Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from H.R. 2441 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Monday, June 28 at 9 a.m.; Thursday, July 1 at 11 a.m.; Monday, July 5 at 2:30 p.m.; and Thursday, July 8 at 12 noon. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, July 8, it next convene at 3 p.m., Monday, July 12; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Zeya nomination; finally, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I watched television Sunday night with my wife. There was a movie called ``Selma.'' Oprah Winfrey had something to do with it because she was in it, and it was, as you might expect, a quality production. It told the story of what happened in 1965 in Selma, AL. It showed the horrific images of Americans being beaten and brutalized in Selma for daring to protest peacefully. For what? For the right to vote. Fewer people know about Turnaround Tuesday. That was the day, 2 days after Bloody Sunday, when many of the same people who had been beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday went back to that bridge to make it plain that they were going to come back again and again until every right of every citizen to vote was secured. That was Turnaround Tuesday. I had a lucky experience. The late John Lewis, who marched across that Edmund Pettus Bridge and almost gave his life in the process, took me, one foggy Sunday morning, for a walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and he told me what he remembered from that day. I have seen pictures over and over again. There he is in his white raincoat, with a backpack, marching in the front of the line, and how he was bashed in the head by either a trooper or someone who came along trying to stop them from marching. He almost died as a result of it. It was something I will never forget. I feel blessed that I had that experience. And then there was the vote on the floor yesterday. What a disappointment. Today, I want to say it is ``welcome back'' Wednesday. Welcome back to the fight to preserve voting rights that has never ended. It didn't start on that bridge in Selma, and it won't end in this Chamber in Washington. This battle is going to continue because there are those people who know that if you want to control America politically, you have got to control those who vote. We saw it after the Civil War, when we ended slavery and African Americans initially had an opportunity to vote and lead in Southern States. And then, sad to report, my political party, the Democratic Party at that time, was part of initiating the Jim Crow laws, which made it difficult, if not impossible, to vote. And the battle was on, and it is being waged to this day, about whether or not African Americans have a right to vote. Make no mistake. When Republicans come to the floor and go through these long, elaborate explanations of why a coordinated effort by Republican legislatures in 20 different States is just good government, I think they know better. It is not good government, and it is not good for the people of those States, particularly if you are a minority. Well, this fight to prevent billionaires from buying elections and root out corruption in government didn't end with that filibuster yesterday. Republicans succeeded in delaying this debate for a time, but they are not going to derail it. This is too important. Our democracy is on the line. Five months ago--I am sure Madam President will never forget it, as I won't--a murderous mob--five people died--a murderous mob attacked this Capitol and tried to overturn the Presidential election. Who sent them? Well, it is clear to me who sent them: a vain, self- pitying former President who couldn't accept defeat or the will of the American people. So Donald Trump created a Big Lie that the election was stolen. He used that lie to incite that mob to attack this Capitol. He continues to peddle the Big Lie from his exile at some country club. Now the party that coddled that failed President when he was in power is weaponizing the Big Lie and using it to justify a relentless attack on voting rights across America. Three weeks ago, Senate Republicans used the filibuster to kill a bill creating an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate who was behind this January 6 insurrection. They killed it with the filibuster, just as they tried to kill the voting rights bill yesterday. That filibuster is an echo, sadly, of how it has been used in the area of civil rights for as long as it has been in the Senate. This Big Lie is metastasizing; it is growing. Instead of stopping it, Republicans are using all their leverage to prevent us from confronting it. The filibuster yesterday was day one of this fight. It wasn't the end of the story. Welcome to day two. We mean to keep marching until we cross that bridge and stop this assault on our democracy and put an end to the Big Lie once and for all. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week, I told the story of a mother who received critical support from an organization called Life Span in Chicago after her daughter was sexually assaulted by the mother's husband. The services provided by Life Span were paid for by the Victims of Crime Act, VOCA. This week, I want to tell you another story that is even more troubling, but it dramatizes the need for us to act today, this afternoon. I am going to use the name ``Sasha,'' not the real name of the woman involved. She is a mother of three kids, and she was living with a man who was unpredictable and dangerous. He tried to kill her--not once but three times. He tried strangling her, and the third time, she passed out. When she woke up with the kids nearby, she knew that was it. She couldn't take it anymore. So she went to a hospital. She was scared to death. She heard about a group called Harbor House. Harbor House is basically a domestic violence survivors center. I would tell my colleagues in the Senate, if you have ever visited a domestic violence survivors center and met with any of the victims, you will never forget it. I swear, you will never forget it. I can remember the first time I met with one of the victims in one of the shelters. She was crying. Her eyes were red, one eye was blackened, and she choked back the tears and told me the story of what she lived through. For some reason--and I am not a psychologist; I can't explain it--she blamed herself. And it happens so often. What happens to these women who are the victims of domestic violence abuse? Where do they go? Some of them can't find anywhere to go and end up dying as a result of it. What happens to their kids who witness these acts of violence in the home when mom is getting strangled by this man? What happens to them? Well, luckily, we care enough in America to do something about it. Through VOCA and the Crime Victims Fund, we send money to Harbor House and Life Span and other agencies and say: Do your best. Help them put their lives back together again. Protect them. Well, I want to fast-forward and tell you that 6 months after Sasha's experience, things are much better. She lives safely in an apartment. She still works with adult counselors and youth counselors to get herself and her kids through this, and she knows that she is not alone. These VOCA-funded advocates stepped into her life at just the right moment and saved her life. They may have saved the lives of her children too. So when we cut back on funding for whatever reason, we are jeopardizing the services that I just described that are so critical. With decreased VOCA funding--if we do nothing today, with decreased VOCA funding, Harbor House will have to cut its staffers, exactly the types of professionals who helped Sasha and her family. The executive director said: If VOCA is cut, imagine being Sasha and having to go through all of that alone. That is why we have to pass this bill. That is why it is so critical. As I noted last week, VOCA passed in 1984 to establish the Crime Victims Fund. We can't even count the number of people who have been helped over the years. Three thousand applicants come through my State Attorney General's Office in Illinois, and every State has a similar story to tell of thousands of victims helped by service providers, victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, and drunk drivers. And the Crime Victims Fund doesn't receive a dime of taxpayers' dollars. How about that? What I just described for you doesn't come out of the Treasury. It is funded through criminal fines, penalties, forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments collected by the Federal Government. Historically, most of the money comes from criminal fines, but in recent years, deposits have dropped off significantly. That is why we are here at this moment. They need help, and they need it now. Monetary penalties from deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements are currently deposited in the Treasury instead of the fund. As a result, the shift has had a devastating impact on the fund. That is why a bipartisan, bicameral group of Members of Congress, working with advocacy organizations, have come up with this VOCA fix. Our bill would stabilize the depleted fund by redirecting monetary penalties from deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements to the victims and service providers who need the help. The reduced deposits into the fund have already had a devastating impact. Victim assistance grants have been reduced by more than $600 million in this year. And more cuts are coming if we don't do something today. Like Harbor House, advocates across the State and across the country are begging for help. We don't have any time to waste. Every day that goes by, we miss an opportunity to help replenish the fund and to put these services on the street. So far this year, the fund has already missed out on a total of nearly $550 million in deposits that could be helping these agencies, and we are not even halfway through the year. That is why it is imperative that we pass this bill. The House already did it in March, 3 months ago--broad bipartisan support. Here in the Senate, we have a broad bipartisan coalition of Senators--36 Democrats and 21 Republicans. We all get it. We are all for crime victims. But we have been stopped because of an objection on the floor. Let's end this today. Whatever the merits of any budgetary argument, for goodness' sake, lives are at stake here. Unfortunately, this objection about moving forward was made last week, and it probably will be made again today. It involves Senator Toomey's concern about a budgetary issue. It is a complicated issue about something called CHIMPs, for goodness' sake, which he can explain, and I am sure he will. But after last week's argument on this, I went to the advocates who are telling us that we should send this money as quickly as we can and said: Is he right? Is this designed, without his amendment, so that this money will not go to the people who need it? They said he is wrong. This is not going to happen. Here is their statement: ``During floor remarks for the unanimous consent [last week], it was represented the VOCA Fix Act fails to correct certain structural issues that prevent the funds from reaching victims and their advocates. The premise of this statement--that these structural issues impact the distribution of VOCA funds to survivors and advocates--is not accurate.'' This is from the actual agencies themselves. ``While the use of CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Programs) as budget offsets continues to be a contentious issue, the claim that Appropriators hoard money rather than releasing it to victim service providers is false.'' Inaccurate and false. ``In reality, Appropriators have substantially decreased the size of the budget offset by releasing far more than the amount required by the proposed substitute, and the proposed substitute intended to restructure the entire appropriations process is incredibly controversial.'' In other words, we are going to dive into the deep end of the pool on budget process, budget rules, and budget regulation while people are literally drowning in violence--victims of domestic abuse. For goodness' sake, isn't there a better time and place and a better group to hold hostage? It shouldn't be these domestic violence cases. I yield at this point to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1652, which was received from the House and is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if you listen to this explanation, there is one thing missing and it is critical. There is a suggestion that this money for the Crime Victims Fund is being spent for another purpose. You never heard that, did you? It said it could be, maybe it will be, it might be--but it hasn't been. Listen to what they say, these people in the advocacy groups are jealously watching every penny. They want every dollar, just as you do and I do. And what do they say about your argument? The premise of your statement that these structural issues impact the distribution of the victims funds to survivors and advocates is not accurate. It goes on to say that the claim that appropriators hoard the money rather than releasing it to victims services is false. This is from the very agencies receiving the money. Are they in on the deal, Senator? I don't think so. They are desperate for these funds, and without them, they are going to have a serious cutback in services. The proposed substitute intended to restructure the entire appropriations process is incredibly controversial, and you know it and I know it as a member of the Appropriations Committee. Yet you are tangling up this relief for the victims of crime, victims of domestic abuse, women who are seeking shelter and hospital care and trying to care for their children and what they are going through. You want to hold back on the possibility--the possibility--that somebody is going to spend this on something else, even though you have no proof that it has been done--none. And the people who are the advocates for these groups are saying to you: What you are saying is inaccurate and false. And you won't give it up. I would suggest: Pick another target. Find some other group to make your budget point of order. Please don't take this out on these people who are in the most desperate situations in their life. This is not the time and place to raise this budget debate. I seriously hope that you will think about them for a moment. I object to your modification.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what is the weather like in Las Vegas? What is it like in Reno? I am not sure, but I will bet it is hot. And the reason I am sure that it is likely to be hot is the weather forecast. I looked at that map, and it was solid red in the western half of the United States, with extreme high temperatures at a level never recorded. They said in the city of Seattle, there have only been a handful of times that they have had temperatures over 100 degrees in that city. It is going to happen again this weekend, at least that is the prediction. That is the weather forecast. It is not just confined to the blue coastal States, as some call them. We have a drought in the Midwest. I hope it ends soon, but when it comes to corn country--Iowa, Illinois, Indiana--we are worried. I hope it doesn't happen, but it could, and we know it can happen soon. And then in the southeastern part of the United States, there are extreme storms--rains they haven't seen before. I just say that after listening to the Republican leader describe the situation with the environment, wondering if he reads the papers or talks to people back home because extreme weather is happening all over the United States, and it isn't just in Republican areas or Democratic areas; it is virtually everywhere. So when President Biden comes in and says: Shouldn't we do something about this for the good of our children and our grandchildren? Shouldn't we be willing to sacrifice a little bit? Shouldn't we be willing to change some if it means that they are going to have a planet that is worth living on--about 10 years ago, I started asking my farmers who come and visit me from Illinois a couple of questions. These are good people. They never vote for me, I know that, but I still like meeting with them. They are good people. They bring their wives. They dress up in their suits. They take it seriously. They are coming to Washington. This is before COVID-19, of course. And they would sit upstairs in my conference room. There would be about 20 or 30 of them from organizations like the Farm Bureau or the corn growers or the soybean growers. And I would say to them--this is 10 years ago--how many of you believe that what we are doing on Earth is changing the environment of the Earth we live on? I mean that our human activity is having something to do with it. And I would ask for a show of hands. And the response was, not one hand would go up. And I finally said to them: Well, things are changing. What do you think is behind all of it? And one fellow said--and he did this seriously, and I believe he was speaking from the heart--he said: ``Senator, some years God sends me a drought; some years God sends me a flood; I got to deal with whatever God sends me.'' I respect him for that. That is his deep-hearted belief, and it is sincere. But I think there is more to the story. And now when I ask these same farmers the same question, I get a different response. The Illinois corn growers, looking around, thinking something is happening here in this wonderful, bountiful State that I live in. The crops that are grown traditionally are not producing what they did traditionally, unless some hybrid seeds and other fertilizers are being used. There are new weather conditions and it is changing every year and it is not getting better. It is getting dryer and hotter. So when Joe Biden starts talking about the next generation of energy in America, I think about my granddaughter, ``Little Jo.'' I think about Jo, and I am wondering what kind of world she is going to live in and what I am going to do about it. One thing that President Biden said was, we are moving toward electric vehicles. You would think that it was some Federal mandate that is bringing this on. But if you read the newspapers, you know it isn't. General Motors has accelerated the timetable to go to electric vehicles, Ford as well. They see the writing on the wall. What we currently use for transportation will not be what we use in 10 or 15 years. It is going to change. We are going to move to electric vehicles for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is there are fewer emissions, greenhouse gas emissions. The country of Norway just announced last week that over 50 percent of their vehicles are electric vehicles. If you had been there in the recent past, you see Teslas in every direction, electric vehicles in every direction. I spoke to the Ambassador from Norway, and I said: How did that happen? How did you move to a point where more than half the vehicles in Norway are electric vehicles? She said: Tax breaks. We gave them tax breaks. And all of a sudden, everyone had a new lifestyle with electric vehicles. And they think that protects them in the future or at least holds the possibility of reducing the pollution that they are dealing with, and I think they are right. So does Joe Biden. But when we get into an infrastructure debate with Republicans, the first thing they say is: Take electric vehicles off the table. We don't want to even talk about it. No subsidies, no encouragement for those. Traditionally, we have been encouraging oil companies, with all sorts of tax breaks throughout their history, to continue to explore and grow in size and make a lot of money. But the notion of encouraging electric vehicles is somehow heretical to our friends on the Republican side. I think it is very shortsighted. I think we should look at the obvious. I tell this story, and it is worth repeating. Six years ago, we had an auto plant in Normal, IL-- yes, that is the name of it: Normal, IL. Six years ago, Mitsubishi closed their auto plant. There were more than 1,000 people working there, and there was that big sprawling complex just off of Interstate 55. Every time you took that interstate and looked out there, you thought: That is going to be there forever. That building is just going to deteriorate and be there forever. Well, guess what. A year after they closed, the mayor of Normal, IL, whose name is Chris Koos--a wonderful mayor--called me and said: Senator, I think I have a buyer for the Mitsubishi plant. I said: What kind of buyer? He said: There is a man who wants to build electric vehicles. He came down and took a look, and he liked that plant. He said it was way too big for his purposes, but he is actually thinking of building electric vehicles in the old Mitsubishi plant. Darned if it didn't happen. The company is called Rivian. They bought that plant, and they started building electric vehicles--just this month, officially, in production. How many workers will they have? Up to 4,000, maybe even 5,000. Will they be able to use the whole plant? They are now building an addition to the plant. Is it a viable company? Is it going to last? Well, obviously Amazon thinks so because they have invested a billion dollars in Rivian. And the companies are coming from all around thinking this is the future. So I say to the Senator from Kentucky, yes, there will be transitions in jobs, but there are job opportunities at Rivian and places just like that. Lion Electric is another company. It came in from Canada. They build electric buses. One of the things we are envisioning is moving toward electric schoolbuses across America. That is a big move. This is a company that builds them. We need more just like it, and there are going to be good-paying jobs associated with it. EVBox is a company out of the Netherlands, located in my State again. They build the charging stations. Closing your eyes to the opportunities here is very shortsighted. Things are changing, and changing for the better. And because there is change, it doesn't mean it is bad for everybody. There are transitions, and we ought to help with educating people, preparing them for the new jobs. But if you look around at this world and what is happening with the weather patterns and the environment, how shortsighted it would be for us to say to our kids and grandkids: Well, we had a chance back in 2021 to do something about it, but we decided it just might make people uneasy to think about that much change. Well, I feel uneasy about the change that is coming if we do nothing. It is going to be a dramatic change for the worse for our kids.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today I want to speak about two really highly qualified judicial nominees the Senate Judiciary Committee came up with through the White House The first is Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, who has been nominated to an Illinois seat on the Seventh Circuit. With her qualifications, temperament, and range of experience, she is outstanding. She is the daughter of two judges. Her father, Raymond Jackson, is a Federal district court judge, and her mother, Gwendolyn Jones Jackson, is a retired State court judge. She went to Princeton and then Yale Law School--not bad. She clerked for Judge David Coar on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District and for Roger Gregory on the Fourth Circuit. After her clerkships, she worked in private practice, and then she made an interesting career decision, and not many people make it. She decided to stop practicing in the private practice of law and become a staff attorney at the Federal Defender Program for the Northern District of Illinois, representing people who couldn't afford counsel. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi spent 10 years as a Federal public defender. She defended hundreds of indigent clients at every stage of the legal process. She is a real lawyer. She knows that courtroom inside and out, and she knows the legal process as well. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi's experience and perspective on the criminal justice system will be an asset in the Seventh Circuit. If she is approved, she will be the second woman of color to be in that circuit. It is about time. Her skills and legal expertise will be invaluable. She received a ``well qualified'' rating by the ABA. She has a great temperament. One of our Senators on the Judiciary Committee tried to trap her with a question, seeing just whether she knew enough about the law. When it was all over, I think he was satisfied that she did. She spoke to the fact that her mother taught her how important it is for judges to listen and for litigants to be heard. This is a fundamental principle in our system of justice. She is going to devote her life to defending the rule of law in the future, as she has in the past. I really think she is going to be extraordinary. The second nominee the Senate will vote on this week has my strong support as well, Judge Deborah Boardman, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. She serves as a U.S. magistrate judge in the Maryland District Court. Like Jackson-Akiwumi, she has received a ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA. She, too, will bring diversity to the courts. She spent 11 years as a Federal public defender herself. She is bringing a perspective which is often not found in these court cases with sitting judges. I have nothing against former prosecutors. I have named a lot of them to the bench. But we ought to have diversity in background, experience, and the like. She has experience in private practice. She is a dedicated public servant, and I hope my colleagues will support her.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on another topic, this notion that Joe Biden is being pushed around by Vladimir Putin--the Senator who made that statement on the floor, or one just like it, has he ignored what happened over the last 4 years? Every time the President of the United States, Donald Trump, would meet with Vladimir Putin, they would ask the translators to leave the room, the people from the intelligence agencies to leave the room, and they would just play pat-a-cake. I mean, we know what was going on there. There was some sort of political bromance between the President and Vladimir Putin. I don't believe that is ever going to happen with Joe Biden. He is a realist. He made it clear that he went in that meeting with Putin to lay down the law in terms of infiltrating our elections in the future and the activities that we have seen in hacking and cyber crimes. That is the kind of leadership we need in dealing with Vladimir Putin.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was October of 2002. I remember the day when in the Senate we decided to vote on the question as to whether or not we would authorize President Bush to use military force in Afghanistan. We considered the issue of Iraq before. Twenty-three of us had voted against giving that authority to President Bush. When it came to Afghanistan, the argument was different. The argument was that those responsible for 9/11, for killing 3,000 innocent Americans, were hiding out in Afghanistan, and if we didn't ferret them out of their hiding place and hold them accountable, what kind of nation would we be? I bought that argument. Virtually every Member of Congress agreed, with one exception--Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California. But we voted to use military force in Afghanistan under extraordinary circumstances in 2002. Now, I listened to the Republican leader come to the floor and accuse President Biden of abandoning Afghanistan, retreating from Afghanistan. And he leaves out some salient facts. The negotiation with the Taliban, which was initiated by President Trump, was a negotiation to determine who would be in power, what areas they would hold, and when the United States would leave. It was President Trump who initiated that negotiation, not President Biden. President Biden, when he took office, followed through with it. I applauded him for doing so. I realize--and I think everyone does--that the situation in Afghanistan is perilous, but I think that we ought to acknowledge the obvious. After the longest war in the history of the United States, after losing over a thousand American lives and tens of thousands wounded, after spending trillions of dollars, we were not winning in Afghanistan. We didn't have a winning hand or a winning strategy. The Taliban was still a viable political force, and the Afghan security forces many times were overwhelmed by that Taliban force. I wonder why the Republican leader from Kentucky doesn't do the obvious. He has the authority, under the rules of the Senate, to introduce a measure authorizing the use of military force in Afghanistan. If he believes we should stay or send more troops there, that is his right. He can offer that on the floor of the Senate, instead of lamenting what has happened there. He has the authority. If he thinks we have abandoned the Afghan people and should go back into that country, why doesn't he offer an authorization for use of military force? I think we know the answer. There is little or no support on his side of the aisle, nor on this side of the aisle, to make the longest war in American history even longer. Yes, we should be a viable force to try to make certain the Afghan people have a fighting chance. But after almost 20 years at it, I think we have shown that our strategy was not the winning strategy.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the city of Chicago, which I am proud to represent, there is an organization called Life Span. This is an incredible group of people who dedicate their lives to providing comprehensive services for the survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. Every day they respond to horrifying cases of abuse. They help thousands of women and children access the support they need to address trauma and to rebuild their lives. For example, Life Span recently assisted a woman after her teenage daughter was sexually assaulted by the woman's husband. Life Span was able to help the mother and daughter navigate the overwhelming challenges of pursuing justice against the abuser and offer support to the daughter throughout this horrible process. When the mother pursued a divorce from the abuser, Life Span filed a petition and is representing the mother as she navigates issues of child support and allocation of custody. The three Life Span staffers that the mother and daughter have interacted with all provided critical bilingual and bicultural support. They have provided this crucial service for this family during an incredibly traumatic experience. And all three of these staffers are funded by assistance provided through the Victims of Crime Act, or VOCA. Life Span told me that without VOCA funding, ``none of these personnel . . . would be able to have done this job.'' Congress passed the Victims of Crime Act in 1984 to establish the Crime Victims Fund. This fund provides grants to State victim compensation and assistance programs, which assist victims with expenses like medical bills, funeral expenses, and the loss of wages during recovery. How often I have heard Members of Congress come to the floor and in committee speak about the plight of the victims of crime. This is an effort--an overt effort by Congress--to make sure that we are there when they desperately need us. The fund also provides funds to thousands of victims service providers, like Life Span, across the Nation. These providers offer programs serving victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, and drunk driving. The Crime Victims Fund doesn't receive a dime of taxpayer dollars. How about that? It is funded through criminal fines, penalties, forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments collected by the Federal Government. Historically, most of the money in the fund comes from those criminal fines. But in recent years, deposits into the fund have dropped significantly, as the Justice Department began relying more on deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements. Monetary penalties from these deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements are currently deposited into the general Treasury instead of this fund, and, as a result, this shift has had a devastating impact on the fund and the services available to crime victims in America. That is why a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of Members of Congress worked with the advocacy organizations on a fix to the VOCA law to sustain the Crime Victims Fund. Our bill would stabilize the depleted fund by redirecting monetary penalties from deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements to the victims and service providers that desperately need help. The reduced deposits into the fund have already had a devastating impact. Victim assistance grants have been reduced by more than $600 million in 2021, and more cuts are looming if we don't do something. The executive director of Life Span in Chicago told me that VOCA funds 44 percent of the agency's services--about $1.6 million annually. A substantial loss in VOCA funds would mean that they would have to cut back staff who provide legal services, affecting an estimated 880 clients Life Span is not alone. Advocates across the State of Illinois and across the country have reached out and shared what these cuts would mean for their agencies and the victims they serve. The Center for Prevention of Abuse in Peoria, IL, noted: We never want to be in a position where we are made to turn away people who need [our] specialized services and whole- hearted, dedicated care. Our teams are already stretched thin as they live the promise of our mission day in and day out. Fewer VOCA dollars means less staff and a lessened ability to help those who need to find safety, food, shelter, empowerment, freedom, and peace. There is no time to waste. Every day that goes by, we miss an opportunity to help replenish this fund. In 2021, the fund has already missed out on approximately $400 million in deposits. We are not even halfway through the year. Imagine how much more money the fund may lose if we don't do something. That is why it is imperative that the Senate immediately pass this bill. The House already did it in March, with broad bipartisan support, and here in the Senate we have a bipartisan coalition of 56 Senators-- 36 Democrats and 20 Republicans--cosponsoring the legislation. We could send this bill to the President's desk today. We should have sent it to him weeks ago. Unfortunately, there is an objection that has prevented us from moving forward. In a recent letter to Leader Schumer, victims' rights and law enforcement organizations said that, ``The objectors are, in effect, holding victim services hostage in an ideological quest to overhaul the Appropriations process by eliminating budgetary offsets.'' What a target to choose if you want to change the procedure of the committee--crime victims? I agree with the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and so many other groups. More than 1,700 that are begging us to do something and stop holding this critical legislation. The passage of this legislation today would ensure that victims are able to maintain these critical services. Don't we owe it to them after the promise of help to come through? At this point, I would like to turn to my colleague Senator Murkowski. And I ask unanimous consent that Senators Murkowski, Toomey, and I be able to complete our remarks prior to the vote.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Alaska for her heartfelt remarks. There are innocent people who are victims of domestic violence whose fate depends on what we do right here and now. This is an important budgetary debate that the Senator from Pennsylvania is raising. I ask, please don't use these people in this desperate situation as a pressure point. Let's try to reconcile this on a rational basis without jeopardizing them. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1652, which was received from the House and is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I am disappointed that the Senator from Pennsylvania is adamant in his position, even though we are dealing with victims of crime, victims of domestic violence, and victims of child abuse. Like Illinois, Pennsylvania has experienced a nearly 70-percent cut in VOCA funding since 2018, and more cuts are on the horizon because of his strategy. Here is what it boils down to: If you listen carefully to what the Senator from Pennsylvania has said, he is not suggesting that the money is being spent for other purposes but is suggesting that it could be. In fact, there is a conscious effort by the Appropriations subcommittee to make sure, if all of the money is not spent in 1 year, that enough will be maintained to stabilize the fund for future years. That is thoughtful, and that is what we like to hear, but we are in a desperate moment now wherein we need the money and need it at this moment. I understand my colleague's concern about the scorekeeping in the budget. It is an important issue, even though it is esoteric. But to do it in relation to the Crime Victims Fund seems entirely misplaced. While this adjustment does not, in fact, transfer money from the fund to other priorities, it is just a budgeting gimmick that he is suggesting. This is not the right place or time to do this when thousands of people across the United States are in desperate need of shelter to get out of an abusive home; of help for their children who have witnessed murders; and of dealing with court proceedings that may be unintelligible to the average person to try to protect their families and themselves. To think that we are engaged in this high-level budget debate at this moment at their expense is just not right. I urge my colleague to withdraw his amendment and allow the legislation to proceed. We can debate the budget within the budget resolution and the appropriations process but not at the expense of crime victims across America. If he will not withdraw his amendment, I must object.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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