Equal Employment for All Act of 2021

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 950 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to state what I think we are all feeling here today, and that is that our prayers are with the Ukrainian people during this very perilous time.

I want to acknowledge the unity displayed in the yesterday afternoon Rules Committee meeting when Democrats and Republicans came together and with one voice condemned Vladimir Putin's blatant aggression, his brutality, and the horrific actions the Russian state is now taking against the people of Ukraine. It was almost as if there was no distinction between political parties, and I think that is as it should be because Vladimir Putin is not a genius, as some have said, and he is not smart. He is a bully. He is a dictator.

I cochair the Human Rights Commission in Congress. We have done countless hearings on his brutality against the Russian people. He jails people he disagrees with, he kills people he disagrees with, and he tortures people he disagrees with. He truly is an international pariah.

After this latest action, he will be in the same category as Kim Jong-un in North Korea.

So I just want to acknowledge the unity yesterday in the Rules Committee, and I want my Republican friends to know how grateful I was to have us all speak as one, especially during this difficult time. I know it is important not just for the Ukrainian people but in Russia that we are speaking as one because when people start to make excuses for the Russian dictator or start to find ways to praise him, that gets played on Russian TV and exaggerated in a way to indicate that somehow we are not unified here when I believe that we are.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 950, providing for consideration of H.R. 3967, the Honoring Our PACT Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Takano, provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and makes in order 28 amendments. Lastly, the rule provides en bloc authority to Chairman Takano and provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, today we are here to stand up for our veterans. For a long time now, more and more have been speaking out--pleading--to be taken seriously about the health impacts of the toxic chemicals they dealt with while serving our country.

Many encountered water at military bases that were contaminated with toxins, like harmful forever chemicals. They breathed in toxic fumes at burn pits where jet fuel was used to incinerate things like paint, petroleum, and plastic. And they were exposed with radiation when being tasked to clean up after nuclear tests, without being given the proper safety equipment.

These were duties we demanded of them. And as a result, many veterans have been left to suffer with severe health challenges like cancers, infertility, and respiratory conditions. Many more have died, and others are just too sick to work.

We aren't talking about just a few people here, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about millions and millions of veterans who answered the call to serve.

When they asked us to take care of them, for too long, they were just brushed aside not just by Congress but also by the Department of Defense, year after year after year.

They were told the science wasn't clear. And they were told that providing the medical care that they needed and that they earned was just too high.

Maybe some bureaucrat somewhere viewed denying veterans' disability claims as an exercise in frugality. Maybe drowning them in paperwork and setting an unreasonably high bar to get benefits just became the norm. I don't know.

But that finally ends here and now, Mr. Speaker. The legislation included in this rule will cut the burdensome red tape. It will streamline the VA's review process, and it will get veterans exposed to toxins the care that they so badly need.

H.R. 3967 tasks the VA with providing standardized trainings to better handle these claims, and it requires them to conduct outreach and provide resources to veterans exposed to deadly chemicals.

Thanks to this bill, no longer will the burden to prove toxic exposure be placed on veterans themselves. And it is about damn time, Mr. Speaker.

If this bill becomes law, it will help an estimated 1.4 million veterans by fiscal year 2031. That is something that we should all be proud of.

The Honoring our PACT Act recognizes that just thanking our veterans for their service isn't enough. We must back up those words with action.

Some may suggest that we should just maintain the status quo or make the scope of this bill much, much smaller. Let me remind them that Congress made the choice to spend trillions

of dollars over the last 20 years on sending our servicemembers into harm's way. Those decisions came at a cost of more than $6 trillion. That is trillion with a T.

How in the world, Mr. Speaker, can anyone justify spending trillions of dollars on sending servicemembers to fight abroad just to nickel and dime them on healthcare costs once they return home? That is unconscionable.

Taking care of toxic-exposed veterans is a cost of war, period. If anyone here has reservations about paying it, they should think long and hard before calling for our servicemembers to fight in another conflict halfway around the world.

Our veterans put their lives on the line for us. They made sacrifices that are hard to even imagine. They fought to protect us, and they shouldn't have to then fight their country for the benefits that they have earned.

Let's take care of our veterans. Let's pass this bill and the underlying legislation. And let's honor our veterans with more than just words.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. I just want to say that he is right. We could probably pass the very short bill that the Republicans have put forward, H.R. 6659, and send it to the President. But our bill, which is actually more than 80 pages, goes into much more depth and covers a lot more.

Republicans want to do just a little bit. We want to actually solve the challenges that so many of our veterans face.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, which states that President Biden would basically sign the bill we are discussing here today into law.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3967--Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT)

Act--Rep. Takano, D-California and 100 cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3967, which would

expand veterans' access to health care and benefits to

address the health effects of harmful environmental exposures

that occurred during military service.

The President believes that our Nation has only one truly

sacred obligation: to properly prepare and equip our service

members when we send them into harm's way and to care for

them and their families when they return home. Far too often,

military service comes with a cost, and we owe it to our

veterans and their families to address these consequences

comprehensively. Unfortunately, it has taken decades to

understand the deleterious effects of environmental

exposures--leaving too many without access to the benefits

and services they need.

H.R. 3967 would make changes to the definitions for who is

eligible for VA health care based on presumed toxic exposure

during military service, including from bum pits, radiation,

or other environmental conditions. H.R. 3967 would also make

changes to the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA's) process

for determining presumptive service connection and mandate

several research studies related to military related

environmental exposures. It would also establish new

registries related to exposures, which would provide new data

on the long-term impacts from environmental exposures. H.R.

3697 also would allow a Federal cause of action related to

contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and

establish training requirements for health providers, and

require an outreach plan to educate veterans about their

eligibility for benefits and services related to toxic

exposure.

The Administration looks forward to working with the

Congress to enact this legislation and ensuring it is

effectively implemented. We must address the toxic legacy of

environmental exposures sustained by veterans during their

military service and fulfill our sacred obligation to our

veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors. We must

also ensure that VA has the resources it needs to implement

this legislation.

We have an opportunity today to move a bill forward that will pass the House, even if many Republicans will not vote for it; send it to the Senate; get them to act on it; and send to the President a bill for him to sign that will actually do the job and be more than just a press release.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we begin on a note of basically saying that it was wonderful that we were all united in standing up to Vladimir Putin and speaking with one voice. I think we need to kind of amend that at this point.

Let me just say that we need to stand with the people of Ukraine. We need to stand with President Zelensky, who has had the guts to stand up to Vladimir Putin, but also to the former President who tried to extort him and who withheld essential defensive military aid in exchange for trying to get from him some manufactured dirt on the President's son. Let's be a little bit careful about what charges we are throwing around here.

Again, I am sorry that my Republican colleagues are feeling the need to come here and play partisan politics in the middle of a global crisis, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Yet, for all their criticism on how this administration is handling the crisis in Ukraine, they have been all over the map on what they would do differently. They talk about energy independence, yet they are the ones who have consistently voted against and opposed green and renewable energy here at home, which is the fastest way to achieve real energy independence.

I include in the Record a February 23 Washington Post opinion piece entitled ``Republicans say Biden is `weak' on Ukraine. What would they do differently?'' By the way, just a spoiler alert, the answer is: They have no idea.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2022]

Opinion: Republicans Say Biden is `Weak' on Ukraine. What Would They

Do Differently?

(By Paul Waldman)

There was a time in American history when foreign crises

were considered a moment for unity. We said ``politics stops

at

the water's edge,'' meaning that partisanship had to be put

aside so the country could show the world a united front, and

both parties usually agreed.

The public acted that way, too. Presidents' approval

ratings would rise whenever we found ourselves in any sort of

conflict with a foreign adversary; this was called the

``rally 'round the flag effect,'' and it occurred even when

things went badly. For instance, President Jimmy Carter's

approval ratings shot up by almost 30 points after Americans

were taken hostage in Tehran.

But no more. Even the most straightforward of foreign

policy challenges become yet another opportunity for the

opposition to say the president is a failure and a villain,

which is what Republicans are doing now as we confront

Russian leader Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

But that doesn't mean the Republican Party can decide what

it believes.

One of Donald Trump's legacies is that in some GOP

quarters, Putin is now regarded as akin to a hero. That

starts with Trump himself, who reacted to the invasion by

calling Putin's aggression ``genius,'' ``smart,'' and

``savvy.'' Meanwhile, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has been

so relentless in passing on the Kremlin's perspective that

Russian state TV regularly airs clips from his show.

That exacerbates the profoundly unsettled nature of

contemporary foreign policy thinking in the GOP. The right

has struggled to find a singular voice over the past 15 years

or so, once the thrill of the Global War on Terror ran

aground in the disaster of the Iraq War.

In the 2016 presidential primaries, Republican candidates

struggled over whether and how to call the war a mistake, and

where that would leave the party's traditional hawkishness.

Then Trump took over, with less a foreign policy doctrine

than a shifting collection of impulses, including a distrust

of ambitious adventures and an obsequiousness toward Putin

that can be described only as pathetic.

So how should a Republican hawk respond to the current

crisis? The answer is clear: Just make it about President

Biden.

The GOP critique is both blessedly free of substance and

plays right into the anxieties about manhood that determine

approximately 75 percent of everything Republicans do these

days.

So whether you're a Putin fanboy or a cold warrior, you

can agree that the real problem here is weakness. Why is this

crisis happening? Because Biden is weak. What should America

do now? Not be weak, because Biden is weak. Is your favorite

baseball team going to win the pennant this year? They would,

if Biden wasn't so weak.

``Biden weakness invited Russian aggression, Republicans

say,'' reads a Fox News headline. Biden is ``the weakest

president that America has ever had,'' says former Trump

administration ambassador to United Nations Nikki Haley. ``No

one fears this pathetic old geezer'' says the National

Review.

The House Republican Conference tweeted a picture of

Biden, with the caption ``This is what weakness on the world

stage looks like.'' Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the

third-ranking Republican in the House, tweeted, ``Biden is

unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. He has consistently

given into Putin's demands and shown nothing but weakness.''

Though some Republicans say the sanctions at the center of

Biden's strategy should have started earlier, you'll have a

hard time finding one who can specify in any detail what

Biden's ``weakness'' toward Russia has consisted of to this

point, nor what a ``strong'' president would be doing

instead. Mounting a ground invasion to take Moscow? Launching

nuclear weapons? What?

If the answer is ``What Biden is doing, but, you know,

more,'' that's not very persuasive. But as far as they're

concerned, ``strength'' isn't something presidents

demonstrate with their actions; it's more of an ineffable

quality that Republican presidents possess by definition

while Democratic presidents lack.

Consider Trump. Short of literally getting down on his

hands and knees to shine Putin's shoes, there's almost no way

you could imagine Trump having been weaker toward Putin than

he actually was. Trump continually praised the Russian

dictator, dismissed his misdeeds and went out of his way to

denigrate NATO--just as Putin would want.

It culminated in the utterly disgraceful display at the

2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump was asked about Russian

interference in the 2016 election and declared he was taking

Putin's word over the analysis of U.S. intelligence agencies,

because ``President Putin was extremely strong and powerful

in his denial today.''

It was so embarrassing that even Republicans were shocked;

then-Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said Trump ``made us look

like a pushover.'' Sen. John McCain called it ``one of the

most disgraceful performances by an American president in

memory.'' Nevertheless, today Republicans claim that when it

came to Russia, Trump was a paragon of strength.

And however this crisis ends, they will insist that

everything would have worked out far better if only Biden

were stronger. Whatever that means.

To be clear, everyone has the right to criticize the

president; having politics end at the water's edge brings its

own problems. Nor is there anything wrong with intraparty

differences. But rather than a lively debate over alternative

courses of action, what we're seeing now from the GOP is

mostly juvenile name-calling.

Not that we had much reason to expect anything different.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to respond, because I like the gentleman too much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, two quick things. One, my friends are touting this whatever it is, this all-of-the-above approach to dealing with our energy challenges. But I am looking at this proposal, and it just seems it is the same old, same old, fossil fuels, fossil fuels, fossil fuels. I wonder who wrote this. I wonder where this came from.

Why isn't there any mention of green energy or clean energy or solar energy or renewable energy, any of the things that, quite frankly, the majority of the American people want us to do? Why isn't it here?

Well, I will make a suggestion to people who are tuning in: Follow the money. Follow the money. This is Big Oil's wish list. If you want to continue to find ourselves in circumstances, whenever there is an international crisis, that we have to kowtow to Big Oil, then listen to them.

But on the Democratic side, we want to wean ourselves off of the same old, same old. And ``all-of-the-above,'' by the way, is not just oil, oil, oil.

The second thing I want to say is that my friends on the other side always love to talk about how much they support our veterans. Well, we actually have a bill here that will support our veterans. It is a big deal. You all received a letter from all the leading veterans' service organizations of this country saying to please pass this bill.

They don't want to talk about it. They say: Oh, support this minuscule bill, the alternative that we are putting up here, by the way, which our veterans' organizations do not prefer.

If you really want to help our veterans, if you are sincere about what you say when you say let's support our veterans, then how about voting that way. Talk is cheap around here. How about putting your vote where your rhetoric is and supporting this underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about a major veterans bill, and the gentleman couldn't even bring himself to mention veterans once in his statement.

To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, talking about taking all cars off the road, who is talking about that? I will tell the gentleman that if we go ahead with what he wants to do on the Keystone pipeline, that is equivalent to adding another 5 million cars on the road. That is what that would mean to our environment.

My Republican friends, if they want to think small when it comes to veterans, have at it. Veterans' organizations are watching. We are hearing from veterans all across the country who want this bill passed. They want us to pass this comprehensive bill. We will do that.

If you want to do your minuscule bill, you have a substitute, you can vote for it. It is in your substitute. We want to actually do something in a comprehensive way to meet the concerns that our veterans have expressed for years and years and years. If you want to take a pass, go ahead. That is what you do on our most important issues. This probably is no exception.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that President Biden didn't try to extort President Zelensky by withholding money to get him to manufacture dirt on one of his political opponents. But I find this a little bit comical.

My Republican friends say that they want to bring up this Senate bill, which is much narrower than what we are doing right now, yet they want you to defeat the previous question not so they can bring up that Senate bill, but so they can bring up this giveaway to the oil companies. Again, follow the money. Follow the money. This is a bill that was written in some back room in some oil company and, quite frankly, it is unconscionable. They never let a crisis go to waste.

Today we are talking about trying to help our veterans, and it would be nice if on this one issue of helping our veterans we could all come together, but I guess that is asking too much.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an April 28, 2021, Military.com article titled: ``VA Secretary Wants More Vets Sickened by Burn Pits to File Claims, But Many Are Still Being Turned Away,'' and I include in the Record an April 12, 2021, ``NBC News'' article titled: ``Veterans Face Uphill Battle to Receive Treatment For `Burn Pit' Exposure.''

[From Military.com, Apr. 28, 2021]

VA Secretary Wants More Vets Sickened by Burn Pits To File Claims, But

Many Are Still Being Turned Away

(By Steve Beynon)

Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough

wants more veterans who believe they were sickened by

exposure to burn pits overseas to seek help from the

department, despite many being turned away.

``We're urging vets to come forward with their claims,''

McDonough said at a press briefing Monday. ``Our commitment

is to treat each claim with the care it deserves. As we get

more claims, we can aggregate those claims to draw bigger

conclusions.''

As of March 31, the VA had denied 72% of burn pit claims,

according to agency data obtained by Military.com. Between

June 2007 and March 31, the VA processed 15,640 disability

compensation claims related to burn pit exposure. Of those,

3,510 veterans had at least one burn pit issue granted.

The top three diagnoses related to burn pits are bronchial

asthma, chronic bronchitis and allergic rhinitis, according

to department data. The most common reasons for a veteran to

be denied is not having a diagnosed medical condition or

being unable to connect the condition to their service--43.1%

and 42.8% of denials, respectively.

But the data doesn't reflect the scope of the issue. The

number of patients filing claims might be disproportionately

small given VA estimates that 3.5 million veterans have been

exposed to burn pits since 1990. It is unclear how many are

sick due to their exposure or have died as a result.

McDonough suggests that more data is needed, and he wants

more veterans to seek help from the VA so officials can get a

better grasp on the issue.

The burn pit data also could be inherently flawed. To get

the data, the VA had to use text mining, searching for

keywords such as ``burn pit'' and ``burn pits'' in its

patient databases, according to department records. This

means patients coming forward with issues related to burn

pits might not automatically be listed as burn pit patients

if that phrase wasn't used in their records.

Out of the 2.5 million Global War on Terrorism veterans,

781,384 have filed claims related to respiratory issues.

According to VA data obtained by Military.com, 63% were

granted. Of all the GWOT veterans, 42,686 filed for claims

related to cancer; 37% of those claims were granted.

The VA's research shows GWOT veterans are three times more

likely than non-deployed veterans to file claims related to

respiratory issues and twice as likely to file claims for

cancer.

``Although the GWOT-deployed and GWOT non-deployed

population sizes are relatively the same, the GWOT-deployed

cohort has more than two times the number of service-

connected cancers,'' according to the agency's findings.

Burn pits are often referred to as the post-9/11

generation's Agent Orange, referencing the bureaucratic maze

and uneven claims process veterans have to navigate, and what

could be a decades-long legislative fight to issue easy-to-

access health care and disability compensation.

The House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees and

advocacy groups have made toxic exposure the top issue this

year. Congress is looking at some two dozen bills, ranging

from incremental improvements to sweeping health care bills

for all 3.5 million veterans exposed to burn pits and other

toxic environments.

But it's unclear what can actually make it to President Joe

Biden's desk. Some lawmakers and advocates are concerned over

what is very likely to be a huge tab to cover the cost of

opening the VA up to a huge swath of new patients.

Mr. Speaker, the world is watching. And I am not going to be lectured by someone who takes their marching orders from Donald Trump, who said that Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a genius and savvy move. I wish the gentleman would have condemned that.

Listening to that speech, you would think that Joe Biden invaded Ukraine. I mean, he spent all this time criticizing Joe Biden, John Kerry, and everybody else but hardly criticized Vladimir Putin.

You know, look, I also wish, because I think it would be helpful for this country and a signal to the world, if the gentleman who just spoke would reprimand Members of his own party who cozy up to white nationalists and go to pro-Putin rallies. That would send a signal to people in this country and to people around the world on whose side we are on.

Bottom line is, the people of Ukraine are being invaded by a brutal dictator, Vladimir Putin. And when their standard-bearer, Donald Trump, was in charge, he spread propaganda about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, which was a lie. He ousted a well-regarded U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine because they weren't doing what he wanted to in terms of finding dirt on his political opponents. He froze military assistance to Ukraine; they said nothing. He withheld a White House meeting with Zelensky, turned Ukraine policy over to Giuliani--I could go on and on and on.

We are not going to be lectured by them. Instead, we are going to move forward and pass a bill to help America's veterans, with or without them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I want to thank and acknowledge Jeff Gohringer, who has served as the communications director for the House Committee on Rules in both the majority and minority over the last 6 years. Today is his last day with the Committee on Rules, and I speak for Members and staff on both sides of the aisle when I say to Jeff that we are grateful

for your years of service in this institution. We wish you well in your future endeavors, and you will always have a home here.

I also thank James Fitzella, who is leaving as well. The staff are incredible on the Committee on Rules, and James will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that we heard a lot on the other side and barely a mention about our veterans. The gentlewoman from Washington, who came on the floor just recently and read the oil company talking points, couldn't even bring herself to mention veterans once.

The bill that we are talking about here today is to make sure veterans who have been exposed to toxic chemicals, who get cancer, who get other ailments, get the healthcare they need.

You would like to think that we could all come together on it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania keeps on talking about this narrow bill. I mean, they are not even serious about it because if they were, they would have used the previous question vote, which would give them the right to control the floor, to bring that up. But they didn't. Instead, they are bringing up an oil company's wish list.

This really is obnoxious. I get it. They don't like President Biden, and they will let no crisis go by without trying to make it about President Biden.

But let me just say this: We should be together in standing with the people of Ukraine, and we should be together in standing with our veterans.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 950

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 6858) to strengthen United States energy security,

encourage domestic production of crude oil, petroleum

products, and natural gas, and for other purposes. All points

of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The

bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion

except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 6858.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3967, the PACT Act. I wish that this were not the case. I would love to be here today standing proud alongside the chairman in support of this bill. I know Ranking Member Bost would as well.

I am new to Congress, but I understand that, historically, the Veterans' Affairs Committee would work on a bipartisan basis to advance legislation of this magnitude. The MISSION Act and the Forever GI Bill are wonderful examples of the majority and minority in the House and Senate working together in prior Congresses on a compromise that both sides could support and send to the President's desk. That is how Congress should work.

That is why they used to say that those of us on the Veterans' Affairs Committee would leave our party affiliations at the door, and that the Veterans' Affairs Committee was the most bipartisan committee in Congress. That is no longer the case under this Democrat majority. The PACT Act is a sad example of that.

My fellow Republicans and I want to work with the majority to create a fair and consistent pathway for healthcare benefits for toxic-exposed veterans. This is an issue we care deeply about, for which I have a personal association, and have made our top priority in the 117th Congress.

But the majority has consistently refused to meaningfully communicate with us on this bill. In fact, the majority significantly rewrote major portions and components of the PACT Act less than 2 weeks ago and refused to even discuss those changes with those of us in the minority.

Because we did not work together to resolve our differences, the bill has serious flaws that we were unable to resolve. Already, the manager's amendment would extend benefits to more veterans without scientific justification, showing just how slippery a slope this bill would set.

As an alternative, I support creating a fair and consistent process for the VA to decide whether benefits are warranted for certain military toxic exposure events.

VA should base this decision on criteria that weighs the strength of scientific evidence supporting a link between the development of a condition and toxic exposure. In fact, for the past 2 years during the pandemic, we have heard repeatedly from the opposite side about following the science.

If the VA determines that there is at least a 50 percent chance that these veterans' disabilities are linked to toxic exposure, then VA should grant benefits on a presumptive basis.

The PACT Act attempts to create such a framework, but I believe more discussion is needed to determine if it is the best path forward. That is especially important since the VA began piloting its own program for deciding whether there is a scientific link between a disability and toxic exposure last year.

Under VA's model, certain Gulf war and post-9/11 veterans who were exposed to airborne hazards and develop asthma, sinusitis, and rhinitis became eligible for benefits last September. And just this past week, VA announced it will provide compensation to certain veterans who are diagnosed with nine rare respiratory cancers.

VA's decisions were based on science. However, it is unclear if all the conditions under Chairman Takano's bill would meet the scientific threshold under his framework or under the VA's.

Furthermore, the PACT Act could also flood VA with so many new mandates that veterans already receiving care and benefits wait longer. Veterans wait too long for VA services right now. I hear frequently from veterans in Iowa who can't get the care they need, are waiting months and, in some States, even years for the benefits they have earned. I don't know of a Member in this body who can't say the same thing.

Making those veterans wait even longer is unacceptable, and it could be unprecedented where the claims process is concerned.

In 2013, the disability claims backlog peaked at 600,000 pending claims. Veterans were waiting years to receive an initial decision of their claim, and then, if it was denied, they were waiting even longer while the VA processed their appeal.

VA has made some improvements to how disability claims are processed since 2013, but the Department is still years away from developing the information technology needed to truly expedite claims processing.

If the PACT Act were enacted, VA estimates the disability claims backlog could reach over 1.5 million claims by the end of fiscal year 2023. That is more than double the height of the backlog in 2013.

If veterans were waiting years for their benefits 9 years ago, imagine how long they would have to wait today for a backlog that is more than two times the size it was then. That is completely unreasonable.

The PACT Act is also unacceptable for taxpayers. CBO estimates the PACT Act would require over $300 million in new government spending. Not a penny of those costs are offset.

Additionally, some of the amendments we will be voting on would increase the costs by millions of dollars in new mandatory spending on top of that.

You will hear some say that this is just the cost of war. Anyone who has served, or has a loved one who serves, like I have, and do, know what war costs. They also know that veterans pay taxes, too. They also know that veterans have children and grandchildren whose futures they don't want to be anymore burdened with debt than they already are.

The PACT Act costs more than the combined discretionary budgets of nine Cabinet-level departments. Think about that. And then think about inflation and our national debt, which is already skyrocketing and is causing American taxpayers to pinch pennies.

We are not doing right by our veterans by being fiscally irresponsible in their name, and I say that as a veteran myself.

Finally, there is no clear or quick path forward in the Senate for the PACT Act. In comparison, we could send legislation to the President's desk today that would help sick veterans get the care they need.

The Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act would let toxic-exposed post-9/11 combat veterans enroll in the VA healthcare system. It is bipartisan, and it has already passed the Senate last month.

I understand the majority would like to go to conference over the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act and the PACT Act, but I also understand that the majority supports the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act because they included it as a provision in the Rules Committee print of the PACT Act.

If we all agree that the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act is a good policy, why would we delay its enactment?

Every day that the House fails to send it to the President is another day that veterans are deprived of lifesaving care. Nothing could be more wrongheaded than that.

The Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act is the correct first step toward this process. It will deliver needed healthcare to toxic-exposed veterans and buy us the time to work on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to deliver other benefits and services to them down the line. They would at least have healthcare now.

We should have done this throughout this congressional session, but we haven't even started yet. Sick veterans should not pay the price for our inaction.

Rather than pass the PACT Act in the House, with its many flaws and an extremely high likelihood of dying in the Senate, we must pass the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more that we can act today, and we can forward legislation to the desk of the President for his signature by passing the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act today, so that there is not another Sergeant Wesley Black who is denied healthcare while the VA processes his claims.

We would be more than delighted to help the President in honoring his initiative, as he stated last night in the State of the Union, by today passing the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who has served or has a loved one who serves, like I have and do, knows the cost of war good and well.

Veterans pay taxes, too. Veterans also have children and grandchildren that they don't want to burden with debt. The Honoring our PACT Act costs more than the combined discretionary budgets of nine Cabinet-level departments: Transportation, Commerce, Homeland Security, State, HUD, Interior, Justice, Energy, and Labor.

We shouldn't dismiss those massive costs so easily. Just as we have a moral responsibility to care for our veterans, we have a moral responsibility to understand the real-world consequences that we can already see in skyrocketing inflation and national debt. Congress should have to pay our bills just like our constituents do.

I am not downplaying the importance of benefits. Getting the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act signed into law may be the first step in this fight, but it would be a lifesaving one. It does no good to have benefits if you are not alive to have them. Republicans invited Jim Price, a toxic-exposed veteran and widower of one, to testify, and he says it better than I could. In Jim's words, ``Benefits mean nothing if you are no longer alive.''

Chairman Takano acknowledged last week that he has not even started talking to the Senate about a compromise on this bill. That means we are months away from a deal, if we can even find one. Meanwhile, veterans could receive lifesaving healthcare now. Some veterans don't have that long to wait. They need that healthcare now.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, section 706 comes from H.R. 6482, which was referred to the Judiciary Committee, not the Veterans' Affairs Committee. H.R. 6482 has not gone through the regular order of this Congress. This is another blatant example of the Democrat majority pushing through legislation without careful consideration of the impact it may have on the Federal Government. Moreover, this provision is a departure from past precedent because it would allow veterans to sue the United States for a disability incurred in military service. This type of change would not simply be air dropped into a bill without careful consideration within this committee.

The VA estimates that the PACT Act will cause an unprecedented backlog of over 1.5 million disability claims. This will lead to longer wait times for veterans and put a strain on DVA resources and personnel. An increase in claims decisions is likely to result in an increase in appeals, which will add to the appeals backlog.

All veterans, not just toxic-exposed veterans, will be forced to wait months or years for a final decision on their disability claim or appeal. This is a big risk to take when there is little to no science backing the benefits expansion under this bill.

And our moral responsibilities? What will I say to the veterans in my district who could get healthcare now if we refuse to consider a bill that will pass?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the benefits provided under this bill have little to no scientific basis. For example, in 2020, the National Academies reviewed 11 of the 24 burn pit-related conditions in the bill but could not establish a link between exposure to burn pits and those 11 conditions. The other 13 conditions were not reviewed, which further proves the point that more research is needed.

It is not fair to provide benefits to select veterans under this bill while telling other veterans to wait for the science. Instead, there needs to be a fair and consistent process to decide if there is enough evidence supporting the extension of benefits to a condition that may be linked to toxic exposure.

This bill sets a dangerous precedent that we cannot afford to maintain for the next group of toxic-exposure veterans wanting benefits with no scientific support. May I also add that veterans need not be in a battle for healthcare if we pass today the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, which has already passed in the Senate.

We have received zero assurance from the VA that the PACT Act can be implemented without disrupting services to veterans. I hear every day from veterans who cannot get care in a timely manner through the VA right now. The PACT Act would make millions more veterans eligible for care through the same system, much more than the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act would, and of course that will have implications for access. Even VA's own providers have expressed concern about the impact an influx of new patients without accommodations and resources will have, clogging up an already overburdened system.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the VA for initiating a review of these nine rare cancers to determine if they are linked to airborne hazard exposure while deployed. I am looking forward to hearing about the VHA's research, which supported the expansion of benefits to these Gulf war and post-9/11 veterans.

Likewise, I am interested in learning more about the number of veterans who would be impacted by this decision and the effect it will have on the VA.

However, these nine cancers are only a subset of the conditions included in Chairman Takano's bill. I believe more scientific research is needed to determine if additional disabilities are linked to airborne hazard exposure.

Both the majority and the minority want world-class healthcare for our veterans, and thus, it underscores our concern with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the veterans who are sick may not be able to get benefits immediately under this bill since they will be waiting for the VA to process their claims during a 1.5 million-claim backlog.

There is also no guarantee VA will get it right the first time. The VA does not have a great track record of accurately processing claims while working to address a massive backlog.

For example, during the Obama administration, VA took shortcuts to artificially reduce the backlog, such as the provisional denial program. We should be focused on getting veterans the care they need now to recover while continuing to work on the best path forward to other benefits.

Additionally, without a clear path forward in the Senate on the PACT Act, veterans will continue to wait while Congress works to get it right.

The revisions to the presumptive framework in Title 2 were unveiled less than 2 weeks ago. We have not had a chance to discuss these changes publicly with stakeholders and VA. As such, it is unclear if the changes made by the Rules Committee Print version would improve or hinder VA's efforts to establish a consistent scientific process for deciding when to extend benefits based on toxic exposure. And by doing so, as my colleague suggests, we may, in fact, not go down a pathway determining why a veteran is ill and what other exposures may have caused their illness.

I believe more time is needed to refine the presumptive framework in this bill to ensure that veterans will receive a fair look at which conditions are linked to toxic exposure. We can pass the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act now as the first step to get these veterans the healthcare that they need as we continue to develop a bipartisan, bicameral way forward on the presumptive framework.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the concerns the minority had with this bill were laid out during the markup of the PACT Act, as well as the roundtable last month. We did not see the revised text until it was published by the Rules Committee.

At the ranking member's direction, the minority staff were willing to work through these concerns with your staff line-by-line, but this was rebuffed.

The minority staff was also told that any proposed changes to the scope of the bill would not be accepted.

It is clear that the majority was not willing to address our concerns with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the question from Republicans is why not pass a bill that has already passed the Senate that would give access to lifesaving healthcare to our veterans now?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans agree with Democrats about how important it is to help veterans suffering from toxic exposure. However, there is nothing bipartisan about how the majority has gone about this.

The majority has consistently refused to meaningfully communicate with us on this bill. We are seeing similar refusal to work together in good faith on other fronts, as well.

This is the third controversial veterans bill that has gone before the Rules Committee this year alone.

In 2017, when this committee had a Republican chairman, The New York Times called the Veterans' Affairs Committee ``the most bipartisan in Congress.'' That is not the case in the House anymore, not since the Democrat majority took charge.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the blue water Navy and Agent Orange were different. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine concluded that, given the passage of time and lack of sampling data, there was not enough information to conclusively determine whether blue water Navy veterans were exposed to Agent Orange. However, we already knew what conditions were linked to Agent Orange.

On the other hand, VA already presumes that certain veterans were exposed to burn pits, but it is unclear what conditions are linked to that exposure. The use of burn pits was more recent, and much of the data needed to determine whether benefits are warranted for certain conditions is still available.

That is why I support and why I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6659, which has already passed the Senate, which would advance research into health benefits for toxic exposures and get needed healthcare for those veterans now.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased during last night's State of the Union that President Biden highlighted the need to address the needs of toxic-exposed veterans.

As I stated earlier in debate just yesterday, VA announced it is initiating the rulemaking process to extend benefits to certain Gulf war and post-9/11 veterans who developed nine respiratory cancers.

Clearly, Secretary McDonough has the authority to provide benefits for veterans on a presumptive basis. I applaud the Secretary for exercising his authority to provide toxic-exposed veterans with the earned benefits based on science, and I urge him to continue to do so.

We should pass the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act now so we can send it straight to the President's desk immediately while we continue to work with our Senate colleagues and VA on the right solution for additional benefits. However, toxic-exposed veterans will not receive healthcare or benefits simply by virtue of passing the PACT Act in the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the en bloc package. Many of these amendments strengthen the underlying bill. However, I wish we could have more time in committee to fully examine the impact these amendments would have on this legislation.

While I will not oppose the en bloc package, some of the included amendments are well outside the Committee on Veterans' Affairs' jurisdiction or may require additional work, and I must highlight these concerns.

Three of the amendments clearly impact the operations of the Department of Defense and are well outside the Department of Veterans Affairs' expertise or mission.

Representative Bush's amendment No. 3 would necessitate that the VA review known cases of toxic exposure on military installations both in the United States and abroad. Bush amendment No. 4 requires a study of health outcomes related to waste from the Manhattan Project.

If anyone is going to conduct such reviews, it should be the Department of Defense, not the Department of Veterans Affairs. VA's time and resources need to be focused on meeting the needs of veterans, not on investigating activities on military bases or as part of military programs.

Yet another amendment, Representative Pappas' amendment No. 17, would require VA to conduct a study outside of VA's expertise and purview.

This amendment would require Virginia to coordinate with the Department of Defense to provide training to Active Duty servicemembers on toxic exposure. It is inappropriate for the VA to be involved in training Active Duty servicemembers, that is entirely the DOD's purview.

Finally, Representative Scanlon's amendment 24 would authorize an additional $150 million in discretionary funding for VA's Veterans Benefits Management System, ahead of an expected drastic increase in disability claims should the Honoring our PACT Act be enacted. I agree with the intent. We need to make additional investments in benefits IT, but this is not the right way to do it.

According to the CBO, the bill already includes funding for IT improvements. We have no plan from the VA about how various systems should be modernized and how much it will ultimately cost. The worst thing we could do is throw money at individual systems with no coordination.

Moreover, this amendment improperly earmarks $150 million for VBMS, which is a dysfunctional and flawed system. VBMS has cost over $1 billion and has been struggling since its inception 10 years ago. I am not comfortable with spending another $150 million on it unless the VA gives us a plan explaining how it can be modernized.

Moving forward, we need to work on allocating funding where it can have

the most impact. Again, I support the intent and look forward to ensuring that any IT funding supports veterans in the manner intended.

As I stated earlier, while I do have concerns about these four amendments, I will support the en bloc package and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Illinois, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Ranking Member Bost's amendment to replace the Honoring our PACT Act with the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act.

The Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act is a bipartisan legislation that has already passed in the Senate. It would expand healthcare for toxic-exposed veterans by extending VA's enhanced combat eligibility period from 5 to 10 years. That would give post-9/11 combat veterans a decade after leaving the military to enroll in VA care without having a service-connected disability rating or a low income.

Those who have been out of the military for more than a decade would be able to enroll during a 1-year open enrollment period. The bill would also improve training for VA staff on how to recognize and treat toxic exposure; research on the impact of toxic exposure; and outreach about the resources available to veterans regarding toxic exposure. CBO has estimated that the bill would cost $1 billion in discretionary funding over 10 years.

This is in stark contrast to the over $300 billion discretionary and mandatory costs of the PACT Act.

The Healthcare for Burn Pit Veterans Act would not expand compensation benefits for toxic-exposed veterans.

I appreciate the importance of benefits. That is why Ranking Member Bost and I remain committed to working across the aisle and Capitol to improve benefits for toxic-exposed veterans.

The framework that the PACT Act establishes to do that, however, is unworkable, and I am afraid the PACT Act will stall without a clear path forward in the Senate.

I don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good on an issue as important as this one. I also don't want to let this Congress go by without helping veterans who are sick and dying from toxic exposure. As a veteran and as a doctor who has cared for sick and dying patients, that would be an unacceptable outcome for me.

Passage of the Healthcare for Burn Pit Veterans Act is a critical first step in saving the lives of veterans suffering from toxic exposure. The House should not let another day go by without sending it to the President. The stakes are too high.

Behind me is a picture of Lauren Price. She passed away from conditions she and her husband Jim believe were related to toxic exposure. Ranking Member Bost invited Jim to testify last year about Lauren's legacy. During his testimony, Jim stressed the need to provide veterans like her with VA healthcare. As he said, benefits don't mean much if a veteran isn't alive to get them because they didn't get the healthcare they need and earned.

Jim's message is an important one. Some veterans cannot afford to keep waiting for Congress to agree on a comprehensive way forward. That would be a monumental task, and we have not even started it yet. That is why the House must pass the Healthcare for Burn Pit Veterans Act today. I hope we will.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to my colleague, Ranking Member Bost has made it abundantly clear that this is a first step--not a last step--but an initial first step in getting veterans the healthcare that they need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge and implore my colleagues to pass Mr. Bost's amendment No. 5.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to introduce this amendment alongside my colleague, Congresswoman Julia Brownley, from California.

This amendment is based on our bill, H.R. 4794, the Making Advances in Mammography and Medical Options for Veterans Act. It would ensure that toxic-exposed veterans can access mammography screens through the VA healthcare system. As a doctor I know how very important preventive care is. Early detection of cancer or other serious conditions can be lifesaving for patients.

Veterans deserve the very highest quality care that we can offer them, and that certainly includes timely access to mammograms, particularly for the growing number of women who are volunteering to serve in our Armed Forces.

I thank Congresswoman Brownley for working with me on this amendment, and I am glad that it was made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support that, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 950, I call up the bill (H.R. 3967) to improve health care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 3967, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3967, as amended, the Honoring our PACT Act of 2021.

When we sent our servicemembers into harm's way, we made a pact to care for them when they came home. But for too long, Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs have been slow to accept responsibility and cost of that care, citing high costs or lack of absolute, scientific proof of illness connections to service. The result is a disability claims process that is cumbersome and places the burden of proof for toxic exposure on veterans themselves.

Every day more and more veterans speak out about exposure to environmental hazards and other toxic substances during their military service.

Recently, I put out a call encouraging toxic exposed veterans to share their experiences with the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. We heard from thousands of veterans in 49 States. These reflections are very powerful, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to share some of them with you now.

Navy veteran Ed described how toxic exposures overwhelmed his senses. He wrote: ``You could not escape the jet fuel. You could see it, smell it, and taste it.''

I heard from Marine veteran Mike who said: ``Even when we weren't actively engaged in dumping items into the burn pit, we were still exposed.''

Air Force veteran Christopher R. described his dealings with VA stating: ``I continue to be rejected because they say that it is impossible to prove that it is service related. I never worked with chemicals before my service or since. I feel like a nuisance to the VA health system.''

I heard from a widow of Army veteran Austin Monk who said: ``No wife should have to bury her 22-year-old husband because of his exposure to unsafe conditions while in service to his country.''

These stories are heart-wrenching and frustrating. Our veterans are fighting their own government to grant them the care and benefits they have earned.

We should be outraged listening to these stories, and it should be clear how urgent passing the Honoring our PACT Act is for our veterans. Veterans and veterans service organizations agree.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from more than 42 veterans service organizations.

February 24, 2022.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker,

House of Representatives.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader,

House of Representatives.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: On behalf

of the American service members and veterans we represent,

the undersigned representatives of our respective Veterans

and Military Service Organizations call on the House to

expeditiously consider and pass into law the Honoring Our

PACT Act (H.R. 3967).

Throughout our history, and most recently over the course

of more than 20 years of war in the post-9/11 era, service

members and veterans suffered prolonged exposure to dangerous

toxic substances, such as burn pits that destroyed trash,

medical and human waste, chemicals, and fuel, in and around

the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. Of

the hundreds of thousands of our members who have suffered

these exposures, many have returned home sick (or would

become ill), and many have also died of their injuries.

Collectively, we have spent years educating Congress,

national leaders, and the public on the enormous scope of the

injuries faced by our community. There have been small-scale

measures to boost education, training, research, and outreach

to begin to address the problem. Over the last several years,

many of our organizations have worked together to assemble

the components of comprehensive toxic exposure legislation

that provides VA health care, a new process to determine

future presumptive conditions, and provide overdue disability

benefits to thousands of veterans from all wars and eras

suffering from toxic exposures.

There have been a number of bills introduced in the House

that address different aspects of the toxic exposures puzzle,

however the Honoring Our PACT Act is the only bill that

provides a truly comprehensive solution. Although many of us

have supported some of these other burn pits and toxic

exposure bills, none of them provides a complete and lasting

solution for veterans who are or may become ill as a result

of toxic exposures. Consequently, when the Honoring Our PACT

Act is brought to the floor for consideration, if any such

legislation is offered as an amendment or motion to restrict

or substitute, rather than supplement, the underlying bill,

we would urge all members to oppose such amendments or

motions.

Our organizations call on the House to pass the Honoring

Our PACT Act without further delay, to finally provide those

who have laid their lives on the line for all Americans with

the health care and benefits they need and deserve.

Sincerely,

Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA), Association of

Military Surgeons of the United States (AMSUS), Army Aviation

Association of America, Burn Pits 360, California Communities

Against Toxics, Cease Fire Campaign, Commissioned Officers

Association of the USPHS, Disabled American Veterans (DAV),

Dixon Center for Military and Veterans Services, Enlisted

Association of the National Guard of the United States

(EANGUS), Environmental Working Group (EWG), Fleet Reserve

Association (FRA), Gold Star Wives of America, GO2 Foundation

for Lung Cancer.

Green Beret Foundation, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of

America (IAVA), Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Service

Women's Action Network (SWAN), Military Chaplains

Association, Military Officers Association of America (MOAA),

Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH), Military-Veterans

Advocacy, Minority Veterans of America, National Association

of County Veterans Service Officers, National Military Family

Association (NMFA), National Veterans Legal Services Program

(NVLSP), Naval Enlisted Reserve Association (NERA), Non

Commissioned Officers Association (NCOA).

Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), Reserve Organization

of America (ROA), Student Veterans of America (SVA), Task

Force Dagger Foundation, The American Legion, The Enlisted

Association (TREA), Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors

(TAPS), United Soldiers and Sailors of America, United States

Army Warrant Officers Association, Veteran Warriors, Veterans

of Foreign Wars (VFW), Veterans Prostate Cancer Awareness,

Vietnam Veterans of America VVA), Wounded Warrior Project

(WWP).

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Nancy Pelosi, our Speaker, for her commitment to bring this bill to the floor. After years of diligent input from my colleagues, our staff, VA, VSOs, and toxic- exposed veterans themselves, I am confident that we are bringing the best possible version of this bill up for a vote.

The administration agrees and has stated that it ``strongly supports'' this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy for H.R. 3967.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3967--Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT)

Act--Rep. Takano, D-California and 100 cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3967, which would

expand veterans' access to health care and benefits to

address the health effects of harmful environmental exposures

that occurred during military service.

The President believes that our Nation has only one truly

sacred obligation: to properly prepare and equip our service

members when we send them into harm's way and to care for

them and their families when they return home. Far too often,

military service comes with a cost, and we owe it to our

veterans and their families to address these consequences

comprehensively. Unfortunately, it has taken decades to

understand the deleterious effects of environmental

exposures--leaving too many without access to the benefits

and services they need.

H.R. 3967 would make changes to the definitions for who is

eligible for VA health care based on presumed toxic exposure

during military service, including from burn pits, radiation,

or other environmental conditions. H.R. 3967 would also make

changes to the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA's) process

for determining presumptive service connection and mandate

several research studies related to military related

environmental exposures. It would also establish new

registries related to exposures, which would provide new data

on the long-term impacts from environmental exposures. H.R.

3697 also would allow a Federal cause of action related to

contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and

establish training requirements for health providers, and

require an outreach plan to educate veterans about their

eligibility for benefits and services related to toxic

exposure.

The Administration looks forward to working with the

Congress to enact this legislation and ensuring it is

effectively implemented. We must address the toxic legacy of

environmental exposures sustained by veterans during their

military service and fulfill our sacred obligation to our

veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors. We must

also ensure that VA has the resources it needs to implement

this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from The Independence Fund.

The Independence Fund,

February 23, 2022.

Hon. Mark Takano,

Chair, House Committee on Veterans Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mike Bost,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Veterans Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Takano and Ranking Member Bost: The

Independence Fund endorses the Honoring Our PACT Act (H.R.

3976) and urges its quickest adoption by the full House of

Representatives. We further urge the House to engage the

Senate with an appropriate legislative vehicle to get a

House-Senate conference started as soon as possible to work

out a final legislative solution this spring.

The Independence Fund's been proud to join with Wounded

Warrior Project, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America,

and numerous other veteran organizations through the Toxic

Exposure in the American Military (TEAM) Coalition since

August of 2020 and the initial introduction and Senate

passage of the Toxic Exposure in the American Military (TEAM)

Act of 2020 (S. 4393) and has applauded the serious and

intensive work the House Committee on Veterans Affairs

undertook over the last 16 months.

Now, with the potential House passage of H.R. 3967, we

commit to engaging the Senate to pass this bill as soon as

possible, and if necessary, proceed to a Conference Committee

as soon as possible to ensure this bill can be enacted in

this Session of Congress. We will also urge the other veteran

and military serving organizations with which we work to join

us in such an effort collectively.

A veteran The Independence Fund serves, Nick Ooley, joined

the Army in 2007 and deployed to Iraq the following year.

Today, he is unable to run, jog, or even play basketball with

his 11-year-old son. As he details, ``Burn pits were all over

the place. We did convoy security, so we would travel to Al

Taqaddum, Ramadi, Fallujah, Baghdad, all over the place. When

we would drive through or get stationed in those areas, we

would be breathing this smoke all the time. The smoke would

be so thick during the day that the lights would come on like

it was dark.'' But with 78% of all disability claims related

to toxic exposure denied by the VA, disabled veterans are

denied the help they desperately need and deserve.

While The Independence Fund will always support disabled

veterans like Nick through our disabled veteran assistance

programs, the presumptive condition relief and mandated

health care provided in The Honoring Our PACT Act will be a

crucially needed lifeline for these veterans who have given

so much in the defense of our country. We salute your

leadership on this issue and stand ready to assist however we

can in making this the law of the land.

Very Respectfully,

Bob Carey,

Executive Vice President,

Advocacy & Strategy.

Mr. Speaker, it is now time for the Members of this body to answer a simple question: Am I willing to support our troops and honor our Nation's promise to them?

This bill addresses the true cost of war, and opposing it would be a vote against our servicemembers and veterans. Such a vote would be inconsistent with the thank-yous and patriotic displays so many of my colleagues offer on Veterans Day. Veterans want action, and they deserve our action.

We made a promise to deliver comprehensive toxic exposure legislation, and I intend to keep that promise.

The Honoring our PACT Act will address the full scope of issues affecting toxic-exposed veterans' access to VA care and benefits while reforming VA's presumptive decisionmaking process. It will expand VA healthcare eligibility for over 3.5 million veterans exposed to burn pits and establish a presumption of service connection for over 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers. There is no other toxic exposure legislation in Congress like this one in scope or in soundness.

Before I close, I must emphasize something essential. We cannot renege on our responsibility to toxic-exposed veterans because of any perceived sticker shock.

Cries for offsets and pay-fors did not stop Congress from passing a $1.9 trillion tax cut for corporations and the wealthy in 2017. Over the past 20 years, Congress and our country made the choice to spend trillions on other priorities while sending servicemembers into harm's way at the cost of $6.4 trillion.

We know that this Congress is willing to find money when it wants to, as it recently demonstrated by adding $25 billion to the last National Defense Authorization Act. When our country goes to war, we don't nickel and dime the Department of Defense, and we shouldn't try to pinch pennies when it comes to covering the care for toxic-exposed veterans.

We will not stand by and be lectured about fiscal responsibility when we have a moral obligation to America's veterans. And the time to meet that obligation is now.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), a person who has done more for veterans in modern times than any other leader of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), my good friend, who serves as the chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the esteemed majority leader of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas), my good friend who serves as chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), my good friend and cosponsor of H.R. 3967. She is the chair of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee and also a veteran herself and former commander of a naval surface ship.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan), my good friend who serves as chair of the Subcommittee on Technology Modernization on the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), my good friend and neighbor in California, someone who has authored a great big section of this bill on our presumptives, a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and an active member on the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), my very good friend who serves as a subcommittee chair on the Appropriations Committee and also a former member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas

(Mr. Castro), my good friend who serves on the Education and Labor Committee and is a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and is a subcommittee chair on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), my very good friend who serves on the Education and Labor Committee with me and as is the subcommittee chair on the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), my good friend who is a valued member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, serving on the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), my very good friend who serves on the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. San Nicolas), my good friend who serves on the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Ruiz), my good friend and colleague, the author of the provisions on the 23 presumptions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, to give the final words on the underlying bill, the PACT Act, on my mind is a constituent, a Vietnam veteran named Zack Earp, a distant relative of the great Wyatt Earp.

Zack sacrificed mightily on behalf of our country, and his body trembles today from Parkinsonism, one of the presumptives that got added during the blue water Navy debate. And I was happy to lead the final charge on getting the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act across the finish line.

But do you know what? Passage of that bill and its signage into law finally brought justice to our Vietnam veterans who served on naval surface ships on the territorial waters of Vietnam. It was 40 years late, justice 40 years late.

Mr. Speaker, I vowed that this would not happen again. To pass half measures, one-tenth measures, or one-half of 1 percent measures, which is what the minority proposes to do today, as a substitute for a comprehensive bill is simply repeating the history of what we did to our Vietnam veterans. Burn pits are this generation of veterans' Agent Orange.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends that we cannot repeat that history. We owe our Vietnam veterans that implicit promise that we would not repeat the history that was done to them.

As for the cost, I hear the other side competing with the President. Let us send more billions of dollars to Ukraine. And I, myself, would support a robust response to Ukraine in terms of money, but where is that same sense of one-upmanship when it comes to taking care of the veterans here in America?

People are falling over each other in this Chamber to get more money to Ukraine. That is the right thing to do, but it is also the right thing to do to take care of our veterans and to finish the unfinished business.

Finally, the science, I am glad to see science is being taken so seriously by the minority after we have seen skepticism about vaccines, skepticism about climate change. Suddenly, we are looking for scientific absolutism about our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends, the science is there. Let's get this done. Let's pass the PACT Act today with a big bipartisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 950, I rise to offer 23 amendments en bloc to H.R. 3967.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan en bloc of amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush), my good friend who serves on the Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger), my good friend who serves as a subcommittee chair on the Agriculture Committee and as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), the distinguished subcommittee chair of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting these 23 amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Ranking Member Bost's substitute offered in his absence by Representative Miller-Meeks.

I want to be clear about what this substitute is and what it is not. The ranking member has offered this amendment as the solution to addressing toxic exposure. But it is not that. The substitute amendment is the exact text of a Senator Tester bill which is meant to be the first part of a three-part effort in the Senate.

What Senator Tester has proposed, is doing in three phases what we have done in the PACT Act together. Yet my colleague from Illinois and my colleague from Iowa have taken the work of the Senate without intending to do

any more. This is it. They are representing this as the complete solution which amounts to really a bait and switch.

This substitute amendment would strike the entire PACT Act and replace it with an expansion of existing healthcare eligibility for combat veterans from 5 to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this provision will impact roughly 16,000 veterans over the next 10 years. This is laudable, but let's talk about the math.

Over the past 20 years, 3.5 million servicemembers deployed to areas where they may have been exposed to toxic substances. So the ranking member's amendment would leave behind over 3.4 million veterans.

This is not even a half measure, this substitute, this replacement, that they offer. It is not even one-tenth. It is one-half of 1 percent, a one-half of 1 percent solution compared to the comprehensive bill that we need.

The policy of this amendment is something we agree on. We should enhance eligibility for combat veterans which is why we included the language in the bill before you today, Mr. Speaker. However, it only covers less than half a percentage point of the number of veterans who would be covered under PACT.

My colleague is asserting that less than one-half of a percentage point is enough to be done and then walk away?

The math does not add up, and veterans know it. That is why over 42 veterans service organizations are supporting the PACT Act. Again, I reference the letters previously inserted into the Record.

During the President's State of the Union Address last night, he highlighted the importance of this topic citing his own family tragedy and the loss of his son, Beau, to brain cancer after his military service. He called on Congress to ``pass a law to make sure veterans devastated by toxic exposures in Iraq and Afghanistan finally get the benefits and comprehensive healthcare they deserve.''

Let me repeat that: pass a law to make sure veterans devastated by toxic exposures in Iraq and Afghanistan finally get the benefits and comprehensive healthcare they deserve.

The Bost substitute is far from comprehensive. In fact, it is a fraction of what our veterans have earned and deserve.

It is time we honored our pact to our veterans. That is why I implore my colleagues to reject this incremental measure and join me in supporting the only comprehensive toxic-exposure legislation that delivers on our sacred promise, the PACT Act.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is my good friend and who serves on the Budget Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, and as the chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chair of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Brownley-Miller-Meeks amendment. Women who have served in the military are 20 to 40 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than women who have never served. It is believed that it is due to exposure to radiation and other carcinogens while serving. It is therefore critical that VA ensure all veterans who have served in locations associated with toxic exposure have access to prompt, high-quality breast imaging services to detect breast cancer early.

This amendment would ensure just that. Any eligible veteran who was deployed and exposed to burn pits and airborne hazards would be eligible for mammography screens by the VA. These screenings will save lives.

Furthermore, it requires VA to submit a report to Congress on the rates of breast cancer among those veterans deployed to such toxic environments and compare those rates against their veteran peers who were not exposed, as well as the civilian population.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to take a moment to recognize someone who absolutely exemplifies the bipartisanship and camaraderie of the Rules Committee staff, and that is James Fitzella. He has worked on the Rules Committee for 7 years, and I am incredibly sad to say that he is leaving us for the private sector. His commitment to this institution and working across the aisle to get things done, that attitude will be truly missed.

He served the Rules Committee with integrity, dedication, and unwavering optimism. Congressional staff are often the unsung heroes of this body and of any legislative accomplishment, and this is absolutely the truth in James' case.

I know I speak for everybody on the Rules Committee when I extend my sincere gratitude to James for his public service and wish him our very best.

I would also be remiss if I didn't recognize Jeff Gohringer, who is leaving the majority staff after being on the Rules Committee for 6 years. I am sure Chairman McGovern would agree that we would be lost without the excellent work from our staff members.

I know Jeff was an absolutely critical part of the team, so I would like to also extend my best wishes to Jeff in his future endeavors as well.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the rule before us. The rule before us today makes in order H.R. 3967, the Honoring our PACT Act.

As an Iraq war veteran, I believe supporting toxic-exposed veterans should be of the highest priority.

Approximately 3.5 million veterans who served our Nation after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were exposed to open-air burn pits and other toxins. Many of these troops now suffer from serious health issues, including rare and aggressive cancers, respiratory conditions, and other illnesses. Yet, they face significant barriers to obtaining help from the VA.

These men and women put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. We must provide them with the care and benefits they have earned.

That is why I am disappointed that we are here considering H.R. 3967 rather than voting on the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, a bipartisan bill that has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent. If we took up that bill immediately, it could be signed into law by the end of the week, ensuring swift delivery of lifesaving care for toxic-exposed veterans.

Instead, here we are, prioritizing a bill that must still undergo a lengthy analysis process and many legislative considerations. We also have to look at the impact on the current VA and those that are getting benefits now from the VA, and the backlog that exists in our VA system.

Republicans want to quickly deliver help to veterans suffering from toxic exposure. The best way to do that is to bring the Senate-passed Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act to the House floor.

Prioritizing H.R. 3967 will only slow down the process and delay implementation of toxic exposure benefits. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just a quick point of rebuttal. I would just remind my good friend from Massachusetts that passage of H.R. 3967 is not guaranteed in the Senate.

We don't have that concern when we are talking about the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, which has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent. We could pass that today here on the floor this week. It could be signed into law this week. Doing anything other is simply to delay assistance to the veterans who need it most.

Now, to the topic of Ukraine. In the wake of Vladimir Putin's brutal, brutal invasion of Ukraine, the world is crying out for an alternative to Russian energy. Pennsylvania, and the rest of America's heartland, could provide that alternative.

But President Biden and Congressional Democrats refuse to let that happen. They would rather promote their radical Green New Deal agenda and continue buying oil from Putin's ruthless regime. They would rather do that than unleash domestic energy production, and that includes Pennsylvania coal, oil, and natural gas industries. They would rather do that than lower gas and heating prices for American families and strengthen our national security through becoming an energy exporter.

Republicans, on the other hand, actually want to make America energy independent once again, just like we were in the last administration.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Here to explain the amendment is one of the bill's authors, the Natural Resources Committee ranking member and my good friend. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways that we can support the Ukrainian people, and President Zelensky by extension, is by ensuring that we have a steady supply of American energy and that we are supplying our allies in Eastern Europe. This will also deny Putin a major revenue stream.

Alarmingly, U.S. oil imports from Russia reached an 11-year high in 2021, accounting for more than 10 percent of the total U.S. crude oil and petroleum product imports.

Here to explain why that should concern all Americans is my good friend, my mentor, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Tom Cole.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, one in six American adults reported they cannot pay their full energy bill in the last 12 months. That is appalling. It is especially appalling given the fact that at our fingertips we have an abundance of energy. In Pennsylvania alone, we have oil, gas, and clean coal. We should be unleashing the American energy sector.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell), who is here to talk more about this.

Mr. Speaker, just three quick points in rebuttal. First and foremost, I myself am a veteran of the Iraq war. I was there for 6 months, actually, in 2009.

If we would just pass the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act that the Senate passed by unanimous consent, we could pass that and put it on the President's desk at the end of this week. There is nothing standing in our way except the Democratic Party on this.

Also, I would just remind my good friend from Massachusetts that my motion does not prevent the House from considering the Honoring our PACT Act. It doesn't. It simply amends the rule to also allow for consideration of the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

I am sure everyone on the other side of the aisle would agree that lowering gas and heating prices for all American families and ending our dependence on Russian oil is of the utmost importance. In fact, I just got an alert that a gentleman from my colleague's State General Assembly just put forward a bill on the floor of the General Assembly of Massachusetts to stop the importation of Russian oil.

Sixty percent of the natural gas our country imports actually goes to Massachusetts. People don't realize that. But if New York would get out of the way and allow Pennsylvania to have a pipeline from Pennsylvania to New England, the New Englanders wouldn't need dirty Russian oil. They could use Pennsylvania natural gas. But I digress. We can and should find the time this week to add the American Energy Independence from Russia Act to our agenda.

Lastly, ad nauseam, I have heard bill after bill after bill from the leftists across the other side of the aisle on electric vehicles, and yet again I am reminded that the Republicans are the real party of science because if you look at the actual science, an electric car will generate just 23 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gasoline-powered car.

In fact, if you were to take every gas-powered car on the face of the planet and get rid of it, it would only mean a mere 1.8 percent decline in total emissions. This is fake science. We have alchemy and chemistry. We have astrology and we have astronomy. We have the Democrat Party and we have the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), my good friend, to talk more about this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the Republican whip.

Mr. Speaker, just one point in rebuttal to my good friend from Massachusetts: Republicans do support toxic-exposed veterans. Yesterday, I personally offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to bring up the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act. By the way, that passed unanimously in the Senate. We could again be doing that right now. That doesn't stop us from debating the current bill. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, but the only thing that is delaying getting the Senate version of this bill on to the President's desk at the end of this week is the Democratic Party. We could pass that bill this week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) to talk about oil and gas and energy issues.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked a lot today about the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, which is again, the Senate version. That legislation carries the support of leading veteran service organizations, VSOs, including Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Wounded Warrior Project, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the American Legion, as well as the Military Officers Association of America.

Again, that Senate version passed unanimously. We could be running that here today and get it on the President's desk at the end of the week. The only thing that stands between getting help to veterans right now in terms of the burn pit issues is the Democrat Party's refusal to just run the Senate version of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, so just a quick history lesson. The Obama-Biden administration sent Ukraine blankets and well-wishes. The Trump administration sent Javelin missiles. That is the big difference.

You know, I have said numerous times standing up here that the Democratic Party is a party of political science. I could be even more generous. The Democratic Party is also a party of false choices and false narratives. The Democrats have presented us with a false choice when it comes to U.S. energy and also a false narrative.

Let me be clear: We can unleash domestic energy and be good stewards of the environment. Thanks to American energy innovation, thanks to the energy sector, the U.S., at least under President Trump, was actually reducing carbon emissions. In Pennsylvania, for example, thanks to natural gas, our energy sector has reduced emissions by 41 percent since 2005.

Again, it is an absolutely false choice. It is a false narrative that we cannot unleash the American energy sector and be good stewards of the environment. In fact, quite the opposite. We actually are good stewards of the environment when we are using clean natural gas, particularly from Pennsylvania.

But here to talk more about that issue is my good friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and one of the authors of the American Energy Independence from Russia Act, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am an Iraq war veteran. I was in Baghdad for 6 months in 2009. I can tell you that I am committed to ensuring the men and women who served our Nation receive the care and benefits they deserve. It is of utmost importance to me as a Member of this body and as an Iraq war veteran.

That is the reason why I am so disappointed in my friends across the aisle. I am disappointed that instead of considering the Senate-passed Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act--which, again, could immediately be sent to the President's desk--House Democrats are prioritizing legislation that is still a long way away from enactment and will delay benefits for toxic-exposed veterans.

Let me be clear. We can get help to veterans. We can get this bill to the desk of the President by the end of this week. The only thing standing in the way are my friends on the other side of the aisle.

It is for that reason I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, but more importantly, for his service to our Nation, and when he talks about that bill, you think, in Congress, when can you find something that is bipartisan?

Here you have something come out of the Senate that Republicans and Democrats both agree upon. Republicans on this side of the aisle will vote for that. The only thing holding it up for these veterans are the Democrats. They know the bill they are going to produce won't go anywhere, and hopefully, we can come back and get this done, and it will go to the President's desk. It would have been nice for the President to have a bill before he came for the State of the Union, so he could actually sign something, but unfortunately, politics again gets in the way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to support Mrs. McMorris Rodgers' and Mr. Westerman's legislation.

The crisis in Ukraine is a crisis of American energy security.

Over the past decade, we have had every opportunity to lead. During the previous administration, we were energy independent and an exporter of energy for the first time in 50 years.

Today, however, we have an administration that crippled domestic production. This administration has increased its daily reliance on Russian oil by 34 percent.

As every American is glued to their television to see what is happening in Ukraine, to see the bombing of innocent children and women, there is no one American who would want any of our money to go to fund that. But in this administration, you had actually done that, increased the production of oil and natural gas coming from Russia to America. Meanwhile, it slow-walked oil and natural gas exports to our allies in Europe. In doing so, it made Europe more reliant on Putin.

Today, 40 percent of natural gas and 25 percent of crude oil in Europe comes from Russian. The Biden administration has made the free world dependent on despots for oil and natural gas from Russia.

We all know that is shameful.

As an economic and energy superpower why are we relying on dictators when we should be supplying the world?

If you are like me and you are concerned about the environment, do you realize that American natural gas is 42 percent cleaner than Russian natural gas? That crude oil could have come from Canada and been refined in America if President Biden hadn't pulled the plug on the Keystone Pipeline. But instead, he allowed Putin to have Nord Stream 2.

For those at home that are wondering, what is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline? It is another pipeline built by Russia to go in to supply natural gas to Europe, but it goes around Ukraine because the current pipeline goes through Ukraine, and Ukraine gets part of the money.

But with this new administration and President Biden going to meet with Mr. Putin, what did he do? He waived the sanctions. But when President Biden watched Putin put hundreds of thousands of men along the border of Ukraine there was an amendment offered in the Senate to put sanctions on Nord Stream 2. People wondered; did it pass? It came close, but it failed.

Do you want to know why it failed? Because the Biden administration used all their political will to lobby against it passing. And more of American millions of dollars went to fund Putin who uses it for his military.

That natural gas that goes to Europe, it could have come from America, from our Federal lands and waters where President Biden hasn't approved a single new lease--not one; he has actually shut them down-- and if we had continued the energy policies of the Trump administration, we would actually be safer today and Putin would have less money to fund his military weaponry. Our allies would be safer today, and American families would be paying less for cleaner energy. In California it is more than $5 a gallon, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if you can remember back when when it was much less.

Now, I hear from our colleagues on the other side that the reason American resources must stay in the ground is climate change. I listened to Mr. Kerry be interviewed as Russia invaded Ukraine, and he was concerned. This former Secretary of State, now helping in this administration, I thought he would be concerned about the men and women in Ukraine. He was concerned with; would Putin still work with climate change? I think you should tell that to the Ukrainian people. I don't think one of them is concerned about that right now.

Now, I hear our colleagues when they talk about climate change, but if they really studied it, the truth is what I told you before, American natural gas is 42 percent cleaner than Russian natural gas. And we can guarantee you this, we are not invading Ukraine. We won't use the resources to carpet-bomb, to shoot innocent women and children.

If you are concerned about the environment, like I am, you should support this bill. You could, Mr. Speaker. It immediately approves the Keystone Pipeline because we have waited long enough and can't afford to wait a minute longer. It removes all restriction on liquid natural gas exports so we could become an arsenal of energy for the free world. And it restarts the leases on Federal lands and waters which are being held up by the Biden administration.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. You have the majority here on the floor. You have the Biden administration. It is in the power of your party. But those six permits that sit at the desk of the Secretary of Energy that could take money away from Putin, provide American jobs, and provide Europe with cleaner natural gas from America still sit there to this day because somehow you think it is better for climate change.

Mr. Speaker, a vote for this bill is a vote to produce more energy for our allies. It means American jobs. It means our allies don't have to deal with Putin, be held hostage to him. It means Putin will not have millions of dollars from Americans to buy the weaponry that he uses to kill innocent people in Ukraine.

A vote for this bill is a vote to provide relief for working families at the pump. It means Americans won't have to pay the high prices they are today.

I know at the White House, when they were asked this question, they said it is okay that the price is high because that way somehow it helps them with climate change if they could get more renewable energy.

Mr. Speaker, that is a tax on all Americans, especially low-income. But I don't know, in this administration, they have the highest inflation we have had in 40 years. Somehow, they must think that is positive, too.

Mr. Speaker, in this new administration, when you have crime, we have a border that is not secure. People are coming across the border that are on the terrorist watch list. We now have more fentanyl in America today than at any time, enough to kill every single American seven times over.

Mr. Speaker, I know you would care about this because you know, today, the number one cause of death of those between the ages of 18 to 45 is fentanyl. You know where it comes from, the chemicals of China, across the border of Mexico that no longer is attended to.

Mr. Speaker, I know the President of your party has put the Vice President in charge, and she has been there one time--one time. Every city in America has become a border city today every single weekend.

Mr. Speaker, you know this based upon your background. You see the deaths that are happening. It is unwanted. It is unneeded. And we could do better.

Mr. Speaker, a vote for this bill is a vote to deprive Putin of a major revenue stream.

It is not difficult. There won't be any pressure. All Members have to do is walk onto the floor, take the card out of their pocket, put it in the little box. And if you are somebody that because you are afraid of COVID, you are still home, or you are on a boat, you could still vote by proxy with this majority.

What you could do is you could vote for this bill. You could vote to make America energy independent. You could lower the gas prices. You could take the money out of Putin's hands that he uses to kill innocent people.

Everybody in the world is watching. Mr. Speaker, the sad part, I bet if this bill was on the floor in any country in Europe, it would be 100 percent voted for. I will be watching. I think America will be watching.

Would we stand for America and for freedom? Would we stand for President Zelensky, who didn't take the advice of President Biden and leave his country, who doesn't ask for men and women from America to come to fight? He just asks to provide some weapons so they can defend against Putin.

Mr. Speaker, the sad part about that is every day that we allow crude or natural gas to come from Russia, American money is going to Putin. Let's stop that and stop that today.