[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 129 (Tuesday, August 2, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3845-S3852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  SERGEANT FIRST CLASS HEATH ROBINSON HONORING OUR PROMISE TO ADDRESS 
                    COMPREHENSIVE TOXICS ACT OF 2022

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to legislative session and resume consideration of the House 
message to accompany S. 3373, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany S. 3373, a bill to improve the 
     Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant and the Children of Fallen 
     Heroes Grant.

  Pending:

       Schumer motion to concur in the House amendment to the 
     bill.
       Schumer motion to concur in the House amendment to the 
     bill, with Schumer amendment No. 5148 (to the House amendment 
     to the Senate amendment), to add an effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 5149 (to Schumer amendment No. 5148), 
     to modify the effective date.
       Schumer motion to refer the bill to the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs, with instructions, Schumer amendment No. 
     5150, to add an effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 5151 (to the instructions (Schumer 
     amendment No. 5150) of the motion to refer), to modify the 
     effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 5152 (to amendment No. 5151), to 
     modify the effective date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5 
p.m. is equally divided.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to discuss helping our 
servicemembers exposed to toxic burn pits.
  For days now, servicemembers and their families have been camping 
outside this very building in desperation. They are pleading with us, 
they are begging us to pass this bill. They have been out there all 
weekend in 90-degree heat, sheltering themselves from thunderstorms, as 
well as oppressive humidity. I have been down there to visit them three 
times now, and I can tell you, they are exhausted. They miss their 
families. They want to go home, but they will not. They will not go 
home until the job is done because the suffering they are enduring now 
pales in comparison to the suffering they, their fellow veterans, or 
their fellow family members experience every day because of the 
injuries sustained because of the exposure to the toxins released at 
these burn pits.
  Last week, before it became clear that the PACT Act would fail, these 
families came to DC ready to celebrate. The mother-in-law of SFC Heath 
Robinson, who died because of burn pits, came with Heath's daughter 
Brielle, who was excited to finally celebrate her father's legacy 
finally coming to fruition. Instead, we had to explain to a crying 9-
year-old girl why this would not be happening, why the Senate had 
failed them.
  So I don't want anyone to just listen to me rattle off a bunch of 
statistics or facts about burn pits; I want you to listen to these 
people, the families, people who are literally giving every ounce of 
their being in service to this country, people with families, people 
with kids, people who are willing to upend their lives at the very 
moment's notice to fight for the values that make us who we are. 
Instead, when their lungs were filled with toxins, the government 
turned its back on them when they needed us the most. We made a promise 
to them to care for them when they came home, and that promise has been 
broken.
  Failure to pass this bill again is not just some small 
disappointment, something that can be easily brushed off or 
disregarded; failure to pass this bill quite literally for many is a 
death sentence because every single day, every hour, every minute they 
don't get the healthcare they need to save their lives is just another 
minute lost to the diseases that are devouring them. It is another 
minute they won't have to be with their loved ones, to hug their 
children; another minute they don't get to be with their loved ones to 
kiss them goodbye; another minute they cannot do the things they love 
to do. So we don't have time to wait another week, another month; we 
have to do this now.
  This is what is at stake with this bill. It is the lives of the men 
and women who went to combat for this country over the last many 
decades and unfortunately have been so riddled with disease because of 
that exposure that they need our help. They need the VA to cover their 
healthcare. That is what this bill does. This is what they deserve.
  I hope that this Chamber can come back together again where it was 
before last week to do the right thing, to stand by those who stood by 
us, to stand by those who went into the breach, to stand by those who 
are now suffering and dying because it is a debt that we owe them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, late tonight, the Senate will vote on 
my amendment No. 5185 to the PACT Act, and as my colleague from New 
York was just saying, it is time that we deal with the issues of toxic 
exposure. As a member of the VA Committee, this is something I have 
worked on for the last few years.
  Tennessee has a large population of veterans, and we have talked a 
good bit about this issue and how they receive their care.
  One of the concerns that we had discussed in committee, in our 
hearings--we have discussed it with our VSOs, and we have discussed 
this issue as we have talked with veterans who have come to us and to 
our meetings--is their frustration with having access to the queue but 
not getting access to the care. I think we have to look at this and 
say: Those are very different.
  Now, I join our veterans in being frustrated with the fact that there 
is access to the queue to get on that wait list but not getting that 
care. So the amendment I am offering is not political. It is not 
controversial. It is a simple but much needed improvement to the PACT 
Act that will allow toxic-exposed veterans to gain access to community 
care to ensure they have a speedy process to care.

  The amendment is critical to the success of this program, and we all 
want the program to be successful, but what we know is that the VA is 
not capable of implementing the PACT Act as it is written. They have 
neither the infrastructure nor the personnel to do that.
  What we have learned is that the VA cannot deliver what is promised 
because it does not have the capacity to handle the increased cases. 
Secretary McDonough said as much in testimony submitted to the VA 
Committee in March of this year.
  Right now, the claims backlog at the VA sits at 168,000 cases. The 
PACT Act as written will increase that backlog by more than 1 million 
cases.
  Right now in Tennessee, this is the practical effect of this in 
Tennessee:

[[Page S3846]]

Veterans who come to me are telling me they are waiting about 100 days 
for a primary care appointment at the VA. For many of our veterans, 
that is just step 1--getting that primary care appointment so they get 
on the list. So after they call, they are waiting 100 days to get that 
first appointment, and then they get a referral to someone else, a 
specialist.
  Now, for our veterans in Tennessee, once they get that referral, it 
is 39 days to get to mental health care, 44 days to get to a dental 
appointment, 33 days if they are trying to see a cardiologist, 28 days 
to see a gynecologist, and 30 days to get to someone who can help them 
with pain. That is the amount of wait. To me, that is unacceptable, 
completely unacceptable.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that many, if not most, 
of these veterans who have toxic exposure are deteriorating rapidly. 
They do not have time to wait while the VA decides how they are going 
to implement this. They deserve access to care as quickly as they can 
possibly get it.
  We are so close to getting these veterans the care they deserve, but 
if the PACT Act is going to work for veterans, we need to step up and 
give them access to community care. My amendment will open up that 
access. It will make that an option so they don't have to struggle 
through waiting in the queue. They can go to a physician in their 
community for that primary care appointment so that they can get this 
process started. This will help them to avoid the long wait times and 
the arbitrary hurdles, and it will let them seek that care in the 
community if they can get it faster than making that trip to the VA.
  As I said, this is not controversial. There is no political scandal 
on it. It is a simple fix that will ensure that this promise that we 
are going to make in the PACT Act will be made to every single veteran 
who has experienced toxic exposure so that we are certain that the PACT 
Act does not end up as a false promise or a false hope.
  These veterans have given so much. They have served honorably. It is 
imperative that we provide them not access to the queue but access to 
the care they have earned.
  Thank you. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment when it 
comes up for a vote later this evening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we absolutely must take care of those who 
were harmed in service to our country. I have supported several bills 
to take care of our veterans. In February of this year, I supported a 
bill that passed the Senate called the Health Care for Burn Pit 
Veterans Act, which extends the eligibility period for combat veterans 
who served after 9/11 and were exposed to toxic substances so they are 
able to receive care at the VA. I have also supported the VA MISSION 
Act, the Dr. Kate Hendricks Thomas SERVICE Act, the TEAM Caregivers 
Act, and the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, all of 
which expand care for veterans. When the war in Afghanistan came to a 
close, I proposed using those funds saved by ending the war to give a 
$2,500 bonus to all members of the military who served in the Global 
War on Terrorism.
  We must take care of our veterans and keep our country strong. This 
bill puts our economy, though, at risk by creating presumptions of 
service connection for the most common of ailments. For example, this 
legislation creates a presumption of service connection for Vietnam 
veterans for hypertension, but according to the CDC, 50 percent of men 
and 44 percent of women in the United States have hypertension. More 
than 60 percent of people over the age of 60 have hypertension. In 
total, the CDC estimates that 116 million Americans have hypertension. 
The legislation also creates a presumption of service connection for 
Global War on Terror veterans for asthma. The CDC estimates that 1 in 
12 people has asthma, which is approximately 25 million Americans.
  This bill would cost hundreds of billions of dollars at a time when 
the national debt is climbing over $30 trillion and inflation is at a 
40-year high. But the Federal debt was created by Congress and not our 
vets, and those who serve in the armed services should not be the ones 
to pay the cost for government mismanagement. That is why I propose 
that we pay for this bill by establishing a 10-year moratorium on 
foreign aid disbursed by USAID, except for Israel. USAID is riddled 
with waste, and those dollars could be better put to use to help to 
take care of our veterans' healthcare.
  Just this year, USAID unveiled a $50 million Visit Tunisia program to 
encourage more tourism in Tunisia although Tunisia is already one of 
the most visited countries in Africa.
  In 2016, USAID started a program to help the Afghan Government help 
farmers as it cut checks to NGOs to fund Afghan farmers.
  The program paid for 72 farmers to receive drip irrigation, pipes, 
wheelbarrow, 2,000-liter water tank, and a 5-kilowatt generator for a 
cost of $87.9 million. Whether the systems are still in function or 
were actually built is another question.
  USAID spent over $37 million to assist the Filipino Government to get 
roughly 3 million Filipinos back to school. Maybe we ought to do the 
same in America.
  USAID devoted 20 million to teach the Laotians the Laotian language.
  In another instance, USAID allocated up to $150,000 to send 10 
Koreans to Washington, DC, for 2 weeks to learn about climate change 
activism. That is a great use of our money.
  Wouldn't Congress rather spend the money on our veterans? Wouldn't it 
make more sense to spend taxpayer dollars on veterans who have risked 
it all for their country than on encouraging travel to Tunisia?
  That is why I seek my colleagues' support for my amendment that would 
help pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill. Our 
veterans should come first.
  I ask your support for my amendment on this pay-for amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 5184

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House message to 
accompany S. 3373 with amendment No. 5184.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] moves to concur in the 
     House amendment to S. 3373 with an amendment numbered 5184.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To offset the increased spending authorized by this Act by 
  temporarily prohibiting the expenditure of any Federal funds by the 
United States Agency for International Development other than spending 
                              for Israel.)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. OFFSET THROUGH TEMPORARY REDUCTION IN FOREIGN 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       During the 10-year period beginning on October 1, 2022, no 
     Federal funds may be expended by the United States Agency for 
     International Development other than funds that have been 
     appropriated for Israel.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                                S. 3373

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the PACT Act, on which 
we will be voting for several amendments and then we will have a final 
passage vote later this evening.
  This could have been resolved months ago, as I suggested it would be, 
but finally we have gotten to the point where we can resolve this.
  And I have to say we are witnessing a very old Washington trick 
playing out on what might be an unprecedented scale.
  And what is that trick?
  That trick is you take a very sympathetic group of Americans--it 
could be children with rare diseases; it could be victims of crime; it 
could be veterans who are suffering an illness after having been 
exposed to toxic chemicals while serving our country--you take this 
sympathetic group, craft legislation to address their problems, and 
then sneak in something that is completely unrelated that could never 
pass on its own and dare anyone to stand up and say a word about that 
because we all know, if you raise a concern about the unrelated 
provision, people in this Chamber and outside will stand up and make up 
all kinds of fabrications and falsehoods.
  They will enlist some pseudo celebrities, they will get their 
accomplices

[[Page S3847]]

in the media to propagate the dishonest charge that: Oh, those mean 
Republicans don't care about those sympathetic figures. That is what 
has been going on here for some time now.
  It is in the PACT Act. We have an exceptionally sympathetic, 
overwhelmingly popular group of Americans--and rightly so. They are 
veterans who put on the uniform, served overseas, took huge risks, and 
along the way were exposed to toxic chemicals that have resulted or 
could have resulted in their illness.
  There is overwhelming consensus to provide the resources to at least 
cover their healthcare costs and provide them with disability benefits 
because of their service to our country.
  In fact, the cause is so popular that the $280 billion of new 
spending contemplated by this bill is completely unoffset. It is 
mandatory spending. It is like OCO, and there is nobody I know of--
certainly not myself--who is asking that it be offset. It is like, this 
is what we need to do and people acknowledge this and we agree on it.
  But that is not where the PACT Act ends. That is not all there is to 
the PACT Act. It also includes the old Washington trick. And the form 
the trick takes in this bill is a complicated change to budget rules 
that allows current spending--by which I mean spending that is going to 
happen under existing law unrelated to the PACT Act, that spending that 
is routine already--to be basically shifted off the books, so to speak, 
in such a way that is designed to make it easier for future Congresses 
to spend a whole lot more money on completely unrelated programs.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this clever little 
device will result--could result in up to maybe even a little more than 
$400 billion of additional spending over the next 10 years; again, 
totally outside of the veteran space, totally outside.
  Now, the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is my friend 
Jon Tester, a guy I know and like. He pretty much essentially 
acknowledged that yes, the legislation could be exploited this way. But 
he said: But you should have faith. You should have confidence and 
trust in your colleagues, future Congresses, that we wouldn't do a 
thing like that.
  Seriously? I am supposed to trust this and future Congresses not to 
go on a spending spree--seriously? That is unbelievable. And, by the 
way, if I should have that trust, then why did they design this feature 
precisely so they could go on a spending spree?
  This isn't the first time this has happened. A good example is the 
CHIPS program. That is an acronym for the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. It was created in 1997. It is a very popular program. It is 
mandatory spending, completely unoffset. It is a very good cause. That 
is why.
  In 2009, Congress started providing more funding than was necessary 
to fund the program--much more than would actually be spent on the kids 
that qualified for it. Congress did this very knowingly and started 
doing it annually. Why, you might ask, would Congress provide more 
funding than the program requires? Because the amount by which this 
funding exceeds what gets spent can be spent on other programs.
  It is a trick. It is a budget trick that allows for more spending in 
unrelated areas.
  The Crime Victims Fund has a very similar dynamic. Criminal penalties 
go into a fund that is supposed to go to victims of crime, but they set 
up the rules so that, in any given year, if we spend less than the 
amount of money that went into this fund, they can pretend those are 
budget savings and then spend the money somewhere else.
  So my point is that we have seen this before. It is being played out 
again, but I don't think we have ever seen it on this scale--$400 
billion over the next 10 years.
  We have budgets and we have budget rules for reasons. They are meant 
to try to provide some guardrails on spending. Now, Congress can always 
disregard them. Any Congress can always disregard budget rules for a 
good reason or a bad reason. If there are 60 votes, the budget rules 
can be waived.
  By the way, there are five budget points of order against this bill. 
I am not aware that anyone has raised a single one. We are not going to 
have a vote on any one, and that is because people say the new spending 
for these veterans is so important that we are going to waive the 
budget rules that this bill breaks, and I think that is the right thing 
to do. But to think that the appropriations process is going to be a 
sufficient check on the abuse of this gimmick that is in this bill is 
very unrealistic.
  You know, the Senate can always vote against a future spending bill 
that would take advantage of this. All right, so this is one of the 
arguments we have heard: Well, yes, you can always vote against this if 
Congress were to exploit this gimmick and start spending these $400 
billion.
  But here is the problem. In a given year, that would be about $40 
billion, right? Four hundred over 10 years means $400 billion of this 
extraneous spending annually. Except, as the Presiding Officer knows 
very well, we typically fund the government with one giant bill--an 
omnibus spending bill that is over 1,000 pages long, usually. Nowadays, 
it is about $1.7 trillion. And $40 billion is a lot of money, but it is 
3 percent of $1.7 trillion.
  So if you object to exploiting this budget gimmick and exploiting 
this loophole and spending $40 billion that shouldn't be spent on who 
knows what, you can vote against the whole bill and that is your only 
option--vote to shut down the government and not spend any money at 
all. That is no disciplinary mechanism. That is no mechanism for proper 
oversight.
  Now, you may hear that my amendment caps spending for veterans, and I 
want to be very clear about this. The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee said my amendment would place a limit on the amount of 
funding Congress could provide to cover care and benefits to veterans 
made available by this legislation and could create a scenario where 
the VA runs out of funding.
  That is completely, 100-percent factually false. It is very hard to 
believe that the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is not 
aware of that.
  But here is the truth. The fund that is created in the PACT Act--the 
fund that the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is referring 
to, the fund where we cap the money that goes into this fund--that fund 
does not have the meaning that any normal person thinks a fund has. 
This is not a pool of money. This is not an account at a bank from 
which doctors are paid. This is nothing more than an accounting device. 
This is just a mechanism that the Federal Government uses to classify 
spending as mandatory instead of discretionary. That is all it is.
  And there are no limits whatsoever. This is an important point. My 
amendment has no limits whatsoever on the amount that Congress can 
appropriate in any given year or in the cumulative total of years for 
veterans' healthcare or other benefits. My amendment doesn't affect 
that in any way whatsoever. Congress can appropriate a trillion dollars 
in a given year.
  What my amendment would do is it would limit the amount of that 
appropriation that could be considered mandatory spending as opposed to 
discretionary spending. That is it. My amendment is 100 percent about 
how the government designates the spending. It has nothing to do with 
how much is actually spent.
  Now, what matters to a veteran who is ill because of a toxic 
exposure? I think what matters to him is that the money is there to 
cover what he needs. That is what he should be concerned about, and 
that will be there.
  What I am trying to limit is the extent to which they can use a 
budgetary gimmick to reclassify spending so that they can go on an 
unrelated spending binge.
  So what would happen if the cost for actually caring for veterans in 
a given year is bigger than the cap we set? Appropriators simply 
appropriate the amount that is needed. My cap has no bearing on how 
much appropriators can spend. It only limits how much gets treated as 
mandatory spending.
  If my amendment is adopted, spending on veterans' benefits would not 
be reduced by one penny. Spending on veterans' families would not be 
reduced by one penny. The $280 billion in new spending as a result of 
the PACT Act would not be reduced by a penny. It would not be offset.
  We have no attempt to make any change to any of that. If anyone is 
suggesting that my amendment would, in

[[Page S3848]]

any way, reduce care for veterans or require rationing of care, they 
are either completely misinformed or they are being dishonest.
  So why does this matter? Why did the authors of the bill want to 
create this device that shifts this spending that is going to happen 
anyway from discretionary spending to mandatory spending? Because we 
have a cap on total discretionary spending, and for any spending that 
gets pulled out of the discretionary spending category and goes to a 
different category, that creates a hole under the cap. Congress will 
fill that hole with spending on who knows what. That is the way this is 
going to play out. That is what is going to happen.
  Now, some people have suggested that my amendment, if adopted, would 
kill the bill. Now, think about that. An amendment that does not cut 
spending on veterans' care or veterans' benefits by one dime but does 
make it harder for Congress to go on an unrelated $400 billion spending 
spree--that is going to kill the bill? Really?
  Well, if that would kill the bill, then it speaks volumes about what 
is really important to the people who would vote no as a result of 
making it clear that unrelated spending is more important than the 
spending on the veterans--if my amendment would kill the bill.
  So I don't think passage of my amendment would kill the bill. It 
would frustrate the efforts of those who want to have the skids greased 
for a massive spending binge. It would definitely do that. But it 
wouldn't cut one dime of spending for veterans' care, and I think in 
the end the bill would pass.
  I have this very simple solution. It allows us to fully fund our 
vets. It eliminates this budgetary gimmick that greases the skids for 
unrelated spending. And I would just urge my colleagues that hiding 
unrelated spending behind the sacrifice our veterans have made is no 
way to go. I would urge support for my amendment.


                Motion to Concur With Amendment No. 5186

  Mr. President, I move to concur in the House message to accompany S. 
3373 with amendment No. 5186.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey] moves to concur 
     in the House amendment to accompany S. 3373 with an amendment 
     numbered 5186.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 5186) is as follows:

       (Purpose: To improve the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund)

       Beginning on page 115, strike line 14 and all that follows 
     through page 117, line 23, and insert the following:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Fund amounts specified 
     in paragraph (2) for investments in--
       ``(A) the delivery of veterans' health care associated with 
     exposure to environmental hazards in the active military, 
     naval, air, or space service in programs administered by the 
     Under Secretary for Health;
       ``(B) any expenses incident to the delivery of veterans' 
     health care and benefits associated with exposure to 
     environmental hazards in the active military, naval, air, or 
     space service, including administrative expenses, such as 
     information technology and claims processing and appeals, and 
     excluding leases as authorized or approved under section 8104 
     of this title; and
       ``(C) medical and other research relating to exposure to 
     environmental hazards.
       ``(2) The amounts specified in this paragraph are not more 
     than the following:
       ``(A) $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2023.
       ``(B) $5,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2024.
       ``(C) $7,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2025.
       ``(D) $11,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2026.
       ``(E) $13,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2027.
       ``(F) $15,900,000,000 for fiscal year 2028.
       ``(G) $17,900,000,000 for fiscal year 2029.
       ``(H) $21,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2030.
       ``(I) $23,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2031.
       ``(J) For fiscal year 2032 and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     an amount equal to the amount specified under this paragraph 
     for the preceding fiscal year increased by the percentage (if 
     any) by which--
       ``(i) the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: 
     Medical Care (CPI-M), as published by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics, for the fiscal year preceding the beginning of 
     the fiscal year for which the increase is made, exceeds
       ``(ii) the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: 
     Medical Care, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year described in 
     clause (i).
       ``(d) Budget Scorekeeping.--(1) Immediately upon enactment 
     of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our 
     Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022, expenses 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Fund in subsection (c) 
     shall be estimated for fiscal year 2023 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year and treated as budget authority that is 
     considered to be direct spending--
       ``(A) in the baseline for purposes of section 257 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 
     U.S.C. 907);
       ``(B) by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate and the Chair of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House of Representatives, as appropriate, for purposes of 
     budget enforcement in the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives;
       ``(C) under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     621 et seq.), including in the reports required by section 
     308(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 639); and
       ``(D) for purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
     2010 (2 U.S.C. 931 et seq.).
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), amounts 
     appropriated to the Fund for fiscal year 2023 and 
     subsequently, pursuant to subsection (c) shall be counted as 
     direct spending under the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) and 
     any other Act.
       ``(B) Any amounts appropriated to the Fund for a fiscal 
     year in excess of the amount specified under subsection 
     (c)(2) for that fiscal year shall be scored as discretionary 
     budget authority and outlays for any estimate of an 
     appropriations Act.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding the Budget Scorekeeping Guidelines 
     and the accompanying list of programs and accounts set forth 
     in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of 
     conference accompanying Conference Report 105-217, and for 
     purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) and the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), the Fund shall be 
     treated, during the period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring 
     our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 and 
     ending on September 30, 2031, as if it were an account 
     designated as `Appropriated Entitlements and Mandatories for 
     Fiscal Year 1997' in the joint explanatory statement of the 
     committee of conference accompanying Conference Report 105-
     217.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, in just a few minutes--in fact, maybe I 
should say finally in just a few minutes--the Senate will vote once 
again on the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise 
to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022, known as the PACT Act.
  Thousands of veterans who answered their call to serve after the 
terrorist attacks of 9/11 suffered the consequences to their health 
with exposure to open burn pits. Many of these veterans are 
simultaneously experiencing a battle with the VA--a battle with their 
health conditions and now a battle with the Department of Veterans 
Affairs--to gain access to healthcare and the benefits that they 
desperately need and, in reality, earned and deserve.
  For more than 2 years, I worked with my colleagues on the Senate 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, its chairman Senator Tester, our 
colleagues in the House and Senate, multiple VSOs, veterans across the 
country, and veterans in Kansas and their families on how we can 
provide toxic-exposed veterans the healthcare benefits that they 
deserve.
  Chairman Tester and I made a commitment to each other to get to this 
point today, and we have had a couple of procedural hurdles. But, 
despite that, I am pleased that we have still brought this bill to the 
floor in a bipartisan manner. Our veterans have waited long enough, and 
it is time to pass the Heath Robinson PACT Act.
  Not only will this legislation provide long overdue healthcare and 
benefits to the 3.5 million post-9/11 veterans who were exposed to burn 
pits, but this legislation will deliver care for all generations of 
veterans, including Vietnam veterans and those who served in Southeast 
Asia suffering from the exposure to Agent Orange.
  No legislation is perfect. Is this bill the way I would draft it if I 
were the only person writing the bill? It is not. It is a legislative 
process that involves a give and take, and we will still have more work 
to do once the legislation is signed into law.
  I remain committed to working with the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, with our veterans service organizations, with individual 
veterans and their families, and with my colleagues

[[Page S3849]]

here in the Senate, both Republican and Democratic, to make certain 
that this legislation is effective for veterans and the unintended 
consequences from this legislation are addressed.
  Once we pass legislation, the work continues because it then has to 
be implemented by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I know from 
experience that that is a challenge, and this bill in particular--with 
the magnitude, the number of veterans affected, the amount of resources 
necessary, the demand for care that will arise under this legislation, 
and the demand for benefits that arises under this legislation--will 
make its implementation a significant challenge. But we are ready and 
able to make certain that the intended results--while there has been a 
lot of demand that we pass legislation, really what we are after are 
intended results, and those intended results are that our veterans 
receive the care and benefits that they deserve.
  There is no doubt that the cost of caring for our veterans is high, 
and the truth is that freedom is not free. There is always a cost to 
war, and we need to remind ourselves that that cost is not fully paid 
when the war ends.
  We are now on the verge of honoring that commitment to America's 
veterans and their families. I support this legislation. I support 
moving forward with a vote in favor of cloture. As to something that we 
thought might have happened earlier, I am pleased that there will be 
amendment votes before we get to that final passage. I expect and urge 
my colleagues, regardless of the outcome of the amendment votes, to 
continue to move this bill forward by taking this opportunity to pass 
the bill.
  By taking advantage of the circumstance we have now worked our way to 
get to, and now that we are at this point, I hope that it passes, the 
Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act, and that, 
with the Presidential signature, it becomes law.
  To my colleagues who have worked on this, I express my gratitude to 
my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, on the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs. I appreciate the opportunity that I have to be in leadership 
on that committee and to work every day on behalf of those who have 
served our Nation.
  Let's pass this legislation. Let's deliver the most comprehensive 
toxic exposure package to veterans in our country's history.
  With that plea and suggestion, 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. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I stand in front of this body, yet again, 
to urge the passage of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring 
Our PACT Act.
  Before I get into my remarks, Senator Moran is on the floor, and I 
listened to a good portion of what he had to say.
  I just want to say thank you, Senator Moran. As a team member on the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, for the last year and a half, we have been 
working in good faith to get a bill that addresses the challenges of 
toxic exposure that our veterans, quite honestly, have endured since 
World War I. With the burn pits and Agent Orange and radiation exposure 
that this bill addresses, I would just say that we would not be here 
today if we had not both committed to work together to get to a result 
that, hopefully--I was a little more sure last week than I am today, 
but, hopefully, we will get to a point where this bill passes.
  We have talked about this bill a lot, and we have talked about what 
it does. Basically, what it does is to make sure that the veterans who 
have been exposed to toxins--in this case, burn pits but also, as I 
said before, Agent Orange and radiation--are made whole again.
  So we get these folks; we train them to be warriors; and we send 
these men and women off to war. We tell them to go out and protect our 
freedoms and protect this country. They do it, and, oftentimes, things 
happen that change their lives. Sometimes those are injuries we can 
see, and sometimes we can't see them. In this particular case, with 
toxic burn pits, they come home, and they have developed disorders 
because they have breathed these toxins in.
  If anybody has ever been around a burning barrel that has plastics in 
it, you know exactly what I am talking about. You breathe these toxins 
in, and it causes cancer, and it causes lung issues.
  The problem is that these folks couldn't get away. These burn pits 
were right outside the camps; they were right next to the chow line; 
they were right next to the beds they slept in, and they had to breathe 
this garbage, sometimes day and night. It has resulted in some pretty 
serious injuries that have resulted oftentimes in death.
  Now, the reason I say that is that, over the last year and a half, 
the Senate's Veterans' Affairs Committee has had several hearings, and 
we have had witnesses come forth who have been impacted by burn pits 
and toxic exposure. I can tell you that some of those folks aren't with 
us today. The toxins got them. So not only was the veteran's life 
ended, which is unfortunate in and of itself, but also the family who 
was dependent on that veteran had their lives turned upside down.
  So it is time that we set that record straight and make sure that 
those folks who have been impacted by war are taken care of. I hope 
that there is nobody in this body who thinks that that is unreasonable 
because the truth is, I think most of the folks in this body have been 
to the Middle East and have seen what a different world that is and how 
it makes me damned glad to be a Montanan and to be an American.
  But we have got the ability today to step up and do the right thing. 
There have been a lot of claims made over the last week or two. I would 
go into those claims and refute those claims, but, quite frankly, I 
don't see the sense in it. If the folks here haven't read this bill and 
if they haven't read the letter that I sent out to every Senator in 
this body earlier today, I would ask that you would. If you have any 
questions, come run me down, and I will answer any of them.
  The fact is, we have done this whole process in a very transparent 
manner--with no surprises, no last-minute stuff put into this bill, no 
slush funds. This is a bill that will work for this country; that will 
work for the taxpayers in this country; and that will work, most 
importantly, for the veterans and their families.
  We have an opportunity, as I said last week, to do the right thing 
today. We have an opportunity to have the American people be proud of 
the Senate and the work they do. I would hope we would get a resounding 
vote on this bill, and I would hope that we wouldn't amend it and for 
it to have to go back to the House because that, once again, would 
delay benefits and do real damage to this bill.
  So I would ask my fellow Senators, when they come to the floor and 
vote, to think about the veterans who are standing outside the Capitol 
out here, to think about the veterans in your home State, and to think 
about the veterans whom you met while they were on Active Duty on your 
codels. Remember them, and do the right thing: vote to pass the 
Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act.
  I yield back all remaining time.


                        Vote on Motion to Concur

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  Under the previous order, the question occurs on the Paul motion to 
concur with an amendment.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page S3850]]

  The result was announced--yeas 7, nays 90, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Leg.]

                                YEAS--7

     Blackburn
     Braun
     Hagerty
     Johnson
     Lee
     Marshall
     Paul

                                NAYS--90

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Burr
     Cornyn
     Leahy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). On this vote, the yeas are 7, the 
nays are 90.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
motion to concur with amendment, the motion is rejected.
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on the Toomey motion to concur with amendment No. 5186.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, a lot has been said about my amendment 
that is completely false, mostly outside of this Chamber, so let me say 
very simply what it does. My amendment does only one thing, it would 
maintain the current policy of classifying currently authorized VA 
healthcare spending as discretionary spending, rather than change that 
classification going forward to mandatory spending as the PACT Act 
would allow.
  My amendment does not cap any spending. It does not reduce veteran 
spending. It does not change the classification of PACT Act spending.
  But by preventing this change in classification, we would prevent a 
budget gimmick that is designed to grease the skids for up to $400 
billion in totally unrelated spending.
  So let's pass the PACT Act, but let's pass it without enabling an 
unrelated $400 billion spending spree. Support my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, the Toomey amendment does place an 
arbitrary limit on the amount of funding that Congress can spend each 
year in support of veterans, those are called caps. Don't take my word 
for it. That comes from the Appropriations Committee and the Budgets 
Committee. And when you place caps, that results in rationing of care.
  Look, just like every other mandatory account that the VA has, you 
come forth as part of the President's budget; the VA has to justify it; 
Congress, Congress, Congress details the estimates and needs for the 
funds, for the purpose, whether it is toxic exposure or anything else; 
it will be reviewed as part of the standard appropriation process.
  I would recommend, if you don't trust your appropriators, to put 
somebody else on the committee, because that is what this all comes 
down to, is the appropriators. I would ask you to vote no on this 
amendment.


                        Vote on Motion to Concur

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to concur with amendment No. 5186.
  Mr. TOOMEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania requests the 
yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. 
Merkley) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Booker
     Burr
     Cornyn
     Leahy
     Merkley
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). On this vote, the yeas are 47, 
the nays are 48.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
motion to concur with the amendment, the motion is not agreed to.
  The motion was rejected.


                Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 5185

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House 
amendment to accompany S. 3373 with amendment No. 5185.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mrs. Blackburn] moves to concur 
     in the House amendment to S. 3373 with an amendment numbered 
     5185.

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask the reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the provision of care under the Veterans Community 
                Care Program for toxic-exposed veterans)

       On page 15, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 105. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE CARE UNDER VETERANS 
                   COMMUNITY CARE PROGRAM FOR TOXIC-EXPOSED 
                   VETERANS.

       Section 1703(d)(1) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) the covered veteran is a toxic-exposed veteran.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, this is the amendment that will allow 
our veterans to immediately move into community care. Our veterans need 
to be able to have access to the care, not just access to the queue.
  The VA will have a problem getting this implemented because the 
current wait time to see a primary care doctor is 100 days. So let's 
not make them wait. Let's give them access to community care so that 
they have the care they have earned and they deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. The Blackburn amendment would provide automatic 
eligibility to community care for any toxic-exposed veteran for any 
condition. However, I want to make it clear that if a veteran should 
ever need care the VA cannot provide, they are automatically eligible 
in that case.
  We can talk about the cost. We can talk about the accountability. We 
could talk about the timelines of going into the private sector. 
Unfortunately,

[[Page S3851]]

we don't have those times, and we don't have those metrics, but what we 
do know is this. The VA is a leader in healthcare in treating our 
veterans for diseases and conditions as a result of their military 
service, and more than that, time after time after time again, we have 
heard that veterans prefer getting their care from the VA. We should 
not privatize the VA. That is what this amendment is about. I would 
appreciate a ``no'' vote.


                        Vote on Motion to Concur

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
concur with the Blackburn amendment.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. 
Merkley) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Booker
     Burr
     Cornyn
     Leahy
     Merkley
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
47.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
motion to concur with amendment, the motion is rejected.
  The motion was rejected.


                          Amendments Withdrawn

  Under the previous order, the motion to refer and the amendments 
pending thereto and the motion to concur with amendment No. 5148 and 
the amendments pending thereto are withdrawn.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, we are poised once again with the 
opportunity to pass a piece of legislation of historic significance, 
something that demonstrates the U.S. Senate can come together and take 
care of Americans, particularly those who served our Nation.
  While it is historic, it is more important to many individuals--
historic for the country, historic for veterans, but important, 
lifesaving, supportive of those who have encountered toxic exposure 
from Vietnam and Southeast Asia through Agent Orange and through burn 
pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. President, I thank the Heath Robinson family and all the 
advocates who got us to this point today. I ask my colleagues to pass 
this legislation, and I ask the President to sign it as quickly as 
possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, 15 years ago, when I was appointed to the 
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I had a Vietnam veteran come up to 
me and say: ``You are not going to treat this generation of veterans 
like you have treated us.'' This bill rights that and makes that 
veteran's request come true. Why? Because we are dealing with toxic 
exposure. In fact, we are even dealing with it with Agent Orange and 
the burn pits.
  This fully pays the cost of war, and I would encourage everybody in 
this body to vote for this motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this long-awaited moment for our Nation's 
veterans is occurring now. The Senate is finally--finally--going to 
pass the most significant expansion of veteran healthcare benefits in 
generations. This is a very good day, a long-awaited day, a day that 
should have happened long ago.
  For decades, many of our Nation's veterans have endured a shameful 
reality. They went abroad to serve our country bravely, got sick from 
toxic exposure in the line of duty, but came home and learned they 
didn't qualify for the benefits they needed to treat their illnesses. 
It is shameful. It is infuriating.
  Today, we tell our veterans suffering from cancers, lung diseases, 
and other ailments from burn pits: The wait is over for the benefits 
you deserve. No more pointless delays on getting the healthcare you 
need. No more jumping through hoops and even hiring lawyers just to get 
an answer from the VA.
  Today, if you are a veteran--from Vietnam to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to 
everywhere in between--and you get sick from burn pit exposure or Agent 
Orange, you will finally be able to get your earned benefits 
guaranteed.
  I want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for 
working together to push the PACT Act over the line, especially 
Senators Tester and Moran, who were the original leaders of the bill, 
my colleague Senator Gillibrand from New York, and I thank in advance 
all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who will vote for this 
much needed legislation.
  Importantly, I want to thank the many veterans, veterans service 
organizations, and advocates, like Jon Stewart and John Feal, who led a 
righteous, mighty movement to get this bill done. It wouldn't have 
happened without you.
  Especially, I want to thank the veterans who camped at the foot of 
Capitol Hill for the past few days, enduring scorching heat and 
drenching rain just to get to this point. They said they would never go 
home until they got this bill done. They are here.
  Well, I have good news. In a few minutes, after this bill passes, you 
can go home knowing the good and great thing you have done and 
accomplished for the United States of America.
  Because of them, veterans everywhere will finally get the dignity and 
care they deserve.
  The PACT Act is now going to the President's desk.
  I thank my colleagues for their work, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.


                        Vote on Motion to Concur

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
concur in the House amendment to S. 3373.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and 
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``yea''.
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy

[[Page S3852]]


     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--11

     Crapo
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Shelby
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cornyn
     Leahy
     Merkley
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). On this vote, the yeas are 86, 
the nays are 11.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
motion to concur, the motion is agreed to.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this is a wonderful moment, especially 
for all the people who have made this happen who are observing it. 
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

                          ____________________