graduate. 
She graduated from the University of Portland with a degree in 
political science and German studies. She received two Fulbrights to 
study, first in Germany and then Austria, but her heart has always 
remained in Alaska.
  She interned for the late, great Congressman Don Young before joining 
my campaign in 2014, my first election. She did a great job. Then she 
came to Washington with my team, and she is a member of what we call in 
our office the OG--been there from the beginning.
  Liz's story is a story of success, and it has been an honor to watch 
her hard work and all she has done for me, my team, and most 
importantly, Alaskans.
  She began with focusing on veterans and then expanded her role to 
take on foreign policy and homeland security and trade and fisheries.
  In the process, she became one of the most impressive staffers in the 
whole U.S. Senate--I am a little biased, but I think it is true--on all 
of these diverse issues. It is a marvel listening to her explain, for 
example, fish import trade codes--so many of which she knows by heart.
  She also understands and has worked the power of networking that has 
helped her do her job so well. She knows countless people in think 
tanks, the private sector back home, in embassies, and in the White 
House; and that has helped her get the job done for Alaska.
  That is Liz's ethos: Getting the job done.
  Now, we all know these jobs take a lot of hours. Liz puts in those 
hours. I can't tell you how many nights I have left the office 9:30, 10 
p.m., and I will walk past Liz's office--she is still there working in 
front of her computer, on the phone, making sure our veterans get the 
help they need; working on banning Russian fish from being imported to 
the U.S.; assisting refugees trying to get out of Afghanistan, which 
she worked tirelessly on; working on my bill to deter China from 
invading Taiwan--I could go on and on and on.
  Now, we all know, having staff, they will push back on occasion when 
they don't agree with the direction of their boss. It is something that 
can be difficult but necessary. And I don't think

[[Page S2999]]

that anybody would accuse Liz of being shy from pushing back. She knows 
her mind, and she speaks it, and she has done an exceptional job in my 
office; and most importantly, she has helped thousands and thousands of 
Alaskans.

  So I just want to thank her for her dedication to her State, her 
country, and to our office. We are going to miss her very much.
  Good luck, Liz. You will always be a part of ``Team Sullivan.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                     Honoring Our PACT Act of 2021

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a piece of 
legislation with a very long name: the Sergeant First Class Heath 
Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 
2022, also known as the PACT Act--P-A-C-T, PACT Act.
  This historic legislation will improve and expand access to VA 
healthcare to our Nation's veterans, including upwards of 3\1/2\ 
million post-9/11 veterans. It is going to save lives.
  Let me say that again. It is going to save lives and, hopefully, a 
lot of them. It is going to better ensure that our Nation lives up to 
the promise from President Lincoln's second inaugural address. You 
recall, he said ``to care for those who have borne the battle''--to 
care for those who have borne the battle.
  During his first State of the Union earlier this year, President 
Biden called on Congress to prioritize taking care of our veterans who 
were exposed to burn pits and other toxic materials while serving 
overseas in a number of theaters, Iraq and Afghanistan among them.
  Today, I am proud to say that Congress has answered that call, as 
well as the call of our Nation's veterans service organizations, 
affectionately known as our VSOs. Those VSOs, veterans' advocates, and 
military families, many of whom have lost their loved ones, have 
organized and fought for this bill for years.
  President Biden likes to say ``all politics is personal.'' He also 
says that all diplomacy is personal. I think he is right on both 
accounts.
  This issue is personal for our President, and it is personal for me 
as well as it is for hundreds of thousands of other American families. 
MAJ Beau Biden, Delaware's former attorney general, served in the 
Delaware National Guard for more than a decade, including a yearlong 
deployment to Iraq on Active Duty.
  I was privileged to have served as the commander-in-chief of the 
Delaware National Guard for 8 years during my time as Governor, and I 
have enormous respect for the men and women who serve today and have 
served in the Delaware National Guard.
  Over the past two decades, I have attended countless deployment 
ceremonies in New Castle County, and Dover as well, for our soldiers, 
airmen, and their families and also assemblies when we welcomed them 
home, safe and sound.
  Like many military parents at these sendoffs and welcome-home 
ceremonies, the Bidens did not know when their son would return. They 
didn't know for sure if he was going to make it back when our Nation 
sent him off to Iraq. I believe it was in late 2008. And they did not 
know, even if their son did make it back, whether he would carry with 
him the physical and emotional wounds of war that we sometimes can 
sustain.

  As it turned out, Beau Biden, a young man I had known ever since he 
was a little kid, appeared to make it home back to Delaware healthy and 
whole at the completion of his tour in 2009.
  I didn't know it at the time, but Beau and his unit spent several 
months at a place called Camp Victory and Joint Base Balad in the 
shadows of toxic burn pits that operated for 24 hours a day.
  Several years later, in 2015, at the age of 46, Beau Biden would pass 
away after battling aggressive brain cancer. We couldn't prove it then, 
and to be totally honest, we can't prove it absolutely today; but the 
sudden onset of terminal cancer may well have been the result of toxic 
exposure while he was serving overseas.
  This story is all too common amongst veterans of the post-9/11 
generation, including SFC Heath Robinson, for whom this bill is named. 
A member of the Ohio Army National Guard, Sergeant First Class Robinson 
was deployed to Kosovo, where he experienced prolonged exposure to burn 
pits.
  Before I go any further, let me just take a moment to describe what a 
burn pit is. Burn pits are large areas of land--oftentimes bigger than 
a football field--that are used to burn a number of things including 
trash and other waste products at military installations overseas. The 
waste is oftentimes soaked in jet fuel and then set ablaze in open-air 
burn pits, releasing toxins into the air in the surrounding area.
  Waste burned in these pits includes chemicals, includes paint, 
includes medical and human waste, includes metal and aluminum cans, 
plastic, rubber, ammunition, just to name a few of the things. Exposure 
to the smoke that resulted from these burn pits often caused 
servicemembers to experience burning of their eyes or throat, as well 
as difficulty in breathing, and rashes, too. The toxic smoke could be 
contaminated with lead; it could be contaminated with mercury and 
irritant gases that could negatively impact an individual's lungs, 
liver, and stomach.
  As many as 3\1/2\ million servicemembers, including Sergeant First 
Class Robinson, were exposed to toxic burn pits while serving in Iraq 
or Afghanistan or some other country.
  After his service, Sergeant First Class Robinson was diagnosed with a 
rare autoimmune disorder and stage IV--stage IV--lung cancer. His 
oncologist said that the rare stage IV cancer that he had been 
diagnosed with could only have been caused by prolonged toxic exposure. 
And yet, for years, healthy, young veterans like Sergeant First Class 
Robinson have continued to contract rare cancers and diseases. They 
then come home, only to fight a new battle: a battle that involves 
endless paperwork and claims, all to prove a service connection that 
almost certainly did exist or does exist.
  Sergeant First Class Robinson died last year. He left behind a wife, 
Danielle, and a daughter who at the time was 6 years old. Her name is 
Brielle.
  Brielle actually wrote a note to me, not in cursive but printed, and 
it looks like it was printed with a crayon. Here is what the note 
essentially says: ``Vote yes to my Dad's bill''--or vote yes for my 
Dad's bill.
  Well, Brielle, if you are at home and watching this today, I want you 
to know that I am going to take your advice, and I have taken your 
advice. And I hope one day to meet you and your mom. And thank you for 
being involved in a very good cause and for sharing your Dad with all 
of us.
  Please know that your dad's service was a gift to our country and 
that the bill--the piece of legislation that bears your father's name--
is going to make a positive difference not for a few people, not for a 
few military families, but literally for millions of military families.
  My own generation of Vietnam veterans had a similar experience to 
toxic exposures as the post 9/11-generation of veterans. I have been 
privileged to serve our country in my State in many different roles, 
but there is no greater privilege than serving in the U.S. Navy and 
Naval Reserve for a total of 23 years after the Reserve duty.
  After graduating from Ohio State right at the height of the Vietnam 
war in 1968 on a Navy ROTC scholarship, I would later serve three tours 
on Active Duty in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war as a Naval 
flight officer. My squadron, a unit of the Seventh Fleet, flew a wide 
variety of missions, including low-level surveillance operations off 
the coast of Vietnam and Cambodia, searching for, among other things, 
infiltrator trawlers disguised as fishing boats attempting to resupply 
the Viet Cong in their efforts to overthrow our ally, the government of 
South Vietnam.
  Following my time on Active Duty, I spent another 18 years as a Navy 
P-3 Aircraft mission commander in the Naval Reserves. Barely a month 
after flying my last P-3 mission in the summer of 1991 and retiring as 
a Navy captain, I led, at the behest of then-President George Herbert 
Walker Bush, I led--I was privileged to lead--a bipartisan, six-Member 
congressional delegation of Vietnam veterans back to Southeast Asia.

  Among our six Members was Congressman Pete Peterson, a former Air

[[Page S3000]]

Force pilot who was shot down over North Vietnam and spent years as a 
POW in the ``Hanoi Hilton.'' He later would become the U.S. Ambassador 
to a united Vietnam.
  The six of us went to Vietnam because veterans service organizations 
were convinced--because they were convinced that hundreds, maybe 
thousands, of MIAs, missing in action, from the Vietnam war were being 
held in captivity in that part of the world. We believed that their 
families deserved to know for sure, with certainty, to have closure in 
finding out what happened to their loved ones whose bodies were never 
recovered.
  Like many of my colleagues, I come from a military family. My family 
knows what it is like to lose a loved one to war. My mother's youngest 
brother, my Uncle Bob, Robert Kidd Patton, died in 1944 at the age of 
19 during a kamikaze attack on his aircraft carrier in the western 
Pacific.
  My grandmother is a Gold Star mother. My Uncle Bob's body was never 
recovered or returned home to the country he served. My family never 
knew what it meant to have, really, a sense of closure or finality. 
They never gave up. My grandma never gave up on him coming home 
someday. He never did.
  So it means something to families like mine for our government to 
heed that moral obligation and stand up for military families still 
waiting to see their son or daughter brought home and brought home 
safely. It is that moral obligation to our MIAs and their families who 
led us to travel back to Vietnam in 1991, when we brought with us--and 
actually presented to the new leader of united Vietnam--we brought with 
us a road map from President George Herbert Walker Bush to normalize 
relations with Vietnam.
  Among other things, the road map first called on the Vietnamese, who 
were meticulous recordkeepers--meticulous recordkeepers--to provide 
access to Vietnam's war museum records as well as to its archives so 
that our investigators might be able to search for clues to help 
resolve the mysteries of our MIAs' disappearance.
  With the strong encouragement of our six-Member delegation and the 
tireless efforts of two Members of this body, Senator John McCain and 
Senator John Kerry, the Vietnamese decided to take this step, and 
telecommunications were restored between our two countries--and, later, 
a full diplomatic relations.
  That same moral obligation that led us to make progress in Vietnam 
leads us here today. Our moral obligation extends beyond providing 
closure to families of the fallen. It extends to the veterans and 
families who need healthcare, who are still dealing with the wounds of 
war--both visible and invisible--long after they leave the battlefield.
  The same year we traveled to Vietnam, Congress came together and 
passed the Agent Orange Act to care for the hundreds of thousands of 
Vietnam veterans who were exposed to that toxic herbicide in Southeast 
Asia during the Vietnam war.
  I believe that many of us would agree it took too long--far too 
long--for that bill to be enacted. Finally, after too many heart and 
nervous system complications, deadly cancer diagnoses, and even birth 
defects in the children of Vietnam veterans, Congress did the right 
thing.
  The bill before us today also took too long to be enacted. Today, 
Congress has once again done the right thing. As I mentioned earlier, 
over the last two decades, throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, too many of 
our veterans lived and worked alongside these massive toxic burn pits 
that I talked about earlier.
  Hundreds of thousands of square feet of open-air disposal sites where 
plastics and jet fuel, chemicals and human waste, were burned daily 
producing toxic black plumes and bringing harmful chemicals into the 
lungs of unsuspecting servicemembers. The time has come to take care of 
these veterans--those who have borne the battle.

  This legislation, the PACT Act, will enhance and expand VA healthcare 
and benefits for toxic-exposed veterans. Specifically, this bill will 
provide VA healthcare to the estimated 3\1/2\ million post-9/11 
veterans who have experienced toxic exposures.
  This bill establishes a presumption of service connection for 23 
conditions that are related to toxic exposures and improves the process 
by which the VA may add presumptions in the future. Additionally, the 
bill will expand VA research on toxic exposure. It will provide toxic 
exposure screenings at appointments, and it will provide additional 
training to VA healthcare workers and benefits personnel.
  I have spent a considerable amount of time discussing the importance 
of this bill. Others have been here today before me and earlier this 
week. I am proud to have supported it. I know my colleagues feel the 
same way. Having said that, I also believe that we may have missed an 
opportunity to consider some amendments that would have improved the 
bill and, importantly, would have paid for its considerable pricetag.
  In addition to being a recovering Governor--my colleagues have 
different names to describe me; a lot of them call me a recovering 
Governor, and I am a recovering Governor--I am also a recovering State 
treasurer of Florida. I have long believed that, if something is worth 
doing, then it is worth paying for. I will say that again. If things 
are worth doing, they are worth paying for. I understand that taking 
care of our veterans is a cost of war, but these costs should be paid 
for.
  That is why I filed an amendment to have the Department of Defense 
identify savings to pay for the cost of this bill.
  I also filed amendments that address Albert Einstein's definition of 
``insanity.'' Einstein is famous for saying many things, but one of 
those is with regard to insanity. He describes insanity as ``doing the 
same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.''
  What does that mean?
  In this instance, it means that, if servicemembers are repeatedly 
being exposed to toxic chemicals across new generations, we have to do 
something on the front end to reduce toxic exposures instead of always 
playing catchup decades later as we are doing now.
  That is why we should be giving the Department of Defense the tools 
it needs to track toxic exposures more closely. Our servicemembers 
deserve the ability to report toxic exposures in realtime and to be 
protected from them. I believe these commonsense ideas may actually 
provide long-term savings for the taxpayer and will lead to healthier 
outcomes for our veterans.
  Finally, while we are not offsetting the cost of this legislation 
today, it does not mean that we shouldn't provide vigorous oversight of 
this new funding. That is why I filed another amendment to enhance the 
requirement that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs provide annual 
spending plans to Congress as well as to require both the VA inspector 
general and the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress 
on implementation--an important step.
  My hope is that one or maybe all of these ideas could be included in 
future legislation later this year, and I look forward to working with 
our colleagues on improving this important bill as we move forward.
  In having said that, let me close by just reiterating what I said at 
the beginning. This is a historic bill for our Nation's veterans. It 
does right by an entire generation of veterans who have defended our 
Nation over the past two decades. It is going to bring millions of new 
veterans into the VA for their healthcare, including mental health 
care. These new benefits, which our veterans earned through their 
service to our Nation, are going to make a real difference for our 
veterans and their families.
  As the last serving Vietnam veteran now serving in the U.S. Senate, I 
am proud to have supported this bill.
  I want to thank and commend our colleagues who lead the Senate's 
Veterans' Affairs Committee--Senator Tester and Senator Moran--and 
their staffs and others for working together to shepherd this 
bipartisan bill through the legislative process.
  I want to thank our veterans service organizations--those VSOs I 
mentioned earlier--and the countless advocates who helped to make this 
legislation possible.
  I want to thank the young lady who wrote this note. She was kind 
enough to send it to me and to encourage me to support this legislation 
named after her father.

[[Page S3001]]

  With that, I look forward to the President of the United States 
signing the PACT Act into law very soon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________