In a recent debate, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) faced tough questions about her vote against the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act of 2022, which expanded health benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances during their service. The bill, which gained bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, has been hailed as a significant victory for veterans suffering from illnesses related to exposure to burn pits and other toxins. Boebert’s explanation for her opposition, however, was both surprising and disappointing, as she cited fiscal concerns and procedural issues that critics argue fall short of justifying a vote against the wellbeing of U.S. veterans.
What The PACT Act Does
The Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to address the health care needs of veterans exposed to toxic substances, including those related to burn pits used during military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Burn pits, where waste is incinerated, release toxic chemicals into the air, which many veterans inhaled. The exposure has been linked to a range of serious illnesses, including cancer, respiratory issues, and other long-term health problems.
The PACT Act expands eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare to veterans who served in the post-9/11 era and introduces a framework for establishing presumptions of service connection for veterans suffering from specific conditions. As stated in the bill, these include “23 burn pit-related illnesses” such as respiratory cancers, chronic bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Stay up-to-date with the latest news!
Subscribe and start recieving our daily emails.
Additionally, the bill mandates improvements in the VA’s delivery of services and resources related to toxic exposures, ensuring that veterans receive timely care for their service-related health issues. The bill also provides mechanisms for continued research and monitoring of toxic exposures, making it a long-term solution to addressing veterans’ healthcare needs. Importantly, the bill states that veterans should not be required to provide proof of exposure if they were stationed in areas known to have burn pits during their service, simplifying the process for veterans seeking care.
Boebert’s Embarrassing Answer
During the debate with her Democratic opponent, Trisha Calvarese, Boebert was asked to explain her vote against the PACT Act. Calvarese pressed her, saying, “If you’re going to take care of folks, what about our veterans, Lauren? You know, because you’re talking about lots of cuts and how to pay for things. I think if you’re going to be America first, you can’t put veterans last.”
Boebert’s response was striking. She began by claiming that she has “absolutely put [veterans] first,” but quickly pivoted to fiscal concerns, stating, “I’m not spending $600 billion forever because we couldn’t get a couple pieces of language right in legislation.” Boebert justified her vote by arguing that the cost of the bill was too high and that there was insufficient time to review the legislation before the vote. “I’m not voting for something that we have 22 hours to read that’s over 2,000 pages long,” Boebert stated.
The Fiscal Concerns: Legitimate or a Red Herring?
From 2017 to 2020, under former President Trump and a completely Republican-controlled Congress, the deficit grew by approximately $6.6 trillion, but now they’re complaining about fiscal responsibility. Some Republicans, including Boebert, voiced objections to the $400 billion in mandatory spending that would be required by the bill, which they argued would not be subject to annual appropriations review. This lack of oversight, they claimed, could lead to ballooning costs and fiscal irresponsibility. However, after facing public pressure—including from veterans’ groups and high-profile figures like Jon Stewart—the Senate added three amendments to control costs, which ultimately garnered the support of many Republicans.
Despite these amendments, Boebert remained steadfast in her opposition. She cited her inability to propose changes to the bill as a reason for her no vote, saying, “I fought so we could have amendments on the House floor. When that bill first came up, I was in the minority, and amendments were closed on the House floor. I could not give a Colorado voice to the men and women who have served in our military on that legislation.” However, many critics argue that her focus on fiscal concerns and procedural complaints overlooks the urgent health needs of veterans who are suffering from service-related illnesses.
What The PACT Act Doesn’t Do
Boebert’s claim that the PACT Act represented an irresponsible spending package appears to be a mischaracterization of the bill’s purpose and scope. While the bill does allocate substantial resources to veteran healthcare, it does not provide an unlimited financial commitment. Instead, it aims to create a framework for providing care to veterans based on their service-related health issues and sets up a presumptive service connection for toxic exposures, making it easier for veterans to access care. The cost is significant, but the bill is designed to ensure that veterans are not left without the healthcare they desperately need, a point that was widely agreed upon by lawmakers across the aisle.
Furthermore, the bill specifically addresses concerns about future healthcare spending by introducing a mechanism for ongoing monitoring and research. This ensures that as new evidence emerges regarding toxic exposures and their effects on veterans, the VA can adjust its services accordingly. This is not a blank check, as Boebert suggested, but rather a targeted investment in veterans’ health.
The Public and Political Backlash
Boebert’s vote against the PACT Act, coupled with her explanation during the debate, has drawn sharp criticism from her opponent and many others who see her stance as dismissive of veterans’ needs. Calvarese pointedly remarked, “The folks in this room are not—they’re not foolish,” pushing back on Boebert’s attempt to justify her decision with procedural complaints and fiscal concerns. Boebert’s opponents argue that her focus on spending detracts from the real issue at hand—ensuring that veterans receive the care they deserve after serving their country.
Boebert’s vote against the PACT Act and her subsequent defense during the debate reflect a broader pattern of prioritizing fiscal conservatism over the pressing needs of veterans. While concerns about government spending are valid, Boebert’s decision to vote against a bill that provides essential healthcare for veterans exposed to toxic substances during their service has left many questioning her commitment to those who have served in the military.
Featured image via public domain
