Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to begin by welcoming our newest Senator from the State of Nebraska, Pete Ricketts. I don't know him well, but I am sure I will come to know him. I certainly know his family. They have made their impression on the city of Chicago by purchasing the historic franchise the Chicago Cubs. They have made major investments in the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois in that pursuit. Best of all, they have virtually guaranteed that Wrigley Field is going to stay in Wrigley Field--exactly where it should be. It is one of the cathedrals of baseball in America, and the Ricketts family has made a commitment to it, which is certainly satisfying to devout baseball fans like myself. I hope the time of the new Senator will be productive and gratifying. Work in this body can sometimes be slow and frustrating, but with patience, good things can happen.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the logic of title 42 is a public health response to a crisis. It was determined that foreigners coming into the United States could be turned away under title 42, and more than a million were last year. Now, what has happened to the public health crisis? In June of this year, our government announced it would no longer require COVID tests for foreigners entering the United States. We have 22 million international visitors each year, and now there is no longer a requirement for testing. So let's be honest. This is not about public health anymore. It is our excuse for not tackling the very real challenge of coming up with a border policy on a bipartisan basis. I want to salute Senator Sinema and Senator Tillis for their undertaking. I want to work with them in the future, and I think we should reject this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 6563

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor very briefly to make a note of an article that appeared this morning in the Chicago Sun-Times. The article relates to an opportunity that Terrence Duffy, who is currently the chairman of the Chicago-based CME Group, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange--Mr. Duffy, in his testimony before Congress and the Senate, has commented on the situation with the cryptocurrency exchange known as FTX and its former head, Sam Bankman-Fried. We are all aware of what happened here. This is a situation wherein an individual capitalized on the cryptocurrency craze and became a billionaire. He was a young man who struck a different pose than most financiers. He spent his time wearing T-shirts and playing video games when he wasn't making millions of dollars with his crypto investment. Many people were unfortunately drawn into his portrayal of what cryptocurrency could result in and lost their shirts. Mr. Bankman-Fried went from billionaire to bankrupt in a matter of 72 hours. The question is, Should America have seen this coming? Should we have done more? That raises serious questions. The purpose of entering this article into the Record is to make note of the fact that Terrence Duffy, with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, forewarned us of this possibility. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange is a major part of the economy of Chicago, of Illinois, and of the Midwest. It is an industry that has been established over decades, and it is a regulated industry. One might get the impression that regulation and success in business are antithetical, but in this circumstance, the Federal regulation of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange not only gives assurance of its integrity, it also enhances its reputation around the world--a lesson that the cryptocurrency world might learn. If we are going to lead the world when it comes to financial investment, we have to assure the world that it is on the square, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, for one, which has the regulatory authority over the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, has set out on that mission successfully for decades. I wanted to note the fact that when he appeared before the U.S. House Agriculture Committee in May, Mr. Duffy warned us about the dangers that were inherent to the FTX enterprise. He said at one point that he believed the proposal that Mr. Bankman-Fried was making to create his business model was fraught with dangers. Mr. Duffy called it at the time in May a ``risk management light'' that could destabilize financial markets involved in cryptocurrency. I am a member of the Agriculture Committee, and we may have some element of jurisdiction over this cryptocurrency industry as it relates to commodities. We have had one hearing wherein the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission came before us and made a presentation as to why he believed we had an opportunity and an obligation to regulate. I agree with him. If this cryptocurrency world is to continue with any credibility, it needs adequate authorization and regulation to make sure that the people who are investing in it are protected. I have written two separate letters to Fidelity--a major financial house in Massachusetts--and raised questions as to their assertions that people should be allowed to include cryptocurrency in their retirement accounts. I am skeptical of an account, when you should be making conservative investments for your future, that enters into this high-flying cryptocurrency world, which, as we see from the experience of FTX, is fraught with danger. There is a great effort underway by the cryptocurrency world to become major players in American politics. I discovered, much to my surprise, weeks after I had raised questions about the future of cryptocurrency, that FTX and Mr. Bankman-Fried had, in fact, contributed to me. I was asked by a reporter: Have you received any contributions from this enterprise or industry? I said: Of course not. Then I looked to find I had. They had sent money unsolicited by me and unknown to me until 2 weeks ago. That money, of course, is going to be redirected to charitable enterprises and not to a political purpose for me or any of my staff. It is an indication, though, that they have more money than friends in the cryptocurrency world and that they are trying to make sure they have plenty of friends in Congress and on Capitol Hill. It is the nature of our political campaigns that a massive amount of money is invested and spent. Oftentimes, candidates can't keep up with the blur of contributions and expenditures. Well, that happened to me when it came to FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried, and I think it might have happened to others. So let's take care. If we are going to do our duty for the American people, we have to regulate this industry in a way to protect them from the disastrous results which we recently saw with FTX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chicago Sun-Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are witnessing the end of an era. After nearly five decades of principled service to his beloved State of Vermont, to our Nation, and to the cause of peace and justice throughout the world, Patrick J. Leahy is leaving the U.S. Senate. His departure feels like a bit of a personal loss for me. As long as I have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy has been there. He joined that committee in January 1979. And for more than two decades of his tenure on the committee, he served as the chair or ranking member. He has been a champion of the right to vote, of civil liberties, of freedom of information, of intellectual property, and of upholding and defending the Constitution. He chaired the historic confirmation hearings of the first Black Attorney General, Eric Holder, as well as the confirmation hearings of Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina Justice. He also presided over the historic markup of bipartisan comprehensive immigration legislation in 2013, and I want to assure Senator Leahy that I will continue pushing to reform our broken immigration system. During his service on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy has been a voice of calm and reason when tempers have flared. And he has been a mentor to Members, including me, and to the many staffers who have served him over the years. Just as you can never know a person's life until you walk a mile in their shoes, you can't know the patience and skills it takes to chair an important Senate committee like the Judiciary Committee until you bang that gavel. Thank goodness, I had Senator Leahy as a teacher and example. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1974--part of that big new class of Senators known as the ``Watergate Babies.'' They came to Washington to try to restore people's faith in government and in America itself. Today, Pat Leahy is the last ``Watergate Baby'' still serving in Congress. It seems fitting that his very first vote in this Senate was to authorize the Church Committee, the precursor to today's Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The Church Committee was created to investigate possible abuses of power and illegalities by the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency--and it resulted in major reforms. In the decades since, Patrick Leahy has never shied away from the hard votes. He has voted time and again to uphold the values of our Constitution, even when doing so contained political risk. I have the greatest respect for his fidelity to the rule of law and his determined efforts to safeguard the independence and integrity of America's Federal judiciary. I was informed recently that Senator Leahy has been in the Senate for the confirmation of every single article III judge serving in active status across the Nation. That is an incredible statistic. He is a statesman and a humanitarian whose commitment to human rights--at home and abroad--is revered throughout the world. I am particularly grateful for his longstanding commitment to funding the Paul Simon Water for the Poor and Water for the World Acts, the latter of which I authored and named for my closest friend in politics, the man whose seat I now hold. These two bills and the ensuing critical funding have spurred a historic American effort to bring greater health, dignity, economic opportunity, and access to school--especially for girls--by providing approximately 57 million of the world's poor with either improved or first time access to clean water and more than 38 million with sanitation services over the last 11 years. Pat Leahy has gone from ``Watergate Baby,'' to senior statesman, to President pro tempore of the Senate--third in line to the Presidency. He has helped shape some of our Nation's most important laws for two generations. He is a champion of human rights and the rule of law, at home and abroad. And yet, somehow, he has never lost his sense of awe about our democracy. You can see that in the way he still carries his old, 35-millimeter camera to record historic moments. The great photographer Annie Leibovitz said that if her photos have a hallmark, it is ``that I was not afraid to fall in love with these people.'' The hallmark of Pat Leahy's service to America is also love-- love for our Constitution, love for fairness and decency, and love of people, especially those who are so often overlooked. Last but not least, Patrick's life has been shaped and enriched by his love for his wife Marcelle and their family. My wife Loretta and I wish Patrick and Marcelle may more years of happiness together. May they be filled with good health and good purpose. And don't forget to send us a few photos every once in a while.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Sinema and Senator Tillis, for their statements earlier on the floor on the issue of immigration. A number of us are coming to the floor to discuss it today. It is a sad day--sad because there are many people who are counting on this Congress to do something, who understood that we have an immigration system that is terribly broken and we are paying a heavy price for it, and there are many who are watching this proceeding today who are paying an even heavier price. If we do nothing to help those who are protected by DACA, if we do nothing to help the Dreamers, court decisions may preempt us and may force some of these people to face the reality that they can no longer legally work in America and they are subject to deportation. Many of these young people--and I will tell the story of one in just a moment--have spent their whole lives here in the United States. They have gone to our schools. They go to our churches. We see them at the high school football games. They work in the Dairy Queens. They are all over America because they are part of America--at least they think they are, but they are not. They are undocumented. Their parents brought them to this country when they were infants and toddlers and little kids. They grew up in this Nation thinking they were part of it, and then there was a day of awakening when the parents sat down and said: We have to tell you the truth. You are not here legally. These are the Dreamers, people I have been trying to help for over 20 years. It is over 20 years since I first introduced the DREAM Act. I wanted to help them. I thought perhaps we could get something done. We haven't been able to. Unfortunately, today, it looks very, very unlikely that we will. I hear in the comments from the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from North Carolina the bottom-line truth: Any reasonable, factual discussion or debate on immigration has to not only deal with the Dreamers and those who are here on undocumented status but also has to deal with what is going on at our southern border. The Senator from Arizona is correct. It is a humanitarian and security nightmare that is only getting worse. We are being flooded at the border by people who want to be safely in the United States. I had an opportunity to meet some of those migrants who were bused to Chicago a few weeks ago and sit down across the table from them and hear their stories. I tell you, I recommend that to all who are interested in this issue. Hear the real stories of desperation and danger they faced in the countries they came from, and realize that their sentiments to be part of America, protected in America, have an opportunity in America, are the same sentiments that brought my grandmother to this country with my 2-year-old mother and her sister and brother. I recall the stories. These are not people setting out to cheat some political system; these are people fighting for survival--Carlos, with his 4-year- old daughter and his nursing infant and his wife, who spent 4 months in a journey from Venezuela to our border. In addition to that, there is an individual named Maria who is a college-educated individual in Caracas who left because of fear for her life. She came to the United States. During her trek to this country, she went through violent personal assault in Mexico. She broke down in front of us when she told us the story. These are real people, real human beings. One of the bottom-line principles that should guide us--I think there are at least three, maybe more, but the ones that come to my mind are these: We have to have an orderly process at our border. There has to be some system that monitors the number of people coming in and the circumstances that bring them here. That is No. 1. No. 2, we should never knowingly allow anyone dangerous to come into this country. That is unequivocal. I hope everyone agrees on that. Third, and this is the hardest part, we cannot accept at any given moment all of the people who want to come to America at that moment. We have to have an orderly, timely process that makes sense for America, that makes sense for our reputation as a humane nation and moves us forward along the right track. I think of these Dreamers because I come to this floor so many times--five different times I have called up the DREAM Act for passage. Five different times I got a majority vote on the floor, but in the Senate, as most people know, it takes 60 out of 100, and I couldn't get the 60-vote margin five different times. Years ago, 10 years ago, we had a Saturday morning vote. This Gallery was filled with these young people. They were wearing caps and gowns to tell the story that they want to be graduates of schools--high schools and colleges--and be part of America's future. When we lost that vote and didn't get our 60 votes, I joined with them at a church nearby, a Lutheran church, and there were a lot of tears being shed at that moment from me and from all the others. I said to them at the time: I am not going to give up on you. Don't give up on me. We can do this. That has driven me ever since. I reached out in every direction that I can think of to try to find allies in this conversation who will sit down on a bipartisan basis and fix this broken immigration system. I want to thank the Senator from Arizona for taking the initiative on this issue along with Senator Tillis. I believe that their proposal, while I don't agree with it all, is the right starting point for the conversation and debate on a bipartisan basis. The real starting point has to be the true stories of the people who are going to be affected by this. Let me tell you one, as I have before. This is the 132nd time I have taken to the floor of the Senate to tell the story of a Dreamer. This young man's name is Jose Flores Valor. Jose arrived in this country from Mexico when he was only 11 months old. He grew up in my home State of Illinois, in DeKalb, IL. At a young age, he served as the interpreter for his family at their medical appointments. It was through these experiences, watching the doctors care for and provide support for his family, that his passion for healthcare bloomed. In high school, Jose enrolled in a certified nursing assistant course, and his goal was to eventually become a doctor. It was not until he was 16 and his classmates were getting driver's licenses and making their decisions about colleges that Jose realized he was undocumented. Even though he was accepted into the University of Illinois in Chicago, his legal status meant he did not qualify for any Federal Government assistance or scholarships, and he could not afford to stay beyond the first semester. He didn't let that obstacle stop him. Jose sought other avenues for pursuing a career in healthcare and recently earned an associate of science degree from Kishwaukee College in Illinois. On top of a busy academic schedule, Jose worked with a travel nursing agency as a certified nursing assistant. In this role, he traveled to six different States, working in rehab centers, nursing homes, and hospitals and provided care to our most vulnerable citizens. When the pandemic hit, Jose was deployed across the country to meet urgent healthcare needs. His work took him far from home, which meant he was unable to be by his grandfather's side when his grandfather passed away from COVID. It was one of the many sacrifices Jose made to pursue his passion serving our Nation. Today, Jose has earned a full scholarship at Loyola University in Chicago to complete his premedical studies and obtain a bachelor's degree. Let me take a moment to say a kind word about Loyola University in Chicago. There are many great higher education institutions in my State and in our Nation, but they have gone out of their way to really show that they care for people like Jose. It was their Stritch College of Medicine which opened competition for the first time to DACA students all over the United States. They didn't give them a quota or say there was a certain number to be accepted but said: You can compete with everybody else for admission. For many of these DACA students in Illinois and outside, it was the first chance they ever had to apply to a medical school. As a result, more than 25 students were accepted by Loyola Stritch College of Medicine, and here, they have accepted, with full scholarship, Jose Valor to complete his premed studies on the way to a bachelor's degree. He wants to attend medical school and begin his journey towards being a doctor. He plans one day to open a clinic to help the uninsured and low-income people. He considered DACA his ``opportunity to become a contributing member of society.'' A simple question: Is America better or worse for having Jose living among us? Would we be better off if we just deported him back to Mexico? He came here before he was 1 year old. He didn't know a thing about the journey or where his parents were taking him. He has done everything right since--volunteering to help with healthcare, risking his own life during the COVID-19 crisis to help other people, doing the hard work that many people would turn away from, and now trying to finish college with a premed degree so that he can become a medical professional in America. Do we need him? I need him in Chicago. I can think of places around our State where we are waiting for people with nursing backgrounds and medical backgrounds to step up and to treat American people. One of the hospitals in Chicago came to see me last week. It struggles. It is in a tough neighborhood. The administrator of the hospital said to me: We almost closed down one of our departments, but luckily--luckily--we were able to bring in 30 Filipino nurses to augment our staff to keep that department open. Thirty immigrant Filipino nurses are keeping a department open in a major hospital in the city of Chicago. That story is repeated everywhere. For people saying that we need no more immigrants, that we just don't need them, they are wrong. We need Jose. We need those nurses. We need people who will make this a better nation. We have to do our work here. We have to deal not only with their situation, the undocumented situation, but also with border security. The Senator from Arizona was correct. It is a humanitarian and security challenge, and now it may have to wait for another day. We can't finish it this week. But when we do return to it, let's do it with an open mind and an open heart. Let's understand that we can make this a better and safer nation, a nation of immigrants who make us a better place, and we can have order at the border as well. That is the only thing that gives us any chance to thrive as an American nation into the future. I look forward to working with the Senators. I thank them for their initiative and will do all I can to help them. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last March, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General released a report which revealed that the Department's intelligence division had identified ``specific'' threats related to January 6 before the deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol. But the report said that the Trump-era DHS did not share the intelligence about those threats with other key law enforcement partners until 2 days after the mob stormed the Capitol. By then, no one needed a warning. In an article in the Washington Post a few days after the 2020 election, a person identified only as ``an anonymous senior Republican official'' shrugged off Mr. Trump's unprecedented denial of President Biden's victory. He asked: ``What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time?'' Now, we know. And now, we also know the catastrophic harm that can occur when people ignore the growing threats to our democracy and normalize the dangerous rise in threats of political violence and actual violence in our Nation. Two weeks ago, hundreds of officers from the Capitol Police and the Washington Metropolitan Police Department filled the Capitol Rotunda. They were here to receive the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor that Congress can bestow. There were also officers who weren't there, who fought the mob and died in the days and weeks after. In his remarks in the Rotunda, Leader Schumer praised the officers for ``holding the line'' and saving the Capitol. And truly, we can never thank them enough. They are the heroes of January 6. But what about the man who summoned the mob--whipped them into a fury with his Big Lie and turned them toward the Capitol, ordering them to ``fight like hell'' and ``take back our country''? When will our Republican colleagues accept their responsibility to ``hold the line'' against Trump's increasingly unhinged agitation for political violence and authoritarianism? Donald Trump's handle on his social media website is ``realDonaldTrump.'' Earlier this month, he showed the world again exactly who the ``realDonaldTrump'' is. After repeating his Big Lie about a stolen election, he demanded ``the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.'' If given the chance again, can anyone doubt that Donald Trump would undermine or even suspend our constitutional order if it meant he could entrench himself in power and avoid accountability for his actions? Fortunately, for democracy, the truth seems to be closing in on Donald Trump. Yesterday, at their final public meeting, the members of the bipartisan House Select Committee investigating January 6 voted to refer the former President to the Justice Department on four criminal charges. The proposed charges are historic and devastating: inciting or assisting an insurrection, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government, and conspiracy to make a false statement. Ultimately, it will be up to Attorney General Garland and Jack Smith, the independent special counsel he has appointed to oversee the portions of the DOJ's investigation relating to Trump himself, to decide whether to bring such charges. As the Select Committee finishes its work, however, I want to once again thank the committee members for their meticulous work and their courageous pursuit of the truth. The work of the House Select Committee on January 6th confirmed a key fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee learned in our own investigation: that Trump was told repeatedly--by his own Justice Department appointees--that fraud did not affect the outcome of the 2020 election. Trump knew the Big Lie was a lie, and he repeated it anyway. He knowingly, deliberately poisoned the well of American democracy to try to hold on, illegitimately, to power. Thankfully, the recent midterm elections have shown that the American people increasingly reject the Big Lie and those who continue to peddle it. The cynics who said that democracy wasn't on the ballot last month were wrong. In key swing States, voters rejected every election denier running for statewide office that Trump backed. And yet the threat to American democracy is not over. Here in the Senate, we have a few Republican Senators who have spoken out bravely against Trump's lawlessness and demagoguery. But we have others who refuse to say a word against him. And a significant number of the members of the new Republican majority in the House are election deniers. MAGA Republicans at the local, State, and Federal levels talk a lot about patriotism and individual liberties and freedom. But the truth is far different. What many MAGA Republicans really want is to eliminate rights they don't agree with, including the right to marry the person you love, the right to determine whether and when to have a child and even to use contraception, and the right to retire in dignity with the Social Security and Medicare payments you have earned over a lifetime of work. If they are serious about protecting America, Republicans need to denounce the Big Lie and defend the legitimacy of our elections--the pillar of our democracy. We need to insist that everyone who was involved in January 6 is held accountable. We need to come together to reject the tools used to weaken democracy, especially voter suppression and political gerrymandering meant to disenfranchise our fellow citizens. We also need to limit the growing cancer of dark money on politics. And if we are serious about reducing the growing threat posed by domestic violent extremist groups and individuals fueled by White supremacy and other far right extremist ideologies, we ought to pass my bill to create offices dedicated to combatting domestic terrorism at DHS, DOJ, and the FBI. You can't give a thumb's up to the January 6 mob--and pretend to care about democracy. One of the most searing images from January 6 was the young, Washington Metropolitan police officer being nearly crushed in a doorway. Members of the mob ripped off his mask and tried to gouge out his eyes. He ended up hospitalized. A week later, that officer, Daniel Hodges, told a reporter: ``It was absolutely my pleasure to crush a white nationalist insurrection. I'm glad I was in a position to be able to help. We'll do it as many times as it takes.'' He also said, ``If it wasn't my job, I would have done that for free.'' Defending the basic freedoms of democracy for all Americans and confronting the growing threats of political violence and domestic terrorism is our job. And it ought to be at the top of the agenda when we return to work next month.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, chairing the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was a highlight of my Senate career. I was impressed by Judge Jackson's dignity and grace, her intellect and courage, and her dedication to the Constitution. I was also happy that every Senator was able to invite guests to attend the hearing. It was the first time the Senate welcomed visitors since the pandemic closed the Capitol building 2 years earlier. Among my guests were two women who drove 11 hours from Chicago, with four other people in the car, just to be in the room for the historic occasion. One of the women was in her 70s and had worked for civil rights causes for 50 years. She said that as she watched Judge Jackson make history, she thought of all the strong Black women who came before and helped make that moment possible. Leaders like Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Ida B. Wells, my old friend, the Rev. Willie Barrow, a Black woman minister from Chicago who worked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Another name she could have added to that list of history-shaping women is Billie Jean Paige. Billie was a legend and an inspiration in politics in Chicago and Springfield. And my wife Loretta and I were fortunate to be able to count her as a good friend of many years. She passed away earlier this year. Her last name was spelled P-A-I-G-E. If that sounds familiar, it could be because it is the same spelling as the legendary baseball player Satchel Paige. And that is no coincidence. Satchel Paige was the stepfather of Billie's husband of 65 years, George Paige. Billie was a patriot and a force for progress. She came to lobbying almost by accident. As her husband George recalls it, Billie was working for State Representative Gerald Shea in his Chicago office as a 100-word-per-minute typist, back when Jerry Shea was the first Mayor Daley's go-to man in Springfield. One day, Jerry Shea needed someone to drive to Springfield and file an amendment. But the office was short- handed so he asked Billie to do it. She protested that she wasn't a lawyer. Jerry replied, ``You don't have to be a lawyer to do this. You just have to be smart''--and was she ever. Billie graduated from an all-girls Catholic high school at 15, and she graduated from Roosevelt University at 19. But her intellect alone is not what made her such a powerful advocate for her clients and the causes she cared about. Billie had a rare ability to make people feel heard, seen, and respected. She understood that the best way to make lasting progress was to allow people to speak their minds--and discover common interests. She was always concise, constructive, and respectful--even if she disagreed with you. Our democracy would be healthier today if more people believed, as Billie did, that none of us have a monopoly on political wisdom, and there can be more than one way to achieve one's goals. Twenty years ago, Billie, my wife Loretta, Dawn Clarke Netsch, and a group of other strong, like-minded women set out to pass along their knowledge about how to make political change. They created a project called IWIL, the Illinois Women's Institute for Leadership Training Academy. Billie was a founding member and an indispensable part of IWIL. Over the years, IWIL has trained nearly 250 women to be leaders in politics, law, government, business, and civil society. A true trailblazer, Billie was the first Black woman lobbyist in Springfield and the first Black woman in America to head a State unemployment program. And well into her 80s, Billie was still lobbying to shape laws and make her mark on history in Springfield. Loretta and I are grateful to have had the benefit of Billie's friendship and wisdom for so many years. We offer our sincere condolences to all those who loved and admired her--especially her husband George and their son Gary, Billie's daughter-in-law, Apryl and Jacinta, and her granddaughter Daria.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I came to the floor to speak on another topic, but I want to join in the comments of the Republican leader about Richard Shelby of Alabama. We became friends under different political circumstances when he served in the House of Representatives. It has been my honor to count him as a friend and to have the occasion to travel with him and Annette, his wife, in the past. I am going to miss my friend. I wish you well, and I am sure you have got some football to watch in Alabama when you get home.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize an important person who is critical to the functioning of the U.S. Senate and, more importantly, who has been an important part of the lives of many young Senate families for over three decades. Janet Green-Tucker, affectionately known as Ms. Janet, will be retiring at the end of this month after 36 years of service as a teacher at the Senate Employees Child Care Center. Having joined the center just a few short years after its opening on February 27, 1984, Janet personified the sense of warmth, skill, patience, and community that are well known to the Senate families. We have all had teachers who touched our lives, providing guidance during difficult times or sparking our imaginations. Janet has done so for hundreds of children over the years, nourishing young minds at a critical time in their development. She was a walking encyclopedia of wisdom for all families. In fact, at least one of Janet's former students is now a parent herself, making her a ``grand-teacher!'' For many years she was one-half of the ``Green Team'' alongside fellow teacher, Phyllis Green, who also retired earlier this year after an impactful decades long career at the center. Janet is especially beloved by many families on my staff whose children had the privilege of being taught by her: Rayn, Leo, Alex, William, Avery, and Harry. Even children who weren't in her class could always count on a comforting hug in the hallway from Janet. Janet is also adored by her colleagues. She was always willing to go above and beyond, to support fellow teachers new and old, take care of monthly playground inspections, and lend a hand throughout the center no matter the task. And as an avid baker, Janet's colleagues were more than happy to taste her latest treats and would fight for the last crumb. During the past 36 years, Janet also raised twin boys of her own, Jarard and Jarron,

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote start immediately.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at the outset, let me thank my colleague from Alaska for his service to the United States of America and the Marine Corps, and let me thank all the women and men who serve in the Marine Corps and all our branches of military service. We owe them a great debt of gratitude, and we certainly owe them justice. What is at issue here is the discovery that the water that they were drinking while they were training at Camp Lejeune was poisoned, and it was endangering the health of the marines and their families. For years, they sought compensation and protection and failed. And just this last year, we passed the PACT Act. Under that provision of law, it finally gave a cause of action to these marines and their families to recover for the damages they had suffered because of this poisonous water at this U.S. Government facility training camp at Camp Lejeune. I voted for that, proudly. It was a strong bipartisan rollcall, as it should have been. But let me make sure you understand and everyone listening understands what these marines who believe that they have been damaged by this poisoned water--this contaminated water--have to go through now to recover even the first dollar. The first instance is, they don't receive it automatically. The Senator from Alaska continues to refer to the Biden administration's standards of 2 percent and 10 percent and so forth. He is quoting from a hypothetical that dealt with the Compensation Fund, not what we passed here in the U.S. Senate. The Compensation Fund is like for 9/11 victims. We understand those cases. It wasn't a question of the victims going in and proving that 9/ 11 actually occurred or that their loved one was killed. It was almost an automatic thing that you qualify for. So the low contingency fees which he quoted was for a hypothetical approach which is not the law. What is the law today? What if my father or someone in my family--my son--had gone through training at Camp Lejeune in the period of time that is affected by this? How do they recover? There are two avenues to recovery. One of them is file a claim with the U.S. Navy, and the Navy can decide that the claim is meritorious and pay it. But if the Navy does not pay it, the administrative hearing does not result in a payment to the plaintiff, to the claimant, to the marine, the next step is a serious one. It goes to the Federal court, not just any Federal court but the one we designated, the Eastern District of North Carolina. What happens at that court? That marine now is walking into a Federal courtroom and has to establish a case and prove the liability of the government for his losses. What does he have to prove? Well, he has to prove causation, liability, and damages. Have you ever been in a Federal courtroom or walked in there by yourself and seen what happens? I am telling you that it is a humbling experience even for a trained lawyer. I have been through it, and I will tell you this: I wouldn't want to go through it with something as serious as recovering damages for healthcare costs or injuries to someone dear to me and my family without having adequate legal representation. What does it cost to get this representation? Well, there is no requirement that the marines hire a lawyer at all, but if they do, the ordinary course of business says that they are going to pay a contingency fee, which means you don't pay the lawyer upfront. The lawyer basically represents you, and if they recover, then you recover, but if they don't recover anything for your claim, they are emptyhanded as you are emptyhanded. That is the nature of a contingency fee. The Senator from Alaska came to the floor about 2 weeks ago and raised this issue, and I said: Let's work on this together. I want to say our staffs have worked on it together. I am sorry that we haven't reached an agreement, but here was the proposal that I put on the table and the reason for it. First, on the contingency fee, if you are just going to go to the Navy and file your administrative claim, we put a cap on the contingency fee, which the lawyer is paid, of 20 percent--20 percent. Where did we get that? From the Federal Tort Claims Act. That is the percentage that is used now under the law. Then we said, if you have to go to a trial in a Federal court, the maximum--maximum--attorney's fee is one-third if you recover. If you don't recover, you don't pay. It is a contingency fee. Now, the Senator from Alaska has said: Well, let's do 2 percent and 10 percent instead of 20 percent and 33 percent. So what can you buy for a 2-percent contingency fee or a 10-percent contingency fee? Well, you can probably buy a lawyer who has never tried a case in court. You could buy an attorney whose office is in the trunk of his car. You could buy an attorney who will put the veteran's file at the bottom of the stack because there is so little money involved in it--or you could buy an attorney who will say: My paralegal in Singapore will get back to you later. That is what you get if you try to get by with 2 percent and 10 percent when, in the ordinary course of business, it is 33\1/3\ percent. You are doing the veterans no favor by saying that they can't pay any more than a 2-percent contingency fee if they can't find a good lawyer, and I am sorry to say you won't find a lot of good lawyers at a 2-percent contingency fee. That is just the reality. We went to the Senator from Alaska and said: We will cap the contingency fees: 20 percent for an administrative case and no more than a 33\1/3\-percent contingency fee if the case goes to trial. Then we went further. He raised a point that I think is a valid point: How does a marine know he is going to get paid? We think the lawyer will be paid, but will the marine be paid if there is a verdict or a settlement? We put in language that said, definitely, the marine has to be the first paid. We offered that to the Senator from Alaska. We went further. There is a bill pending before the U.S. Senate--a bipartisan bill. Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut and Senator Boozman of Arkansas, a Republican, have come up with a bill that says: Those people who are ripping off veterans--unaccredited groups that are ripping off veterans--by making them pay fees to collect the benefits they are owed by law ought to be criminally liable. There is a criminal fine in that bill. So those are the three things we offered to the Senator from Alaska. It was not that he would go away emptyhanded but that he would get a result and get that result in a timely way. We made that offer over the last 2 weeks. He did not accept it. I wish he had. I am still going to work with him to reach that goal so that we can make sure that all men and women who are affected by the Camp Lejeune contaminated water get compensated with competent attorneys who can represent them in court effectively and recover for them. We are doing them no favor if we limit the contingency fee and they can't hire a competent attorney. That is the maximum amount, 20 and 33, but it is certainly within the realm of ordinary practice. So I would say to the Senator from Alaska that the offer I made 2 weeks ago I make to you again now. Let's fix this problem. Let's not trade speeches on the floor of the Senate. We both feel intensely about our points of view, but we share one common value that, I think, we ought to make very clear here: We want these marines to be compensated. That is why we passed the PACT Act. We want to do it in a way that they are not exploited. I abhor those attorneys or even those who are not attorneys who are trying to exploit these individuals. Let's work together to put an end to that once and for all, and let's do it in a timely way. By the time we get back here to consider legislation, it will be almost February--another 6 weeks or longer--and time will have been wasted. I would just say to the Veterans Health Administration and to all of the veterans' services organizations: Warn all of those who would be plaintiffs in these lawsuits not to be taken in by anyone who is going to cheat them. Make sure that they are treated fairly. We can do our part too. Let's pledge together to get that done in the new year. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to close by thanking the Senator from Alaska--a Republican, a Democrat but committed to the same values--for making sure that these marines and their families are treated fairly. We currently have 14,000 pending. These marines had 2 years from when we passed the law back in, I believe, June or July to file their claims. There is going to be a mountain of claims involved here, and we have got to make sure that we do it in a thoughtful way and in a timely way that is fair to the marines every step of the way. I will be part of that effort with you, Senator. Order of Business Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur with respect to amendment No. 6513 is not agreed, the motion to concur with amendment be withdrawn; and that if cloture is invoked, by the use or yielding back of time, the second- degree amendment be withdrawn.