Thread by @corytitus

For those following the SFC Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act, the comprehensive toxic exposure bill for our veterans, A LOT happened in the past few days. I want to take a minute to break down what happened and why. Here’s a deep dive thread on #PACTAct

On June 16th, the Senate voted 84-14 to pass the PACT Act. For veteran advocates, like myself, who had been working on this for years, it looked like the bill was a done deal. The House had scheduled it for a vote just a few working days after the Senate passed it.

.@RepBost announced his support, and the President was ready to sign the bill. Hours before the Rules Committee was schedule to hear the bill, so it could go to the floor for the House to pass it, an issue was found that risked the entire bill being ruled unconstitutional.

Here's the line that stalled things for a month in the Senate-passed version. "Not A Taxable Benefit.—A contract buy out for a covered health care professional under subsection (a) shall not be considered a taxable benefit or event for the covered health care professional."

The sentence triggers a procedural issue, known as a "blue-slip" issue. ANY tax-related provision must come from the House, not the Senate. The issue needed to be fixed. If you want to read more about "blue-slips", CRS has a great report. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL…

Fortunately, the House moved quickly & removed this sentence by repurposing a bill that had already passed the Senate. They erased the text of S3373, and added the Senate-passed PACT Act text, EXCEPT the sentence that dealt with the tax issues. No other changes were made.

This brings us up to speed on what happened to set the stage for the activity on the PACT Act over the past few days. Given the strong vote, 84-14, veterans advocates like myself were expecting the support to stay the same.

However, that was clearly not the case. The vote to move the bill forward failed after 25 Senators changed their position.

Over the past few days, we've heard a lot of talk about Section 805 the "Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund." This creates a treasury account that is considered mandatory funding and must be refunded every year. congress.gov/bill/117th-con…

This was in the bill when the Senate voted on June 16. I talked with many Senate offices about this fund and the effective oversight of it. This fund is only for toxic-exposure related costs.

Every year, the VA will ask for money to be put into this account and Congress will agree or disagree with their request through the appropriations process. This is basic checks and balances.

Some are concerned that this fund will be used for other priorities. The Congressional Budget Office said that as much as $400 billion could be transferred into this fund. That's highly unlikely, but possible if a few things happen.

One, VA would need to say everything is now toxic-exposure related. And two, Congress abdicates their job and rubber stamps what the VA asks for. An old Congressional joke is, “The president’s thick budget makes a great door stopper.”

What stoked this concern is the CBO score that said as much as $400B could be put in this fund. But again, this would require the VA to overreach and for Congress to not do their job and let them do it.

Senator Boozman, a strong supporter of the PACT Act, put it very well when he spoke to CQ. “CBO is interpreting that in a very conservative way. They don't want to understate. I think most people feel like they're dramatically overstating this.”

Now, we gotta talk about Toomey. His amendment would limit the fund size each year & totally eliminate it in a decade. There are a few problems with that.

First, it would require the bill to go back to House, which likely means a six-week delay before it gets passed. For sick veterans, that is too long.

Second, his amendment puts caps in place on the fund. The challenge with doing capping the money today for the fund in 2030 is that we don’t know what veterans will need in eight years. The health issues associated with toxic exposure take years to manifest and be diagnosed.

Also, Congress put caps with the Mission Act and other bills, if the estimate today is too low, emergency appropriations are needed, and passing the regular appropriations is hard enough.

Third, the amendment sunsets the fund after 10 years, which means that we’re going to have another funding fight in a decade. We’re still going to be dealing with Agent Orange, Burn Pits, and other toxic exposures for the next decade and beyond.

When it comes to the PACT Act, NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE CHANGED since June. The toxic exposure fund that many are pointing to certainly was not added. Unfortunately, concern over this fund and frustration that Senators couldn’t offer amendments helped lead to 25 changed votes.

So, what's the way ahead? Leader Schumer announced that he will bring the bill back up on Monday night. He is willing to work Senators to allow amendments, which will hopefully create a path ahead. c-span.org/video/?c502575…

This means between now and then, veterans need to rally support and help flip back at least five Senators who voted against the PACT Act.

The Senate needs to hear from veterans, and all Americans, on why the PACT Act is so important. Here's a resource you can use to write and call your Senators. moaa.quorum.us/campaign/41155/

Calls are highly effective, and it is important to be respectful when calling in. The person on the other end is a young staffer or intern who is just starting on the Hill. #PACTAct