[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.
____________________