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