Middle-Class Savings and Investment Act

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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is hard to believe it was 50 years ago this week--50 years ago--when five men were caught breaking into the offices of the Democratic National Committee here in Washington.

Two years after that, the so-called Watergate break-in and the coverup by the Nixon White House, it brought down the President.

For nearly half a century, the Watergate scandal really ranked as America's greatest constitutional test since

the Civil War--then came January 6, 2021.

An angry mob, summoned by a defeated President, attacked this Capitol building, attacked this Chamber, and those of us who were in it knew it was an attempt to overthrow an election, an election which Donald Trump lost but never admitted.

How did we respond?

Well, the proposal was made--the right proposal--to create a bipartisan commission to investigate what happened on January 6, 2021. Unfortunately, the Republicans, led by Senator McConnell in the Senate, filibustered the creation of an independent commission to investigate January 6. Fortunately, the House went forward to proceed on its own on a bipartisan basis to get to the truth.

Now, after 11 months and 1,000 interviews--more than 1,000--the bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol is sharing its findings with America, and the revelations are so damning.

In its first two public hearings, the committee has shown that the attack on the Capitol was not a demonstration that changed spontaneously and became a riot. The attack on our Nation's Capitol, the attack on this Chamber, was the result of a plan: a violent effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from the Trump administration to the Biden administration, to stop the peaceful transition of power in America for the first time in our history.

To quote Congresswoman Liz Cheney, the former President Donald Trump ``summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.''

When the mob beat our police officers and ransacked the Capitol-- going through our desks here on the floor, posing for pictures where the Presiding Officer is now sitting, all sorts of things to make them look famous with their friends at the expense of the integrity of this building and this Chamber.

They beat the police officers. Donald Trump did nothing to stop them--nothing. He wouldn't order the National Guard to defend the Capitol, the Senate, the House. He watched the mayhem on TV, rewinding it to watch it over and over again. He gloried in the moment.

When the crowd threatened to hang Vice President Pence, Donald Trump said, ``He deserves it.'' Deserves it. The Vice President of the United States deserves it.

His own advisers told him repeatedly that the voter fraud conspiracy theories that he was pedaling were false. They were called ``idiotic,'' ``amateurish,'' ``detached from reality.'' Who said that? The former Attorney General serving Donald Trump said it in describing the false claims that President Trump continued to pedal.

Donald Trump was told the truth over and over again, and yet he continued to push his deadly Big Lie.

He deliberately--the former President of the United States-- deliberately undermined America's faith in our election process to overturn the election and to hold onto power no matter what.

He used the Big Lie to make big bucks. We learned that yesterday-- quarter of a million dollars--quarter of a billion dollars in donations, including millions of dollars for an election defense fund that didn't exist.

In a coming hearing, the committee will show how Donald Trump pressured the Justice Department into helping him overturn the election. I know a little bit about that. Our Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, documented this attempt to subvert the Justice Department in an 8-month investigation and report that we produced last fall. We produced this report in a bipartisan fashion, inviting Republican and Democratic Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to witness the testimony of key individuals and to ask questions themselves.

We interviewed former Justice officials like Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue, the then-acting Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, who resisted Donald Trump's pressure to take over the Justice Department.

They told us how repeatedly they informed the former President that his bogus election claims were false. They told us how Trump, nevertheless, asked the Justice Department to ``Just say the election was corrupt--and leave the rest to me and Republican Congressmen.''

And they resisted Donald Trump's plan to replace Jeffrey Rosen with the Big Lie lawyer Jeffrey Clark, who wanted the Justice Department to help overturn the election.

The facts that the Senate Judiciary Committee uncovered are damning. The January 6 committee will unveil those--many of their own discovery and reporting and some that we sent to them from our testimony that we gathered in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We came close to losing this democracy in America on January 6. I believe that by laying out the truth for us and for future generations, members of the committee are performing a public service of heroic proportions.

It is sad--sad--that given an opportunity of a bipartisan commission, just as we had with 9/11, that the Senate Republicans stopped it. Why? It is a question they are going to have to answer.

Political Prisoners

Mr. President, on another topic, we speak often in the Senate about threats to peace and freedom around the world: Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, China's brutal repression of the Uighurs, the dismantling of democracy in Hong Kong, Nicaragua's repressive dictatorship, and more.

In each of these struggles, there are some brave men and women who are prepared to risk their liberty and their lives to defend democracy and dignity. Many of them languish in prison as political prisoners. Their captors often try to torment them by telling them: The world has forgotten you; no one knows you are here.

Well, I want to make sure that that doesn't happen by coming to floor of the Senate and sharing some of these stories. Today, let me tell you about a few of them.

Let me start with a Russian opposition leader of remarkable courage: Vladimir Kara-Murza. He was poisoned twice by the Russian spy agency FSB, in 2015 and 2017. He not only survived that, but he continued his work for a democratic Russia.

He was a close friend of Senator John McCain, who asked him personally to serve as a pallbearer at his funeral.

I met Mr. Kara-Murza in March, 3 weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine. He was living in Washington at the time with his wife and three children, and he told me he was going back to Russia. He had work to do.

On April 11, he was arrested in Moscow, 1 day after giving an interview in which he called Vladimir Putin's government a ``team of murderers.''

His wife, Evgenia Kara-Murza, also an advocate for democracy in Russia, who I expect to meet with later on this week, said: ``He's doing as well as you can do in a Russian prison that is notorious for torture, humiliation, and mistreatment.''

Earlier this month, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution I led with Senator Marco Rubio, calling on Russia to release Vladimir Kara- Murza immediately, along with Alexei Navalny, another Russian opposition leader, and thousands of others--Russians jailed for speaking up against repression, for even mentioning the possibility of the murderous war in Ukraine.

It is time for America to stand up for Mr. Kara-Murza and those like him who have shown extraordinary courage.

Senator Leila DeLima is a leading human rights advocate in the Philippines. She is a state senator who just passed her fifth year in jail.

Here she is in her cell.

Why is she in prison for 5 years? She criticized the repressive regime of President Rodrigo Duterte.

From time to time, she writes to me from her prison cell. Let me share a short excerpt of a recent letter:

Warm greetings from my detention headquarters . . . I do

not know for how long I will remain behind bars but there is

one thing that I am sure of--my will to fight for what is

right continues to be undeterred.

Recently, two key witnesses in the sham case against Senator DeLima recanted their testimony, proving what we already know: The case against her is contrived. It is a travesty of justice.

Many Filipino Americans in Illinois tell me they are deeply concerned about the accountability and democracy and its prospects in the Philippines.

The incoming Marcos regime can demonstrate its commitment to a democratic Philippines by ending the harassment of journalists and making Senator DeLima's release one of its first priorities.

Let me now turn to Saudi Arabia--timely.

I have been troubled by the human rights record of this Kingdom, including the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, for which there is no real accountability yet.

This year brought a bit of welcome news. Writer Raif Badawi was finally freed from prison after completing a 10-year prison sentence for dubious charges about his peaceful writings.

I hope that the Saudis will allow Raif the dignity of reuniting with his brave wife, Ensaf Haidar, who I met in Washington, and their three children, now living in Canada.

Badawi's lawyer, Waleed Abu al-Khair, a leading human rights defender, is still in prison. He was convicted in Saudi Arabia's Specialized Criminal Court, usually reserved for terrorists.

I appeal to the Saudi Government to free Waleed and to allow Raif to be reunited with his family.

These gestures would be particularly notable in light of President Biden's upcoming visit.

Finally, let me turn to the United Arab Emirates.

This is Ahmed Mansoor, one of the last major human rights voices in the Emirates.

He was arrested in 2017 for using blog posts to advocate for reform and human rights in his nation. He was convicted of charges of threatening the UAE's state security and social harmony, they sentenced him to 10 years in prison. He has been there for more than 5, at times, in solitary confinement, isolated from other prisoners, no contact with his family. He has reportedly been tortured.

Despite the dismal conditions of his incarceration, he remains steadfast in his commitment to human rights. He has conducted multiple hunger strikes to protest prison conditions.

I appeal to the United Arab Emirates' new President, Muhammad bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, to take this opportunity early in his Presidency to demonstrate compassion and courage by releasing Mr. Mansoor.

America's strength around the world comes not only from our military and economic might but from the power of our values. Over the years, I have heard from many political prisoners. They tell me the support this body, of Congress, of America, and so many others in our government sustained them through the lonely, desperate times they spent in jail for days and weeks and months and years.

I will close with the words of Vladimir Kara-Murza. This is from a recent op-ed he wrote for the Washington Post from his Russian prison. He wrote:

The prisoner's worst nightmare is the thought of being

forgotten . . . I always knew how true those words were--and

how important were international campaigns of solidarity with

prisoners of conscience. I now feel it with my own skin.

To Vladimir Kara-Murza, Raif Badawi, Waleed Abulkhair, Senator Leila de Lima, and Ahmed Mansoor, I say: You are not forgotten, and we will continue to advocate for your freedom.

Let me also close by acknowledging that a member of my staff, Chris Homan, has really inspired me to take on this cause, and he works at it diligently--our reward, an occasional political prisoner makes it here to my office here in Washington. One of them from Africa presented me with basically a baton that he had made while in prison with my name on it because he heard that I remembered him and spoke of him on the floor of the Senate.

I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Make this part of your responsibility as a U.S. Senator. Find these people, these heroes who are sadly wasting away in prison and remember them on this floor. It can make a difference. Some will be released; all will remember the fact that you stood up for them at a time of great need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

A few months ago, from this desk, I talked about the results of a recall election in San Francisco. In February, a multilingual, multiethnic coalition in San Francisco stood up for common sense and rejected three members of the far-left school board who had prioritized woke lunacy over the basics of education.

Well, last week, these same fed-up citizens provided a sequel. Even the deep-blue Bay area decided they had had enough--enough--with their radical-left district attorney--a prosecutor in name only--who had become nationally famous for running a soft-on-crime experiment.

As deaths from drug overdoses skyrocketed, his office chose to almost entirely stop prosecuting drug dealing. Burglaries shot up 50 percent. Chain stores had to close locations because of rampant shoplifting. One person who had been arrested five times in 6 months in 2020 was let out every time--every single time--until he killed two women with a stolen car. Liberals actually bragged about how they had cut down incarceration rates, even as disorder swallowed up more and more of the city.

The citizens were fed up--fed up--with being the far-left's guinea pigs. They flocked to the ballot box, and they voted for change.

This phenomenon is not only playing out in San Francisco, it is nationwide--nationwide. For years, the far left has zeroed in on local prosecutors and district attorneys as juicy opportunities to make America radically softer on crime.

According to recent news reports, for example, one far-left billionaire donated more than $1 million each to the political campaigns of soft-on-crime prosecutors in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. According to one group's analysis, the army of soft-on-crime prosecutors supported by this one donor--this one donor--and his networks oversees as much as 20 percent of the Nation's entire population.

Once in office, many of these prosecutors set about abusing their authority by basically unilaterally decriminalizing various crimes that neither voters nor legislators have actually decriminalized in reality. As the attorney general of Virginia put it recently, ``Instead of trying to change the law . . . these groups are electing prosecutors who simply ignore it.''

As this liberal campaign has been playing out at the State and local level, we have seen violent crime surge all across the country. Here are just a few recent news reports.

From Minnesota: ``Robberies, assaults, and gun crimes are causing waves of anxiety and fear among suburban residents across the Twin Cities.''

From Colorado: ``Since the beginning of the pandemic . . . murders had gone up 47 percent, some types of property crime had nearly doubled, and [the] seizures of fentanyl and methamphetamine had quadrupled'' in just the last year.

Atlanta ``saw a 30-year record in homicides last year [in 2021],'' and 2022 has been looking actually even worse. At least as of a few months ago, both murders and rapes were way ahead of even that 2021 pace.

Residents of Phoenix who try to use public transit to escape soaring gas prices have found out that ``assaults and drug crime in and around public transportation have risen over the last five years.''

Philadelphia is reporting an 80-percent increase in assaults aboard buses.

In my hometown of Louisville, we are struggling as well. ``Over the past several years, violent crime has sharply risen across the city, breaking gruesome records including record homicides and assaults.'' And we have seen carjacking ``more than triple in the [last] five years.'' Last weekend alone--last weekend alone--Louisville saw 3 homicides and 10 nonfatal shootings. Five teenagers and a 9-year-old were shot during a single altercation at my hometown's Big Four Bridge. Violent criminals turned a popular attraction for families and tourists into a literal war zone.

Stable prices, border security, and public safety are three of the most basic deliverables that any government owes to its citizens-- strike one, strike two, and strike three for Democrats at the Federal, State, and local level.

That explains one last headline I will mention this morning: ``Americans are more worried about crime than at any other time this century.''

Ukraine

Mr. President, now on a different matter, the latest news from Ukraine confirms that our friends need more robust weaponry, and they need it fast.

``Outgunned Ukraine Needs More Weapons Fast as Russia Advances, Officials Say.''

``Ukraine Pleads for Weapons, Saying Russia Has Much More Artillery.''

The people of Ukraine have inspired the world with their resilience, but resisting Russian aggression takes reliable supplies of lethal force.

As the Biden administration continues to provide shipments and prod our allies, they must adopt the kind of strong and positive posture that has eluded them at earlier points in the conflict.

As early as last November, I was urging sanctions for deterrence and pushing for NDAA provisions to send enhanced lethal aid last November. Throughout December and January, I urged the President to bolster NATO's eastern flank with more U.S. forces and get more weapons to Ukrainian forces before--before--Russia attacked. In February, I called on President Biden to anticipate Russian manipulation of the energy markets and back off his own holy war against domestic American production. But for months, the Biden administration seemed mute, seemed actually more focused on deterring itself than deterring Putin-- too much hesitation, too much hemming and hawing, too little preventive action in advance.

The United States cannot make the same mistakes again with prolonged dithering over whether to provide longer range or more powerful weapons. That is where we are now. It is time to get Ukraine what it needs to finish this fight, including artillery and long-range rockets, and strongly and firmly push our European allies to do the same. The wealthiest European countries need to move fast to do their part--no more hesitation, and quit making excuses.

This war has carried terrible human costs for the Ukrainian people. We cannot bring back the thousands who have been lost, but with strong assistance, we can help Ukraine limit future losses, reduce the risk of greater conflict, and create a deterring precedent for other would-be aggressors, like China.

There is another area where the Ukraine crisis has showcased the need to take decisive action quickly while there is still time. That is with respect to our own defense industrial base and our supplies of critical arms.

Equipping Ukraine has seriously depleted our own stockpiles of Javelins and Stingers. According to the Secretary of the Army, the U.S. military has ``taken some risk to our own readiness.'' This sounds exactly like the sort of situation that prompted the creation of the Defense Production Act, but thus far, we have heard far more from Washington Democrats about using the DPA to fast-track green energy boondoggles than to expand production capacity for critical weapons and munitions.

Our allies and our partners are interested in buying American military technology. This should be a win-win: allies spending their own money to strengthen themselves by buying American and making our militaries more interoperable in the process. But too often, our partners are hamstrung by American constraints on the process, like the heel-dragging bureaucracy that runs our military sales, and lagging production schedules.

We must adequately stockpile weapons and munitions for our own military and have sufficient supplies and production capacity to arm our friends, and we need to do this before it is too late.

Building up our own stores and upgrading our allies' is the best way we can avoid nightmare scenarios down the road where America could be forced into a terrible choice between committing U.S. troops to a conflict or doing nothing. The remedy is to help our allies upgrade their military capabilities in advance.

Of course, this takes money. All the serious preparations and military modernization that it will take to compete with Russia and China require resources. Tomorrow, the Armed Services Committee will mark up the National Defense Authorization Act. This is a key opportunity to show that both parties are serious about the real growth in defense spending that it will take to keep us on the cutting edge.

The Biden administration's defense budget request was woefully insufficient. The President has proposed a real-dollar cut for defense spending after President Biden's own inflation.

Our colleagues on the committee must help Congress to deliver an NDAA that provides for real, robust growth above inflation so that we can modernize our forces, ensure adequate inventories of critical weapons and munitions, and keep America safe.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to tell my colleagues about a bill I am introducing today to encourage savings. To set the stage for the necessity of that bill, I am going to speak for a minute about the obstacles that this administration's economic policies--particularly inflation--have put in that give need for such legislation.

On Friday, we learned that inflation surged to 8.6 percent, a new 40- year high for inflation. Inflation is the No. 1 concern that I hear from Iowans as I do my 99-county tour throughout the State over the course of a year. I hear how rising prices, particularly for food and energy, are cutting into budgets, making it difficult to make ends meet.

Moreover, I hear from Iowans who are concerned that inflation is eating into their savings. That gets to the purpose of the legislation I am going to soon talk about. This is particularly true for seniors who are living on fixed budgets and are dependent on their savings and investment income to keep their heads above water.

Yet President Biden and congressional Democrats continue to ignore the damage done by their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Sadly, their solution for inflation is just more of the same old Democratic tax-and- spend agenda. We still hear rumors that there may be some version of Build Back Better. Just think. If that original version of Build Back Better had passed, we would have had another $4.5 trillion in additional spending feeding the fires of inflation. Thank God for 50 Republicans and Senator Manchin that that has not happened.

Several Democrats have argued for hiking taxes to combat inflation. However, their proposed tax hikes on job creators would suppress business investment, lowering productivity. This would be counterproductive at a time when consumers' demands far outpace supply. We need more production, not less, to combat unchecked inflation.

Moreover, the proposed Democratic tax hikes would be passed on to the middle class in the form of lower wages and higher prices. These tax hikes would further squeeze a middle class that is already enduring the worst of inflation.

I just complimented Senator Manchin for putting a stop to Build Back Better. When it comes to some of the original tax policies we have heard from the Democrats, we can thank Senator Sinema, another Democrat, for stepping in and bringing at least some common sense to tax policy, even though it wasn't a complete change of that tax policy. Raising taxes on job creation isn't the only misguided tax proposal. While many consumer products are in short supply, ill-conceived Democratic proposals are not.

In addition to reckless tax hikes on businesses broadly, Democrats have proposed providing consumer gas rebates, forgiving student loan debt, imposing windfall profit taxes on oil and gas, and implementing price controls. None of these proposals would help tamp down inflation. Instead, they would only make things worse--much worse.

Instead of providing relief, gas rebates would increase demand, driving prices higher. Forgiving student loans would have a similar effect and would be horribly counterproductive and, at the same time, would be very unfair to those students who have already paid off their student loans.

Yet you don't have to take Chuck Grassley's word for it. Prominent Democratic economist Larry Summers has said that student debt cancelation would be ``regressive, uncertainty creating, untargeted and inappropriate at a time when the economy is [already] overheated.''

Windfall profit taxes and price controls may be the worst of all of the proposals.

That should have been learned from the Nixon administration when he froze prices and wages. It was a disaster--part of the cause of the great inflation of the 1970s. There were disastrous consequences then as a result of what happened in the 1970s. Anyone who lived through that time can tell you how these policies made things worse by reducing supply. The result was of rampant shortages, most notably with gas lines all around the block.

When addressing inflation, Congress must be guided by the principle: First, do no harm. The Democrats' proposal has failed this principle miserably.

The fact of the matter is that, once the inflation fire gets started, it is hard to put out. Just think: Just a few months ago, inflation was transitory, and then it got up to 6 percent, 7 percent, 8.3 percent. Then somebody said last month that it was going to cool off, but it is up to 8.6 percent. The Federal Reserve is best suited for reining in inflation given its control over the money supply.

As Milton Friedman said:

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

This doesn't mean Congress is helpless when it comes to responding to inflation. The most important thing that Congress can do is stop spending like drunken sailors. Even better would be to trim the budget to eliminate unnecessary spending.

Congress can also provide targeted inflation relief. However, it must be done in a way that won't add to our growing debt or further fuel the flames of inflation. One way to do this is by providing targeted inflation relief that incentivizes and rewards taxpayers who save rather than spend.

With today's high inflation, many in the middle class could see most or even all of their savings and investment gains wiped out by the inflation that is upon us. Yet, even though middle class savers may be losing money in real terms, they are still taxed on all gains and interest income as if inflation doesn't exist. This creates a perverse incentive that encourages taxpayers to consume today rather than to save today. This can push up the demand for goods and services, forcing prices higher and further fueling inflation.

To help counter the current bias in favor of consumption, I now come to my proposal, a proposal subjecting most middle class savings and investment income to zero tax.

Now, this isn't a silver bullet in the fight against inflation. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve will have to do the heavy lifting. However, unlike counterproductive Democrat policies, my proposals would incentivize and reward saving. As a result, it would get relief to the middle class without further fueling consumer demand or reducing production and supply.

The title of the bill is the ``Middle-Class Savings and Investment Act.'' Under that bill, taxpayers in the 22-percent individual income tax bracket and lower would pay zero tax on their long-term capital gains and dividend income. Moreover, my proposal would allow individuals to exclude a reasonable amount of interest income from tax. For 2022, the combination of those proposals means an individual with a taxable income of below $89,075 or a

married couple below $178,150 would largely be able to save tax-free.

In addition to exempting the middle class from the tax on most of their savings and investment income, my proposal would enhance and expand the saver's credit. This provides a tax credit to low- to middle-income taxpayers who contribute to a tax-favored retirement account. My proposal would increase the maximum credit amount by $500 for married taxpayers and expand eligibility to more taxpayers.

Finally, my proposal would address a massive marriage penalty that is gradually catching ever more taxpayers by surprise thanks just simply to inflation. Under ObamaCare, Democrats imposed a new 3.8-percent tax on investment income of taxpayers earning over $200,000 single or $250,000 married. Congress never indexed these thresholds for inflation; thus, given current inflation, it is likely it won't be long before millions of middle-class taxpayers find themselves squarely within the grasp of that marriage penalty. To prevent this, I index the income threshold for this tax to inflation. Moreover, I eliminate the marriage penalty by raising the threshold for married taxpayers to twice that for single earners.

Of course, any relief provided must be fully paid for to ensure that we aren't just adding unsustainable debt and deficits. This is why my proposal is fully paid for by extending the $10,000 cap on State and local tax deductions beyond the current scheduled expiration at the end of 2025.

The SALT deduction is a highly regressive tax subsidy that primarily benefits high-income taxpayers. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, more than half of the benefits from lifting the SALT cap would go to those making over $1 million a year. Extending the current cap on SALT--an otherwise highly regressive tax benefit--to provide immediate inflation relief to the middle class should be a no- brainer to all of my colleagues.

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this proposal.